Pope’s advisors urge support for GM crops
By Jason Major
TechNyou
A bunch of scientists including leading members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences have met and decided that the Catholic Church should support the research and adoption of GM crops. A key message they push is the need to relax the tight regulatory processes that to date have restricted the majority of the GM crop development to large multi-national companies.
The journal, New Biotechnology has dedicated an entire November issue (Vol 27 Issue 5, pp 445-718) to papers from the meeting. The papers are not peer-reviewed research, but (largely) reviews and opinions based on the scientific literature.
Emotional framing
The framing of their arguments is focused squarely on the need for GM technologies to help the developing nations. There is a definite emotional element to some of the papers.
I would be interested to see how industry and the anti-GM groups respond to these papers. There is not exactly anything new presented in them, but it appears to present the key scientific and ethical arguments in one spot and adds some context to an otherwise polarised debate, albeit from a pro-GM position rather than a neutral one. And admittedly I am making this assessment from having read only the editorial, one paper and bits of others.
I notice they also make a few references to the concept of “natural” and “playing God” – two concepts that feature strongly in arguments against GM crops. It seems it is OK to tinker with what God created, though the Pope has yet to officially sign off on all this.
Here are a few examples of the papers
- Modifying agricultural crops for improved nutrition
- Inactivation of allergens and toxins
- Constraints to biotechnology introduction for poverty alleviation
- Food insecurity, hunger and malnutrition: necessary policy and technology changes
- Lessons from the ‘Humanitarian Golden Rice’ project: regulation prevents development of public good genetically engineered crop products
- Food safety risks and consumer health
Nature versus modern genetics
I did read one paper that caught my eye, largely because it is relevant to one of the key concerns nearly everyone raises with me when chatting about GM crops: Tinkering with nature will produce all sorts of unknown consequences many of which will be unknown until it is too late.
The paper is “Genetic Engineering compared to natural genetic variations” Werner Arber, Pages 517-521
The paper compares the genetic variations that occur naturally and spontaneously and help drive evolution with those done by scientists using genetic engineering. Similar molecular mechanisms are involved and similar amounts of DNA sequences can be disrupted in both natural and engineered mechanisms. Arber concludes that there is no scientific reason to claim that genetic engineering would bear particular evolutionary risks different from nature or conventional breeding.
Arber’s quote: “From our long-term experience, we know that neither natural evolution nor classical breeding activities have caused major, noted disasters in the living world. It is thus highly unlikely that such disasters could result from genetic engineering.”
His one caveat is that we should still maintain care when developing such crops, but that this responsibility should apply equally to conventionally-bred crops. That is, the risks associated with genetic variability are equally applicable to crops bred via non-GM techniques
Feeding the world
One issue I had, with the small amount I have read so far, was that although the bits I have read are not explicitly and consistently suggesting that GM technologies are needed to feed the world, it certainly seems to imply this, if by no other means than by leaving out important context as exemplified from the following extract from the editorial:
“It is our hope that this new effort will serve to clarify an issue which can undoubtedly and decisively contribute to solving the growing problem of world hunger.” The new effort they refer to is development of GM crops.
I have banged on about this in past posts that no scientist I know developing GM crops views this technology as the silver bullet to food security. It is widely acknowledged that GM crops are just one tool in the plant breeder’s tool box to help solve specific problems breeders try to overcome. GM is not always the most effective tool. It is also widely acknowledged that there are many social issues that need to be sorted before there is any chance of achieving food security on a global scale, for example poverty, infrastructure, war, corruption…it is a long list. The science needs to work in close association with the social science experts and the people of the developing nations who are supposed to benefit from these “advances”, for food security to have a chance.
Either way, transgenic technologies do have a potential role to play. It all depends on how acceptable that role is to the public.
I am intrigued to see what commentary comes from industry and the anti-GM camps from these papers, though I suspect the same arguments will emerge and the polarisation of the camps will push that little bit further apart.
More info/commentary
AbBioWorld seem to have collated the views on GM crops from all the world’s religions here