On GE Food

Post Reply New Topic

Keep in mind that big corporations do things that are unnatural or potentially dangerous all the time...

If you compare what corporate America usually does... like hypocritically rebuild Iraq or dominate America with Wal-Mart's; GM crops look rather ethical...

I'm not concerned about GM crops as much as I am worried about the corporations that make them... the same corporations that donated to Bush...

Magic vs. Modernity

By Thomas R. DeGregori
In the European Enlightenment, the belief was that science and reason would soon sweep myth and magic into oblivion. For some, myth included religion while others operated in terms of some variant of Deism or even Theism, believing that there was an unknown power beyond what was known and knowable to humans. In fact, many scientists, then and now, could fully exercise their religious convictions and interpret them in such a way as not to allow them to interfere with scientific understanding. For those for whom there was no conflict between science and religion, it was because particular statements or religious beliefs about the way the things work always gave way to emerging facts and theories of scientific inquiry. Science and reason became the basis for advancing human understanding and enlightenment.

By the time that I was an undergraduate, the enlightenment ideal was well established in my University. The opposition to evolution was thought to have been laid to rest in the 1920s; the religious groups that continued to oppose Darwin were small and marginal; their beliefs were expected to fade away as their children studied biology and other sciences in school. The various romantic reactions in literature and in such areas as the various arts and crafts movements, organic agriculture or homeopathy were likewise considered to be minor and relatively harmless. The literature professors who railed against science and materialism had ways of life not all that different from their colleagues in the sciences.

More violent reactions to science and reason such as the Nazis were explained as reactions by those who had been harmed by the transition to modernity and signaled a dying gasp and not an indicator of anything to follow. In any case, this reaction had been permanently laid to rest in May 1945. In the emerging post-colonial world, students were flocking to Europe and North America for education, and newly minted countries were establishing Universities with science, technology and engineering programs modeled on those of their former colonial masters. Contrary to post-modernist and other critics, few of us believed that Western Culture was a universal model for all to follow without question, but many of us believed that science and techno-engineering understandings transcended cultural boundaries and created a global discourse and mechanisms for advancing the human endeavor.

Six decades after World War II, now into the 21st century, the area of basic human understanding of the world around us has greatly expanded and yet the enlightenment vision seems farther away than ever in my lifetime. The extent and horizons of modern knowledge are beyond the comprehension of earlier generations. And this knowledge and understanding is far more than merely being "theories" in the pejorative misuse of the term theory. Modern knowledge has pragmatically proved itself in helping us to live much longer, healthier lives and enjoy amenities undreamed of by our progenitors.

It has to be one of the great paradoxes of our time that as our knowledge has expanded in recent decades, the opposition to it has become more assertive and politically potent. One of the crowning ironies of the anti-science brigades is that groups that are largely contemptuous of each other often frame their anti-science rhetoric in essentially the same terms. My colleagues in the Humanities cluck piously about those ignorant rednecks who oppose Darwin and promote ‘‘intelligent design,’’ yet they in their own way hold anti-science ideas no less absurd. One strains to find any difference, significant or minor, between the argument of intelligent design that there is in life an "irreducible complexity" and the post-modernist critique of modern science as being "reductionist" and not "holistic." To both in their particular crusades, the species barrier is immutable, or at least should be.

Clearly there must be considerable frustration among scientists as organized groups oppose various forms of science education or scientific research. One recent article included in its title "why scientists are angry" and spoke about the anger that grips scientists when demonstrably false statements are paraded as facts and influence public policy. As an economist with a layman's knowledge of the natural sciences, I understand these frustrations. I am a member of various newsgroups involved in agricultural biotechnology, most of whose contributors are in the sciences. This piece was inspired by a recent extended discussion on the difficulty of combating absurd phobias about transgenic food crops that anti-biotechnology activists have so carefully disseminated. (Unfortunately, other writing commitments prevented me from being other than a passive participant at the time.) Each time one scare is seemingly laid to rest, another rises, as one scientist described it, like a hare from nowhere. Even those fears that are massively refuted never die, but seem to be in some Sargasso Sea of cyber space awaiting a new current to set them afloat again as part of the litany of horrors of genetic modification of plants.

There were discussions about being proactive, but the question becomes how can one be proactive against opponents who may be ignorant of science but who lack nothing in imagination and talent for fear-mongering? On a typical day, a scientist awakens and is concerned with ongoing research . An activist wakes up thinking about what the next campaign should be or whom they should they contact in the local media and whose friendship they should cultivate. Some even have focus groups to help them select the scare terms that would be most effective. Like the multi-national corporations that they attack, some of the activist groups begin promoting one cause, then morph into all-purpose NGOs with a diverse agenda of causes with which to garner publicity and raise money. An anti-science agenda links the dangers of biotechnology to the evils of multi-national corporations along with destruction of the environment and cultural and biological diversity; all turn into lucrative sources for fund raising and membership recruitment.

It is difficult to be proactive when you are dealing with carefully calculated rational irrationality. When one is confronting claims of transgenic bacteria that could destroy all life on earth or similar unscientific nonsense, one is responding to a kind of irrationality that is impossible to predict and therefore to be prepared to respond to in advance, let alone educate the public on the subject. However irrational various anti-science proclamations may be, their advocates are supremely rational in the sense of being very skilled at crafting their propaganda so as to win public support and influence policy. Some groups are so good at driving public opinion to support their anti-science agenda, some of us wonder whether their leaders may be dealing from the bottom of the deck to their own members as well as to the public.

