Chris Smith, a Master Gardener, recently took a look at gardening and genetic engineering in three successive articles in the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer. According to Washington State University’s Master Gardener Program, a Master Gardener is a person trained to serve their communities through horticulture, gardening and pest management.
Smith begins by urging gardeners to educate themselves about genetic engineering and not duck the issue. He refers readers to Genetic Engineering of Plants: Research, Rhetoric and Reality, by Julie Dawson and Margaret E. Smith. The book is hard to find - neither Powells nor Amazon has it - but Smith relies heavily on the slim tome (129 pages) and it sounds like a good resource.
His second and third articles look at the arguments and merits of GMO “cheerleaders” and “detractors.” He approaches the matter pragmatically, acknowledging that agriculture is a business and recognizing that the cheerleaders include dreamers - people who just want to solve a problem - and schemers who want to take control.
That companies should try to profit from agriculture is not surprising. Agribusiness is a reality. Concentration of control is another matter. That a few companies should virtually control seeds, food crops and plant-derived pharmaceuticals and that many of these entities would resist accurate labeling of genetically engineered products is disturbing to many people.
Smith lists many the many concerns about GMOs. There are too many to quote, but I will summarize them: GMOs are not organic, contaminate other species, have poor regulatory oversight, impact trade with other nations, are not containable, lead to super-pathogens, reduce biodiversity and increase vulnerable monocultures, and are suspected of causing health problems.
Smith points to four issues with GMO that need to be addressed if they are to be accepted: Concentration of control among a few companies, labeling, preventing contamination, and ensuring human safety. Of the four areas, ensuring human safety from consumption of GMOs is his least concern.
Perhaps the lack of knowledge and Smith’s admittedly non-scientific background drive his lack of concern over consumption, but I have to disagree with him on the point. Not much is known about how genetic modifications will impact humans - the creators of the FlavrSavr tomato either didn’t realize or didn’t care that their product would taste like gasoline until consumers rebelled.
Instead of focusing on consumption, Smith looks ahead at what he knows as a gardener, that overuse of pesticides (antibiotics) will result in strong pests (bacteria). Here again, he falls short of the mark.
A possibly bigger danger to us is the loss of effectiveness of antibiotics when they’re used as markers in lab transformations of genetic materials. The fear is pathogens will develop resistance to antibiotics used frequently in this manner. Fortunately, the plasmid technology mentioned earlier in this column may obviate the use of antibiotics as markers.
Smith doesn’t mention plasmid technology in any of the three articles, nor does a search of the P-I’s website reveal the article he mentions. It isn’t clear from Smith’s comment how plasmid technology will circumvent the problem he mentions. GMO Compass defines what plasmids are, and Wikipedia mentions the use of plasmids in modifying organisms.
Smith isn’t a scientist, and doesn’t claim to be one, but he rightly enjoins us to educate ourselves, starting with a work by scientists and continuing by paying attention. I don’t agree with everything Smith has to say, but the articles provide a good starting point for someone interested in the controversy over GMOs.
Food, Farming, & Food Politics events calendar
Humor:
