Point / Counterpoint: Genetically Engineered Foods Food just isn’t what it used to be. By Rich Maloof for MSN Health & Fitness Consider, for starters, that a mere 25 years ago we had no seedless watermelons, no strawberries the size of apples, no bananas so big and firm they could choke an ape. Improvements in the size, flavor and quality of agricultural foods are largely the result of “smart breeding,” the selective cross- breeding within a species to yield a plant’s most desirable traits. Selectively bred food has been widely distributed since the late 1970s, and the practice meets little resistance today. Far more controversial, however, is the genetic engineering of foods. Biotechnicians who tinker with a plant’s genetic makeup are interested in steering the evolution of plants to make them more ideal for production and consumption. Rather than wait for a natural mutation that would yield crops of finer foods, scientists have figured out how to manually alter plant DNA. Using a device known as a gene gun, biotechnicians in the 1980s learned how to inject the cells of a plant with genetic material the plant didn’t otherwise contain. Cells could be literally shot through with genes to give a plant such evolutionary advantages as making it more resistant to disease, less appealing to pests, or better suited to survive a drought. Today we can breed plants for color, uniformity of size, disease resistance or even yield-per-acre. We can engineer a tomato to prevent the formation of frost on its skin. Genetically engineered foods (GE, or GMO for “genetically modified”) have been in circulation for more than 10 years now, but opponents believe we know too little about their inherent risks to give these products a universal stamp of approval. This month, Point/Counterpoint takes a look at some of the arguments surrounding consumer health and genetically engineered foods. Survival of the Fruitiest “You can’t name a food that has not been genetically modified,” asserts Joseph H. Hotchkiss, chairman of food science at Cornell University. “Traditional breeding does exactly the same thing as GE, which is to change the genome of a food crop. Orange juice is a great example; we have a hundred years of breeding out bitterness from citrus. GE has exactly the same goals [as traditional breeding], but it’s much more targeted and extremely more specific. Conventional breeding is hit- and-miss.” Opponents are not so convinced of GE’s specificity, and they’re concerned about health risks. Rebecca Spector, West Coast director of the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, says, “Our position is that GE foods are inherently unstable. The gene insertion is random. They use a gene gun to insert the gene they’re trying to change, but they don’t know where it’s going to land. Each genetic insertion has the possibility to change formerly nontoxic elements into toxic elements. They’re getting better at it, but there’s a pretty high failure rate.” Crop Check Spector’s criticism is that there have been no long-term tests on people ingesting GE foods—even though some 70 percent of the processed food in your local grocery store contains ingredients that have been “GE’d.” “We have no way of tracking,” she says. “Because these foods aren’t labeled, we have no way of knowing if there have been any adverse health effects. And there’s no funding to do the studies. [Biotech companies] are saying the foods are safe, but the FDA is not doing studies or requiring them. We’d like to see a large-scale study conducted by an independent entity—not a biotech agency.” Rob Rose would take issue with that assertion. Rose is head of public affairs for the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, a not-for-profit research institute deeply immersed in the scientific advance of food technologies. He states that GE products are stringently researched and screened long before any product makes its way to a farmer’s field. “I think the general public would have a greater sense of awareness if they understood the peer- review process,” he says. “The international scientific community provides oversight and review from the very first step of any plant-science development. It can take eight or 10 years before a product is even viable for a test of any kind at all. Scientists who are in opposition to biotechnology and scientists in full support of it have the opportunity to review the science at the same time.” Rose also mentions that it is in the best interest of biotech companies to make their research available and transparent. Monsanto Co., the Grand Poobah of agricultural biotech—and a corporation constantly under fire—makes its own Safety Summaries available online. Bloodstream / Allergens GE opponents and some consumer health advocates are concerned about allergic reactions to engineered foods. Unlike traditional hybrid breeding, where genes from the same species