Vol 1  Number 4

SUMMER 2007

EDITOR:  Jan Boyle

It's NEWS to Me!

The "WOW's of Organic Food and Health Awareness

Debating the GE Question
by Jan Boyle, Certified Organic Producer

I teach General Botany in the Spring semesters at UGF. My goal as an instructor is to engage my students actively in the study of plants through lab activities and field trips. We also spend time growing plants in UGF's greenhouse. Since transgenic plants are a crucial issue in our own health issues today as well as that of the environment and economy, I include in the botany course an opportunity for students to debate the value of genetically engineered (GE) plants or transgenics.

An informal debating setting is employed. The class is divided up into those that affirm a proposed statement and those that deny the statement. This year, my students proposed the following resolution or statement:
                                          "Transgenic plants are beneficial to farmers and consumers."

Discussion points were developed and researched. They included human health effects, costs in dollars to the consumers and farmers, environmental impacts, and public perception of transgenic plants, including the evolvement of transgenics.

A little background information on GE:
Genetic Engineering (splicing genes) is the alteration of an organism's genetic material (DNA). It enables scientists to transfer genes between different species. For example, genes from a fish species can be put into a tomato.
Organisms that have been genetically engineered are called genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or transgenic organisms.

So what did these young people come up with in their debate exercise? What follows are a few of the points delivered by my students, albeit abstracted. Needless to say, a newsletter can only accommodate so much!

Human Health Effects and $$ Costs
Major points that did not support (the deny side) the statement:
> Research is lacking or sketchy on the long-term effects of this technology on humans and other organisms (i.e., through foods that we grow and eat).
> Labeling of foods that would indicate the product has been engineered is not required by the USDA.
> Just because scientists are held in high esteem does not mean that GE is controllable and predictable. In realilty, GE is very unpredictable. The problem is that GE methods are NOT successful on "whole" plants or tissues. Only SOME cells are infected and become transgenic.

Major points that support (affirm side) the statement:
> Transgenic corn, soybean and canola varieties containing herbicide and insect resistance are grown extensively in North America. Traits such as disease, insect, and herbicide resistance are important for producers economically.
> Transgenic plants can act to create pharmaceuticals (bio-pharming). These plants could provide less expensive access to vaccines and other medicines.

Environmental Impacts
Major points that did not support the statement:
> Too many unanswered questions that need to be answered before large scale transgenic crop production should take place on agricultural land.
> Non-target organisms such as beneficial insects, worms, and birds are at high risk, their importance reduced in the pollination processes of plants. And how about herbicide-resistant genes moving into populations of weeds, creating super weeds, which then need more powerful herbicides to kill them.
> Use of transgenic plants in the environment and agricultural crops encourage land management agencies and farmers to move further away from sustainable practices of land management. Transgenics tends to simplify land practices by reducing the choices made by the land manager or farmer. Example: choosing to use transgenics even before knowing whether pests will be a problem commits a manager or farmer to that practice which may not be sustainable in the long run due to other problems created from the "unknowns" of transgenics.

Transgenics - Public Perception
Major points that did not support the statement:
> In many people's minds GE tends to create some issues related to ethics and legalities. A main concern is that the natural barriers to the transfer of genes from one organism to that of a totally unrelated organism is disappearing. Human manipulation of DNA may need to be regulated for legal and ethical reasons.
> This transgenic technology is likely to have unintended harmful consequences due to the very limited knowledge we have on short-term and long-term effects on humans and the natural environment.
> All genetically modified foods containing such components should be clearly labeled as such. It's the consumer's right to know.

Major points that support (affirm side) the statement:
> Application of GE shows promise in eliminating disease or creating replacement parts for damaged or diseased organs.
> Transgenic crops are environmentally friendly in that they allow farmers to use fewer noxious chemicals for crop production.

Perhaps there are lessons to be learned on both sides of the transgenic issue. It's been said that whenever we as humans intervene in nature, we must pause and ask, "What happens next?" Without more careful evaluation of possible unintended consequences and more stringent regulations, rushing into GE technology could affect human and environmental health in ways that cost us dearly. Erring on the side of caution seems best.

In light of all this debate on transgenics, I reflect on one of my favorite quotes. John Muir, naturalist and preservationist (1838-1914), said:          "Whenever we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe."