One of the leading experts in the study of genetically modified organisms, a popular science blogger, explained how they can affect our health, the future of humanity and the environment.
Many of us breathe a sigh of relief when we see the salutary inscription on the product packaging: "Does not contain GMOs." Still: the Internet is full of "horror stories" about the consequences of using genetically modified organisms.
Bloated by monstrous tumors, rats fed with transgenic corn, barren fields yielding only one crop after sowing GM seeds, shocking comments about the threat of invincible mutant weeds and other monsters. In order to save adherents of healthy and safe food, volunteers create "black lists" of products containing GMOs - after all, manufacturers can withhold this information so as not to frighten customers.
It is not surprising that against such a background, Russian deputies at the end of April adopted in the first reading a law that could prohibit the cultivation of GMO plants and animals in our country, as well as restrict their import from abroad. And around the same time, the European Commission approved 19 new genetically modified products for their appearance in stores in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and other EU countries.
Candidate of Biological Sciences Alexander Panchin
- Alexander, you graduated from the Faculty of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics of Moscow State University, Candidate of Biological Sciences, you have been interested in GMO for a long time. Admit it: if now a head of ordinary corn and genetically modified corn is put on the table in front of you - what will you choose to eat? - bluntly I ask an expert, a well-known scientific blogger Alexander Panchin.
- I will choose GMO, - the scientist answers without hesitation. - Want to know why? Well, if only because genetic engineering allows you to create plants that are less attractive to harmful insects. This means that these crops were less treated with insecticides, and therefore less damage to the environment was caused during their cultivation.
Promotional video:
In addition, GM varieties that have been released to the market are more rigorously tested for quality and safety than hybrids obtained through traditional breeding.
HOW TRANSGENIC CORN CAN MAKE A LONG LIFE
- Well, one thing is agricultural chemicals, to which we are more or less accustomed, and another is the unknown creations of GMOs, which are unknown how they will behave in our body after years. The rats are swelling with cancer.
- Let's immediately dot the i's in experiments with rodents. The most sensational of them were conducted by our compatriot Irina Ermakova and French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, who became famous on the topic of criticism of GMOs. The research of both of them and the conclusions drawn do not stand up to any scientific scrutiny. For example, Séralini, who fed rats with transgenic corn and claimed that because of this, they developed tumors more often and had a shorter lifespan, there was no statistical analysis at all.
I (and not only me) conducted such an analysis and showed that all the main conclusions in this work are not statistically reliable (the study of Alexander Panchin was published in the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology). In other words, if we use the logic of the authors and neglect the correct analysis, then according to the results of the experiments, we can come to the conclusion that eating GMOs increased the lifespan of rats. In general, as a result, Séralini's work was withdrawn from the scientific journal.
And the work of Irina Ermakova, who appears in many Russian media and on TV channels with shocking statements about the dangers of GMOs, scientists have analyzed in great detail on the pages of the journal Nature Biotechnology, leaving no stone unturned. She even had ordinary rats that did not eat GMOs, dying 10 times more often than they should.
By the way, there are studies of Russian scientists, for example, Nadezhda Tyshko from the Research Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, which confirm the world data that GMOs are not more dangerous than ordinary varieties of plants. There are reports from WHO (World Health Organization), the European Commission, the National Academy of Sciences of China. Everyone comes to the same conclusions.
TRAP FOR THE UNINDITIONED
- In the photographs for the article by Séralini, spread on the Internet, people see rats swollen from cancer. And they do.
“Such scary pictures impress those who have not seen the swollen rats of this line, who have never tried GMOs. To be clear, a long-standing study in the Sprague-Dawley rat (which Séralini used), published in the scientific journal Cancer Research, showed that about 45% of rats develop tumors within 18 months. If the more frequent occurrence of tumors in rats that ate GMOs were confirmed using scientific methodology (including the mentioned method of statistical analysis, the principle of reproducibility of experience, etc.), then it would be a matter for concern. But this is not the case.
"These scary pictures impress those who have not seen the swollen rats of this line, who have never tried GMOs."
At the same time, there is not only Séralini's work. For example, Irina Ermakova, in one of her speeches, tried to justify the harm of GMOs, including by reference to the research of the Japanese scientist Sakamoto. I got acquainted with his scientific work: after 52 weeks of observation of rats that were fed with genetically modified soybeans, the authors of the experiment came to the conclusion about the safety of such soybeans. Later, the observation of the rats was extended to 104 weeks, and similar results were obtained. As they say, make your own conclusions about the justification of GMO cancer threats.
ABOUT FREE FIELDS
- What about the risk of infertility? It is known that many genetically modified plants become sterile after one or two generations. Some experts fear that if such genes enter the human body along with GM food, people may also lose the ability to have offspring.
- With the help of genetic engineering, it is really possible to create sterile plants - if you specifically set such a goal. Of the varieties that exist today, bred using gene mutations, not all are sterile. This is the exception rather than the rule. And of course, the fact that a plant is sterile does not mean that it will render sterile animals and people who ate it - as some opponents of GMO scare. If you eat a boiled egg, you will not boil. So it is here! Creating sterile GM plants is a way to avoid leaking mutations into the wild - for those who fear it. But the barren grapes Kishmish were completely bred by selection.
- Aren't seed producers trying to put farmers on the needle like this?
- Companies prefer to protect their intellectual property rights with patents rather than barren plants. And not only GMO producers. There is a common practice in agriculture: when new breeding varieties are developed, including through traditional hybridization, companies patent them in order to sell seeds later. Moreover, initially such seeds are selected very competently, according to special rules.
And if in the future to harvest and simply re-plant all the seeds obtained in a row, then from generation to generation the targeted beneficial properties will be lost. Therefore, not only agro-industrial enterprises, but even ordinary farmers and summer residents often buy seeds again every time. GMO seeds are neither better nor worse in this regard.
