GE ought to be judged on its products -- not its processes

By DAVID SAUL*

One of the difficulties in following a debate that has moved into politics is that hard facts are often replaced by hyperbole. With genetic modification, objective information is available but most of it is buried in technical journals and written in incomprehensible jargon.

By necessity, everything we read is filtered through a third party sometimes trying to remain unbiased, but sometimes plucking choice pieces of information to bend the tone to suit their own opinions.

One promising shift is that the more credible parties on either side of the GM divide are now taking more care validating their claims.

And so it was with despair that I heard the news that a colleague had teamed with celebrities using their fame as a platform to air their views.

That Professor Garth Cooper holds opinions different from my own (and most of his colleagues) is not the issue. Indeed, questioning accepted ideas is healthy in a scientific environment. But to give credibility to the cliches of the celebrities is an insult to the public Professor Cooper is employed to educate.

Over the past four years I have been involved in many debates and public seminars on GM food. It is clear there is a hunger for calm, reliable information. Sadly, this was not forthcoming from the grandiosely named Sustainability Council.

One notable deficiency in the press conference of this lobby group was a failure to recognise that GM can be judged only in the context of the technology into which it was introduced.

Comparisons must be made with existing (and accepted) standard breeding techniques. But what are standard breeding techniques? The term conveys a sense of being natural and, hence, genetically non-invasive. It conjures pictures of a Victorian vicar breeding roses by passing pollen from plant to plant with a paintbrush.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Modern breeding techniques include a comprehensive range of aggressive manipulations. They include mutagenesis, induced chromosomal rearrangements, cell fusion and forced hybridisation.

All these processes cause huge, unpredictable genetic change and many have been used for nearly a century.

These are the tools that have created the fruit and vegetables in our supermarkets and organic food stores. All were excluded from the terms of reference of the royal commission and are accepted without question in every nation.

The key question is whether GM versus not-GM is a valid criterion for judging safety. In part, our belief that it is valid results from a perception that genetic modification is an easily defined science. In reality, it is a nebulous assemblage of methods that overlap with pre-existing procedures.

To some extent the misconception can be blamed on media reporting and pamphleteers who, like Sam Neill, focus only on extreme examples. We define genetic modification by toad genes in potatoes, fish genes in strawberries.

Worse, by judging process rather than product, some extraordinary anomalies can occur.

There is no doubt that with this technology you can visit new realms (such as with transgenics) but in some instances GM is used purely as a more rapid way of obtaining a genetic change that can already be achieved by a conventional method.

Thus, we can have two identical foods where one is deemed safe and requires no labelling or legislation, while the other requires an Environmental Risk Management Authority permit and can be handled only in strict containment.

Surely concerns should focus less on the tools and more on the results of their use? We should insist that all new foods and crops are safe, not just a subset.

The fact that GM can achieve such a diverse range of outcomes means every case is unique. There is a belief that if one GM crop is found to be deficient or dangerous, all become tainted. GM opponents strive to prove that GM can produce dangerous foods. This is unnecessary effort.

It is an uncontested fact that GM can cause unforeseen problems. But, surely, if we are to assume that all GM crops are dangerous because brazil-nut genes in soy made it allergenic, we must also accept that traditional breeding is dangerous because plant breeders made a toxic potato and hyper-allergenic celery.

A particularly worrying belief that is often aired in public meetings and in the anti-GM literature is that unnatural equals unsafe. While untrue, this assertion is harmless in itself but not if the corollary is drawn that natural is, therefore, safe.

The organic movement is notably guilty of this stance. By redefining the word "chemical" to mean synthetic, claims can be made that organic foods contain no chemicals.

In reality, a natural toxin is no less toxic for it being natural.

All parties agree that the underlying philosophy of organic farming (greater sustainability and less environmental impact) is laudable, but all methods of farming have good and bad aspects.

The issue is grey. If you are presented with a wholly black or white portrayal, you are not being told the whole truth.

Clearly, we should be selective about the crops we choose and reject those with little or no direct benefit.

But legislation should be consistent for all new crops, whether they are GM crops or those created by other genetic means. To focus on only one small group is potentially damaging and illogical.

* David Saul is a senior lecturer in microbiology and biotechnology at the University of Auckland.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

GE links

GE glossary