The media may often put an obvious pejorative like "Franken food" in quotation marks, but too often the media routinely accept the terminology of the activists, even though the habit introduces biases which violate professional journalistic standards. Pollen drift from transgenic plants is almost always referred to, tendentiously, as "contamination" even though there is no evidence of harm. Similarly, "organic" agriculture is described as "sustainable" and "earth-friendly" while their food crops are said to be better tasting, fresher and healthier, without a shred of evidence for any such claims. In Houston, the food writers for the main paper have become unwitting propagandists for "organic" agriculture, as has happened in many other large and small circulation newspapers.

The 24 hour news cycle has led to a reverse feeding frenzy, with activist groups all too ready to conjure up a scandal, inflating a statistically insignificant variation in a clinical study to a threat to the human endeavor or even to the planet, and to label a defense as part of a corporate cover-up. Scientists attempt to respond to these scare stories on a case by case basis, trying to explain the nature of the scientific inquiry involved and the way it is used to interpret experimental results. That is how scientists work, and the only way to wear down the opposition to scientific reasoning.

Countering falsehoods with facts is a necessary condition to promote better understanding of issues involving science, but unfortunately, it is not a sufficient condition. Scientists present their evidence with appropriate qualifications, and with recognition that there are no absolute truths. The anti-science ideologues have no problem with absolutes and certainties. The scientists’ answer to the often asked rhetorical question - can you guarantee that no harm will ever come from transgenic crops - is obviously no. The activist now moves in for the kill, making it difficult for a scientist to explain that one cannot give such a guarantee for any phenomenon. There is a blatant but unstated falsehood in the rhetorical question, in that it implies that there are alternative actions that carry a zero risk on into the indefinite future. That transgenic plant breeding may possibly be the most precise, predictable form of plant breeding yet devised by humans is simply lost in the rhetoric of fear.

A further problem is that editors and other news professionals are rarely educated in science and have little understanding of the scientific method. My experience has been that newspapers hate to make substantive corrections to a major story. One case involved a major story of two columns with picture on the front page of the Sunday edition and over one full page inside. In this case (in which I was involved), a group of scientists wrote in and pointed out some of the many errors in the story. Even though the writer had traveled to Mexico to do a story on transgenic maize in the company of anti-biotechnology activists, the newspaper's ombudsman defended the objectivity of her reporting. Not only were there errors in the story, but the institutions and individuals that were not interviewed, as well as those that were, made it clear that the activists were more than just good traveling companions. In an extended exchange with the ombudsman, it was admitted that the author did not even know of the existence of the world's leading experts and the research and development institutions on maize and on the issues raised in the story that were available in Mexico and Texas to be interviewed. I have compared it to going to Rome to do story on a controversy in Roman Catholicism and not knowing about either the Pope or the Vatican.

Had the writer traveled to Mexico in the company of employees of a biotechnology firm, we would never have heard the end of it and anything written would have been dismissed simply on this basis alone without the necessity of any factual refutation. A widely shared characteristic of anti-science groups across the political spectrum is a Manichaean view of the complete corruption of those they oppose, and the purity of their own cause.

In many respects the problem is more complicated and therefore more difficult for scientists to address. It is becoming increasingly obvious that no matter how clear and meticulous in fact and scientific reason one may be in presenting a scientific theory or refuting pseudo-scientific falsehoods, a large portion of the public is simply not receptive. The question is why and what can be done about it? The why is easier to address than is what can be done about it.

The very human curiosity that leads to scientific inquiry makes us creatures who wish to have answers and make use of these answers to navigate the world around us. I have often quoted, from John Dewey's The Quest for Certainty (Dewey, 1929, p. 3):

Man who lives in a world of hazards is compelled to seek for security. He has sought to attain it in two ways. One of them began with an attempt to propitiate the powers which environ him and determine his destiny. ... The other course is to invent arts and by their means turn the powers of nature to account; man constructs a fortress out of the very conditions and forces which threaten him. ... This is the method of changing the world through action, as the other is the method of changing the self in emotion and ideas.
In many ways myth and science are two sides of the same coin as attempts to explain the world around us. It is thus understandable that some of us have believed that, as the realm of what could be understood is expanded, the realm of myth would give way and contract. What we failed to realize is that we essentially inherit the myths: we grow up with them as a part of our everyday culture, so it requires little effort in subscribing to them. Much basic science has become a part of this package, so people have no problem in believing in many cause and effect relationships. What takes effort is to learn of the larger dimensions of science that have been progressively displacing myth or simply superseding a lack of knowledge in a number of areas. It is far easier to cling to inherited ways of thought then it is to engage in a process of learning new things.

Though many seek to cling to the old beliefs in a pure form, science and technology have transformed our world in ways that are too obvious to be totally ignored. There are a variety of pseudo-science beliefs that are an extension of traditional mythology and purport to be compatible with modern science, or better still, they purport to be science in a purer and less corrupted form. On this view intelligent design is better science than what is being offered by biologists, whose views are distorted by their secular ideologies. On the other side of the spectrum, beliefs in a natural harmony that is violated by biotechnology is superior science to that of scientists who have been bought off by large corporations (whether or not they have ever received any funding from them). Any argument that the conflict over the teaching of evolution or genetic modification is one of science vs. anti-science is vehemently rejected.

The ease of mastering the rhetoric of contemporary pseudo-science is part of its appeal. "Training sessions" in which the pseudo-science vocabulary can be learned have become part of the activists' agenda. The appeal of these beliefs, in addition to their flowing seamlessly from what one has already learned, is that a few simple beliefs seemingly can explain everything - which to a scientist means that they in fact explain nothing.

