|
Alison Atkinson-Phillips  Part of being human is to change things, to try to improve them. Since the beginning of human history, we have altered our environment — plants, animals and dwellings. One of the earliest stories in the Judeo-Christian tradition (Genesis 30) involves Jacob manipulating the breeding process of his flocks to increase his herd.
However, since the mid 1980s, advances in science and technology have created a revolution in the field of biotechnology. Discoveries in the field of genetics have opened up new possibilities for creating genetically modified organisms (GMO). These are organisms (plant or animal) whose genetic material has been altered using a process known as recombinant DNA technology, where the genetic material from different sources are combined to create a new gene. This process and the resulting organisms have generated worldwide debate about the economic, social, environmental and ethical implications. The first GMO to be commercially grown as a crop was the Flavr Savr tomato, developed by the Californian company Calgene. A paste made from tomatos from this crop was exported from the US to the UK in 1996. It was labelled as a GM product, and at first was enthusiastically accepted. However, the outbreak of Mad Cow Disease in the UK, coupled with the results of a Scottish study which showed a particular GM potato had a negative effect on rats, turned the tide of public opinion against GM foods throughout the European Union (EU). This has had significant flow-on effects throughout the world, with other countries deciding against GM crops either because of similar concerns or because of fear GM contamination might affect their exports to EU countries. While the results of the Scottish research project have since been called into question, opponents, including Greenpeace International and the Conservation Council, say there is just not enough understanding about the effects of GMO on human health and the environment. For example, there are concerns that crops that have been genetically modified to be poisonous to certain insects could have a damaging effect on other insects or on the birds which feed on those bugs, thus affecting the whole ecosystem. Other GM crops have been developed to be resistant to particular weedkillers, the most well known being Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola, which allows farmers to more spray widely with their product Roundup. However, an Australian group called the Network of Concerned Farmers have pointed out that weeds are already developing resistance to such chemicals and most farmers and consumers would rather see less chemical spray on crops.  One of the big ethical issues with GMO is the fact that they can be patented, meaning the companies who develop them are able to charge premium prices for their product, and to require farmers to buy new seed every year. Many farmers follow traditional methods which involve saving some seed from one year’s crop to plant the next year, but biotech companies say this robs them of the ability to recoup their investment. Many farmers in developing countries wouldn’t be able to afford to pay the premium prices for the GM crops, and natural pollination either through wind or animals mean it’s very difficult to control the spread of GM crops. In the late 1990s farmer Percy Schmeiser in the US was sued by Monsanto for using Roundup Ready canola seeds which had accidentally grown on his land. Percy saved the seeds to use for his 1998 harvest, which Monsanto claimed was stealing.
The US is currently the world’s single largest producer of GM crops (55% in 2005), but a number of other countries have followed suite — no doubt drawn by the desire for disease resistant crops and higher yields. A significant part of South Africa’s agricultural output now involves GM maize and cotton. This has created headaches for aid organisations, particularly during the 2002/03 food emergency in southern Africa, because a number of African countries have a ban on GM crops, both to protect their local crops and to protect their long-term trade with Europe. While advocates for GM crops point to their potential to be created to survive drought or have increased nutritional value, opponents say we just don’t know enough about the implications of introducing such crops into the ecosystem, and the long-term effects in terms of biodiversity. Greenpeace International also points out that there is more than enough food in the world, if it was shared equitably. In Australia, as elsewhere in the world, this remains a contentious issue. A number of GM trials have been conducted, but there is currently a moratorium on GM crops, and the Conservation Council, as well as some farmers’ groups, say this should stay in place. They point out any benefits that could come from GM can also be derived by more traditional breeding methods, with the help of clinical genetic research. It is human nature to want to alter our environment, but environmental disasters such as the cane toad have also taught us to tread carefully, and think about the consequences. Perhaps the human race is growing up at last.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
