Genetically Modified Crops: Frankenfood or Panacea?

Genetically modified food strikes fear in many people. The environmental commissioner of the European Union, Stavros Dimas, has proposed banning Bt corn, claiming he has science on his side, even as scientists tell him that adverse health affects are unlikely. But the question of which side is more scientifically correct is questionable, as the emotional response to so-called "Frankenfood" can override rational thought.

The corn in question, Bt corn, produces a toxin that kills unwanted pests. To create this corn, a single gene from a bacteria, Bacillus turingienis, was combined with the genome of a corn plant. The gene taken produces a chemical that is toxic to insect larvae attempting to consume the plant. (For more information on Bt corn, look at this article.)

While Bt corn fights off other pests, it has its problems: the toxin can also kill monarchs if the Bt pollen gets on milkweed, the monarch's main source of food, but farming practices in the United States have reduced the chances of monarch extermination (more information here). Other environmental effects may be possible. But for a place like Europe, the results may be different. Much of the research on genetically modified crops has been sponsored by the corporations that sell Bt corn, and scientists may question the conditions under which the experiments were performed.

But genetically modified crops are capable of much more. Golden rice is a rice modified to produce more beta carotene in order to fight malnutrition, and the transgenic rice is being distributed free of charge to farmers in developing countries. A group of researchers have created an artificial plant chromosome, allowing for the insert of more genes than before and with less likelihood of disruption in the normal DNA sequence of the plant. Instead of simply producing Bt toxin, they could produce several kinds of toxin, or different nutrients and toxins.

Agriculture moves beyond just scientific issues, however, and there are economic considerations, and these must be taken into account. A recent column for the New York Times discusses the emotionally charged controversy of genetically modified crops. For example, some genetically modified organisms cannot produce their own seed. While this reduces the possibility of the gene mixing with the environment at large, the farmer is tied to a patent-holding corporation for the genetically modified seed. For issues like these, we need to move beyond our gut reactions, consider the human and scientific sides of the issue, and formulate a rational argument.

Posted by katgor (1B)