The world of contemporary knowledge is so vast that it is beyond the comprehension of any individual to master even the smallest part of it. It is far easier to accept an all encompassing pseudo-scientific formula. This worries those of us who wish to create a world where questions of fact are explored and resolved, at least provisionally, by science and reason. This does not preclude differing moral and ethical considerations, but it does mean that morals and ethics can not be based on factual claims that are demonstrably false. An anti-biotechnology referendum that was passed in a California county, defined DNA as a complex protein found in every cell of the body. This egregious error in basic biology seriously undermines the credibility of its proponents - except in the eyes of the believers.

The fact is that we can navigate the world intelligently without the need for myths and pseudo-science. The immensity of knowledge may in some respects be a problem for each of us, but in more important respects, the way in which this knowledge was created provides us with a roadmap. Just because I am in a newsgroup in which scientists exchange ideas, explain issues and counter the errors of the anti-scientists, does not mean that I as an economist, have anything more than a superficial understanding of their explanations. What reinforces my acceptance of what is said is my trust in the scientific method, peer review, and the larger body of scientific practices. Part of my trust is simply that these methods are an integral part of my own work as an economist. It is what allows me to select between competing ideas and navigate my way through the world. And it is the success of this method in transforming our lives for the better that it gives it a moral and ethical dimension.

In my judgment, the scientific method and the democratic ideal are integral to one another. Both scientific inquiry and democracy are self-correcting methods, one is correction by ongoing inquiry in which prior beliefs no longer stand the test of experimental inquiry and new more verifiable propositions supersede them. Democracies can correct this election's errors in the next election or the one after that; both are a work-in-progress.

Being self-correcting is an implicit recognition of possibly being wrong. Whatever the possibility of being wrong may be, the very self-correcting aspect of the process is one more factor that makes the outcomes of science or democracy more likely to be right today than any other way, and even more likely to be right tomorrow than any other form of inquiry. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government except for all others. Given the possibility of error, both science and the democratic ideal reject absolutism of all sorts, including those that entitle one to trample on the rights of others such as destroying a field of transgenic crops in the name of saving the planet. Tolerance is a key idea.

In science, there is or should be a continued re-examination of the validity of the method as it is practiced. In recent days there have been articles in prestigious journals concerning the way in which biases are creeping into scientific research such as clinical tests for pharmaceuticals, and suggestions for ways of overcoming them. The activists will point to these studies, not as a strength of scientific inquiry, but as evidence of its corruption. However, when is the last time that any of the groups pushing a pseudo-science agenda stopped to question the validity of their beliefs or whether their actions were helping or harming humankind? A thriving democracy should always be involved in internal debate concerning its ideals and practices. Both science and democracy require freedom of thought and freedom of exchange of ideas for their effective functioning. Participating actively and intelligently in a democracy provides the same barriers as being knowledgeable about science; it takes concerted effort and is far more complicated than simply following the dictates of a peerless leader or a totalizing ideology. The widespread acceptance of the basic principles of democracy means that like science, many more claim to be adhering to it than is the case in practice.

Evidence-based knowledge derived from experimental scientific inquiry allows policy formation on every level from the personal to the public, to be dynamic and respond to changing circumstances. Ideologically driven policy is almost by definition binding and static, capable of obstruction but not progress. John Dewey spoke about a "warranted assertion." However ignorant each of us may be about other areas of science, technology, and engineering, we can each accept their findings as being both provisional as all knowledge is, and at the same time to be warranted assertions as a basis for action until better ideas come along. In other words, instead of the blind faith of believers, we can simultaneously have trust and still retain a measure of reservation and skepticism. This requires that all inquiry be kept open and that vigorous dissent be encouraged.

It has often been noted that the critics of genetically modified food crops, who frame their opposition both as pseudo-science and as opposition to corporate dominance of agriculture, have had a perverse impact on the industry exactly opposite to what they claim to be their intent. By attacking the science of transgenic modification, they make it difficult to get the kind of public research funding for it that would give farmers public and private sources for the kinds of crop improvement that biotechnology makes possible. Not only do the protests reduce public research funding for agricultural biotechnology, but the cumbersome, expensive regulations that frightened politicians are imposing make it virtually impossible for small firms to afford them, which then leads to the kind of industry concentration that the critics claim to be fighting.

The "precautionary principle" and other alleged safety concerns that have been driving up the cost of getting new crops marketed, have also had other perverse impacts. As I argued above, our trust in the scientific inquiry that provides us with the evidence for the most warranted actions, including considerations of safety, is predicated upon an open process, including dissenting views. In a kind of Gresham's law of public attention span, bad criticism drives out good. Scientists are rightfully hesitant to voice criticism when it might identify them with anti-science activists. Further, there have been too many instances where research that raises a legitimate safety or environmental concern is seized and grossly distorted or publicized before a final analysis can be made. Scientists who seek to withold their findings until the research is completed, or who offer a more benign interpretation of their results than those of sensationalized media coverage, will have their integrity questioned and be charged with a cover-up.

Technology Review had a recent set of postings where Stewart Brand suggested that critics not oppose nuclear power but embrace it and be involved as critics who want to see it done right rather than simply opposing it. Needless to say, his wise suggestion was less than enthusiastically accepted by those ideologically opposed to nuclear power. The major criticism against activist groups is that they are obstructing the introduction of new technology and new improved ways of doing things for human betterment and opposing the science that can continue this process. In my judgment, equally as deleterious, is their stifling of the critical component of the dynamics of scientific inquiry that appropriately restrains technophiles such as this author and makes the use of it safer, fairer and more intelligent and beneficial to the human endeavor.

