Whether we like it or not genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have already arrived in this country. Several varieties of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton are being grown everywhere. We may soon be eating GM corn; other food and feed crops would also be making their way to our fields and on to our tables and animal feeders.
Most farmers, of course, like GM crops for their high yields and the money they bring them. So do the GM seed selling companies. And they have strong arguments to offer in support of the activity. The technology, they point out, can ensure food security for large population like Pakistan's; make farmers prosperous, reducing rural poverty; and mitigate environmental pollution.
Agri biotechnology can bring all the above benefits with varying degrees of success. Higher production will help avert food shortages which, as we have already experienced in 2008, can get severe and cause riots. More produce to sell translates into increased incomes for all directly or indirectly related to the activity. Then there are drought resistant crops. They hold special attraction for this country considering the prognosis of it becoming water scarce in not too distant a future. GM crops growers, claim proponents of the technology, use chemical sprays less, plough less with tractors, and don't have to till the fields for weed control. That helps keep the environment clean. They also lay a lot of emphasis on the notion that farmers, through the ages, have been selecting seeds and marrying them with one another to improve crop quality and yield. That is regarded as a natural process. By the same token, what agri biotechnology scientists are doing is 'natural' too.
The devil is in the detail. The farmers used cross-pollination - the nature's method - to achieve desired results. Whereas the scientists are making intrusive genetic interventions that change characteristics and properties of products, creating in many instances, usability uncertainties. A rice variety is to be fortified with vitamins A and E. The intent is to provide malnourished population in poor countries with adequate quantities of these essential substances. But the experiment presents a real danger of unsuspecting consumers getting overload of these nutrients, and fall ill. Some GM advocates also proudly talk of turning salmon from a predator into a vegetarian fish. One wonders what sort of veggies it would be eating, and the likely changes in the quality of its meat.
A major achievement of GM technology is to make crops pest and herbicide resistant, which cause significant alterations in chemical composition of plants. Take the case of pest resistant crops. Pests probably still think of them as delicious food but keep from eating them because of certain toxins genetic modifications insert in them. We don't know if that gives them a tummy upset, headache or just a rough feeling; but we do know that they consider GM crops a recipe for trouble. The same must have some negative effect on human body as well. In fact, GM foods are believed to cause antibiotic resistance among humans. However to be fair, it needs to be recognised that most non-GM growers make prolific use of pesticide sprays, which are highly harmful to human and animal health. Some of these chemicals are carcinogenic. So our food safety is under threat either way, except for the rich people who can afford to buy expensive organic foodstuffs.
Safety concerns have kept the EU dead set against GMOs. It has put in place stringent regulations to provide protection to human and animal health as well as the environment. Labelling requirements aim to give consumers proper information about composition and properties of GMOs - mostly US imports - available in the market. Even traceability rules have been devised so that introduction of GMO content at any point in the supply chain can be tracked and identified for labelling purposes and monitored for possible harm to human health or the environment. And of course no GM crop could be grown in EU countries, that is, until EU decided in March 2010 to allow farmers to grow GM potato, Amflora, so that starch from the potato can be used for making paper and some other industrial applications.
GMO industry supporters bristle at the mention of EU GMO policy, arguing that it is influenced by Greenpeace politics, and propaganda dished out by environmental NGOs, Friends of the Earth in particular, as well as pesticide industry which stands to lose most from this new technology. They say food safety assessments must be based on science rather than politics - a mighty point, indeed. But then those leading the anti GM campaign in Europe are supposed to know their science well. Besides, independent experts, of whom there is no dearth in EU countries, can trash the Green groups' campaign on the basis of science, if that is what expert opinion holds. That does not seem to be happening.
Having said that it needs to be noted that the Greens made a lot of fuss about EU decision last year to allow Amflora cultivation for fear it could enter the food chain since the pulp could be used as animal feed. Yet the EU gave the go-ahead to this genetically optimised starch rich potato. That shows the GM technology is here to stay. Those repudiating it now may also embrace it in due course. In any case, our two big neighbours, China and India, have already entered the field. Most of South East Asian countries are into GM in a big way. China is the first country to develop GM rice for which the government gave bio safety certification back in '09. Our first batches of Bt cotton seeds arrived from there. Pakistan with its fast growing population and grinding poverty is now looking at food crops prospects. There is no turning back. The advance of this powerful technology cannot be halted, no matter what the cleaner environment people say or do.
Admittedly, no technology is bad in itself; it is the use that makes it good or bad. The discovery of the power of the atom enabled humankind to make many constructive applications, and also to unleash unspeakable death and destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What we need at this point in time is to devise a management policy that carefully calculates economic and environmental benefits, and maintains tight control over how GM technology is used to maximise benefits and minimise health risks. Strict bio safety standards ought to be set and implemented. These must be transparent so people know what is permissible and what is not. Anyone looking for relevant information should be able to do so. Also, people must have the right to exercise choice. For that EU labelling requirements can serve as good guidelines.
saida_fazal@yahoo.com