What is GMO: Threat to health or the future of the planet
The Non GMO label is a companion of most organic products: along with the “eco-friendly” packaging design and thoughtful advertising, it supposedly guarantees us a healthy future. Since 2010, in the US alone, manufacturers have filed more than 27,000 product names for certification, wishing to formalize the fact that their food is free from genetically modified organisms, and sales of non-GMO products have nearly tripled over the past couple of years. Fighters for the purity of the environment and social activists have gone further: a number of public organizations - from international Friends of the Earth to the American Consumer Union - require mandatory labeling of genetically modified food products.
In Russia, the position of GMOs is now regulated by law. On June 24, the State Duma adopted a law banning the cultivation of genetically modified plants and animals in the country and the import of GMOs to Russia. Production of GMOs is permitted only for scientific purposes. "It is forbidden to use for planting (planting) seeds of plants, whose genetic program is modified using genetic engineering methods, containing genetic engineering material, the introduction of which cannot be the result of natural (natural) processes," the RIA Novosti cites the text.
What is GMO
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a plant, animal, or microorganism whose genotype has been modified using genetic engineering techniques. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) considers the use of genetic engineering techniques to create transgenic plant varieties as an integral part of agricultural development. Direct transfer of genes responsible for useful traits is a natural stage in the development of animal and plant breeding, this technology broadens our ability to control the creation of new varieties and, in particular, the transfer of useful traits between non-breeding species.
Today, the vast majority of genetically modified foods are soy, cotton, canola, wheat, corn, potatoes. Three-quarters of all modifications are aimed at increasing plant resistance to pesticides - means against weeds (herbicides) or insects (insecticides). Another important area is the creation of plants that are resistant to the insects themselves, as well as to the various viruses that they carry. Scientists change the shape, color and taste of crops less often, but they are actively engaged in plant breeding with an increased amount of vitamins and microelements - for example, modified corn with vitamin C content 8 times and beta carotene 169 times higher than usual.
With all the ambiguous attitude to the phenomenon in society, scientifically based evidence of the harm of GMOs to humans, plants and the environment today does not exist. Recently, more than 100 Nobel Prize winners signed an open letter in defense of the use of genetic engineering in agriculture, in which they called Greenpeace not to oppose the use of GMOs. The use of genes of various species and their combinations in the creation of new varieties and lines is included in the FAO strategy for the conservation and use of the genetic resources of the planet in agriculture and the food industry. Anyway, a part of the public is not yet ready to trust the scientific findings and believes that genetically modified products can be dangerous for health. It seems that in recent years it has become somewhat clearer which of the perceived risks are exaggeration, or even manipulation, and which actually expose the "vicissitudes of the method."
What is the use of GMO for agriculture
What is genetic engineering and how thorny the institutionalization of prejudices can make its way, makes it clear one visual and fairly sensational case. In the mid-90s of the last century, Hawaiian farmers faced a serious problem: the harvest of papaya, the most important product of the region, was affected by the ring-spread virus transmitted by insects. After many vain attempts to save the fruit - from breeding to quarantine - an unexpected way was found: to place the gene of the harmless component of the virus - the capsid protein - in the papaya DNA and thus make it resistant to the virus.
Because of the secondary role of papaya in the global market, the American agricultural company Monsanto, a giant in the field of genetic engineering, and two other companies licensed the technology to one of the unions of Hawaiian farmers and supplied them with free seeds. Today, genetically modified papaya is a proven triumph: a new technology has saved the industry. At the same time, the Hawaiian story is a modern parable: through the virus, the papaya barely survived the protest campaign and at some point was threatened with expulsion from its native state.
The US Department of Agriculture examined test crops and reported that the technology does not have "any detrimental effect on plants, non-target organisms, or the environment," and the Environmental Protection Agency noticed that people have been consuming the virus along with the common infected papaya. . According to the evidence of the organization, particles of ring blotch virus, including harmless proteins from the shell, used in gene modification, were found in the fruits, leaves and stems of most unmodified plants.
These arguments did not satisfy the fighters against GMOs. In 1999, one year after farmers started producing modified seeds, critics of the method stated that the viral gene could interact with the DNA of other viruses and create even more dangerous pathogens. A year later, Greenpeace activists had already crashed papaya trees at a research base at the University of Hawaii, accusing scientists of inaccurate and random experiments that are contrary to the will of nature. Wrestlers against GMOs rarely take into account that a much more “random” mutation occurs in nature, and traditional selection, the precursor of genetic engineering, also produces completely “modified” organisms and, to a much greater degree, sins with “inaccuracy.”
Genetic engineering can not only protect products from environmental exposure, but also, perhaps, strengthen our health.