What has been happening is that scientists have been winning the battles but still managing to lose the war. The message here is that scientists have to operate at two levels, continually countering the pseudo-science of false fears and ideological driven beliefs, but at the same time working to bring about a fundamental transformation in the public's understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry, and allowing scientists to operate within it.

Scientists have to recognize that when they are countering a demonstrably false idea, they may well be entering a conflict with the total worldview of those who hold them. To the family in Kansas that rejects evolution, the biology teacher at the local school is doing far more than merely teaching science. The science teacher is in effect entering their home and family and undercutting beliefs upon which their family and sense of community is based. Is it any wonder that they feel like victims? To many activists, the plant bio-technologist is contaminating and polluting the planet as part of a corporate plot to dominate the global economy. Is it any wonder that they also feel like victims? To the absolutist mindset, breeching a principle is the same as abandoning it, and therefore any concession to differing views amounts to total surrender. This helps to explain why many disillusioned ex-communists became radical conservatives, why activists' opposition to transgenic food crops is total, and why the scientific research use of embryonic stem cells is defined as taking a human life.

As the new millennium was approaching, there were many candidates for the greatest achievement of the past 1,000 years; one such candidate was the development of the scientific method. That candidate has my vote. If we work at it, one of the greatest achievements of this new millennium could be the continued refinement of the scientific method, its integration into the beliefs and practices of everyday life for the greater part of humankind, and the continuous improvement in the quality of life of earth's inhabitants that could be realized as a result.

REFERENCE

Dewey, John. 1929. The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action. 1980 reprint, New York: Capricorn Books, G.P. Putnam & Sons.

Genetically Modified Organisms
A Publication of the
Instutute of Food Technologists
December 1999
Since life began, genes have crossed the boundaries of related and unrelated species in nature. Biotechnology applications by humans date back to 1800 B.C., when people began using yeast to leaven bread and ferment wine. By the 1860s, people started breeding plants through deliberate cross-pollination. They moved and selected genes to enhance the beneficial qualities of plants through cross-breeding without knowing the traits for which the genes coded. Most foods, including rice, oats, potatoes, corn, wheat and tomatoes, are the products of traditional cross-breeding. This time-tested practice continues to produce crops with desirable traits.

However, traditional cross-breeding has its limitations. It can only occur in the same or related plant species, so genetic resources available to any one plant are limited. Moreover, when plants are cross-bred, all 100,000 or so of each plant's genes are mixed, producing random combinations. Since traditional plant breeders ultimately want only a few genes or traits transferred, they typically spend 10 to 12 years backcrossing hybrids with the original plants to obtain the desired traits and to breed out the tens of thousands of unwanted genes. Clearly, this process is not speedy or precise.

Modern biotechnology or genetic modification adds tremendous timeliness and precision to this process. It is the result of scientists understanding and using what nature has been doing unaided since life began.

What is genetic modification?
The term "genetically modified" is commonly used to describe the application of recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology to the genetic alteration of microorganisms, plants and animals. This advanced molecular technology, developed in 1973, allows for effective and efficient transfer of genetic material from one organism to another. Instead of cross-breeding plants for several years to acquire a desired trait, scientists can identify and insert a single gene responsible for a particular trait into a plant with relative speed. Genes do not have to come from a related species in order to be functional; hence, genes can potentially be transferred among all living organisms.

What are the benefits of rDNA technology?
The World Health Organization estimates that the global population will double by 2050 to more than 9 billion people. Hence, food production must also increase, but little unused farmland remains. Simply put, rDNA technology is the most promising, precise and advanced strategy available today for increasing global food production by reducing crop losses and increasing yields while conserving farmland. Moreover, the use of rDNA technology has already shown that it can reduce the need for chemical pesticides and tillage, which can cause soil erosion, as well as enhance the nutritive value of crops. These benefits result from genetically engineering plants for:

Increased biological resistance to specific pests and diseases, including those caused by viruses, thereby reducing the need for chemical pesticides, decreasing the risk of crop failure, and increasing yields. For example, when sweet potatoes grown in Africa were rDNA-engineered to withstand the feathery mottle virus, crop yields doubled. Without pesticide use, about 60% of the crop is normally lost each year to this virus. In the United States, corn was genetically modified with the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene to withstand the corn borer pest, which resulted in increased yields and reduced pesticide use. For example, 26% of farmers in the Midwest who planted the modified corn in 1998 decreased insecticide use and about half said they did not use any insecticides, reported a 1999 Iowa State University study. Similarly, U.S. cotton farmers have cut their insecticide use by about two million pounds, or 12%, since pest-resistant cotton seeds were introduced in 1996, according to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (June 1999).
Adaptability to harsh growing conditions, such as drought, soil with high salt content, and temperature extremes. For example, by modifying a plant's production of linoleic acid, it can better withstand cold temperatures and frost.
Tolerance to environmentally safe herbicides that discourage weeds but leave the desired plant unaffected. Herbicide tolerance allows crops to be grown with less or no tillage, thereby conserving soil, fuel and water. It can also reduce the number of herbicides that farmers must use to control all of the weeds in their crops. For example, herbicide-resistant soybeans can be maintained weed-free with only half the amount of herbicide normally applied.
Desirable functional characteristics, such as reduced allergenicity or toxicity, delayed ripening, increased starch content, or longer shelf life. For example, potatoes rDNA-engineered for a higher starch content will absorb less oil when deep-fried, resulting in french fries with less fat. Tomatoes bioengineered for delayed ripening may stay on the vine longer, resulting in better flavor and color before picking and shipping to market.
Desirable nutritional characteristics, such as altered protein or fat content and increased phytochemical or nutrient content. Malnutrition problems worldwide -- such as deficiencies in vitamin A, iron, iodine, and zinc -- may be targeted by using rDNA technology to introduce or concentrate these nutrients in plants. For example, rice has been genetically modified to contain beta carotene and more iron to help overcome deficiencies of these nutrients in countries where rice is a staple food. Nutritionally enhanced foods may even help prevent chronic diseases, not just deficiencies, by delivering optimal levels of key nutrients.
Is rDNA technology safe?
According to the National Academy of Sciences, genetic transfers between unrelated organisms do not pose hazards or risks different from those encountered by natural selection or traditional cross-breeding between similar species. Moreover, there is no evidence that transferring genes between unrelated species, especially those already in the food supply, will convert a harmless organism into a hazardous one. The process itself by which genes are transferred does not make living organisms harmful.

