In 1977, Steven Lindow, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, discovered that a mutant strain of the bacterium Pseudomonas syringae altered ice nucleation on leaves in a way that enabled plants to resist frost. He continued the work at the University of California, Berkeley, and a decade later, with the blessing of the appropriate federal agencies and the townfolk of Tulelake, Calif., Lindow planted 3,000 potato seedlings coated with "ice-minus" bacteria. By the next morning, vandals had ripped out half the plants. Lindow repeated the experiment, successfully.
Similar experiments did not set loose giant carnivorous rutabagas on the world, and while the Flavr Saver tomato was controversial, hoopla surrounding genetically modified (GM) plants largely died down in the United States. But that appears to be changing. In response to anti-GM decisions by foreign and domestic customers, U.S. grain processing giant Archer Daniels Midland recently asked its suppliers to segregate GM crops.
So-called GM "Frankenfoods" elicit objection that seems way out of proportion to the scientific evidence that they are dangerous, which is minimal, at least so far. Why is the "what if" or "triple-headed purple monster" mentality that predominated the earliest attempts at genetic engineering in the United States and rages today in the United Kingdom resurfacing? The answer is a combination of media-catalyzed fear of the unknown and global sociopolitics.
The British tabloid attack is typically overt, with headlines linking use of antibiotic resistance markers to epidemics of encephalitis, for example. Other media take a more subtle anti-GM stance. Consider "Seeds of Change" in the September issue of Consumer Reports. It begins with a scenario of a woman in a supermarket being deceived by lack of labels indicating GM food. A reader can almost hear Rod Serling growling, "She doesn't know that the tortilla chips she just put in her shopping cart may have been made from corn whose genes were manipulated to kill insects." Paragraph two retells the infamous monarch-on-tainted- milkweed tail of woe, and paragraph three asks about the long-term environmental and health effects of GM crops, implying that these in fact exist. It isn't until the 18th paragraph that "potential benefits" appear, before the next paragraph returns to the litany of potential problems. A sidebar identifies GM foods in supermarket fare, with the disclaimer that "we're not suggesting that eating these foods isn't safe." A double negative and doublespeak.
Much of the hubbub over transgenic food has a decidedly political flavor. Some scientists wonder whether transgene hysteria is symptomatic of larger issues.1 In England, "they do not like the way GM is in the hands of large, multinational corporations," says David Cove, a professor of genetics at the University of Leeds who monitors anti-GM sentiment. According to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, some Europeans "may be against genetic modification in food production on socioeconomic or marketing grounds because they wish to promote organic farming or object to multinational companies having such a strong control on the food sector.
When Greenpeace issued a Web alert about GM ingredients in Nestlé baby food, it asked people to "get involved in the fight for our families ...." When its magazine cover showed a space-suited somebody holding a handful of soybeans at arm's length, and mentioned corporations, industrial farming, and U.S. Department of Agriculture royalties in the accompanying article, a wider gripe with modern society appeared to be the subtext.3 Activists concerned about the safety of GM foods often say that they require more testing. If that's the case, why vandalize test plots that would establish danger, or safety?
Jeremy Rifkin, another opponent of GM foods, is planning to sue Monsanto, DuPont, Novartis, and other biotech companies for antitrust violations. On Sept. 13, London's Financial Times quoted Michael Hausfeld, a lawyer in one of the firms cooperating with Rifkin, as saying that "by the early part of the next century, less than a handful of corporations will possess control over the entire agricultural foundation for every society." Said Rifkin, "In a few years' time, no farmer in the world is ever going to own seeds again--if that's not a case for antitrust, I don't know what is."
It's strange that while Europe frets over multinational corporations, much of the rest of the world is trying to figure out how to feed a growing population. Says University of Illinois microbiologist Abigail Salyers, "What are we going to do in 2020 and 2030? Transgenic crops are the answer." GM crops that resist infection, use nutrients more efficiently, are easier to cultivate, and produce higher yields may be the harbinger of a sustainable agriculture that's friendlier to the environment, according to Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis. And developing nations want to be part of the debate and discussion now. In a plea to let Africa use biotech as it sees fit, Florence Wambugu, head of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications in Nairobi, recognized the social agenda in Europe's anti-GM movement, protesting that "no evidence so far justifies the opinion of some in Europe that Africa should be excluded from transgenic crops. Africans can speak for themselves.
