Prince Charles's stand against agribusiness is misguided. Genetic
modification has long made products better and safer
Once again, Prince Charles has demonstrated a pitfall of the sort of
inbreeding that has plagued the royal families of Europe for centuries:
feeblemindedness. In unequivocal and outspoken - and completely
misguided - comments in an interview in the Telegraph, the Dunce of
Wales said that multinational agribusiness companies were a "gigantic
experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone
seriously wrong".
"Why else are we facing all these challenges, climate change and
everything?" he asked rhetorically.
Not-so-bonnie Prince Charles said previously that he rejects the idea
that genetic modification simply extends or refines "traditional methods
of plant breeding". He is convinced that such practices "belong to God,
and to God alone". And if mere mortals persist, he contends, they should
segregate and label "genetically modified products".
Prince Charles knows little about the genetic engineering of plants,
among many other things. For one thing, genetic modification is not new.
Plants and microorganisms have long been genetically improved by
mutation and selection and used to make biotechnology products as varied
as yogurt, beer, cereal crops, antibiotics, vaccines and enzymes (for
laundry detergents and food processing).
For decades, using conventional techniques for genetic modification,
genes have been transferred widely across "natural breeding boundaries"
to yield common food plants including oats, rice, black currants,
pumpkins, potatoes, tomatoes, wheat and corn. These plants, which are "genetically engineered" by any reasonable definition, are not merely
found in laboratories or test plots, but are the very same fruits,
vegetables and grains that consumers buy at the local supermarket,
greengrocer or farm stand.
The techniques of the "new biotechnology" - gene splicing, tissue
cultures and the rest - essentially speed up and target with greater
precision and predictability the kinds of genetic improvement that have
long been carried out with other methods. According to a worldwide
scientific consensus, the new biotechnology lowers even further the
already minimal risk associated with introducing new plant varieties
into the food supply - and reduces soil erosion, CO2 emissions and the
use of pesticides, while increasing yields in the bargain.
The use of these sophisticated techniques makes the final product even
safer, because it is possible to introduce pieces of DNA that contain
only one or a few well-characterised genes. In contrast, the older
genetic techniques transfer a variable number of genes haphazardly.
Users of the new techniques can be more certain about the traits they
introduce into the plants. Americans have consumed about two trillion
servings of gene-spliced foods, and not a single person has been injured
or an ecosystem disrupted. In contrast, five products engineered with
traditional techniques (two squash, two potato and one celery variety)
have had unsafe levels of toxins and have caused injury or death.
Even though the safety of gene-spliced foods is exemplary, a few
anti-technology advocacy groups - joined by Prince Charles - have pushed
for labels disclosing the use of gene-splicing techniques. Such labels
would add significantly to the costs of processed foods made from fresh
fruits and vegetables. The precise costs would vary according to the
product, but, for example, a company using a gene-spliced,
higher-solids, less-watery tomato (which is more favourable for
processing) would have the additional costs of segregating the product
at all levels of planting, harvesting, shipping, processing and
distribution. Labels would have to appear on vegetable soup, indicating
the presence of gene-spliced tomato, potato or other products.
The added production costs are a particular disadvantage to products in
this competitive, low-profit-margin market. Unnecessary and arbitrary
regulation constitutes, in effect, a punitive tax on regulated products
or activities, which, in turn, creates a disincentive to their
development and use.
Consumers, whose prices would be raised and choices diminished by this
regulatory tax, would be far better served by industry spending its
resources on research and development to create new, safer products.
At the end of the day, Prince Charles's reservations about new
biotechnology are puzzling. They appear to arise from a lack of
perspective on pedigree (a subject that should be of no small interest
to someone whose only claim to distinction is his lineage). Would he
boycott or request special labelling for the genetic hybrid we call a
tangelo (a cross between a tangerine and grapefruit)? Or the mutant
peaches we call nectarines?
Biotech's opponents should also be aware that delays or limitations in
the use of gene-spliced products cause the poor to suffer most. Because
food purchases require a disproportionately large part of their budgets,
those with lower incomes are hardest hit by high consumer prices, which
can be reduced by more efficient biotech production processes.
The controversy over biotechnology is not a mere intellectual exercise
but a real-life struggle for the availability of products that will
prolong and enrich lives, and for the ability of consumers to cast their
votes in the marketplace.
Technological innovation - whether in the form of better tomatoes,
faster computers or more effective vaccines - most often occurs in
small, almost imperceptible steps. If a new product's characteristics
are attractive and the price is right, it succeeds in the marketplace,
stimulating still more innovation. Ironically, some of Prince Charles's
own organically produced vegetables failed this test: so deformed and
repulsive to look at, they were not marketable and had to be given to
local schools.
Prince Charles should give the new biotechnology a try before he heaves
another tomato at it.
Henry I. Miller, M.D.
The Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6010
U.S.A.
Phone: 650.725.0185
Fax: 650.723.0576
E-mail: miller@hoover.stanford.edu
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/2008-08-22/Biotech_generates_high_yields/ |