Transferring genes between unrelated species is possible because of the genetic similarities of all living organisms. Natural history shows that many genetic traits for common metabolic processes have been conserved throughout time in microbes, plants and animals. Although a few proteins from an organism may be unique to it, many plant and animal proteins have the same or closely related functions. For example, both the human brain and rice plant carry the same genetic material for the production of an enzyme called lysozyme.

Furthermore, nature itself transfers genetic material across sexual boundaries. For example, strains of the crown gall bacterium carry genes that can transfer to and be expressed in plant cells. These bacteria transfer their genes to plant cells, which then make compounds that feed the bacteria.

The transfer of genetic material between unrelated species will not turn them into each other, such as a fish into a tomato or vice versa. It may simply allow a beneficial trait to be expressed in the organism to which a targeted gene is transferred. As each plant and animal are made up of tens or hundreds of thousands of genes, one or two transferred genes could not alter the identity of an organism.

According to the World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1991), "Biotechnology has a long history of use in food production and processing. It represents a continuum embracing both traditional breeding techniques and the latest techniques based on molecular biology. The newer biotechnological techniques, in particular, open up very great possibilities of rapidly improving the quantity and quality of food available. The use of these techniques does not result in food which is inherently less safe [to humans or the environment] than that produced by conventional ones."

Are foods derived from GMOs safe?
In the United States, it is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide oversight for all foods, including those derived from GMOs. More than 15 years of laboratory research and field trials with rDNA-engineered plants indicate that the risks posed by these plants are not any greater than or different from the risks posed by plants produced by traditional breeding methods used for more than 100 years.

Scientific evidence to date continues to support the FDA's conclusion in its May 1992 Federal Register, "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding."

Most importantly, all food developers and manufacturers are required by the FDA to ensure the safety and quality of their products. According to its Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, "Producers of new foods have an obligation under the act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements."

These requirements include 1) demonstrating that genetically modified foods do not contain substantially increased levels of previously known toxic substances, new hazardous substances, or different levels of nutrients than traditional counterparts; and 2) addressing whether known or potentially new allergens have been transferred to the modified product. If so, then the product must be labeled as such. This labeling policy applies to all foods to avoid the possibility that they may unexpectedly contain allergenic proteins.

In addition, while not currently mandatory, developers of genetically engineered foods consult with FDA prior to the commercialization of a product. This consultation procedure, which entails a science-based safety assessment of the product, protects both consumers and developers. This is a higher standard than for conventional foods. Thus, developers have a strong incentive to consult with FDA prior to marketing their products.

Who ensures that GMOs do not threaten the environment?
As with assessing food safety, ecological safety is assessed according to the biological properties of genetically modified plants. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees the field trials and large scale production of these plants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates the pesticidal properties of plants rDNA-engineered to resist pests.

In addition, both genetically modified and conventionally bred plants undergo review and approval procedures that have been established through the State Agricultural Experiment Station system. Private companies conduct similar biological and environmental evaluations, frequently in conjunction with land-grant universities. One advantage of rDNA technology is that, because it allows scientists to answer questions about outcomes specifically related to the genetic modification at hand, it provides safety and risk information unobtainable with conventionally bred plants. Thousands of field trials with rDNA-engineered plants have not revealed a single example of negative environmental consequence caused by these plants.

Not all questions about the environmental effects of plant breeding can be answered either for genetically modified plants or for those modified by conventional methods. Questions about increasing weediness of closely related plants and the long-term effects of herbicide tolerance are unknown. However, monitoring and control mechanisms are in place to detect and minimize potential risks.

What is the potential for rDNA-engineered plants to outcross to weedy relatives?
Outcrossing, the unintentional breeding of a domestic crop with a related plant, is considered by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) during review of new plant varieties. The agency ensures that herbicide-tolerant or pest-resistant plants do not become plant pests themselves by out-crossing to weedy relatives. Plant breeders take care to release only new varieties with low or negligible risk of transferring genes to weedy relatives. They also assure that methods are available to manage any weeds that might acquire new genes by outcrossing.

Like traditionally bred plants, genetically modified plants cannot transfer traits to unrelated species in nature. For cases in which weedy relatives exist, APHIS assesses the risk and impact of potential gene transfers. If there is high potential for a new plant variety to outcross with a weedy relative and if transfer of the new trait to the weed could be problematic, APHIS has the authority to halt field trials or further development of the proposed new variety.

