GM FOOD > INFORMATION > SHEET 2

GM Foods: From the point of view of... Michael Reiss

Michael Reiss is Head of the school of Mathematics, Science and Technology and Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, University of London and a Priest in the Church of England

The techniques of modern plant genetics, in particular genetic engineering, throw up a wide range of issues to do with safety, consequences for the environment and whether these new technologies are ethically acceptable. Here I consider such issues by asking, and attempting to answer, seven key questions:

How does modern plant breeding differ from conventional plant breeding?
People have been breeding crops such as wheat, rice and maize for about ten thousand years. So plant breeding and plant biotechnology aren't new phenomena! However, during the last twenty years or so plant breeding has made use of some new techniques that weren't previously available. Perhaps the most important of these is genetic engineering.

The significant thing about genetic engineering is that scientists can move genes from one species to another. For example, to give a medical illustration, in the 1980s the gene in humans that makes the hormone insulin was inserted into bacteria and into yeast. These single-celled organisms can be grown in fermenters where they happily churn out quantities of the protein, i.e. insulin, normally made by the gene in question. Nowadays, many diabetics regularly inject themselves with such human insulin rather than relying on insulin extracted from dead cattle or pigs.

Plant biotechnology lagged behind such early instances of medical biotechnology. That was because of initial difficulties, now overcome, in the practicalities of moving genes into plants. By now, though, the technology allows genes from other plants, or even from bacteria and animals, to be put into crop plants. Conventional plant breeding allowed species to be moved between closely related plant species but today's biotechnology allows almost any genes to be put into crops.

Should we move genes between species?
So genes can be moved between species, but should we do it? From the plant's point of view it's difficult to object to genetic engineering. After all, plants lack nervous systems and so don't have the capacity to suffer. Nor is it easy to believe that moving genes into crops is in some way disrespectful to them.

However, many people feel uneasy about putting animal genes into crops. Vegetarians, for example, might be offended by wheat containing fish genes. This example isn't as fanciful as it may sound. Putting a gene from a fish capable of living in very cold water into a crop might make the crop less likely to suffer frost damage. In the UK it has been agreed that any cases where animal genes are put into plants must be clearly labelled as such, allowing people to choose whether or not to purchase foods made from such crops.

Isn't genetic engineering unnatural?
Yes! Genetic engineering is unnatural. But that isn't really enough to tell us whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. After all, what is 'natural'? Is it natural to read by electric light, to be given an anaesthetic before being operated on or to be required to spend most of your days between the ages of 5 and 16 in full-time education?

The reality is that there isn't a straightforward relationship between 'natural' and 'good'. There are plenty of things in life that are unnatural yet good and plenty of things, such as rabies and death in childbirth, that are natural yet bad.

Are these new crops safe to eat?
Almost nothing in life is 100% guaranteed safe. It is possible, though thankfully unlikely, that at the very moment that you read this sentence, an American fighter aircraft will spin crazily out of control from the skies, crash into you and explode, instantaneously killing you and any others around you. But it didn't, did it? Nor does 'safer' always mean 'better'. It is safer to watch someone getting beaten up than to try to prevent it happening.

Nevertheless, there are genuine concerns that any new foods may not be safe to eat. This is one reason why such foods take a long time to reach the market place as governments have insisted on various tests being carried out before the products are licensed for human consumption. In Europe, any foods made from genetically engineered crops have to be clearly labelled as such. This gives shoppers the option of not buying such products. Of course, it's always possible that some genetically engineered crops will eventually turn out to be even safer than conventional crops. Only time will tell for sure.

Isn't genetic engineering 'playing God'?
The phrase 'playing God' is sometimes used by people, whether or not they have a religious faith, to cast doubt on almost any new technology, whether it is in vitro fertilisation (test tube babies), splitting the atom or genetic engineering. However, for people with a religious faith it can be argued that the unique thing about being human is that God gives us the God-like ability to be creative. As God said in the early verses of the book of Genesis, 'let us make humans in our own image'.

However, that doesn't mean that humans can do what they like! God may have given us the potential to devise new technologies but God also gives us a sense of responsibility. That is why any new technology should be tightly regulated and carefully tested so that we can minimise the chances of its consequences being harmful rather than beneficial.

Won't these new crops be bad for the environment?
It is difficult to generalise with certainty about the environmental consequences of crop biotechnology. Take, for example, the development of crops that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to insect pests. There may be significant environmental advantages to such crops. In particular - and there is already clear data from the USA in support of this - they should need to be sprayed with far less conventional insecticides. Such insecticides kill a wide range of insects, not just the ones that eat crops.

On the other hand, it might be that plants which have been genetically engineered to be resistant to insect pests will support so few insects that farmyard birds, such as skylarks, which rely on insects for their food, will become even scarcer. It is worries such as this that have lead so many environmental organisations and pressure groups to press for a moratorium on the widespread growing of genetically engineered crops until the consequences for the environment have been thoroughly investigated.

Will new crop varieties feed the world?
On January 1st in the year 2000 there were approximately six billion people in the world. That figure is going up by about 250,000 (a quarter of a million) every day. Most people who work on new crop varieties believe that modern biotechnology, including engineering, has a part to play in feeding this enormous number of people.

Of course, food isn't enough. Politics is vital too. The world already produces more than enough food for today's population yet 800 million people suffer from malnutrition due to lack of food availability. The problem is not so much the supply but the distribution of food. Nevertheless, it is easier for scientists to persuade plants to yield greater harvests than it is for any of us to persuade people to share the world's resources equally.