NATURE CONTINUOUSLY CREATES MUTANTS
- When a person creates GMOs, then in fact we are talking about genetic intervention in the initially harmonious nature. You can't keep track of everything, what can the leaks of mutations into the environment turn into?
- Let's get a look. Did you know that in every type of living creature in a natural state, without any intervention, new mutations occur from generation to generation? For example, a person has about 50 new point mutations in one generation. In addition, during sexual reproduction, recombination takes place - the exchange of DNA sections on homologous chromosomes (that is, genes identical in location), and new combinations of existing gene variants are also formed. In this sense, any act of sexual reproduction leads to the frightening opponents of GMOs "the appearance of organisms with unknown properties." That is, we most often do not know what mutations have arisen in a particular organism in comparison with its parents.
"In nature, new varieties of pathogenic bacteria constantly appear, strains of dangerous viruses (one flu is constantly mutating what it costs!), But for some reason everyone is worried about GMOs."
But when using genetic modification, everything goes on purposefully, under control. So in this sense, GM organisms are just more predictable. And at the same time, there is no scientifically justified reason to believe that the leakage of mutations will lead to any kind of disaster. In nature, new varieties of pathogenic bacteria constantly appear, strains of dangerous viruses (one flu constantly mutating is worth it!), But for some reason everyone is worried about GMOs. The impact of GMOs on the environment, of course, needs to continue to be studied, but slowing down progress, the creation of GM plants and other organisms with properties beneficial to humans is not only stupid, but also harmful.
ON A NOTE
GM rice - for allergies, GM tomatoes - for inflammation and atherosclerosis
Why and how are plants genetically modified? Here are some examples:
- The Japanese are using genetic engineering to develop a rice cultivar that will include a gene for a plant that causes allergies in many residents of the country during flowering. Scientists suggest that regular consumption of traditional food with a small amount of the allergen (the gene will work in a weak mode) will help the body of allergy sufferers to gradually rebuild, get used to it and get rid of the painful reaction.
- Another way to avoid allergies is to turn off the gene responsible for the production of allergenic proteins in edible plants. This method in the United States plans to modify peanuts, due to the intolerance of which a large number of the population suffers.
- Another know-how is GM potatoes, in which the formation of carcinogenic substances during frying is sharply reduced.
- An important invention was the creation of tomatoes, in which the production of anthocyanin substances was launched with the help of the snapdragon gene. These are pigments that color the fruits of eggplants and blueberries in purple. At the same time, it has been proven that anthocyanins have an anti-inflammatory effect, significantly reduce the risk of atherosclerosis and prevent the formation of cancer cells. The "medicinal" purple tomatoes are expected to appear in stores in the United States soon, and then in other countries.
And the most massive in terms of cultivation and sales are GM soybeans, corn and potatoes, which are modified so as not to attract / repel insect pests and weeds. This significantly increases yields and reduces the cost of expensive chemicals.
EXPERT OPINION
Microbiologist Konstantin Severinov: "New entities do not arise with genetic modification."
“KP”: - The classic wrote: “We will not, however, delude ourselves too much with our victories over nature. For each such victory she takes revenge on us. Each of these victories has, however, first of all the consequences that we expected, but second and third, completely different, unforeseen consequences, which very often destroy the significance of the former. Konstantin, many are sure that this quote by Friedrich Engels from Dialectics of Nature can be fully attributed to GMOs. What do you think?
- These are general words that sound profound, but in each specific case turn out to be generally incorrect, - shrugs the famous microbiologist, head of laboratories at the Institute of Gene Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, professor at the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology (Skoltech) Konstantin Severinov. - All our modern life with its comfort, conveniences, successful treatment of diseases, etc. - the result of successive victories of scientists and engineers over nature, interference in natural processes.
As far as GMOs are concerned, to give any scientifically grounded, reliably confirmed arguments to orthodox opponents of genetic engineering is an empty affair akin to the well-known "challenge a fool". The belief in the harm of GMOs is based on faith. Just like belief in God, it cannot be shaken by scientific evidence or refutation, it simply exists within a person or society.
- But there are also doubters. For example, people are worried: when, when creating GMOs, we “turn off” or add some gene, this cannot but affect other genes in the body, which work as a precisely regulated, interconnected system.
- In fact, there is no harmonious, strictly built unchanging system, or at least it is not clear what is meant by this. The assertion that the insertion or "shutdown" of a gene can affect the work of other genes, in principle, is not unfounded.
Indeed, there may be some changes. But one must also understand that changes in the work of genes occur in the body constantly. Day and night, cold or warm, different sets of genes work with varying degrees of intensity. Concerns about some special, incorrect nature of the work of genes in GM organisms are absolutely untenable.
And even more so, a change in the level of gene activity does not lead to the emergence of new entities - neither worms nor cockroaches start in transgenic potatoes, the scientist jokes.
As for the risk of the formation of any toxin, a harmful, dangerous substance during genetic modification, then as with any other changes affecting the work of genes (temperature, light, nutrition, etc.), this is very easy to find out. All products, both GMO and conventional, undergo toxicological tests. If a dangerous change had occurred, it would have been detected during these checks.
- Maybe the current tests are not sensitive enough to reveal the possible effect of deep changes as a result of genetic modification? What if the dangerous consequences appear only after 50 - 70 years?
- If a person improperly eats natural, organic food from his own site, abuses it, then he may well get cancer, diabetes or die of a heart attack, and much faster than 50 years later. The criterion for determining the "purity", safety of GMOs cannot and should not be different than for any other product, and all dietary recommendations on healthy eating are equally applicable to both conventional and modified foods. If you only have corn in your diet, then regardless of its origin, you will have problems.