There is hardly a more controversial topic than genetically manipulated food. Genetic engineering is used in many different ways. But although it is accepted for medical purposes such as insulin production, the debate on genetically modified maize quickly becomes heated.
Why is this so? Why are there such different reactions here? What are the facts, the dangers and the future of genetically manipulated organisms?
Overview
Why do humans produce genetically manipulated food?
Humans have been changing the genetic material of plants and animals for thousands of years.
If a plant bore many fruits or if a wolf was particularly faithful, it was only logical to propagate animals and plants with these favourable characteristics.
And because traits are simply an expression of certain genes, these beneficial genes have been amplified with each generation.
Now, after thousands of years, the modified plants and animals are hardly recognizable.
If humans have been influencing genes for so long, what is so special about a genetically modified organism?
Selective breeding is based on happy coincidences. Genetic engineering eliminates this factor, you choose traits very specifically.
Like the size of the fruit or immunity to pests.
But then what are many people worried about?
Let’s start with one of the most common objections:
Genetically modified plants could mix with conventional varieties and alter their genes.
One way to prevent this is at the same time an argument against modified organisms: terminator seeds.
One could produce sterile plants that can no longer reproduce.
However, this concept caused so much public outrage that it was never tried.
So back to gene flow.
It has happened before that modified plants have been found outside their area of cultivation.
And traces of modified genes have been found in wild varieties.
However, there is also a natural barrier:
Many cereals are self-pollinating and do not mix with other species.
In addition, cultivation methods such as buffer zones are used to prevent mixing.
But if mixing with other varieties cannot be completely ruled out, an even more important question arises:
Are genetically modified foods different from unmodified foods?
This question caused concern from the outset.
Modified plants intended for human consumption are being tested for possible risks by several organizations.
After more than 30 years and thousands of studies, it is now clear:
…they are no more dangerous than their counterparts. Of course you don’t have to believe us blindly.
Do your own extensive research and draw your own conclusions.
But what about plants that have been made poisonous?
For example, BT cultures. A gene from the bacterium Bacillus Thurgeniensis enables plants to produce a protein that destroys the digestive system of pests.
The plant can produce its own insecticide: Insects that eat it die.
Pretty frightening!
Chemical pesticides can be washed off, whereas the toxin from BT cultures is inside the cell, isn’t it?
No problem, because poison is a matter of perspective. What is harmless to one is deadly to another.
Coffee is a deadly poison to insects, but harmless to us.
Or chocolate: poisonous to dogs, but delicate to humans.
BT cultures produce a protein that is specifically tailored to the digestive tract of certain insects. It’s harmless to us.
It works the other way around, too:
Plants are made resistant to weed killers and when farmers spray the chemicals, the crop survives, but not the weeds.
And here we already have the other side of the coin:
The pesticide industry is making a huge fortune!
Over 90% of the market crops in the USA are herbicide resistant.
Especially to glyphosate, which is why it has spread so much.
And that’s not all bad: glyphosate is far less harmful to humans than many other weed killers.
However, farmers have good reason to rely on glyphosate alone, rather than looking for balanced strategies.
This brings us to the core problem of the genetic engineering debate:
Critics criticize, without realizing it, not genetic engineering, but the one-sidedness of modern agriculture and the methods of the big food producers.
This criticism is right and important.
Agriculture must become more sustainable.
Genetic engineering is not an opponent, but an ally that can help us to limit our impact on the environment and still feed billions of people.
There are some positive examples:
Eggplants are very important for Bangladesh, but harvests were often destroyed by pests.
The farmers had no choice but to use pesticides, which often caused diseases and was also very expensive.
The rescue was a genetically modified eggplant introduced in 2013. The eggplants were modified to produce the BT protein.
Deadly to insects and harmless to humans.
Insecticide use for eggplants has dropped by more than 80%.
Farmers’ health and income improved significantly.
Is genetic engineering sometimes the only way out?
In the 1990s, the Hawaiian papaya was nearly wiped out by the ringspot virus. The salvation was a modified papaya vaccinated against the virus.
Without this modification there would be no more Hawaiian papaya.
So far we have only talked about the boring applications:
99% of all genetically modified plants produce pesticides or are resistant to them.
But let’s look beyond the horizon.
Gene food could improve our nutrition in the future: plants could become more nutritious.
Fruit with more antioxidants that can prevent disease.
Or extra vitamin-rich rice.
In the long term, we could produce plants that can defy climate change.
Plants that can adapt to difficult weather and soil conditions and are less susceptible to droughts caused by flooding.
Can we protect the environment from the effects of agriculture?
Scientists are already working on plants that can draw nitrogen from the air.
Nitrogen is a popular fertilizer, but unfortunately it contaminates groundwater and accelerates climate change.
These plants could solve two problems at once:
We could reduce fertilizers in industrialized countries and compensate for their shortage in developing countries.
We could even modify plants so that they, like the American chestnut, collect carbon and thus slow down climate change.
If we use genetic engineering responsibly, our possibilities are almost limitless.
The world eats 11 million pounds of food a day every second.
The UN says we need 70% more by 2050.
Sure, we could grow the food and clear forests and use more pesticides.
Or we use the areas we already have, only more effectively, with genetically modified plants.
More intensive instead of more extensive use. Genetic engineering could soon be the new bio.
In short, genetic engineering could change agriculture in a sustainable way and reduce our negative impact on the environment.
Genetic engineering could become a powerful weapon in the fight for our biosphere.
If you want to learn more about genetically manipulated food, we recommend Food: How Altered?
If you like living a healthy life, you should read our Coconut Oil Facts – In Search of The Truth About Coconut Oil article.
