Are genetically modified products safe?

On January 31, representatives of over 130 countries concluded a meeting in Montreal, Canada, with an agreement that will set out rules governing trade in genetically engineered products. The pact, called the Biosafety Protocol, for the first time would regulate trade in genetically modified (or GM) organisms worldwide. It requires labeling of commodity shipments that "may contain" GM organisms and allows countries to invoke a "precautionary principle" in restricting imports of such products. The principle lets governments take action if they find reasonable cause for concern about consumer or environmental safety.


Although the pact is written in rather vague terms, it is an important breakthrough for the biotech opponents, generally from European and developing nations, in that the burden of proof falls on proponents of bioengineering and the resultant products rather than on potential consumers or victims. However, it is still a tall order for each individual country to enforce the rules, partly because a huge cost is required to handle GM products separately from other ones.


Korean consumers not ready for Roundup Ready


The biosafety issue is not alien to Korean consumers who faced the issue head-on last November when a consumer advocacy group announced its findings that more than 80 percent of tofu sold domestically contained genetically altered soybeans. Since then, tofu sales plunged, prompting soybean-based bean curd makers to raise lawsuits against the consumer group demanding compensation for losses incurred due to this "false" allegation.


Rather than delving into which side's argument has merits, it is important to note what kind of genetic engineering these soybeans went through. For almost 20 years, Monsanto (an American chemical-biotech company) has been selling a herbicide called Roundup. The company modified soybeans to tolerate this relatively benign chemical so that farmers can spray their crops with comfort of knowing that Roundup will kill only weeds, not soybeans. A "Roundup Ready" soybean crop thus allows farmers to use less herbicide (up to 40 percent as the company claims) while substantially improving yields. In the United States alone, it is estimated that farmers save around $1 billion a year from using transgenic crop seeds, including corn, potatoes and cotton as well as soybeans.


Potential hazard versus countless benefits


Although there have not yet been reports of ill-effects from GM soybeans, activists say ingestion of the products may hold potential hazard to human health such as spread of allergies or toxins for example, or a hazard to the environment by releasing bioengineered plants, animals and bacteria in the wild that could wipe out native strains or possibly spread their genetic advantages to weeds and other undesirable species.


As for these worries, one can point out the fact that humankind has experimented with gene altering of plants and animals through cross breeding from time immemorial, though in a less radical way. A more convincing argument can be made to relieve the concerns: gene-spliced crops can dramatically improve agricultural productivity and reduce prices so that we can eliminate famine once and for all. Currently, an estimated 840 million people in the world are either malnourished or starving. How nice would it be to be able to feed these people with cheaper and more nutritious staples?


Besides, the current method of farming is based on so-called monoculture, in which a large land lot is devoted to a single crop, such as rice, wheat, or potatoes, with intensive application of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Although this Green Revolution since the 1950s has brought us more foods at lower cost, we also know that monoculture has left many serious side effects such as damage to the environment and soil erosion. Biotechnology can help change that.


Tradeoff


New food sources based on genetic engineering can provide us a better alternative to what we have been eating for the past several decades, foods that we well knew contained toxic chemicals. There will be many people who would happily shed such proven health risks that have been with us for a long time in exchange for the ill-defined potential risks that "may" threaten their health in the distant future.


Of course, one good alternative to the Green Revolutions' destructive--to human health as well as to the environment--agricultural practice can be found in organic farming. Organic farmers avoid monoculture and instead plant different crops side by side so that an outbreak of a crop disease can be contained within a small patch of their farmland. They use organic fertilizers and natural enemies, ladybugs for example, to fight harmful organisms. Such organic produce command a premium in the market (health-conscious consumers often pay twice or more the price of regular farm products), thus this can't be a perfect substitute for goods produced by conventional agriculture because organic farming is inherently small scale.


That's where "biotech" farming comes in. It is compatible with currently prevailing monocultural farming. The only difference is the new technique does away with, or at least cuts, the necessity for harmful chemical input. In addition, some gene-spliced plants offer better taste and higher nutritional value.


Regulate or not?


The bottom line for policymakers should be that the issue of biosafety is so complex and highly technical that governments can't be swayed by public sentiments easily subject to unfounded fears. The biotech industry has only begun its baby steps--the first commercial GM variety, Flavr Savr tomato, was not introduced until 1994--and irrational policies can doom the six-year old industry. Many potential innovations to benefit humankind may be abandoned in vain if the biotech industry faces unduly tough regulations worldwide.


The final decision on whether to regulate GM organisms should be given to consumers who would judge the issue with their own wallets. Let's label GM foods and see how the public responds. If consumers don't want GM foods, let the marketplace reveal their rejection. If consumers want "natural" farm products, they will pay the higher prices for their preference. Simple as that.


There is, however, one crucial area that warrants tough regulation. It has been reported that researchers in a biotech firm are developing varieties containing a so-called "terminator" gene, which keeps the plants from making seed. If such plants are commercialized, farmers would be forced to buy seeds every year for a whole variety of crops instead of simply harvesting it from their own fields.


This is exactly what worries us because, once that happens, biotech companies would gain undue monopoly power at the expense of everyone else, including farmers--of course--and consumers. Possibly it is an issue of patent rights concerning who owns rights to plant seeds and these companies should be treated in the same way the US Justice Department did with Microsoft's antitrust case.


In conclusion, we can say that regulations on bioengineered products should be selective: they should address problems of who controls the rights to new seeds and plant varieties, and should stipulate labeling requirements that would force food processors to separate gene-altered grains from natural ones, with generous allowance for unintended mix-up because otherwise the requirements will only increase food-handling costs from sowing to harvesting, processing and final consumption.


Despite pressure from advocacy groups, the regulations should avoid tackling issues of restricting or banning ag-biotech research. Unless such restrictions or bans are based on proven scientific grounds, they would only result in stifling valuable innovation that may create more nutritional foods, crops with higher productivity to feed those who are starving. Activist groups that ignore such immensely positive aspects of the technology while promoting irrational fear should be disregarded.