The potential for herbicide-tolerant plants to increase the weediness of closely-related plants cannot be known ahead of time. However, traditionally bred plants also have the potential to create weeds. Therefore, crop management practices always need to be monitored and refined as agricultural and environmental conditions change. For example, if an herbicide-resistant gene transferred to a weed, then a different herbicide would be needed to control that weed. Will pest-resistant plants cause pests to become "super pests?"

The concept of a "super pest," one that cannot be controlled or overcome, contradicts the principles of biology. The ability of a pest population to adapt to pesticides or genes used to control it is nature's way of assuring its survival. However, even if pests develop resistance to one pesticide or gene, they are still vulnerable to new or older control mechanisms, such as a different pesticide or a remodified plant. This process has been repeated many times in agriculture, horticulture, and forestry. Scientists also have several ways to extend the life of pest control mechanisms. With rDNA engineering, for example, it would be possible to rotate pest-resistant genes in a plant, modify the plant's own resistance mechanisms, or transfer more than one pest-resistant gene to the plant, making it very difficult for pests to defeat the new resistance.

Pest-resistant plants are more effective and advantageous than chemical pesticide sprays in killing target pests for two reasons: 1) Gene products for pest control are usually more target-specific than pesticides -- like vaccines compared with antibiotics. For example, Bt corn kills almost 100% of the corn borer and corn earworm, but traditional pesticides do not because these pests burrow into plants, where sprays cannot penetrate. The greater the number of pests that survive exposure to a pesticide, the greater the chance they will develop resistance. 2) The pest-control mechanisms provided by genes tend to kill only insects that chew on the plant, not those in the plant's vicinity. Externally applied pesticides kill both pests and innocent and often beneficial insects that are in the field.

All living organisms are continually adapting through natural selection to stresses in the environment. In rare cases, they do not adapt and hence, die out, such as the American chestnut. Hence, the eventual development of resistance in pests to both chemical pesticides and pest-resistant plants is expected, but protective measures can delay its occurrence. One such measure is the planting of a small percentage of unmodified (refuge) crops in or adjacent to a field of pest-resistant crops. The refuge sites keep the vulnerability trait in the gene pool of pests. Currently, manufacturers of pest-resistant seeds instruct farmers when they purchase the seeds to plant refuge sites. The success and management of the refuge strategy, however, needs to be more fully evaluated.

Another way to delay the onset of pest resistance is to stack genes with different modes of action, thereby requiring a pest to simultaneously develop resistance to two or more types of control. In addition, the time-honored practice of crop rotation is effective in many cases for minimizing increases in pest populations.

Will Bt corn harm monarch butterfly larvae?
Because monarch butterflies belong to the same order of insects (Lepidoptera) as the corn borer, Bt corn pollen has the potential to harm monarch larvae if they eat it. This is not a surprise. The key questions are: Are monarch butterflies exposed to Bt corn pollen and if so, to what degree? Would their larvae eat plants with Bt pollen instead of plants without it? What amount of pollen could be harmful to the larvae? Does milkweed, the primary source of monarch food, grow close enough to corn fields to be exposed to Bt corn pollen? Up to what distance is pollen drift possible?

Research in both the private and public sectors is currently underway to address these questions, but it must be noted that the U.S. monarch butterfly population has not decreased since Bt corn was first commercially planted in 1996. In fact, according to researchers at the University of Kansas, the monarch butterfly population increased significantly in 1997 compared to the previous five years.

Greater threats to monarch butterflies are use of externally applied Bt and destruction of wildlife habitats by humans. Pesticides are also more likely to harm non-target insects besides the monarch butterfly because they get into the soil and may be carried by water to non-farmland areas. Planting pest- or disease-resistant crops can help reduce pesticide use and conserve farmland, preventing expansion into wildlife habitats. In this sense, Bt corn may help protect monarch butterflies.

Moreover, the use of pest- and disease-resistant crops allows farmers to practice no-till farming, which reduces soil erosion and protects beneficial soil organisms, such as earthworms. Agriculture, by its nature, is disruptive to wildlife. The key is to minimize the disruption, while maximizing the use of farmland. Modern biotechnology gives farmers tools to do so.

What are common non-plant applications of rDNA technology?
Recombinant DNA technology has been applied to livestock breeding and microbial production of substances used in food processing and human medicines. A familiar application is the use of recombinant bovine somatotrophin (growth hormone) to increase milk production in cows. Genetically modified microorganisms aid in food processing and pathogen detection. For example, most cheese today is produced with an rDNA-engineered enzyme called chymosin. Prior to the creation of chymosin, its natural equivalent, rennet, was derived from the stomachs of calves. Not only is the use of chymosin in the best interest of calves, it is produced with greater purity, consistency, and quality than rennet. Numerous pharmaceutical applications have also resulted from rDNA technology, including the mass production of pure human insulin for diabetes management.

Should foods derived from GMOs be labeled?
Although providing consumers with information about genetically modified foods is important, labels may not be the best way to do so because they are inherently pejorative. Food labels were established by the FDA to provide "material information" about a product, such as ingredient and nutrition information, or warnings about a health risk, such as the presence of a potential allergen. Because genetically modified foods are already scrutinized to ensure that they do not pose new or unique risks, such labels are likely to mislead consumers by implying a warning. For the same reason, labels are excluded from conventional foods that cause sensitivity or illness in a small fraction of consumers. For example, though some people may be sensitive to milk due to lactose intolerance, milk is not labeled as such.

Moreover, labeling rDNA-engineered foods would not be economically prudent because thousands of common foods containing small amounts of genetically modified ingredients, such as soybean and corn products, would have to be labeled. Costs associated with this would be passed on to producers and consumers. Farmers, in particular, would absorb significant costs by having to pay for equipment and/or other resources to separate genetically modified crops from non-modified ones.

