The biotechnology trap: Real or hypothetical

But wait a minute, is it not known that what gamma radiation does is introduce mutations or changes in the genetic material? Then is this not genetic modification? Do I see any environmentalist protesting against it, resisting its release? I do not think any such thing will happen, because it never has. Even if there had been any protest it had never been strong enough to stop its use. Perhaps it had been realised that such technology was after all, beneficial. We have had been using radiation for crop improvement for quite a long time now.

Mr. Nazrul Islam, a journalist and an environmentalist did mention in his November 1 Daily Star article titled The Biotechnology Trap that some debate had been generated when nuclear technology was introduced. But this has subsided and now we are debating more vehemently about GM.

Tampering with the underlying structures of an organism -- by means of changing the genetic material that help make that organism may raise alarms in many. But have we ever thought about the consequences brought about by the use of radiation in getting a particular breed of a plant, a method that has been in use in our country for quite a long time now?

As in the mustard story, gamma radiation is used in such cases to bring about a desired change in the DNA molecule (a molecule that controls the uniqueness of the plant and all living beings for that matter) and then plants are selected for the acquisition of a particular trait. While selecting for a particular trait what we often overlook is the fact that many more changes would have been induced by the radiation. These changes at the DNA level can bring about other unforeseen changes. This is something our environmentalists conveniently ignore.

Would anyone who has any knowledge about the chemical composition of DNA, the genetic material, deny that causing changes in the DNA molecule using gamma ray does not constitute a genetic modification (GM)?

Why is it then we fear genetic modification only when this is induced by transgenicity? We get a transgenic plant when we introduce a foreign gene (a gene is a piece of DNA molecule that confers a particular trait) into the plant. We know of plants which grow in the marshy saline regions of the Sunderbans. These plants grow on saline land because they have specific genes, genes which allow such growth. What if we identified those genes, isolated them from the saline tolerant plant, and put them in a plant that does not grow in salty coastal regions, like the afore-mentioned mustard or rice? Why would introducing changes in the DNA molecule by radiation be safer than putting in a gene from another plant? The later approach is more targeted and does not bring about random changes in the DNA molecule as happens in the case of radiation mutation.

With our ever-growing human population, we need to explore every possible avenue to help increase food production. Our farmers will readily embrace any technology as long as it is affordable and profitable. It would be unwise to throw away any valuable tool using philosophical arguments and claiming hypothetical risks. There had always been people who resisted new technology. If we look back into history we will find those few visionaries who saw the potentials of new technology and pressed ahead. For what they did often at great personal risk, we enjoy the benefits of technology today.

There is this small but vocal minority of misinformed and misguided activists who are opposed to genetic modification of our crop varieties. Should we let them dictate us?

Today we are faced by the challenges of feeding the growing population in the ever-declining agricultural land. We would be better served if these problems were tackled using technology available to us, rather than let them be side-tracked because of fears of new technology. Our fears must be debated in a spirit of scientific openness. Above all, it must be remembered that no one has a monopoly on truth and knowledge -- certainly not those who are unwilling to accept that there are two sides to every issue.

Because of the visible means by which global corporations are consolidating their control over the food industry, genetic engineering has inspired opposition in many countries of the world.

Yes, we may be fearful of the MNCs. We need to be. But why fear a new technology without actually ascertaining if there is any ground to be fearful? Even if the "real interest of the MNCs in genetic engineering is not to make third world agriculture more productive but rather to generate profits" it does not mean that we should sit idle and not develop manpower and infrastucture in genetic engineering so that we are able to initiate our own research into developing transgenic crops in our country.

If we are always advocating fear and resistance, most of which is unjustified and biased, how can the right kind of public awareness be generated? An awareness that would be necessary to get public funding for such research? It does not take much to realise that without our own research base in such areas, we are bound to fall prey to MNCs. Negative opinion on GM technology can therefore be very damaging.

It is claimed that eating transgenic food in which new proteins are produced can give rise to allergic reactions or cause toxicity or is thought to alter the metabolism of the food producing plant or animal. For quite some time now Bt soyabean has been in the markets of the US and some other countries including perhaps Bangladesh (since there are no monitoring system in operation in Bangladesh it is quite likely that transgenic processed food may already have made way into our markets). Allergenecity due to such food would have been noticed at least in the countries where availability of such food is public knowledge. And also all the fear of toxicity and alteration of the metabolic pathway of the genetically modified organism (plants in this case) can also be attributed to crops improved through use of radiation.

There is also no reason why GM crops should mean mechanisation and thus displace farmers from the land, as feared by Mr. Islam. A GM crop is like any other crop, and is cultivated in the same way as any other crop, and there is no requirement of mechanisation. There could be movements for resisting displacement of farmers from their land through the introduction of machines, by unscrupulous business people. But this is a completely different story and has nothing to do with GM crops.

Are we trying to kid ourselves by thinking that GM would lead to overexploitation of our land? Does it mean we are not overexploiting it now? That would definitely be wishful thinking. GM is all about bringing fallow land under agriculture like the saline coastal belt, or growing crops in flood prone or drought prone regions. This does not agree with overexploitation.

Any debate on GM is good. General public needs to be made aware about both the potentiality and the dangers of this new technology.

It is important to see which outweighs the other.

Haseena Khan, Ph.D, is Professor and Chairperson, Department of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Dhaka University.