"Nature cannot be ordered about, except by obeying her." ( Francis Bacon 1561-1626)

Genetic modification is the alteration of an organism's genetic make up in order to
change a particular characteristic by the insertion of genes from another organism.
This is a relatively new technique which has revolutionised specialisation in the
production of food crops. Scientists are now able to isolate and transfer individual
genes into plants improving them in some way. The genes transferred may come
from other plants but can also come from other living organisms.
Since its advent the genetic modification of plants has been the source of much
controversy due to the starkly contrasting opinions concerning the social and ethical
issues involved, especially since there seems not to be a consensus of opinion in the
scientific community. In particular there is great concern about the potential dangers
to human health and the environment posed by genetically modified crops being
grown in what many see as an uncontrolled way. I personally am of the opinion that
on the basis of currently available evidence the postulated benefits of genetically
modified foods are outweighed by the potential shortcomings. This technology is so
new and so revolutionary and its consequences so relatively unknown that much
more data than is available at present must be gathered before it can be allowed into
the ecosystem and foodchain.

The idea that crops can be developed with natural resistance to disease and
with their own internally produced insecticide could mean greater food yields better
crops and less waste. "Tampering" with nature could however have serious but not
immediately apparent drawbacks. Large scale testing of genetically modified crops
has not yet been carried out and in many cases it has not been proven whether the
genetic modifications are actually effective in the long term. For example one US
laboratory study found that constant exposure of insects to crops genetically
engineered to produce insecticide to kill them results in the insects developing
resistance to the insecticide more quickly than they would normally when exposed to
applied chemicals. This in turn would mean different weedkillers being needed for
non genetically modified weeds and more of them having to be used.

The safety of consumers can be put at risk by the mass production of
genetically modified crops. A threat to the consumer is that possible food safety risks
due to the activation of genes could take a long time to become apparent yet such
foods have already been released into the human food chain. For example, it has been discovered that a gene found in modified maize which provides resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin can be transferred to animals fed on the unprocessed maize and then onto humans. The consequence of this could be that humans develop an
immunity to ampicillin rendering it useless as an antibiotic which would have
catastrophic effects in the treatment of certain illnesses. The bizarre possibilities for
transfer of bacterial or animal genes into plants used in "scientific" trials on crops are
as numerous as their potential effects on the humans who eat them.
Consumer choice is threatened by the influx of genetic modification into the food
industry due to the sheer number and variety of foods it affects. Consumers must be
able to clearly recognise and choose between genetically modified foods and "natural" foods depending on their taste and personal preferences. Profit must not be
preferred to human health or choice.

The environment is at risk due to the inability of fanners to prevent the
genetically modified strain of a crop pollinating its wild relatives and spreading its
genetic alterations. The long term effects of this genetic pollution could be that the
genetically engineered characteristic which proves useful in one crop could be passed onto another causing it to be dangerous to the ecosystem it is currently part of. Using the example of the herbicide resistant gene once more one can see this characteristic passed onto weeds through pollination would provide serious difficulties for farmers and gardeners in removing the weeds. Jeremy Sweet of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany found that pollen travels very far on the commercial scale. He worries particularly that the spread of genetically modified crops grown commercially will be fast and indiscriminate.

"Once we start growing transgenic oilseed rape in the UK on a big scale it will
be everywhere."

A major concern with the development of genetically modified crops is that
they enable large multinational companies, such as Monsanto, to effectively create
and then comer the market for the sale of agrochemicals to farmers. Seventy percent
of all genetically modified crops are engineered not for the benefits they provide in
the food market but rather to make the crop dependant on their producer's own range of insecticides and herbicides. These companies claim that they are trying to reduce the amount of chemicals a farmer has to spray on his crop however the most
commercially successful crops are those which necessitate the use of chemicals. The assurances of companies like Monsanto that genetic engineering could actually be beneficial to wildlife is invalidated by the fact that the wider use of herbicides to
destroy weeds within crops which are tolerant to herbicides could have a devastating
effect on farmland wildlife which depend heavily on these weeds for food and shelter.

However Monsanto is insistent that the benefits they provide through genetic
modification of crops is substantial. They believe that genetic engineering is the key
to solving twenty-first century food shortages and have already invested heavily in
developing countries. In Brazil alone, they have spent over a billion dollars in the
acquisition of seed companies. Nevertheless, Christian Aid states that genetically
modified foods are

" creating classic preconditions for hunger and famine"
because they take away small farmers independence and concentrate power among
the few powerful, controlling companies. The use of genetic modification in the
development of crops which can grow in adverse conditions and would therefore
benefit the Third World has been belied by recent research in India. This research
proved that simple irrigation and land reform were five times as effective as
genetically modified foods in causing an increase in food production.

It is argued that genetically modified crops could provide more food and a
healthier diet for society. Foods with a higher content of vitamins, minerals or
proteins or reduced levels of fat could all be developed to improve our diet. The
appearance, taste and shelf-life of foods could also be enhanced making them far
more appealing and useful. Are the social and environmental risks involved really
justified by these benefits? If the other side of the coin is adverse effects on human
health, widespread uncontrolled "freak" plants seeding freely with possible
devastating effects on the environment and reduced choice for consumers then the
answer would be no. The problem is we just do not know and until we do, with certainty, all of society must insist that scientists proceed with extreme caution exhausting every possible experimental avenue long before we embark on widescale planting.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comments of the The Food Ethics Council submitted to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics enquiry into genetically modified crops

Articles by John Vidal and Andrew Simms taken from The Guardian Web Site

Why are environmental groups concerned about release of genetically modified organisms into the environment? A paper produced by the Green Alliance

The Lancet