Wednesday 17 January 2001

Pic of the day: Hmm ... is that a gene I see?

There's a gene in my food!

The "precautionary principle" states that there need not be proof of adverse effects; if there is a possibility of adverse effects, a project should not be implemented. As regular readers know, I support this. I think we should not run the risk of having the Large Hadron Collider making microscopic black holes as long as there is not full agreement that these holes actually do dissipate. So far, no Hawking radiation has been discovered from black holes in nature.

In a similar way, I don't think we should let all manner of new chemicals be used by industry until they are tested for possible side effects. And for medicaments, this has been the practice for many years now in all civilized countries. Sometimes a bit too rigorously, in my opinion: Side effects are not very important if you're dying anyway. Really. Think about it.

When it comes to the recent scare of gene manipulated foods, I think things have gone really over board. Tellingly, a Norwegian study a couple years ago showed that about half the people did not believe there were genes in normal food. Their opinion in this area counts as much as a deaf and blind writing a movie review, in my honest opinion. Their chance of being right is not zero, but it drops rapidly with each word they say. I hope you shall find that with me, it's the other way around.

***

It is important to know that virtually all foodstuff eaten in the year 1900 was from genetically altered plants or animals. Since the dawn of agriculture, we have known about selective breeding. The corn and wheat that now we eat are not like their wild relatives. They are mutants, strikingly different in size and shape, in color and quality. In the same way, the sheep and cows today are partially man-made, and the pig is quite different from the wild boar. I've tasted both and it would be hard to guess that they were the same species.

Where selective breeding has used mutations, the new wave of genetically manipulated species are often transgenic - a gene from one species is inserted in another. An example of this is fruit that produces vaccine, because it contains a gene from harmful bacteria. The gene only codes for one of the surface proteins of the bacteria, so it cannot spread the illness any more than a picture can come to life and jump out of its frame. But the picture is enough to recognize the enemy, and in the same way the body recognizes the harmful bacteria after eating the vaccination banana.

Other examples of transgenic foods are more blatantly commercial: Some plants are resistant to moderate levels of a particular poison. By genetic engineering, you can make a crop plant resistant to that same poison and then apply it liberally to the area, killing the weeds. This lowers the cost of production, since pulling weeds is labor intensive and labor costs a lot these days. People get cheaper food; but nature gets more poison. This is an example where one can legitimately worry about the use of genetic engineering.

Another way to increase crops is to make them repel insects that normally live on them. By producing substances that harm insects but are harmless to mammals, we can still eat the food with no bad effects - and no insects. People don't like worm-nibbled food. But of course, some people are sceptical: If the insects die from the substances in this food, how can it possibly be harmless to us? Certainly there must be someone somewhere who will get ill?

***

The alarmists do not lack in human worth; but their thinking is inferior. For this reason you should not accept their word blindly, but think for yourself. As you see, I am all too happy to point out the reasonable arguments of those who disagree with me. Often there are valid arguments, but they must be put into perspective. In this case, the perspective is the way we eat already.

If we were to follow the precautionary principle in our own lives, we would have to eat very differently from what the average American or European does today. The large amounts of meat are considered strong predictors of cardiovascular disease and of colorectal cancer. In contrast, several fresh plant foods such as broccoli and garlic are known to prevent cancers of the digestive tract. Fish is much healthier than meat. Peas and beans are good to keep cholesterole levels down. And so on and on. The problem is, healthy food is often yucky. We do not eat the food we ought to eat, even though we have the choice.

In this perspective, it becomes gross hypocricy to demand that it be proven beyond any possible doubt that no one will ever be harmed by genetically altered food. Millions die from natural food. From choking to cancer to cardiac arrest, your friends and family are sinking dead to the floor because of eating. They would, however, have been dead long ago if they did not eat at all. Perspective, people. Perspective, not panic.

***

There are people who are allergic to nuts, and if scientists take genes from nuts and put into other food, then that will harm those allergics, right? No. Only if the gene is for the particular protein that they are hypersensitive to. This would be an immensely stupid thing for a scientist to do, because he would be sued big time. Unless we're talking about a mad scientist bent on destruction. Those are bad. But so far, we have seen very few of them, and way too many mad politicians bent on destruction. Perhaps we should let scientists rule the world instead, for the benefit of all ...

Rather than the nutty scenario above, it will be possible now to make nuts for nut allergics, wheat for wheat allergics and so on. By replacing the offending allergen with a harmless counterpart from another species, some (but not all) of the good qualities of the food can be enjoyed without the side effects. So far, however, genetic engineering is too costly for such things. It has to become common first, and it will be so by reducing the price of producing food. With a future population in the world of ca 10 billion humans, this is not a bad thing in itself.

Precaution is in order, but the potential harm should be weighed against the known benefits, and also compared to the harm people inflict on themselves. If you're not even willing to eat a broccoli, who are you to demand that others starve for your sake?

(Incidentally, I've tasted broccoli and it is truly yucky.)