Marine ecologist Rita Colwell, director of the National Science Foundation, isn't surprised that today's fear of biotech in the United Kingdom seems to echo U.S. sentiment of more than a decade ago. "There's a sense of déjà vu, a 'been there, done that' feel," she says. Colwell credits the International Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules held in Asilomar, Calif., in 1975 with the comparative lack of panic over transgenic technology in the United States. (See also Commentary, page 12.) "The conference was convened for the express purpose of confronting concerns about the safety of the research and making recommendations for action," she recalls.
The guidelines for recombinant DNA research proved to be appropriate and even conservative, and suited to the transgene technology that evolved when the technique segued to multicellular organisms. "Asilomar convinced people that we'd tested this technology. In Europe, there was no such experience, so the people don't trust the government as a vetting agency," says Raven. That's borne out in a recent study comparing U.S. and U.K. attitudes toward biotechnology,5 which showed that trust in the judgment of government agencies over biotech is stronger on this side of the Atlantic.
The mid-'90s BSE scare and the British government's downplaying of it severely violated public confidence. Failure to consider these differences in attitude among U.S. and U.K. citizens may explain the current early signs of anti-GM fever crossing the Atlantic. "The distrust has boomeranged back to the U.S. because companies stupidly went to Europe with GM foods and expected the public there to accept them without the Asilomar background that we have," Raven adds.
For Colwell, the lesson is clear: "Scientists must be at the forefront of discussion of GM crops. Understanding science will allow the public to ask better questions. They will need a general grasp of the territory to separate the scientists from the charlatans." Several speakers at the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress in St. Louis in August echoed Colwell's view. "Explain, explain, explain, until they understand. We should take public concerns seriously, even if we know they're uninformed," advised Iain Taylor, a professor of botany at the University of British Columbia. And John A. Bryant, a geneticist at the University of Exeter's Washington Singer Laboratory in Exeter, United Kingdom, who claims to have spent some of the most unpleasant moments of his life in public debate with "green" organizations, agrees. "I talk to school, church, and retiree groups. I explain that GM means just another tool of the plant breeder--it is not the work of the devil."
When scientists participate in the debate, they also show the public that they share its concerns. More than one scientist at the recent International Botanical Congress called for clearer labeling of GM foods. Says Cove, "The public was arrogantly ignored in not labeling. It's lack of information that's led to trouble."
Industry is also trying to figure out ways to please and retain consumers while educating them. Novartis contributes to the American Society of Plant Physiologists' education foundation to increase public awareness of plant research. Gerber's Relford mentions an ad hoc group the company is forming. "All the data say these products are safe--how do we communicate this? We are relying on a panel of activists and scientists to investigate how to make statements so that they will be understood. But the ad hoc committee will not talk about the science, safety, or environmental merits of biotechnology. Most activist groups agree that genetically enhanced foods are safe."
Will all the emphasis on education help? Maybe not. According to a study on public attitudes about GM foods,5 science literacy, as measured by minimal textbook knowledge, is greater in Europe than in the United States, yet anti-GM feeling is stronger overseas. The study also showed that the quantity of press coverage was more important than the quality in forming public opinion.
So Greenpeace continues to call for bans on releasing GM organisms to the environment, the fear and fervor in Europe and here continues to mount, more countries and companies are turning away GM crops, and farmers are wondering what to do. The technology, it seems, is being judged guilty despite evidence to the contrary. Perhaps when new traits offer obvious nutritional advantages, such as rice high in beta carotene and iron,6 consumers will accept GM foods more freely. Lower prices will also help. Meanwhile, Cove places the matter into historical perspective: "Every new scientific discovery has been met with public opposition. When vaccines were introduced, cartoons depicted horns on babies. If the public is told in a nonevangelical way more about genetic engineering, the barriers will break down. Putting the brake on GM foods would be an enormous disservice to the vast majority of people in the world who are starving."
Source- the-scientist.com
