Home > International > A Genetically Modified Headache
A Genetically Modified Headache
By Ashley Huffman, Florida
Imagine the shock when Pakistani farmers discovered that 1,600 hectares of their normally white cotton had turned red, causing an agricultural crisis suggestive of a biblical plague. Further investigation found that smugglers from Australia had transported genetically engineered cotton to Pakistan. The Bt cotton kicked off the unusual color variation when it mixed with the virgin cotton.
"Fifteen international agreements concerning biotechnology attest to the global community’s concern about genetic alternation’s applications. These protocols draw attention to such things as biotechnology safety regimens, ethical considerations, and health concerns. There are potential religious dilemmas as well if genes from banned foods become part of the genetic modification process to achieve a "better food."" -Ashley Huffman
Bt cotton, after a process of genetic engineering, serves to ward off the bollworm pest. However, the red cotton catastrophe did not seal the fate of biotechnology in Pakistan as one would have thought. Rural farmers were eager to harness the potential cross contamination of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on other crops.
To some degree, scientists credit Gregor Mendel for modern biotechnology, which, in its broadest form, describes the process of manipulating organisms to get a more desirable product. But the idea of altering food is not all that new. The ancient Egyptians, ancient Sumerians, and others used fermentation to produce cheese, beer, and bread and early farmers used sophisticated crop rotation techniques to achieve increased product yields.
Nevertheless, Mendel's studies founded our breadth of knowledge on inherited traits not too long before James Watson and Francis Crick developed the double helix model of DNA. Their discovery caused modern scientists to think outside the toolbox of biotechnology.
Most individuals are quick to associate genetic engineering with biotechnology, but they can exist separately-genetic screening, for instance, is a form of biotechnology that does not require genetic alteration.
Fifteen international agreements concerning biotechnology attest to the global community's concern about genetic alternation's applications. These protocols draw attention to such things as biotechnology safety regimens, ethical considerations, and health concerns. There are potential religious dilemmas as well if genes from banned foods become part of the genetic modification process to achieve a "better food."
The malfunctions of gene transfer biotechnology have many consumers worried as they weigh the direct benefits of genetic engineering-herbicide resistant plants, rice with added vitamin A, and drought resistant trees-against the accompanying cautions-the unknown health effects of consuming genetically modified (GM) food, environmental degradation, lack of biodiversity, and outcrossing. Pakistan's red cotton was a product of outcrossing, or the contamination of non-GM seeds with genetically engineered organisms.
It is no coincidence that consumers often associate GM foods with contamination. Many worry that genetic alteration ruins the purity of their crops. Ever obsessed with consumer motivations, economists have found ways to capitalize on the lack of consumer confidence. They theorize that GM products, by default, will create a new market niche of non-GM products. The situation is similar to the divide between organic and non-organic markets.
While some consider ways to exploit the pros and cons of GM products, others are confronted with a molecular divide. Many underdeveloped nations lack the breadth of research and scientific personnel associated with biotechnology developments and safety. On the other hand, the European Union refuses to cozy-up to biotechnology, claiming that the morale of their citizens would not support advances in genetic engineering.
The EU's ruckus about GM food initiated a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute, filed by Argentina, in 2003. Argentina, with the support of the US and Canada, argued that the EU used trade distorting food regulations to halt the importation of crops from various nations. In the longest ruling in WTO history, the panel essentially declared the EU too fussy. Europe's lack of scientific evidence to support their concerns was against WTO protocol. Meanwhile, lobbyists from Greenpeace International accused the WTO of hurling GM foods down the throats of Europeans.
But what about force-feeding of GM foods in America? Food producers in the United States are not required to indicate whether their products are genetically modified or not, and the crossing of GM crops with non-GM crops further complicates labeling systems. Indeed, Americans have no way of knowing if, when or what they eat is genetically modified. Some US food companies, such as Frito-Lay and McDonald's, have put their foot down, saying they will refuse any genetically engineered corn and potatoes.
Unsurprisingly, the EU advocates thorough labeling of all foods. Talks at the WTO have frequently shown disagreement between Europe and the United States on labeling methods. Trade revenues are the crux of this dispute: the stricter the EU becomes with food quality and handling, the more the US loses annually in imports. If it is hard for the US to jump the loops of Europe's regulation, it must be devastating for nations whose impoverished farmers rely on uninterrupted international trade flow.
At odds with each other are international agreements on trading GM products. The United Nations Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, for instance, advocates a time when elaborate regulations on the transportation of non-GM and GM products are fully harmonized. Harmonization creates a great deal of red tape, according to the WTO, whose agreements focus on lessening stringent trade regulations and instituting GM products in famine-stricken nations.
It appears that a scientific application of genetic engineering has grown into a WTO nightmare. Currently, the WTO has two systems of GMO management, both created by international agreements. The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measurements (SPS) dictates the scope of safety measures a country can institute to protect animal, plant, and human health. As with the case concerning the EU, the WTO accuses many nations of using the SPS as a method of trade protectionism. The second system of WTO biotechnology management comes from the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT). It deals specifically with technical trade aspects, especially and more recently, trade disputes.
While still in its infancy, it seems the future of biotechnology must be thoughtful, thorough and interdisciplinary. Indeed, it will require a host of forces to alleviate headaches like reddened cotton, trade disputes, and consumer concerns.
Sources:
Iqbal, Nadeem. "Pakistan Opens Doors to GM Seed." Asia Times. 15 Nov. 2002. 13 Sept 2007 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DK15Df03.html
