After the shocking news about the creation of transgenic children in China, the world started talking again about the problems of GMOs. Where else is genetic engineering used and which countries are opposed to its use? We learn from the book of Zhores Medvedev.
We begin a discussion of the main thoughts of the chapter "Genetically modified foods" from the unpublished book "Problems of Nutrition and Longevity" by the famous biologist and recognized nutritionist Zhores Medvedev, who passed away at the end of 2018.
Transgenic animals: large projects
"The creation of transgenic animals has become a vast area of genetics since the late 1990s, the technology of which is being tested in laboratory animals and transferred to agricultural animals," Medvedev writes.
What are these experiments? Most of them are carried out for medical purposes.
Today, scientists in the United States, Russia, Belarus and other countries are busy creating sources of human lactoferrin, which is contained in human milk. It is a protein antibiotic that protects infants from intestinal infections. Transgenic goats and sheep have already been created, and in the United States even chicken eggs with this substance have been obtained. But how ethical, safe and economically viable is it to use animals to obtain it? Other ways of producing or supporting breastfeeding and treating diseases in which breastfeeding is not possible are likely to be easier and safer. Discussions on this matter continue in the society.
Promotional video:
In 2006, cloned pigs were created with genes for worms that enrich their fat with omega-3 fatty acids. But this direction did not receive wide development, the project turned out to be unclaimed. Indeed, despite the widespread campaign about the benefits of omega-3 for humans and the need to increase the amount of food with such a component, the problem, as it turned out, was far-fetched. Medvedev points out that there is enough of this acid in the diet of people.
Genetic engineers have not forgotten about aquaculture.
Indeed, in 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the consumption of a genetically modified animal for the first time in history. It turned out to be AquAdvantage salmon with growth hormone from the Canadian company AquaBounty.
Attempts to create transgenic fish are being made in China and other countries. However, it is recognized that the accidental penetration of such creatures into the seas and oceans “can have a catastrophic effect on the natural populations of this most valuable fish resource. The attitude towards genetic modifications of animals is very cautious and the existing fears are quite justified,”writes Medvedev.
In particular, critics of the Canadian project note that the research done is not enough to prove the complete safety of the newly-born salmon. If it gets into open water, the giant fish will start competing for the habitat with the usual one, and the result will most likely not be in favor of the latter. Ultimately, transgenic salmon will replace their natural counterpart.
There are also no queues from foreign importers for such fish, since, according to regular opinion polls, consumers in developed countries are categorically opposed to the use of transgenic animals for food.
Why is genetically modified food not needed in Europe?
Speaking about the prospects for the mass cultivation of transgenic plants, Medvedev cites data on the areas under agricultural GM crops in the world in 2014. We present these figures taking into account small changes over the past two years.
According to the International Service for the Appraisal of Agrobiotechnology Application (ISAAA), genetically modified crops in 2014 occupied 189.8 million hectares. 40% of production was in the United States, 26% in Brazil, 12% in Argentina, 7 and 6 percent each in Canada and India, respectively.
In the data for any period since the advent of GMOs, it can be seen that the ratio of the volume of cultivation of GM plants in the countries of the big biotechnological five and the rest remains almost unchanged. The 19 states that sow transgenic crops, except for the USA, Brazil, Argentina, Canada and India, produce only 10% of their global crop. And this is mainly cotton and tobacco, not food crops.
Genetically modified agricultural plants, in fact, still remain banned in Europe, as there is only one line of corn allowed to grow there.
Transgenic American corn for pig feed is allowed to be sown in Spain, Poland and the Czech Republic.
France, Italy, Hungary, Germany and other countries of the European Union have legally banned the sowing of transgenic corn, declaring its cultivation a threat to natural biocenoses. In Russia, since 2016, the cultivation of any GM plants for commercial purposes has been prohibited. You can only carry out scientific experiments on test fields.
According to Medvedev, the pan-European resistance to the introduction of genetically modified crops and the consumption of GMO products is determined by a different structure of agriculture and animal husbandry than in the United States and other historical culinary traditions.
In the United States, even before genetically modified corn and other crops were introduced, farmers tended to buy seed every year anyway. They didn't save their seeds for sowing. What seeds are better to choose next year, for them, in fact, agricultural concerns decided. It is not surprising that in American fields you can find only a limited selection of not only corn varieties, but also wheat, potatoes and tomatoes.
Medvedev, in his last lifetime article, makes an interesting observation:
In the Old World, the situation is completely different. Europeans live in different nation states with ancient history, where traditions have been preserved for centuries. There is also a huge variety of indigenous cultivars created by breeders and selected through centuries of practice.
Almost all continental European countries produce and sell their agricultural products abroad and can do well without transnational seed concerns. True, Europe is now somewhat dependent on imports of livestock feed from Brazil and other American countries. But the solution to this problem is a matter of the coming years, as the pressure of consumers to buy truly local, traditional and, from their point of view, safer food is growing.
And this is not surprising, because “European cuisine, French, Italian, Spanish, Greek, Slavic and others are closely related to local varieties of plants, animal breeds and fish resources of the seas surrounding Europe,” Medvedev reminded.
Who is GMO friendly to?
The scientist focuses on the fact that transgenic cultures, in order to reduce the cost of their creation, are adjusted to a single standard, they are not compatible with European diversity. At the same time, their profitability can only be provided by large agribusiness, while family farms, which are common not only in Europe, but throughout the world, are structured quite differently. It is not profitable for them to grow, for example, GM corn or GM cotton.
At the same time, as noted by international public organizations, peasants in developing countries (such as India) have no choice: the monopolies have bought up almost all small producers of seeds of key crops. Some statistics on the decline in the number of small farms after the introduction of GM crops was given back in 2009 in the report of the international non-profit organization Friends of the Earth and the US Food Security Center “Who benefits from GM crops? We feed the biotech giants, not the poor. Similar conclusions can be found in the UN materials.
For example, in South Africa since 2000, the number of cotton farmers has dropped sharply since the introduction of GMOs. In particular, in the KwaZulu-Natal region, an example of which has been widely touted as successful in terms of GM cotton production by small farmers, the number has dropped from 3,000 in 2001-2002 to 353 in 2002-2003.
In Europe, as in Russia, farmers do not yet depend so much on biotechnological monopolies and can still choose which seeds to sow.
That is why, according to Medvedev, transgenic crops or products do not yet have any commercial advantages with us.
The main conclusion made by a well-known specialist is as follows:
We will have to wait many more years before the fruits of new discoveries in genetic engineering and biotechnology projects will serve the good of society, instead of crushing local economies and being a source of all kinds of risks.
Author: Kopeikina Victoria