Pros & Cons
http://www.genetic-id.com/prosncons/index.htm
Genetic Engineering:
The Controversy
Genetic engineering of the human food supply is a
highly contentious issue, with
credentialed scientists arguing on each side. Most
likely the controversy will continue. The
effort by biotech companies to genetically modify
food will continue to increase and
resistance by consumers to genetically modified food
will continue to grow.
Overview
PRO: Genetic engineering is a valuable new technology
that can develop more plentiful and
nutritious foods, with great potential benefits for
humanity and the environment, and this
new scientific discovery needs to be implemented as
quickly as possible for humanitarian
reasons.
CON: As with every new scientific technology, harmful
side effects of genetic engineering
are inevitable and great care should be taken in its
implementation, including carefully
controlled long-term tests on human health and
environmental impacts.
Natural Or Unnatural?
PRO: Genetic engineering is a natural extension of
traditional breeding; just as
conventional breeding allows us to combine valuable
traits within closely related species,
genetic engineering allows scientists to access genes
from a broader range of organisms to
produce more valuable and productive crops and
livestock.
CON: Genetic engineering uses artificial laboratory
techniques, rather than natural
reproductive mechanisms, techniques which breach
natural reproductive barriers and
combine genes from distant species in ways that could
never occur in nature -- suddenly
altering genetic patterns that have developed over
millions of years, and greatly increasing
the likelihood of unanticipated side effects.
Is The Process Precise?
PRO: While natural breeding is an imprecise and
uncontrolled combination of thousands
of genes, genetic engineering is a precise
technological process that allows scientists to first
select the specific gene desired and then use
"gene guns" and other techniques to insert that
gene in the target organism precisely.
CON: The choice of which gene to insert is indeed
precise. But the insertion of this gene
into a living cell is highly imprecise, with no
control over where in the DNA the new gene is
inserted. This unnatural process can disrupt the
natural genetic information encoded in the
DNA, as well as the regulation of gene expression, in
ways that are uncontrolled and
unpredictable.
Have Tests Been Conducted?
PRO: All genetically engineered foods have been
thoroughly tested and demonstrated to be
safe before they are released into the marketplace.
CON: This testing is typically conducted only on rats
and other animals, by the companies
involved. Very little of this research has been
reviewed by independent scientists and then
published in scientific journals, and the FDA does
not review the research methodology.
Such a process is considered only preliminary with,
for example, food additives and
pharmaceutical drugs.
Is Human Testing Needed?
PRO: Genetically engineered foods are usually
"substantially equivalent" to other foods,
with no increased risk to human health, and no need
for the lengthy and expensive human
testing demanded of, for example, new food additives.
CON: The unpredictable disruptions in normal DNA
functioning caused by genetic
engineering can produce unanticipated and unknown
side effects for human health,
including unknown and unpredictable toxins and
allergens, and these possibilities can
only be definitively assessed through human testing.
Is Safety Demonstrated?
PRO: Genetically engineered foods have been sold in
the United States for several years and
there is no evidence to indicate that these foods
have harmed human health in any way.
CON: There is also no evidence that genetically
engineered foods are safe for human health.
The reason is the same in both cases: no human
studies have been conducted. There is no
objective way to determine if any of these foods have
long-term effects that negatively
impact human health.
Can We Eat Pesticide Foods Safely?
PRO: Certain genetically engineered potatoes and corn
produce their own Bt, a pesticide
that protects the crop from insects, thus decreasing
costs and increasing yield with no
negative impact on human health.
CON: These foods are regulated as pesticides by the
EPA. When Bt is sold as a pesticide,
people are warned not to swallow it, breathe it, or
get it in cuts. Yet potatoes and corn that
produce their own Bt are sold with no human testing.
The Future Of Organics
PRO: If people do not wish to eat genetically
engineered foods then they have an option
now; they can eat organic foods which, according to
rules released by the United States
Department of Agriculture, must be free of all
genetic engineering.
CON: Genetic engineering itself damages organic
farming; genetically engineered corn, for
example, outcrosses with organic corn in nearby
fields and contaminates the crop;
genetically engineered corn and potatoes containing
the Bt toxin will produce insects
resistant to Bt, making Bt spray ineffective for
organic farmers.
Environmental Impacts
PRO: The use of genetic engineering in agriculture
will increase crop productivity, thereby
reducing the demand for agricultural land, while it
will also reduce the use of herbicides
and pesticides, thereby reducing the damage done to
the environment through modern
agrichemical farming technologies.
CON: Several studies have been done, and there is
little evidence to show that genetic
engineering increases crop yield or reduces herbicide
and pesticide use. Meanwhile,
research has shown that genes for resistance to
herbicides will outcross into the natural
ecosystem, generating "super weeds," and
that plants engineered to be pesticides will create
resistant insect pests -- self-defeating processes
that will irreversibly damage the
environment. Moreover, no genetically modified food
has yet been subject to an
environmental impact study.
Science vs. Culture
PRO: Genetic engineering is a scientific and
technological process, and its evaluation and
governmental regulation should be based on purely
scientific and objective criteria.
CON: To have a purely scientific evaluation of
genetically engineered foods, we need more
science, especially human studies and environmental
studies. Moreover, purely scientific
assessment of genetic engineering ignores the fact
that, for many people, food has cultural,
ethical and religious dimensions that must also be
considered.
Patenting DNA
PRO: Genetic engineering produces specific and
identifiable changes in the genome of
living organisms which can be protected through
patent, and this protection of intellectual
property within the DNA (the "software" of
living organisms) is fueling the rapid
development of new and better food sources.
CON: Historically, farmers have created the world's
crop varieties through natural
breeding. To allow large corporations to use small
genetic changes to take control of these
collectively produced resources, as well as the
evolutionary process itself, is to risk that
these corporations will take control of agricultural
output worldwide. Indeed, if a few large
biotech businesses in Western nations have control of
the seed used around the world,
serious questions will arise about the independence
and national sovereignty of all other
nations.
Equivalence Or Choice?
PRO: Since genetically engineered foods released into
the marketplace are "substantially
equivalent" to conventional foods, with no
significant difference in taste, usability or
commonly measured nutritional components, they need
not be labeled.
CON: For a variety of reasons, including concerns
about health testing, the environment,
and religious and ethical values, genetically
engineered food should be labeled as such,
giving consumers a choice as to whether they wish to
eat these foods and support their
underlying values.
Should There Be Labels?
PRO: Most people can't tell the difference between
conventional and genetically engineered
foods, and given a choice, they will buy what is
least expensive.
CON: In nearly every country where polls have been
taken, large majorities say they want
genetically engineered foods to be labeled, so
informed choices can be made.
This page is maintained by
The Rivermouth Action Group Inc
as a community service.