Food for Thought: To GM or not to GM?
At the Jupiter Trust series in Oxford on 'Defending Essential Values: Life, Liberty & the Human Spirit' last night, genetically engineered food was on the menu – not food to eat, but food for thought.
Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher is an international advisor to many NGOs and was one of the advisors and advocates for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety – part of the UN Convention on Biodiversity which concluded in 2000. Her book Hungry Corporations (first published in 2003 & written with Helena Paul) is no half-baked activist rant – but a detailed research report with numerous footnotes, laced with acronyms (for which there is an ample glossary) and a detailed index
Steinbrecher's background is as a biologist who was working on genetic research on haemoglobin up to 15 years ago. This offered the prospect of cures for such scourges as haemophilia – which has failed to materialise. Steinbrecher explained that genetics is a very recent and complex science which takes time to understand. She said "the certainty of our knowledge betrayed us" - the quote of the evening for me – and one which also explains much of what is happening in the world of science and maybe also that of finance.
We were deprived of the Powerpoint presentation due to a technical glitch – but Steinbrecher's illustration with words and gestures well made up the shortfall – and if anything focused attention on her subject.
Steinbrecher's passion is for biodiversity which supplies ample variety. Variety, she said, provides 'a buffer' to attacks on natural systems. She illustrated this with the example of an ecological agricultural system that has been developed in Africa to protect crops against a particular infestation by surrounding them with grass that attracts and ties in the predators, whilst at the same time leguminous crops are planted within the main crop that both repels the insects and fixes nitrogen in the soil. This is described as a 'push and pull' system and according to Steinbrecher, this has shown great benefits in terms of yield as well as additional spin offs such as the cutting and selling of the grass and the discouragement of some invasive weeds. This only works at a small scale – as proximity of the grasses to the main crop is a requirement. Steinbrecher also cited a similar system with yield increases of up to 70%.
These systems do not suit big fields, big farms and the big corporations who own and manage the land and seek naturally to make a big profit on their investments. This is the world of GM food. It is a world dominated by monocultures – single species that are resistant to the chemicals that are used to wipe out the weeds around them, and which incorporate in-built genes to fight disease, resist drought, increase yield and boost nutrition. "This is the only way to feed the world's hungry" is the message to the guilt-laden westerner. Sounds great, and provided there is sufficient safety and testing then why not? Quite simply Steinbecher says it does not work, is not proven, and is largely based on a scientific outlook that is 20 years old and so is unsafe.
We were treated to an exposition of genetics using a ball point pen as a visual tool to show how genes act on cells. All cells contain the same DNA – they are switched on and off to make a foot or a hand or a bit of lung tissue depending on where they are and the stage of development [place and time]. The DNA of the cells are 'told' to do this by means of a process which involves 'transcription' to the cell and 'translation' within the cell of so- called 'promoters' which act on the cell. [Note: This is very technical and excuse this poor author if it is not correct & please amend the wiki].
The idea that is popularly understood is that a suitable gene with special benefits (colour, resistance to drought, longevity) is taken from one living system (plant, animal, or bacteria) and inserted/transcribed to another – for instance to make a sort of wheat that is more drought resistant. Again sounds good in theory, but the model is just too simplistic. Steinbrecher said that there are only a handful of genes that are single function – most have different effects depending on the system within which they operate [ place and time]. Also scientists have no precise way of inserting a gene in a particular location in the receptor – instead they use a number of techniques some of which involve a 'shotgun' approach of physically blasting genes at tissue. They have also discovered that viruses are particularly good at carrying genes since when they arrive in the receptor cell, they have the ability to override the cell's normal regulatory functions. So potentially beneficial genes arrive on the backs of viruses - all very clever stuff, but is it safe? This is the question that Steinbrecher has been researching and campaigning on with some success (as above). However, safety/reducing risks is not a matter that is popular in a commercial environment where products are brought to market as soon as possible to realise a return on the investment - our ecological future may again be a reflection of our financial predicament where risk assessment was woefully abandoned for short term gain.
But what about the successes of GM ? Steinbecher is scathing - she cites Dr. David King, the former UK government advisor on climate change and proponent of GM food, as having laid claim that the 'push and pull' system used in Africa (described earlier) is a result of GM when it is not. We have the purple tomato rich in anti-oxidants – but 'so-what?' such tomatoes are already found in Central Europe. She concedes that where resistance to predators and disease are concerned there are advantages, but these are only short lived. On a seven year cycle other factors come into play, for instance the increase in lignite (woody cells) cause the same plants that are disease-resistant to split open in drought conditions. This is just one example of the unforeseen secondary affects of the genes used to combat the disease itself.