Although for all the time that the papaya with GMOs was on sale, it did not have time to harm anyone, for a period of zero the long-suffering fruit was not allowed to rest. Only in May 2009, as a result of several years of testing, the authoritative Commission on Food Security of Japan approved the cultivation of genetically modified papaya and two years later opened its market for it. The American scientists, who conducted the tests under the control of Japanese colleagues, made sure that, contrary to the beliefs of the camp of the opponents, the modified protein does not match the genetic sequences with one of the known allergens and that a normal infected papaya contains eight times more viral protein than the genome modified version.
Genetic engineering can not only protect products from the environment, but also, perhaps, strengthen our health. Today, about 250 million preschool children around the world suffer from a deficiency of vitamin A in the body. Every year, from 250 to 500 thousand of such children completely lose their sight, and half of the blind people die within a year. The problem is especially prevalent in Southeast Asia: the basis of the diet there is rice, and it does not cover the need for beta-carotene - a substance that, when digested, is converted to vitamin A and plays a crucial role in maintaining vision. As you know, vitamins in the form of supplements are not full-fledged substitutes for the nutrients that we get from food, moreover, in many parts of the world vitamins are simply not on sale or people cannot afford them.
A group of scientists led by Ingo Potricus from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology set out to solve this problem by growing rice containing enough beta-carotene. Golden grains, obtained in 1999 through the introduction of genes for flowers of daffodils and bacteria, were perceived as a breakthrough in the scientific community, scientists even received encouragement from the American President Clinton. However, Greenpeace was outraged: in their opinion, “golden rice” became a Trojan horse of genetic engineering (they even linked the risk of cancer) and did not contain enough beta-carotene to cover the need for vitamin. In the latter, eco-activists were right, but already in 2005, Potrikus and colleagues corrected and produced rice containing 20 times more beta-carotene than usual.
Despite the effectiveness of the technology, GMO opponents continued to condemn Potricus’s initiative and advised them to grow conventional carotene products instead of “artificial” rice, ignoring the particular climate and economies of several Asian countries that were primarily interested in the experiment. The activists became indignant when, during clinical trials in China in 2008, 24 children were given a try of golden rice. Porridge, obtained from 50 grams of cereals, covered 60 percent of the daily children's need for vitamin A, and the content of beta-carotene was equal to the capsule with provitamin, which was received by the second group of subjects, or small carrots.
Why marking "non-GMO" is not a guarantee of safety
Concern about some aspects of genetic engineering in agriculture, for example, about the connection of GMOs with the use of herbicides or obtaining patents, has a basis. But none of the really important issues concerns the scientific aspect of genetic engineering, and the more so the moral component of this practice. Genetic engineering is a technology that can be used in various ways, and for a clear statement of the question, it is important to understand the difference between the objectives of the method and study each particular case in detail. If you are worried about pesticides and transparency in matters of origin of products, you need to know about the composition and amount of toxins that your food is exposed to. Of course, the mark "non-GMO" does not mean that the farm did without pesticides, and information on the content of GMOs, on the contrary, does not make it clear why genetic manipulations were carried out - possibly to save crops from the virus or to enhance nutritional properties. In fact, choosing products without GMOs, we never know whether we make the right choice, because a genetically modified alternative may be safer.
The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences of the United States and hundreds of organizations around the world have recognized that evidence of GMO insecurity does not yet exist. Last year, the Genetic Literacy Project Platform for Genetic Engineering Education published a critique of 10 studies that allegedly prove the harm of genetically modified organisms. Be that as it may, many food manufacturers have decided that it makes sense to take a cautious stance and ensure that they are certified “non-GMO”. Many of us are not ready to rely on the arguments of science, moreover, in studies that speak both in favor of and against GMOs, minor inaccuracies and serious mistakes happen. But it is often the confidence of skeptics that it is too early to judge the long-term effect of genetically modified food.
In an anti-GMO case, as in any controversial issue, the deeper you dig, the more difficult it becomes to form an opinion: on the one hand, inaccuracies in calculations, distortion of information and simply lies from opponents of genetic engineering are found everywhere, on the other - quite aggressive position of corporations sponsoring it. At the same time, the main argument of the movement against GMOs is that the unconditional reason for avoiding “new type” products is prudence and caution, and therefore is somewhat weak. Activists who advise to beware of GMOs "just in case" are not always ready to adequately evaluate alternatives. Proteins in engineering-modified cereals they are called toxic, but at the same time they are in defense of the really toxic pesticides with which the plants are treated, and in defense of the plants themselves, full of the same, in their opinion, toxic proteins.
The marks on the content of GMOs do not make it clear what we actually eat, but only provide the illusion of safety.
In 1901, a Japanese biologist discovered the type of bacteria that kills silkworms. Bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis and for many years used as insecticides, considering safe for vertebrates. In the mid-80s, Belgian biologists decided to improve the effect of bacteria in agriculture and introduced Bt protein into tobacco DNA. The plant began to produce its own insecticidal protein, from which the pests died. Then the technology was applied to potatoes and corn. Suddenly, environmental organizations saw a serious threat to a protein that was previously considered harmless. The environmentalists began to attack not the pesticide itself, but the fact of gene modification, and all the conclusions about the safety of Bt were no longer interesting to anyone.