Conclusions
The Institute of Food Technologists has reviewed the scientific and policy issues concerning food derived from GMOs and concluded that:

Recombinant DNA technology has great promise to increase world food production and improve the characteristics of plants in ways that will benefit farmers, consumers, and the environment
The safety of food derived from GMOs is adequately assured by the science-based procedures effectively used by the FDA and plant breeders.
More than a decade of safety evaluation and experience with genetically modified plants has provided evidence and assurance that risks to the environment posed by these plants are no different from those of plants bred by traditional methods.
There is no evidence that genetic transfers between unrelated organisms pose hazards that are new or different from those encountered with any new plant variety.
Growing plants rDNA-engineered for pest resistance can reduce the need for chemical pesticides, thereby offering safer environmental strategies for pest and disease control
Genetic modification is compatible with environmental conservation and sustainable agriculture because it takes advantage of biological control mechanisms already adapted to nature
Policy to assure food safety and environmental protection should be based on the characteristics of foods, not on the methods used to develop them.
Social and economic consequences of the applications of rDNA technology raise issues that warrant public debate by all stakeholders.

The Naturalistic Fallacy and Sophie’s Choice

By Paula Bourges Waldegg
It’s not hard to accept that there’s a pressing need to find answers for the questions that issues such as cloning, pollution, or genetic manipulation entail. However, it is difficult to agree which are these questions and their possible answers because the debate is often driven by the naturalistic fallacy, the belief that nature is essentially good. The environmentalist movement, for instance, frequently appeals to the goodness of nature as a way to promote their causes. Many of the fears and misconceptions that shape our options and influence our choices are a result of this fallacy. Exposing them is therefore essential to reconcile clashing positions and find solutions that don’t force us to choose between man and nature.

A friend told me once that he was afraid of genetic manipulation because it could produce Frankesteins. Since selective breeding is also a form of manipulating genes, I wonder if he thinks his French Poodle is some kind of monster. I certainly do although not for the same reasons.

Genetically modified food, cloning, sustainable development, and pollution are some of the issues that today demand expedited answers and entail making difficult choices. Should we preserve nature or procure human development? Should we increase our control or reduce it? Do we have the right to change nature? However, some of these questions and their possible answers are driven by the naturalistic fallacy, the belief that nature is essentially good. Many of the fears and misconceptions shaping our options and influencing our choices are by-products of this fallacy. From our distrust of artificial things to the fear of tampering with the natural order, the following are some of the most common distortions behind the human vs. nature debate.

The Good Nature of Nature

Rape, infanticide and infidelity are not just examples of despicable human behavior that make tabloids’ headlines. They also illustrate the kind of action you can regularly see at Animal Planet. Filled with predators, parasites, starvation, sickness, cannibalism, extreme temperatures, hurricanes and earthquakes, nature is neither a peaceful paradise nor a wise and kind mother that cares deeply about her children, even though, most people equate it with something legitimate, dignified, pure, or at least, normal. In fact, nature knows nothing about justice or dignity and violence or abnormalities are ubiquitous in the natural world. Death from fighting, for example, is more common in most animal species than in the most violent American cities(1). Of course, we shouldn’t feel glad about the extinction of entire species or about oil spilling in the ocean but there’s something wrong about having a partial picture of nature, especially if man is portrayed as the enemy. The majority of our interactions with the natural world involve some form of control or transformation, so this partial picture makes most of the things we do look ignoble or illegitimate. Any alterations to the natural order are seen as bad and selfish because nobody wants good and pure things to change or to be corrupted.

Artificial Stupidity

Man is part of nature, of course, but a line has to be drawn between them to tell apart those horrible plastic flowers from the lovely fresh ones. We can sometimes be really mean to ourselves. As we’ve learned to praise nature, we’ve also learned to despise and distrust all sorts of man-made things from breast implants to instant coffee. We often think of artificial products as fake, ugly, dangerous or at least, suspicious. These feelings become particularly exacerbated when it comes to food. People firmly believe that artificial and genetically modified foods are major health and environmental threats when in fact, they are no more dangerous than natural foods. Artificial and natural flavors, for instance, are usually chemically indistinguishable, and when they aren’t, the natural flavor can sometimes be the dangerous one (as in the case of almond extract)(2). Man has been genetically modifying plants and animals with selective breeding and hybridization for millennia. These are the “traditional” ways of producing foods. Making them in a lab makes no big difference. A recent report of 81 research studies about genetically modified food failed to find any new risks to human health or the environment(3). The problem with these fears, usually irrational on health grounds, is that they can have serious implications. They can make food more expensive harming consumers and farmers alike, and less accessible to the millions of people in the Third World that suffer from starvation and nutritional deficiencies.

Thou Shalt not Play God

Apparently manipulating life was not in the original job description of mankind. From contraception to cloning, there is no other topic that makes us speak more passionately about our role on this earth. Human cloning in particular, is seen as the new evil concept that corrupt God’s natural order and that will eventually lead us to our own doom. This fear, rooted in the belief that nature is wise and we should not tamper with it, is behind many colossal misunderstandings. People believe that cloning entails things like becoming immortal, engineering “perfect societies”, producing zombies or bringing Hitler back to life. However, clones are nothing more than identical twins born at different times. Cloning will never be able to reproduce a person’s identity, design an entire population, produce people without a “soul” or bring a psychopath back to life.

Other people are preoccupied with cloning due to the use of human embryos in stem cell research. Arguments for and against frequently focus on the need to find a “biologic line” that can define what can be considered as a person. Of course, they all agree that nature being the ultimate source of goodness and truth should have the last word. The problem is that nature is not very specific on this respect. The biologic line is too fuzzy. A person emerges from a gradual development not from a crucial moment. A fourteen-week embryo is not substantially different from a fourteen-week-and-one day one, or from a thirteen-week-and-six days one. This is why it is necessary to shift the question from finding a line, to consciously choosing one that best trades off the conflicting goods and evils for each dilemma(4). Finding cures for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, infertility, birth defects, and cancer, could depend on that.

Control Freaks

Since people believe not only in a natural order but also in the rightness of this order, man’s power to control nature is generally perceived as evil or at least as wrong. We seem to be convinced that the control we exert over nature is destroying it. However, we don’t realize that protecting or reconstructing it is another way of exerting that power. Human beings have always been controlling their environment. Finding increasingly sophisticated ways to do so has been the key to our survival and success. We are among the few species that protect the handicapped and the sick, and the only that can save other animals and plants from extinction or preserve entire ecosystems. We even have developed ways to control our own harmful behavior (laws, morals, etc.) to protect the environment and ourselves. Control, has made our lives safer by reducing accidents and by helping us plan for the future (environmental tragedies are due to lack of control not excess of it). So the question is not about whether we should have control over nature or not, but about the ways in which we exercise that power.

Gloomy Forecasts

Another myth deriving from the naturalistic fallacy is that we are so stupid, greedy and selfish that we will inevitably consume all the resources that good Mother Nature provides for our survival. In fact, according to the 18th century economist Thomas Malthus we should all be starving by now. He predicted a cataclysm based on the notion that population increased at a geometrical ratio while subsistence could only increase at an arithmetical one. His predictions failed mainly because he didn’t considered the creative power of people to find innovative solutions. Nevertheless, many people still fear or predict this kind of scenarios and think sustainable development is mere wishful thinking. The problem is that the definition of this concept is still fixed on the context of the availability of natural resources. Long term development depends not on obtaining things like paper or coal but on finding ways to communicate our thoughts and heat our homes. Strategies that focus only on resources can become quickly obsolete. Therefore, our forecasts should consider that our relation with the environment includes not only people and resources but also their minds and their exponential power to come up with new ideas and solutions.(5)

Figuring out the Figures

Our unconditional love for nature along with our relentless distrust for humans have an impact on the way we read information such as statistics and technical reports. We like to make weird correlations, come up with bizarre explanations and sometimes, we just give in to collective hysteria. If for instance, the probability of an accident occurring in a nuclear plant is 0.1%, we only grasp that something can go wrong and apply Murphy’s laws to predict it will go wrong. We tend to overreact and don’t pay attention to relations and quantities. Panic follows when we see the words “apple” and “cancer” in the same sentence (even heavy smokers will feel appalled by the imminent danger). We think too that when a substance is found to be hazardous a single of its molecules can kill us and we assume that everything that happens to laboratory overdosed rats will inevitably happen to us. The problem is that if we don’t leave our prejudices aside and learn to read the data we can be easily manipulated by selfish interests or we can end-up distrusting everybody, unable to discriminate between lies and information supported by scientific evidence.

Facts and Acts

In addition to how we read statistical data and technical reports, there’s also how we react to scientific facts and discoveries when they challenge our beliefs about nature. We don’t accept easily, for instance, the fact that violence is pervasive in nature or that there’s no such thing as the Noble Savage. The problem is that we sometimes insist on blaming what we know for what we do. But one thing is knowledge and another is what we do with that knowledge. By attacking research, assaulting scientists, or condemning the facts we won’t be able to stop irresponsible human behavior. Scientific research poses many ethical questions, but facts are just facts. They cannot be moral or immoral, innocent or guilty. Scientific interpretations are ways of understanding the facts not calls to action. We may question these interpretations, but we cannot say they’re wrong just because they challenge our beliefs. We need to recognize that science doesn’t dictate our choices, it enriches them. We also need to complement facts and findings with formal expressions of our values and with ways of resolving the conflicts that they can yield so we can be in a better position to account for what we do with what we know.

Sophie’s Choice

Imagine a world in which nature is declared sacred and we are left powerless against its impelling forces. A world without pharmaceutical research and fast means of transportation. One where it is impossible to produce large quantities of food, where there’s no hope for cancer patients and where there’s no future for the poor. A world without science and technology is a world without choices. Our long-term interests and our increasingly complex relationship with nature depend more than ever on them. That’s why our options shouldn’t be dictated by those who force us to choose between man and nature. It is not like Sophie’s choice. We can, and should, choose both.

References

(1) Pinker, S. 2002. The Blank Slate. Viking; p.163

(2) Schlosser, E. “Why MacDonald’s fries taste so good,” Atlantic Monthly, January 2001 in Pinker, S. 2002. The Blank Slate. Viking; p.230

(3) “EC-sponsored research on safety of genetically modified organisms-A review of results.” Report EUR 19884, October 2001, European Union Office for publications.

(4) Green, R. M. 2001. The human embryo Research Debates: Bioethics in the vortex of controversy. New York; Oxford University Press.

(5) Romer, P. “Ideas and Things,” The Economist September 11, 1993; Pinker, S. 2002. op. cit. pp. 237, 238.

Paula Bourges Waldegg has a web page here. She can be emailed at [email protected]

I have heard genetically-engineered food is not good for you. Many astronauts eat it, but that is the only thing they have to eat, so they deal with it.