A rchive Date
[ 11-06-2000 ]
Category
[ Science ]
sub-Categoy
[ Biotechnology ]
|
[Canola fear is dangerous
By MICHAEL SMITH
CNEWS Science
As I write this, European farmers are busily plowing up several thousand hectares of canola. The reason? There are signs that some of the seed they bought had been cross-pollinated by pollen from genetically modified canola. It would be laughable, if it weren't so sad.
Here's the story in a nutshell. Advanta Canada Inc., based in Winnipeg, grew "conventional" canola for export to its British counterpart, which then sold the seed to farmers in Britain, France, Germany and Sweden. The Advanta fields were all at least one kilometre from fields of GM canola, according to Howard Morris, the company's general manager - a distance that is double what is required under Canadian regulations.
Nonetheless, some busy bee or capricious breeze carried GM pollen to the pristine Advanta plants. The result is that about I per cent of the seed sold to Europe carries the trait that makes canola tolerant of certain herbicides. In all other respects, these GM plants are identical to "ordinary" plants - and I put that word in quotation marks because there is no plant grown by humans that is "ordinary." Every single one of our crops has been manipulated over centuries, so that in many cases they can't even propagate themselves without human help. All crops are genetically modified in this sense.
Now, if you buy a certain kind of seed and the shipment contains something else, you have a right to be angry. You complain to the grower and perhaps even consider legal action if you don't get satisfaction. But the European reaction goes far beyond that normal consumer behaviour into the realm of the irrational.
Three governments - those of Britain, France and Sweden - have urged the farmers to plow up the crops. In Germany, the government is taking (for the moment) a more measured view, but environmental groups have begun search and destroy missions. Newspapers refer to "rogue seeds," as though there were hordes of them roaming the countryside, looking to pillage and propagate.
One farmer, quoted in the London Times, said he felt he had a "duty" to tear out his crop so that GM crops would not sully his land. What exactly is the problem with these crops?
Well, we know they're safe for human consumption. Oil crushed from their seeds is identical to oil from conventional plants. Not even the anti-GM groups have been able to point to a health hazard, although they like to hedge their bets and hint at dire consequences down the road.
Are they dangerous for the environment? In fact, the idea is that they'll allow farmers to use less herbicide less often and also avoid extra tilling of the land, which causes loss of soil. In principle, then, GM canola is a net gain for the evironment.
But the anti-GM groups argue that the trait for herbicide tolerance will spread - as indeed it appears to have done. So far, it appears that the trait has spread only to other canola, which is to be expected. But anti-GM groups - apparently not really understanding how genes work - suggest it will spread to weeds and other plants.
To which the only answer is: So?
Sure, it could happen that some weeds will also become resistant to the relatively gentle herbicide Roundup, which is what the canola resists. Does this mean we'll see our fields choked with super-weeds? Will they up roots and come marching into our cities? Will it mean an end to farming as we know it?
Don't be silly.
If - and it's a big if - weeds become resistant to Roundup, farmers can simply go back to previous farming practices. Sure, the extra tilling will cause loss of topsoil, and the weed-killers they'll have to use will be more potent. Remember, the resistance trait only kicks in if you use a particular weedkiller. Use another, and the plant dies.
So what's the big deal? I suspect the anti-GM groups oppose this technology for a host of reasons, none of which have anything to with safety, human health or the environment, despite the rhetoric.
At its root, I think, is a kind of rosy-glasses view of the farm, with gentle cows and cuddly sheep and delicious foods grown by the sweat of Grandpa's brow. But now comes cold, cruel Dr. Science, fiddling with the cows and experimenting with the crops, to who know what horrific end?
It's tempting to laugh at this tempest, especially when Prince Charles joins in the fray with his woolly minded maundering. But there is a real danger. Genetic modification of crops has risks - I think no one denies that. So does any technology, from fire to metallurgy to the Internet. But it also has extraordinary potential.
So far, most GM crops have had benefits to the environment and to farmers. Consumers don't buy foods on that basis so we perhaps feel unconcerned. The next generation of GM crops, though, will have direct benefits. Within a few years, it will be possible to engineer plants so that they produce vaccines against many common diseases. Other manipulations will make it possible to grow more abundant crops, using less water and worse quality land. Already, rice has been engineered so that it can overcome Vitamin A deficiency, which costs hundreds of thousands of lives every year.
The science of all this is taking place here; the benefits will occur in the developing world. I think it's sad that otherwise compassionate people - from a comfortable pew in the developed world - oppose research that will benefit those whose lives are at most risk.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|