The debate around the Bt gene is still ongoing. For example, in 2010, Canadian scientists discovered a high content of CrytAb Bt protein in the blood of pregnant women and fetuses and tied it up with GMOs, which caused a lot of noise. The website of the non-profit organization Biology Fortified published a refutation of the data, according to which Canadian biologists used a measurement system designed for plants and not for people. To get such high rates of Bt-protein, the expectant mother would have to eat a few kilograms of corn containing it. Such falsifications seriously undermine not only confidence in the movement against GMOs, but also confidence in the objectivity of modern scientific research in general.
The following fact is also curious: in the opinion of Greenpeace, “natural” Bt-proteins in insecticides that farmers spray on plants disintegrate after two weeks, so you should not worry about their harm. And again the consumer is misleading. It is known that farmers extremely generously use insecticides in the form of sprayers. The recommendations, as a rule, indicate that it is necessary to resort to the use of the drug every 5-7 days, and this is already enough for the protein to have time to get into our body. No one keeps track of the exact amount of Bt insecticide used daily by farmers around the world. In addition, Bt-insecticides, unlike GMOs with safe purified Cry1Ab protein, contain live bacteria that can multiply in food.
While GMOs are attacking from all sides, the biopesticide industry is booming. When buying non-GMO products, it seems to us that we get wholesome food without toxins, while in fact, we may be consuming more harmful substances. It turns out that the marks on the content of GMOs do not make it clear what we actually eat, but only provide the illusion of safety.
What are the consequences it is worth thinking about
Over the past twenty years, hundreds of studies have been conducted and tons of genetically modified foods have been eaten. Among them are not only plants, but also, for example, fish: salmon modified to accelerate growth, or carp resistant to the bacteria Aeromonas. No amount of research will be enough to convince skeptics of the safety of GMOs. In turn, consumers can only rely on common sense and rely on the impartiality of numerous scientists whose research speaks in defense of genetic engineering.
However, the safety of GMOs for the human body is not the only cause for concern. One more problem needs to be looked for in one of the most widespread spheres of the use of genetic engineering - in the production of crops tolerant to herbicides. In the United States, where this technology is common, three quarters of cultivated cotton and corn are genetically modified to resist insects, and up to 85% of these plants are modified to form resistance to herbicides, in particular glyphosate. By the way, one of the leaders in sales of glyphosate is the said company Monsanto, specializing in genetic engineering.
While GMOs that are resistant to insects, lead to the use of fewer insecticides, engineering-modified plants tolerant to herbicides, entail an even more active use of these substances. The logic of farmers is this: since glyphosate does not kill a crop, it means that you can spray herbicides as generously as possible. As the “dose” increases, weeds also gradually develop tolerance to pesticides, and more and more substances are required. Despite the debate over the safety of glyphosate, most experts claim it is relatively safe. But there is an important indirect connection: tolerance of weeds to glyphosate forces farmers to use other, more toxic herbicides.
What to expect in the near future
The more you learn about GMOs, the more complex the overall picture seems. Сначала приходит осознание того, что генная инженерия вовсе не зло, но затем понимаешь, что у использования ГМО могут быть совсем не радостные последствия. Пестицид против пестицида, технология против технологии, риск против риска - всё относительно, потому в каждом частном случае важно здраво оценивать возможные альтернативы, выбирать меньшее из зол и не питать слепого доверия к маркировке "без ГМО".
Now there are a lot of interesting variants of genetic modifications of products - from corn, which is not terrible drought, to potatoes with low content of natural toxins and soybeans, which are now less saturated fat. Watching the news of science, you can find out that scientists are working on even more ambitious projects: carrots high in calcium, tomatoes with antioxidants, hypoallergenic nuts, more nutritious cassava and corn, and even plants containing healthy oil, which previously could only be obtained from fish.
In general, genetic engineering specialists have much to offer. Certainly, it requires serious control over the procedure for obtaining patents, the extent of use of herbicides, as well as the degree of evidence and impartiality of scientific research for and against GMOs. Surely, the camp of the opponents will continue to exist, and if there is constructive criticism, such a counterweight is effective - how effectively, for example, a shadow government.
Science is constantly evolving: what was considered safe a hundred years ago is now recognized as harmful, and there are still a lot of white spots in biology, so long-term predictions in this matter are a rather bold decision. Nevertheless, even now, thanks to genetic engineering, we can say goodbye to allergies to some foods or fill in the lack of vital trace elements, because, despite the existing skepticism, many consumers around the world are ready for a "new" food.
Photo: Alex Staroseltsev - stock.adobe.com, kitsananan Kuna - stock.adobe.com, zirconicusso - stock.adobe.com