are combined, GE may pose risks when genes of different varieties are synthesized. Spector, from the Center for Food Safety, cites a study from TheNew England Journal of Medicine. “When a gene from a Brazil nut was put into soybeans, people who were allergic to nuts had a reaction to the soy,” she says. “The journal article showed that if there was an allergen in what you’ re inserting into the new food product, people will have an allergic reaction even if they’re not allergic to soybeans. That’s just proof that it can happen. Aside from isolated studies, we haven’t been able to track if people have had reactions.” Spector’s concerns are rooted in consumers’ basic right to know what is in the food they’re eating. The Center for Food Safety’s stance is that the government needs to regulate usage and insist on appropriate labeling (currently there are no FDA requirements to identify GE’d foods on supermarket labels). Some bio-substance, perhaps even something we wouldn’t normally consume, could make it into our bloodstreams. Cornell’s Hotchkiss acknowledges the possibility but is quick to address the concern. “You could take the most allergenic of all foods—peanuts—and GE it into a tomato and you would make that tomato dangerous. If someone wanted to do this in a devious way, yes, it could be done,” he agrees. Contrary to Spector, though, Hotchkiss asserts it also could be detected. “Biotech companies pay an enormous amount of attention to such potential risks—not because they’re altruistic or always have the public good in mind, but because they would never have any kind of business again. It’s a matter of self-protection. “I’m always suspicious of those people who want to regulate a thing so it dies because they don’t like the thing,” he continues. “That’s why we have police agencies like the FDA. The FDA does have authority to regulate, and [has] done a pretty good job of it.” Rounding Up the Herbicides Fortifying plants against weeds and pests was a driving force behind GE foods from the start. So it’s ironic that herbicides—more specifically, resistance to herbicides—have been such a lightning rod for the industry. Back in the 1970s, biotech giant Monsanto developed an herbicide by the trade name Roundup to kill weeds and other unwanted plants. It also developed a line of GE crops called Roundup Ready that were resistant to its own herbicide. Using the “Roundup Ready System,” farmers could save the time and expense of tilling weeds from their soil by simply drenching their crops and land with the herbicide, comfortable in the knowledge that the plants were resistant to it. Says Spector, “You can spray more chemicals on the crops and they don’t die—and that’s the main product. But it was a false promise.” No one expected nature to have its way with technology. However, reports have been surfacing in the past few years of herbicide-resistant “superweeds.” Much like the fear that overusing antibiotics will result in a supervirus that humans can’t fight off, farmers have a difficult time killing the new weed breed, and in many cases have resorted to stronger herbicides to protect their crops. That’s a lot of weed killer—and a lot of unexplored health implications. Monsanto’s claims about the minimal risks and low dietary exposure in crops such as Roundup Ready Corn and Roundup Ready Soy have been usurped by the controversy. In terms of public relations alone, if not in scientific circles, it has been a defeat for the biotech industry. “The scientific community in general is committed and concerned that the science be safe,” says Rose of the Danforth Center. “We’re concerned with these issues, but scientists have always found a way to address them and adapt. If we didn’t believe in a science that will help improve humanity, we wouldn’t be in the business of doing it. But it’s our answer to the question, ‘How do you feed a growing population?’ Those who are naysayers, they don’t have an answer. “Organic foods will not feed our growing population. It just won’t happen,” he asserts. “We think that having the choice between a biotech variety and an organic variety is great—but if you have poor people in Africa that don’t have the ability to make a purchase of an organic product because the price is so high, we don’t think they should starve. We feel that the answer to feeding more people is through the science and through biotech.” Rose’s point, whether you agree or disagree, underscores the bottom line on genetically engineered foods: Biotech companies, farmers, grocers and consumers all have to weigh potential benefits against potential risks. Ultimately, regardless of motivation, consumer advocates and biotech companies share the goals of public health and environmental sustainability. We live in a strange time when even food, the most basic component of life, is complicated—juicy, plump, colorful and tasty, but complicated. More on MSN: