Over the last decade, genetically modified (GM) foods have been the source for heated, politicized, and exaggeration-filled debate. But according to a recent New Scientist article, “A golden age for GM crops?”, the war over GM foods may have reached a critical turning point with Monsanto’s development of a soy bean containing omega-3 fatty acids. It seems that the nutritional benefits of this product has the potential to silence GM food protestors who fiercely contend that GM food is harmful to people’s health.[1] However, while this new development is certainly an advancement for biotech companies and their reputations, the actual benefits of nutritionally-enhanced crops will most likely take many years to reach fruition.
The health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids are undeniable and widely accepted. Omega -3 oils, found mainly in fish, have been proven to reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, hypertension, and even boost the immune system.[2] The New Scientist author also mentions the potential for Monsanto’s omega-3 oil to relieve stress on the fish industry.
Yet I cannot help but remain a tad skeptical about the immediate benefits of this product and the undoubtedly numerous similar GM foods that will follow. The application of this oil in cooking and food production is a healthy choice, but not one that will solve the country’s heart disease problems. Even though the article mentions a 2005 study that found that “84,00 Americans died of heart disease that might have been avoided had they had a sufficient amount of this fatty acid in their diets”[3], it misses the fact that the primary cause of their deaths was not insufficient amounts of omega-3, but unhealthy diets and lack of exercise. Focusing on this narrow, biotech solution to a nationwide problem stemming from fatty food consumption and sedentary lifestyles is dangerous and ignores the more obvious and effective ways of maintaining cardiac health.
I am not against GM foods. In fact, I believe they will be essential in addressing world food shortage with their ability to increase crop yields. But the biotech industry has been overstating the benefits of its genetically modified crops. Today, nearly all commercially available GMO’s contain genes for herbicide resistance or for the production of pesticides within the plant, such as Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops.[4] This isn’t bad (in fact it has reduced the use of chemical pesticides[5]), but it’s a far cry from the biotechnology companies’ claims that GM crops “would save the planet” while causing no harmful side effects.[6] Monsanto’s most recent declaration that it will double the yields of corn, soybean and cotton crops by 2030 has been called exaggeration by scientists and an attempt to sustain GM foods’ reputation.[7]
People must keep in mind that GM crops are neither the world’s cure-all nor “Frankenfoods” to be feared. They can help address some world health issues, but only in conjunction with wider efforts focusing on social and economic factors that support them too. For example, “Golden-Rice” is a rice that has been genetically engineered to contain high levels of beta carotene in order to treat Vitamin A deficiencies in third-world countries.[8] But the buzz around this product has lasted for many years, and it is still under development with no known date of its commercial availability.[9] Critics of it also argue that by focusing too much on the potential of golden rice, obvious solutions, like introducing more affordable and diverse foods to the diets of the poor, are being ignored.
Golden rice, like the Omega-3 soy beans, solves only one part of a larger problem with social and economic roots. This phenomenon is known as medicalization, where one defines a problematic situation as tractable through medicines resulting in increased control of medical professionals.[10] Except instead of medical professionals, “Gene Giant” companies like Monsanto and Dupont are the ones leading the way. Yes, there are institutions like the Gates Foundation or the Rockefeller Institute which are also innovators in biotech, but it is the large companies that have and will lead the way in more efficient crops.
But it will be many more years of development and clinical trials before we see many GM foods with the significant health or environmental benefits companies have been promising. According to a recent New York Times article, “The Royal Society says that developing crops that are resistant to disease, drought, salinity, heat and heavy metals will take eight to 16 years. It will take longer than that to develop wheat or rice capable of fixing nitrogen from the air, thus reducing the need for fertilizer.”[11]
The Obama administration has not recently taken much action with the genetically modified organisms industry and research, but last year, a U.S. political Web site called Sciencedebate2008.com published this statement by Obama: "Advances in the genetic engineering of plants have provided enormous benefits to American farmers. I believe that we can continue to modify plants safely with new genetic methods, abetted by stringent tests for environmental and health effects and by stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice.”[12] Obama’s cautious yet enthusiastic approval is a welcoming accompaniment to his health-care initiative and other gestures, including Michelle Obama’s White House organic garden.[13] This balance between the longterm, world-wide benefits of genetically modified foods along with the promotion of simple, healthy choices from increased preventative medicine through accessible health care to a healthy diet is essential.
In the future, GM foods will be powerful tools in allowing people to live longer, healthier lives while spending less and causing less environmental damage. But for now, we should not pin all our hopes on distant biotech advancements. We must also do what we can with our existing resources to address the causes of our health woes, from leading healthy lifestyles to helping the poverty-stricken masses.
[1] “A golden age for GM crops?” New Scientist 28 Oct 2009 <http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427322.300-a-golden-age-for-gm-crops.html?full=true&print=true>
[2] “Good Fat Bad Fat: The Facts about Omega-3” WebMD <http://www.webmd.com/diet/guide/good-fat-bad-fat-facts-about-omega-3>
[3] “A golden age for GM crops?” New Scientist 28 Oct 2009 <http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427322.300-a-golden-age-for-gm-crops.html?full=true&print=true>
[4] Michael F. Jacobson, “Biotech: Scourge or Savior?”
[5] “A golden age for GM crops?” New Scientist 28 Oct 2009 <http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427322.300-a-golden-age-for-gm-crops.html?full=true&print=true>
[6] James E. McWilliams, “Food Politics, Half-Baked” NYTimes 5 Feb 2008.
[7] Andrew Pollack, “Monsanto Seeks Big Increase in Crop Yields” NYTimes 5 June 2008.
[8] Paul Voosen, “Courts force U.S. reckoning with dominance of GM crops” Greenwire 8 Oct 2009.
[9] Charles Clover, “A wonder food to be taken with a pinch of salt” NYTimes.
[10] Daniel Smith, PhD. “Biotechnology: A Global Perspective,” Powerpoint Lecture, Biotechnology in Medicine.
[11]Charles Clover, “A wonder food to be taken with a pinch of salt” NYTimes.
[12] .Maria Gabriela Cruz “Great Expectations for Obama,” Forbes, 04/02/09 <http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/02/farming-gm-obama-opinions-contributors-europe_print.html>.
[13] “Obamas plant organic kitchen garden at White House” CNN.com 20 Mar 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment