Genetic Engineering In Food Production
Over the past couple of decades much debate has been going on about the use
of
advanced technology in the field of biology. Ever since the first gene
was
cloned in 1973, genetic engineers have been pursuing at break-neck speed
the
"unlimited possibilities" promised by biotechnology (Davidson
1993).
Their excitement, which has generated billions of investment
dollars for the
industry, is understandable. Bioengineering allows scientists
to identify
specific gene sequences responsible for particular
characteristics and then to
transfer the genes -- and the specific trait --
into entirely different species.
One of the more current and
controversial issue in the field of biotechnology is
the use of
bioengineering in food production. Scientists are experimenting with
many
different plants, but the genetic engineering of the tomato, dubbed
"Flavr
Savr" has been the most highly publicized project by far. The new
tomato is
supposed to boast more "flavor" and be tastier due to its
longer
staying time on the vine, thereby giving it more time to accumulate
sweetness;
yet, it will not rot or spoil because of its new genetic makeup.
(Davidson
1993). With this advanced technology scientists argue that it
could offer the
greatest hope in the aid to stop hunger in Third World
countries. This new
technology could be used to make bulk levels of food
production more efficient
and less costly. However, despite all of its
advantages in creating better
crops, many people are very skeptical about its
safetiness and possible
long-term health effects. Moreover, the social issue
lies deep in the realm of
ethical and moral concerns. Do people really want
to eat meat that is leaner and
tastier but contains genes from humans? Or,
would individuals (like vegetarians)
be able to eat certain vegetables that
may contain genes from animals?
Personally, I would not support the use
of genetic engineering in food
production based on moral and ethical reasons:
I do not think that scientists
should be able to use their knowledge and
social prestige in society to be able
to play the role of "God" in creating
new or better living things even
if their justification is for the purpose of
serving mankind. Although we still
have much to learn about genes, recently
developed techniques have already given
rise to a new technology of molecular
genetics. Genetic engineering, also known
as "gene splicing/manipulation" and
"recombinant DNA
technology" is a set of techniques for reconstructing, or
deliberately
manipulating, the genetic material of an organism. Operating at
the molecular
level, this process involves the addition, deletion, or
reorganization of pieces
of an organism's DNA (known as genes) in order to
alter that organism's protein
production (Arms et al. 1994). The use and
applications of genetic engineering
range from medical and pharmaceutical to
industrial crops and food products.
"Its applications, today or in the
future, include...creating improved
strains of crops and farm animals (Arms
et al. 1994)." All of these
applications rely on the ability to transplant
genes into a cell's makeup, or
genome. The new gene may come from another
organism, of the same species, or it
may contain DNA produced in the
laboratory. One example, the new "Flavr
Savr" tomato, developed by
Calgene, a biotechnology company based in Davis,
California, was
subjected to years of scrutiny before the FDA (Food and
Drug
Administration) agreed that it was safe to eat. They found, copied,
and rebuilt
a gene that lets these tomatoes stay on the vine without
softening and spoiling.
That means that the fruit can develop more of the
sugars and acids that make a
home-grown tomato taste so sweet and rich.
Conventional tomatoes sold in the
stores are often hard and flavorless
because they are picked while green and
firm enough to transport, then
'ripened' by spraying with ethylene (Wood 1995).
This turns the tomato
red but does nothing to develop a riper flavor. Ethylene,
a colorless,
odorless gas that once kicks in, so do all the problems of
perishability
(Wood 1995). Since tomatoes have a "softening" gene, it
produces RNA
(Ribonucleic Acid) to help manufacture a protein that causes
rotting. To stop
the tomatoes going soft too soon, the researchers devised a way
to block
production of the enzyme polygalacturonase, which breaks down cell
walls and
eventually causes the fruit to rot (Miller 1994). The Calgene
scientists
inserted a mirror image of the softening gene that produces a reverse
copy of
the RNA. This reverse RNA blocks the action of the regular RNA and helps
to
preserve the fruit. All in all, Calgene seems to have produced a good
but
hardly outstanding tomato using "antisense" technology, given all
the
propaganda and advertisements. A couple of the reasons for why the tomato
failed
were because: (a) the manipulation of the ripening gene had
unintended
consequences (soft skin, weird taste, compositional changes); and
(b) the high
price -- they tried selling it at first for $2.99 a pound (as
expensive as
organic tomatoes), then later dropped the price to $2.49, then
$1.99, then .99.
Furthermore, the general public does not seem persuaded
or have caught up with
this "trend" yet. For one, people are greatly
concerned about the
safety of the product since the FDA does not insist that
genetically engineered
foods carry a special label, even though the FDA
assured consumers that they can
be "confident" in knowing that "foods
produced by genetic
engineering are as safe as food in our grocery stores
today," stated FDA
Commissioner David A. Kessler, MD (Miller 1994).
However, critics have cited a
case in which at least 31 people died and 1500
contracted a fatal blood disease
after ingesting a genetically engineered
batch of L-trytophan, a dietary
supplement (Davidson 1993). Without proper
labeling it will be impossible for
consumers to exercise their right to
choose what kind of foods they eat. Another
issue among consumers and
environmental activist groups is that of moral and
ethical concerns. Many
people feel that scientists might have gone too far in
terms of
experimentation. We have now come to the end of the familiar pathway
of
leaving everything to the creation of "Mother Nature." With the rise
of
advanced technology in genetics, scientists now possess the ability
to
manipulate genes, and redirect the course of evolution. They can
reassemble old
genes and devise new ones. They can plan, and with computer
simulation,
anticipate the future forms and paths of life. Hence, the old
ways of evolution
will be dwarfed by the role of purposeful human
intelligence. However, just as
nature stumbled upon life billions of years
ago and began the process of
evolution, so too would the new creators of life
find that living organisms all
have a destiny of their own. To evaluate the
validity of the
"benefits" of this technology, we need to answer three
simple
questions: Is it safe, is it wise, is it moral? (Sinsheimer 1987). To
answer the
first question about whether it is safe, if the technological
developments are
kept open to public knowledge and scrutiny, I think in the
short term it could
be. This way the general public can monitor the hazards
of any new product
introduced into the biosphere, and can probably cope with
any immediate problems
or consequences. In answering the second question of
whether it is wise, I would
say that it is not. Through decades of research,
scientists have learned of the
different pathogens that prey on humans,
animals, and major crops. But I believe
that their knowledge is still very
limited in trying to understand what led to
these organisms' existence and
modes of adaptation. Thus scientists cannot
really predict whether all their
new "discoveries" and creations might
somehow lead to a new and unexpected
group of harmful species since potential
organisms that could be converted by
one or more mutations be transformed from
harmless bugs to serious risks.
Finally, to answer the question of the
advantages of genetic engineering in
terms of morality and ethics, I can only
say that the more we create, the
more problems we will have in the long run in
trying to solve them. Life has
evolved on this planet into a delicately balanced
and fragile network of
self-sustaining interactions and equilibrium (Sinsheimer
1987). If we try
to change or replace the creatures and vegetation of this earth
with
human-designed forms to conform to human will, I believe we will forget
our
origins and inadvertently collapse the ecological system in which we were
found.
Moreover, do we really want to assume the full responsibility for
the structure
and make-up of our world? I think that we seriously need to
intervene between
the scientists and engineers to consider a solution that
will help slow down all
of these experiments so that we could step back and
look at what we are doing.
If not, I think that these practicing
scientists and researchers should be more
broadly educated in our humanistic
values and traditions. They need to
understand the implications of what they
are doing in order to be able to
balance the concerns of the natural
environment and that of society's humanistic
needs; to bear in mind that
technology exists only to serve and not create.
Human beings, are of
course, sprung from the same DNA and built of the same
molecules as all other
livings things. But if we begin to regard ourselves as
just another group of
subjects to test our experiments on by altering or
tampering with the foods
we eat, just like another crop to be engineered or
another breed to be
perfected, we will surely lose our awe of humanity and
undermine all sense of
human dignity.
Bibliography
Arms, Karen et al. (1994). Science in
Process: Genetic Engineering. In:
Biology: A Journey Into Life. 3rd ed.
Field, Carol, ed. Harcourt Brace
Publishers, New York, 174-175. Davidson,
Osha G. (1993). Attack of the Bionic
Tomatoes. Utne Reader, 55: 26- 28.
Miller, Susan K. (1994). Genetic First Upsets
Food Lobby. New Scientist,
142: 28. Nash, Madeline J. (1990). A Bumper Crop of
Biotech. Time, 136:
92-94. Sinsheimer, Robert L. (1987). Genetic Engineering:
Life As a
Plaything. In: Contemporary Moral Controversies in Technology. 1st
ed.
Iannone, Pablo A., ed. Oxford University Press, New York, 128-131.
Wood, Marcia.
(1995). Bioengineered Tomatoes Taste Great. Agricultural
Research Science,
43:
20.