A recent Lat’s cartoon depicts a picture of a mamak’s news-stand filled to the brim with magazines, periodicals, tabloids and whatnots featuring detestable, yet much sought after stories.
Honestly speaking, accusations and counter-accusations like these are not limited to the political arena alone. In science too, accusations of lies, cheats and frauds are constantly hurled from one side to another.
Although scientific mudslingings are much more sedate and rational, they are nevertheless exciting. In any case, the unwritten rule is that they must strictly be based on facts.
The latest pow-wow of the scientific community is genetically modified or GM foods. On the one side we have the consumerists and environmentalists. Both seem to have ample reasons to be overtly suspicious.
To the former, the safety of consuming GM foods has not been fully ascertained. Cases of allergic reactions attributed to the changes in the genetic profile of these foodstuffs appear to be substantive.
Perhaps, the most talked about case is the 1996 report on cross-allergy of GM foods from the University of Nebraska. When some genes from Brazil nuts are inserted into soybeans to enrich their protein content, the allergenic properties of the nuts are also transferred to the beans.
The new genetically engineered beans thus pose potential health hazards to unsuspecting consumers who are allergic to Brazil nuts, but believe that they are amenable to soybeans.
Food plants as gene donors may seem rather harmless, but what if parts of bacteria and viruses are used to enhance the quality of food? Sounds ironic and distasteful?
Again, consumerists are worried that as the allergenic profiles of these microorganisms are largely unknown, the effects of incorporating them into human and animal feed could be disastrous.
The other jitters confounding consumerists is the long list of potential short- and long-term toxic effects of GM foods. The most widely quoted example must be the genetically engineered bacteria-produced tryptophan.
Although tryptophan itself is safe for consumption, a toxic contaminant that is a byproduct of the synthesis has been implicated in the neurological damage and death of a number of consumers in the United States.
Yet another area of potential health risks attributed to GM foods is antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistant genes are used as markers to confirm that donor genes have been inserted at the precise location on the receptor genes.
These markers then become permanently embedded into the GM foods. Once released into the environment these antibiotic resistant genes may jump onto disease-causing bacteria and make them invincible to standard antibiotics.
Microorganisms that are resistant to antibiotics pose a grave danger to the public and trigger a major headache within the medical fraternity. Virus resistant crops too can turn around and combine with their attackers to produce new or deadlier viruses.
Understandably, environmentalists are similarly demanding answers to the numerous questions pertaining to GM foods.
Firstly, with regard to the fact that GM crops are herbicide-tolerant. Herbicides can be poured onto them to kill the invading weeds without damaging them. The environmentalists feel that this only serves to promote over dependency on chemical intervention.
Herbicides are known to remain active in the soil for long periods. As GM crop farmers tend to use herbicides freely and daringly, the chances of polluting groundwater and endangering the ecosystems are greater.
Therefore, environmentalists prefer alternative and sustainable methods of weed control such as inter-cropping, mulching and use of green manure.
Apart from being herbicide-resistant, GM crops may also be insect-resistant. By incorporating a modified gene from a soil bacterium, a GM plant can produce throughout its structure including leaves and fruits, an endotoxin injurious to insects.
The problem with such novel method of biological pest-control is that this particular toxin may inadvertently contribute to the poisoning of beneficial insects, and subsequently their predators.
According to reports, toxic effects on non-target organisms due to the endotoxin are already threatening the ecosystems within and around GM-crop areas both in industrialised and developing countries. Evidence of reduction of biodiversity is beginning to manifest.
Environmentalists are also worried about the emergence of genetic pollution. As pollens of GM crops can be blown into non-GM agricultural area, their more traditional relatives may become polluted. The resultant agricultural products may not be saleable as organic foods.
Further, argue the consumerists and environmentalists, corporate politics also comes into play here. It seems that the herbicide producers are simultaneously selling GM seeds that are dependent on their herbicides.
The GM seeds are now patented. Farmers who buy these seeds from one company may one day be compelled to use only the corresponding herbicides produced by the same company.
At the rate the giant chemical companies are gobbling up little GM seed-producing firms, in the not too distant future, the world’s agricultural industry would be in the hands of a cartel.
The GM food critics rest their case. Let’s now look at the other side of the ‘corn’, or rather, coin.
Obviously the food industry is equally solicitous of the fact that it now has a powerful tool that can, once and for all, rid the world of its nagging food shortage problem.
Imagine the joy this would bring to the millions of malnourished adults and children of the Third World. This is our best opportunity to put the tragedies of famine into the annals of history. The industry further argues that never again shall a single earthling suffer from starvation.
The industry of course has good reasons to be upbeat about the GM foods. Despite the numerous claims by the consumerists and environmentalists on the dangers of GM foods, there is yet to be foolproof evidence that they are inherently more dangerous than conventional foods.
Tough GM foods are produced by using novel techniques, this does not warrant unfair labels such as “Frankenstein Food” or “Synthetic Food”. Thus the industry opines that these and the many other exaggerated claims are mere gimmicks to sway public opinions.
However, in confronting the issue of GM foods, neither the downside, as argued by the consumerists and environmentalists, or the upside, as promoted by the industry should dominate the debate.
The truth of the matter is that a rational strategy requires an approach that respects and embraces both sets of arguments. Above all, public concerns no matter how irrational or mundane they seem must be taken into account.
Safety is one thing. But as far as food is concerned, it goes beyond that. For Muslims, food has to be halal. Thus, labelling can keep the consumers informed of the origin of the food they consume.
Having said that, looking at the bigger picture, the Muslim world that is mostly devoid of fertile agricultural land, should seize the opportunity provided by the more resilient GM crops.
These crops may be designed to produce varieties with nutritional, climatic and water needs more attuned to the sometimes punishing conditions of the land. The GM food industry should be studied and if viable, adopted with proper precautionary measures.
As with countless other knowledge bestowed upon human by Allah, this breakthrough too can be used for the good of mankind. Above all, moral panic should check but not hinder scientific development.