GM crops in Europe

After thirteen long years, the European Commission has finally adopted a bill approving the use of four different genetically modified (GM) crops, three of which are species of corn and one a species of potato. It has been a stubborn case; an example wherein many interests meet scepticism and fear, and where prejudices meet the power of science.

Vital in the discussion about GM crops is the question why we should grow them in the fist place. Many oversimplified answers are available. Some of these are familiar ones, like better resistance to drought, pests and stress. A more radical and innovative scientific feature is altered composition, shortly described as the addition of beneficial substances into the crops themselves, thereby replacing possible later (chemical) additions in the food production process.

This arouses fear in many people. That is not strange, as genetic mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell’s genome, which are best known to us thanks to world news about radiation and viruses. But there’s more: Think of ‘don’t mess with my food’ and Hollywood scenarios telling horrifying tales of mad scientists manipulating this world. And in a sense it is true that scientists manipulate what happens in the world, yet for very different reasons and with very different means. Some basic biology helps most people see the light.

In nature there is natural selection as a driving force of evolution. Leaving the broader discussion aside, it is reasonably safe to say that, when an organism develops a trait that makes it unsuited for survival – like for instance blindness – its chances of survival are slimmer than those of its rivals. The same works the other way around, meaning when a positive trait is developed. The familiar ‘human’ variant of this is called artificial selection. Most of us have encountered real-life examples of this: Dogs. They all share a same ancestor, namely wolves, yet their looks are astonishingly different. Many dog-lineages have been carefully ‘crafted’, meaning that sexual reproduction was carefully driven into a desired direction by excluding those that did not have either the looks or characters the breeders were looking for. This is the reason why some dogs have flat snouts, some are always fluffy and some have a body/paw ratio of 100:1. In other words, if you want to breed dogs with a long snout, you keep all those with the long-snout trait, while excluding all other gene pools that do not seem to favour your wishes.

Dogs are, however, certainly not the only example of artificial selection. Mankind has tried to steer nature’s course many, many times over. The relevant examples here are agricultural products. Grow wheat each year, harvest all, yet use in re-seeding only seeds from plants that produce most. If all goes as planned, the same amount of wheat will, in due course, produce more. There are limits to that process, and they are nature’s limits. Looked at from this perspective, genetic modification is ‘just’ the next step, the step enabling mankind to overcome difficulties that nature alone is not able to solve, at least not in our lifespan. In practice it is much more difficult to grasp than artificial breeding, for as we know not all breeders have biological know-why and know-how, but ‘all’ those involved in the actual process of modifying crops certainly have. For, as the name implies, genetic mutation (/modification) happens on gene-level. Unlike in normal natural circumstances, where reproduction is only possible if a creature’s DNA or genetic structure is related closely enough to allow it to happen, this makes cross-border transfer of genes possible (for instance from fungi to bacteria).

This means that the conventional technique of breeding, where existing genes are randomly rearranged, is left behind. Generally, it is not grievously wrong to say the genes code for DNA, and DNA codes for proteins (there are exceptions, but they’re irrelevant here).  As plants and creatures are very different in phenotype (appearance), you might expect major differences on the genotype level too. And in a sense there is, but the structure of genetic material is in many ways quite similar in different species. This has the advantage that it makes scientists better suited to identity (potentially) useful genes, which in turn can be used and implemented into genetic material by Genetic Engineers instead of making the genetic material a mere combination of two distinct parents.

This sounds rather attractive when you think of the implications this can have. Can you imagine crops much better suited for long droughts or for concluding when its spring (meaning grow-time)? And what about the dependence our crops have these days on chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides? ‘Biological agriculture’ – meaning agriculture by nature so without the chemical and fertilizers – has been thriving in Holland. People apparently are willing to pay a higher price if their food hasn’t been ‘infected’ by all sorts of post-seeding substances. If scientists and farmers get more freedom, albeit carefully watched freedom, then there is much territory left to be explored.

People, especially in Europe, are weary of the process, though. Some have religious reasons, stating that ‘it is God’s job do steer nature’. Luckily for us, most are sensible enough to go beyond that argument. Their other arguments don’t hold much sway, as they’re aimed mostly at safety. This might be another Hollywood left-over, creating unwilling minds when it comes to genetic mutations, or it might not be. Whatever the reason, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has rigorously assessed the now legal products, and not just once. Also, as already stated, GM crops have already been safely used over and over again in other countries. Fears that they might spread in our own national wildlife, creating havoc and destroying other species, have become common, though groundless, myths. First of all, most agricultural products aren’t grown at places where similar species grow, meaning gene flow isn’t possible. Second, the advantages of genetic modification are aimed at reasonably controlled agricultural situations; hence the advantages are much less useful in nature. You might note here that bugs and other small creatures travelling along on our ships and aeroplanes do create just the havoc we seek to avoid: Nature itself is probably much more unsafe than are GM’s.

The former is not meant to be saying we shouldn’t be careful. On the contrary: A couple of decades of GM crops cannot be considered as something worthy of the label ‘long-term proof’. The demand for case-by-case studies then, in order to asses each GM crop on its merit instead of judging the whole scene at once, is certainly legitimate And that is only a good thing. A strict procedure aimed at both the safety of civilians as well as Mother Nature should not be neglected, but then again it never should have.

And there are reasons abound for introducing more GM crops, so there is no need so stick with a biologically framed vision. Equally pressing and mundane matters are waiting, and not exactly waiting in line. First of all there is shortage of food, on a global scale. In recent years it has led to a steady increase of average food prices, which has, as always, hit the poorest hardest. More production in Europe is unlikely to change a persisting lack of supply, but being more self-sufficient might lower demand and therefore prices.

A second reason is added value for farmers. They will be able to make their own choices, no longer being told whether or not to grow GM crops. As these modified crops have advantages over their natural ‘predecessors’, they might also improve the European market compared to countries which started using them long ago such as China, India, USA and Brazil. In the last decade more and more farmers opted for GM crops, both in richer, developed nations as in those less well off. How many of us are inclined to ascribe that process to randomness rather than to apparently serious practical advantages? Relevance can be found too in the area of energy and environment. Crops needing less water or other post-seeding activities demand less of our resources, which is something well in-line with the European Union’s long-term ambitions.

The last and most profound ‘argument’ is not scientific but about science: A wide-spread consensus that the advantages are great, the dangers much less so. The European Commission has (finally) done something pragmatic, something that overcame prejudice. Not that I would stress blind faith in ‘science’, but the reports, examples and needs are too numerous to leave these plans in ruins. Hunger is still our enemy, not difficult innovation.

Those against genetically modified crops should raise several questions. Not the least of those is whether or not they would ponder over its acceptability if they were starving themselves. That is a staggeringly easy question to answer I think, but we need to remind ourselves of its power. Let our brains do the work, are GM’s will keep on paving the way, despite opposition.