 |
 |
Food and hunger – the possible
Denmark is home to just under three percent of the approximately 1,300 permits hitherto
given in the EU for experimental cultivation of genetically modified plants in the open.
According to the opinion polls, the Danish population is one of Europe's
most sceptical when it comes to foods containing genetically modified organisms.
In a December 1997 opinion poll, for example, 57 percent of Danish interviewees expressed
the opinion that there is too little control over genetically modified foods. And in 1999,
several supermarket chains in both Denmark and other European countries announced their
intention to introduce measures to guarantee consumers against meeting such goods in their
shops. This marked scepticism seems to be directed against the use of genetic engineering
in agricultural production of animals and plants, while other uses of the new techniques
do not encounter the same resistance.
Genetically modified microorganisms are presently used for a large number of industrial
purposes. For example, genetically modified enzymes are used in the production of cheese
as a substitute for rennet from the stomach of calves. In curdled milk products,
genetically modified lactic acid bacteria are used to enhance the flavour of the products
and prolong their keeping qualities. And bread is made using genetically modified yeast
having properties that improve both the bread's taste and its ability to remain moist.
Detergents contain genetically modified enzymes that save energy because the laundry can
be washed clean at a lower temperature. And paper is bleached with the aid of other
genetically modified organisms as an alternative to environmentally harmful chlorine-based
bleaching.
The marked resistance in some areas and absence of protest in other areas support the
interpretation that genetic engineering is not widely rejected as such, but that the
public views certain purposes, e.g. enhanced agricultural efficiency, as insufficiently
beneficial and good to justify the risk associated with implementation of the technology.
And visions of fighting hunger, malnutrition and pollution with genetic engineering have
hitherto been restricted to circles of specialists.
 |
 |
Plants
As with all other plant breeding, genetic engineering of plants concerns the
development of plants which are resistant to disease and insect pests, or which give a
quantitatively or qualitatively better yield, or which in some other way improve the
return on the farmer's work.
The difference between genetic engineering and other forms of plant breeding is that the
new methods make it possible to transfer genes between species, and that breeding can be
undertaken more specifically in the sense that one can transfer one single gene and hence
one single characteristic at a time. It is not possible to focus traditional breeding in
the same manner since one has to work with larger complexes of characteristics and within
closely related species.
A rather common criticism is that plants are often rendered resistant to antibiotics in
connection with genetic engineering. This is done to be able to control whether transfer
of the genetic material has been successful. A gene that imparts resistance to antibiotics
is transferred together with the gene one actually wants to insert in the plant. Upon
subse-quent exposure to antibiotics, the cells in which gene transfer has been
unsuccessful will die.
The control method is practical, but has raised fears that resistance to antibiotics will
spread to pathogenic bacteria such that persons and animals infected by bacteria will fail
to benefit from antibiotic treatment. Genes can be spread to and become functional in
other organisms in the environment. The probability that this will happen in this con-text
is the subject of debate, but the fear is not unfounded. To give up the method would
therefore signal responsibility and respect for the wishes of the population.
Genetic engineering has hitherto mainly been used to develop plants that are resistant to
specific herbicides or to specific insects. When cultivating a plant that is resistant to
a specific herbicide, the farmer can use the herbicide to keep the field free of weeds
without harming the crop. The manufacturers of herbicides have a natural interest in
plants that can tolerate large amounts of their agents, but opinion polls indicate that
the European and not least the Danish public are very sceptical towards the idea of plants
that are resistant to herbicides.
The opposition to the use of genes that impart resistance to antibiotics is partly
attributable to worries about the loss of medical headway in the fight against infectious
diseases. And the opposition to the manufacture of plants tolerant to certain herbicides
is partly attributable to worries about damage to the environment and the concentration of
(eco-nomic) power, i.e. monopolization, in food production.
Among other things, it is feared that farmers will become dependent on a small number of
manufacturers with patented package solutions encompassing both seeds and pesticides. This
could undermine the farmers' right to self-determination, increase their vulnerability by
creating dependence on a small number of plant varieties, and reduce biodiversity in
agriculture.
Public scepticism towards the use of genetic engineering on plants is thus based not only
on broad dislike of intervention in nature, but also on more precise points of criticism.
In November 1998, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, the Confederation of Danish
Industries, the Farmers' Association, the Agricultural Council and the companies DLF
Trifolium (seeds) and Danisco (biotechnology) together decided to take this public
scepticism into account. The parties entered into an agreement to hold a respite during
1999 and not market genetically modified seed grain in Denmark that year, but to instead
work on developing a codex for the use of genetic engineering in relation to plants.
 |
 |
Animals
The most widespread use of genetically modified animals is presently within research,
where animals in which specific genes have been inserted or switched off are used as
experimental animals to investigate the function of these genes. The genes involved are
often ones of significance for human diseases.
In relation to farm animals, the objectives of genetic engineering are the same as with
traditional breeding, for example to increase resistance to disease and/or to improve or
enhance the animals' output. In contrast to traditional breeding, genetic engineering
provides the possibility to furnish animals with characteristics from other species –
in which case the animals are called transgenic – and to aim at transferring
specific, well-defined characteristics.
Some 50 known experiments have been undertaken throughout the world to produce transgenic
livestock. After poor Danish experience with experiments to furnish pigs and calves with a
growth hormone (the animals became ill), such research is not currently being undertaken
in Denmark, however.
In a number of other countries, research is being undertaken on the production of
transgenic animals for agriculture and fish farming. For example, scientists from Canada
and Singapore have jointly produced a rapidly growing salmon by transferring a growth
hormone gene. Eggs with enhanced bacterial resistance and cow's milk resembling human milk
in composition – and which will thus be better suited for babies – are examples
of visions of using genetic engineering to change the composition of products we get from
animals.
While the composition of milk can be changed to improve its keeping and nutritional
qualities, for example, the aim can also be to produce proteins for use in the food
industry.
Public debate on transgenic animals generally revolves around a commonly experienced
contradiction between consideration for production efficiency and the manufacturers'
economic returns on one hand, and consideration for animal welfare on the other. The
discussion thus exemplifies the fact that the useful and the good are not always seen as
two sides of the same coin, but in fact, can be experienced as diametrically opposed. The
discussion so far indicates that measures solely aimed at improving production efficiency
will be subjected to principle criticism of a different character than measures aimed at
improving animal welfare.
|
 |
Hunger, malnutrition and pollution
Among specialists in genetic engineering there are major visions circulating that cut
across national boundaries, but which are largely unknown outside their circles. These
visions concern combating hunger, malnutrition and pollution.
Concrete efforts are being made to render such uses of genetic engineering possible. In
relation to pollution, numerous experiments have been undertaken aimed at reducing the use
of chemicals in industrial and agricultural processes and products. Examples are the
development of plant fibres to replace plastic and the development of bacteria able to
break down organic waste and concomitantly produce ethanol, which can be used as fuel in
cars.
With respect to both pollution and hunger/malnutrition, there is an abundance of
theoretical possibilities at the technical level, many hopes and experiments, but as yet
few practical results.
Genetic engineering could contribute to the fight against hunger through the development
of cultivated plants that yield more and tolerate more. It is estimated that 800 million
people live below the hunger line. It is also estimated that 75 percent of mankind's total
intake of calories derives from 12 different cultivated plants. Genetic engineering
research is being undertaken to improve these cultivated plants so that they can yield
more and better foods.
In Denmark, for example, attempts are being made to develop a nontoxic cassava plant.
Cassava is the staple diet in large parts of Africa. Because of the plant's toxicity,
however, it requires long and difficult preparation. In other places, scientists are
attempting to produce rice able to yield up to 15 percent more than current varieties. In
addition, work is going on to develop rice varieties that can be tolerated by people
allergic to rice. And Danish scientists are attempting to produce cereals in which
phosphate and minerals are not as tightly bound as in traditional cereal varieties. Such
cereals would be better processed by human and animal digestive tracts and hence would
have a higher nutritional value. Moreover, they would reduce phosphate pollution of the
environment by the agricultural sector: The phosphate they contain can be taken up in the
animals where it can be used instead of ending up in the aquatic environment where it can
cause damage.
Other possibilities are the development of plant varieties that are better able to
tolerate drought, heat, cold, etc. than known varieties, or of varieties with improved
keeping qualities. The latter would improve the chances that poor farmers in the third
world could transport their products to the market and earn their living.
The dark side of the visions is that only a very minor part of genetic engineering
research has hither to been directed at realizing them. There are several concurrent
reasons for this prioritization: Realization of the visions is one of the most difficult
aspects of genetic engineering. The technical challenges are enormous and hence do not
appeal to genetic engineers as obvious first choices. Moreover, the research is primarily
being undertaken in the rich part of the world, and is directed towards demand from that
part of the world.
Furthermore, hunger, malnutrition (including obesity) and pollution are extremely complex
problems which most people probably consider to be primarily attributable to economic and
social factors. This does not necessarily preclude the possibility that new varieties
could be part of efforts to deal with the problems. However, a number of critics believe
that genetic engineering solutions will only become part of and provide further support to
power structures, which are partly responsible for the problems.
As yet it has not proved possible to bridge the gap between on one hand, the groups
politically engaged in environmental problems and the problems facing the third world, and
on the other hand the genetic engineering specialists, who hope to be able to contribute
to solving the very same problems. Both in this context and in relation to national
discussions on genetically modified foods, engaged citizens are more sympathetic towards
organic farming.
In practice, many people actually consider current genetic engineering and organic farming as alternatives. This is partly due to their different principles for using knowledge about nature, and partly to the fact that many people associate genetic engineering with major economic interests and concentration of power, whereas organic farming is rather associated with decentral solutions for the small, weak and poor. If the visions of a genetic engineering contribution to the fight against hunger and pollution are to be realized, this discussion will have to be made in an open, direct and concrete manner.