I enthusiastically believe that that GM foods and medical products have great and significantly realized potential for improving public and ecological health. I also believe that the majority of objections to their use arise from sensational, poorly informed thinking. I’m unprepared to entirely dismiss all concern, however.
Potential risks associated with GM foods fall, I think, into 3 major categories:
1. Direct threats to humans or benevolent animal consumers of foods
2. Unexpected changes to ecological systems
3. Negative social, political, or legal impact
1. Direct threats to humans or benevolent animal consumers of foods - The GM food contains an unexpected toxin or allergen.
Despite some alarming reports and political speech, threats in this category seem unlikely. Genetic modification typically involves well understood genes from other plant or animal genomes, and careful post-modification testing, so the accidental introduction of allergens or toxins is arguably less likely to result from GM than from old-fashioned cross-breeding.
2. Unexpected changes to ecological systems - An intended effect – i.e. attack on a particular pest species – causes an unintended one – i.e. a species that preyed on the pest is displaced, or pest species that was kept in check by competition with the targeted pest species is promoted.
Threats in this category seems more likely than category 1 threats. They are is less tractable to a detailed understanding of the effected genes, and more difficult to detect in lab and small-scale field testing. However, when compared to threats to the ecology from such factors as pesticides and introduced species, which GM plants can reduce or eliminate, the use of GM appears a potential improvement on previous agricultural practices.
3. Negative social, political, or legal impact - The public perception of a GM food, its effect on government policy, or its legal status may have a negative impact on human or ecological health – for brevity, a necessarily vague description.
Unlike the previous 2 categories, there is documented evidence of harm to specific individuals due to instances of this category. They arise from the legal status of GM plants and animals as intellectual properties eligible for patent protection, as opposed to naturally occurring plants and animals, which are not. Shortcomings in legal systems, primarily the US and Canada’s, have allowed the owners of GM plants, who are consistently large corporations, to unfairly use the law as business weapon against adversaries who are typically smaller agro businesses.
The clearest illustration of this potential abuse of which I’m aware is 1997-2001’s
Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto. In short, this case involved the apparent spread of a gene owned by the Monsanto company by accidental pollination into crops owned by Schmeiser. He was subsequently successfully sued for by Monsanto for possessing these genes without having purchased them.
This case remains controversial, as after its accidental spread, Schmeiser may have actually acted with intent to steal Monsanto’s property, but it’s still illustrative of a surprising legal impact of GM foods.
(or a nice cabernet if it is after 5:00)
GM food - indirect threats
GM food- threat to health?