There is then a problem here in that the world is being 'sold' unproven and potentially unsafe food. In the UK we thought the argument had been resolved in the 1990s and that GM had beaten a hasty retreat from 'this green and pleasant land' – but it is encroaching on all around on the basis that if 'an untruth is told enough people come to believe it'. A good example of this is the widespread use of GM food in animal feed which by-passes the usual 'labelling' regulations. There is growing evidence, according to Steinbrecher, that the presence of certain GM compounds may have a detrimental effect on the liver, kidneys, gut and immune system in general.
The most delightful part of Steinbrecher's talk was the description of how soil works and how plants interact with the micro-bacterial organisms in the soil to create a matrix for nourishment based on interchange e.g. sugar for water. In this way the soil is much more than a sort of sponge for containing essential minerals and water for the plants - it is full of life. Recent research also points to the fact that GM crops tend to have a reduced interaction with the micro-organisms in the soil which may well be detrimental in the long term.
The risk of the monoculture future is that we open ourselves to famine since single species, however great they may be in certain respects, are prone to attack. Steinbrecher cited the case of a small brown grasshopper that destroyed vast areas of monoculture rice. She returned to her passion for variety and encouraged people not to support food systems based on monocultures but rather to support such ventures as farmers' markets and, if possible, to grow our own food. Steinbrecher herself cited the powers of dissemination of valid information, persistence and 'making a noise', qualities she herself demonstrates. These are simple remedies – but effective in lifting apathy and questioning blind belief.
More information
http://www.econexus.info/
www.gmfreeze.org
RT Notes& Queries:
(1) Another much-debated issue is whether it is ethically proper to transcribe genes from one species to another at all – as the difference in location could generate mutations with wildly aberrant behaviour. Currently such practice has become accepted and legalised. What do others think?
(2) We have forgotten that we can be part of the process by which the earth and we feed ourselves – but we cannot take on the role as 'feeder of the world' – anymore than Solomon could feed all the creatures of the world despite his unparalleled powers. Are we then interfering in the process of creation in a way that should be left to the 'creator' – even if the 'creator', in an immanential sense, is the evolutionary process itself ?
(3) I have just been reminded that the great Charles Darwin himself, whose 200th anniversary we currently are celebrating, spent the last five years of his life studying earthworms, whose humble and largely unnoticed existence and constant activity, allows life to spring from the soil.
Richard Twinch Oxford
Valentines Day 2009
Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher is an international advisor to many NGOs and was one of the advisors and advocates for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety – part of the UN Convention on Biodiversity which concluded in 2000. Her book Hungry Corporations (first published in 2003 & written with Helena Paul) is no half-baked activist rant – but a detailed research report with numerous footnotes, laced with acronyms (for which there is an ample glossary) and a detailed index
Steinbrecher's background is as a biologist who was working on genetic research on haemoglobin up to 15 years ago. This offered the prospect of cures for such scourges as haemophilia – which has failed to materialise. Steinbrecher explained that genetics is a very recent and complex science which takes time to understand. She said "the certainty of our knowledge betrayed us" - the quote of the evening for me – and one which also explains much of what is happening in the world of science and maybe also that of finance.
We were deprived of the Powerpoint presentation due to a technical glitch – but Steinbrecher's illustration with words and gestures well made up the shortfall – and if anything focused attention on her subject.
Steinbrecher's passion is for biodiversity which supplies ample variety. Variety, she said, provides 'a buffer' to attacks on natural systems. She illustrated this with the example of an ecological agricultural system that has been developed in Africa to protect crops against a particular infestation by surrounding them with grass that attracts and ties in the predators, whilst at the same time leguminous crops are planted within the main crop that both repels the insects and fixes nitrogen in the soil. This is described as a 'push and pull' system and according to Steinbrecher, this has shown great benefits in terms of yield as well as additional spin offs such as the cutting and selling of the grass and the discouragement of some invasive weeds. This only works at a small scale – as proximity of the grasses to the main crop is a requirement. Steinbrecher also cited a similar system with yield increases of up to 70%.
These systems do not suit big fields, big farms and the big corporations who own and manage the land and seek naturally to make a big profit on their investments. This is the world of GM food. It is a world dominated by monocultures – single species that are resistant to the chemicals that are used to wipe out the weeds around them, and which incorporate in-built genes to fight disease, resist drought, increase yield and boost nutrition. "This is the only way to feed the world's hungry" is the message to the guilt-laden westerner. Sounds great, and provided there is sufficient safety and testing then why not? Quite simply Steinbecher says it does not work, is not proven, and is largely based on a scientific outlook that is 20 years old and so is unsafe.
We were treated to an exposition of genetics using a ball point pen as a visual tool to show how genes act on cells. All cells contain the same DNA – they are switched on and off to make a foot or a hand or a bit of lung tissue depending on where they are and the stage of development [place and time]. The DNA of the cells are 'told' to do this by means of a process which involves 'transcription' to the cell and 'translation' within the cell of so- called 'promoters' which act on the cell. [Note: This is very technical and excuse this poor author if it is not correct & please amend the wiki].
The idea that is popularly understood is that a suitable gene with special benefits (colour, resistance to drought, longevity) is taken from one living system (plant, animal, or bacteria) and inserted/transcribed to another – for instance to make a sort of wheat that is more drought resistant. Again sounds good in theory, but the model is just too simplistic. Steinbrecher said that there are only a handful of genes that are single function – most have different effects depending on the system within which they operate [ place and time]. Also scientists have no precise way of inserting a gene in a particular location in the receptor – instead they use a number of techniques some of which involve a 'shotgun' approach of physically blasting genes at tissue. They have also discovered that viruses are particularly good at carrying genes since when they arrive in the receptor cell, they have the ability to override the cell's normal regulatory functions. So potentially beneficial genes arrive on the backs of viruses - all very clever stuff, but is it safe? This is the question that Steinbrecher has been researching and campaigning on with some success (as above). However, safety/reducing risks is not a matter that is popular in a commercial environment where products are brought to market as soon as possible to realise a return on the investment - our ecological future may again be a reflection of our financial predicament where risk assessment was woefully abandoned for short term gain.
But what about the successes of GM ? Steinbecher is scathing - she cites Dr. David King, the former UK government advisor on climate change and proponent of GM food, as having laid claim that the 'push and pull' system used in Africa (described earlier) is a result of GM when it is not. We have the purple tomato rich in anti-oxidants – but 'so-what?' such tomatoes are already found in Central Europe. She concedes that where resistance to predators and disease are concerned there are advantages, but these are only short lived. On a seven year cycle other factors come into play, for instance the increase in lignite (woody cells) cause the same plants that are disease-resistant to split open in drought conditions. This is just one example of the unforeseen secondary affects of the genes used to combat the disease itself.
There is then a problem here in that the world is being 'sold' unproven and potentially unsafe food. In the UK we thought the argument had been resolved in the 1990s and that GM had beaten a hasty retreat from 'this green and pleasant land' – but it is encroaching on all around on the basis that if 'an untruth is told enough people come to believe it'. A good example of this is the widespread use of GM food in animal feed which by-passes the usual 'labelling' regulations. There is growing evidence, according to Steinbrecher, that the presence of certain GM compounds may have a detrimental effect on the liver, kidneys, gut and immune system in general.
The most delightful part of Steinbrecher's talk was the description of how soil works and how plants interact with the micro-bacterial organisms in the soil to create a matrix for nourishment based on interchange e.g. sugar for water. In this way the soil is much more than a sort of sponge for containing essential minerals and water for the plants - it is full of life. Recent research also points to the fact that GM crops tend to have a reduced interaction with the micro-organisms in the soil which may well be detrimental in the long term.
The risk of the monoculture future is that we open ourselves to famine since single species, however great they may be in certain respects, are prone to attack. Steinbrecher cited the case of a small brown grasshopper that destroyed vast areas of monoculture rice. She returned to her passion for variety and encouraged people not to support food systems based on monocultures but rather to support such ventures as farmers' markets and, if possible, to grow our own food. Steinbrecher herself cited the powers of dissemination of valid information, persistence and 'making a noise', qualities she herself demonstrates. These are simple remedies – but effective in lifting apathy and questioning blind belief.
More information
http://www.econexus.info/
www.gmfreeze.org
RT Notes& Queries:
(1) Another much-debated issue is whether it is ethically proper to transcribe genes from one species to another at all – as the difference in location could generate mutations with wildly aberrant behaviour. Currently such practice has become accepted and legalised. What do others think?
(2) We have forgotten that we can be part of the process by which the earth and we feed ourselves – but we cannot take on the role as 'feeder of the world' – anymore than Solomon could feed all the creatures of the world despite his unparalleled powers. Are we then interfering in the process of creation in a way that should be left to the 'creator' – even if the 'creator', in an immanential sense, is the evolutionary process itself ?
(3) I have just been reminded that the great Charles Darwin himself, whose 200th anniversary we currently are celebrating, spent the last five years of his life studying earthworms, whose humble and largely unnoticed existence and constant activity, allows life to spring from the soil.
Richard Twinch Oxford
Valentines Day 2009
posted by The Beshara Blog at
2:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home