Dream crops - Lanka in Catch-22 situation

Can we afford to ban genetically modified foods? Kesara Ratnatunga reports

"Genetically modified organism (GMO) refers to any organism which carries genetic material that is not naturally found in its genetic code," explains Prof. Athula Perera of the University of Peradeniya, a leading research scientist in the field of genetics. "Genetically modified food refers to food products you get from such organisms."

There is a significant difference between food created through plant breeding as opposed to food manufactured using genetic modification. Plant breeding involves mixing up genes within the same species using natural methods of reproduction (i.e. cross breeding two different varieties of rice to produce a new variety of rice with a higher yield). Genetic modification on the other hand means that genes are artificially mixed up across the species barrier (i.e. introducing a gene from a fish into a tomato plant to produce a more durable tomato). 

Thus the technology for genetic modification which started developing since the early '70s, has enabled scientists to accomplish what nature would not normally permit.

Crop plants are genetically modified in order to give them such qualities as increased herbicide and pesticide resistance, faster growth rates, increased yields, pest resistance, longer shelf lives, higher durability etc. Genes have also been introduced to shorten the time span between planting and harvesting. In short, GMFs are the result of attempts to create crops which have a high level of productivity and therefore are economically very profitable.

However these 'dream crops' are predicted to harbour a whole host of adverse repercussions. 

The introduction of foreign genes into crop plants could have unforeseen and irreversible effects on the properties of the food. In1989 a genetically engineered form of the food supplement Tryptophan, produced toxic contaminants and was responsible for the deaths of 37 people in North America while leaving 1500 others permanently disabled and 5000 more very ill.

Genetic modification technology uses micro organisms such as bacteria and viruses to transfer genes into the plants/food sources being modified. The release of such organisms which have been artificially mutated, into the environment could lead to the emergence of new diseases and toxins.

Scientists and environmentalists are concerned that plants which are genetically modified could exchange genes with natural plants. They fear that this could lead to imbalances in the eco-system which could have very serious and far reaching repercussions on the natural world.

High tolerance of crops to herbicides and pesticides means that farmers will be able to use larger amounts of these toxins. A threefold increase in the use of these chemicals is predicted. As it is "We are already worried about the doses we are exposed to," says Professor of Food Science and Technology at the University of Peradeniya, Upali Samarajeewa. It would also mean that there would be a significant increase in the amount of contaminants being added to the environment, resulting in chemical pollution of the soil and water.

These are just a few of the adverse repercussions GMFs can cause. Once organisms containing genetic modifications are released into the environment, their longterm implications cannot be completely foreseen. Therefore, even if a mistake were to be discovered, it would be impossible to rectify it and the problem would continue from generation to generation.

GMFs come in at a time when issues of population explosion and food security are gaining the world's attention. The world population is currently estimated at six billion and expected to increase to eight billion by the year 2020. This means that the supply of food must also increase to keep up with the rapidly escalating demand. 

Sri Lanka too faces the same problem and is forced to consider all available options to ensure its expanding population has enough food in the years to come. Genetically modified foods seem to be the only available method by which the world's rising food demands could be met, in the opinion of Prof. Samarajeewa.

Both sides of the GMFs issue have equally crucial impacts on the world. Sri Lanka, like many other countries, is faced with a Catch-22 situation. Do we allow GMFs into our markets and risk the repercussions? Or do we play safe with a ban, risk a future food shortage and be 'technologically' left behind, if the global market does ultimately embrace GMFs?

The Food Advisory Council which is part of the Ministry of Health and Indigenous Medicine proposed a ban on GMFs earlier this year, which however, was not gazetted. It is currently under reconsideration by the authorities concerned. This ban was suggested after world attention was focused on the GMF issue following the European Union's (EU) firm stance of banning all GMFs.

According to the Chief Food and Drug Inspector, Mr S. Nagaiyah, the Food Advisory Council is currently having discussions with the Ministry of Internal and International Commerce and Food on this issue. Sri Lanka being signatory to World Trade Organisation (WTO) regulations, is obligated to submit scientific evidence if a product is being banned, and therefore is in a dilemma. At the moment, only food without any gentically modified ingredients can be imported. Official sources say that this situation would probably continue until the actual implications of GMFs are properly analysed and a consensus is reached in the developed countries. 

"Since productivity will be high, GMFs will eventually be cheaper than regular foods," says Prof. Samarajeewa. Considering the economic problems facing the majority of Sri Lanka's population, the question arises as to whether they would be forced to buy the cheaper product.

Introducing legislation to block the imports of GMFs until we are sure they are safe is vital. If this is not done, we could end up as a dumping ground for GMFs which the western world has rejected. 

"We need to have an institute which will carry out specific risk oriented research," emphasises Prof. Perera. According to him, such an institute would ideally be an apex body comprising top scientists with extensive experience in the field, appointed on merit, who would regulate the testing and research of GMFs in the country. He suggests that Sri Lanka should have one or two such centres at the most, because research and testing should be specialised and centralised. "It should not be allowed to be done everywhere. "This would be important to maintain set standards and control."

"We need to get the people involved in this," Prof. Perera says stressing the importance of educating people on the issue. "There's no point in the scientists talking about it if the people don't know anything." Schoolteachers and university students could be encouraged to take the message back to their homes and villages. 

The media would also be able to play a major role in this area.

Sri Lanka at the moment has neither the technology nor the financial resources to carry out proper investigations on GMFs. 

"From a Sri Lankan perspective, we are not in such a bad situation and we don't need to rush in and embrace GMFs," says Prof. Samarajeewa. "We should wait until others test these products."

The aspects to be consid ered in making a decision about introducing GMFs into the market, are many. Sri Lanka would have to be technologically up-to-date and prepared for the future. However in the final analysis, it is the long-term welfare of the people that should take prime importance. Long-term, broad-minded and well researched plans are essential to stay on top of the problem without getting trapped in a no-win situation.

More Plus

Return to Plus Contents