Dr Michael Antoniou is adviser to many bodies concerned about potentially dangerous developments in biotechnology including Iceland Foods, the Soil Association, and the Natural Law Party. An edited version of the following article by Dr Antoniou appeared in "Talking Point", page 94, 26 June 1998, of the British agricultural journal
Farmers Weekly
Dr Michael Antoniou is a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology with 17 years experience of GM technology. He is head of a research group at a leading London medical school developing genetic engineering technology for human clinical applications.
Genetic modification (GM) in agriculture, is justified by its proponents on two main points. Firstly, it is argued that only GM crops can meet the needs of the world’s ever expanding population in a sustainable and environmentally conscientious manner. This claim is unproven, whereas extensive studies have shown that with better management of resources and minimal chemical inputs, yields from land in developing countries can be tripled using conventional crops.
A second, more fundamental point of justification of GM is that it represents a natural extension of traditional breeding methods, only it is more precise and safer. Many have expressed doubts. Prof. Philip James (Food Standards Agency advisor) warns that, "The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naïve. I don’t think we fully understand the dimensions of what we’re getting into". These reservations are at odds with what one hears from MAFF and the biotechnology industry.
Genes, the inherited blueprints of life, exist and work in groups as an integrated whole within a organism. Breeding between closely related forms of life exchanges variations of the same genes in their natural groupings thereby bringing out the best or desired traits that have been finely tuned to work harmoniously together by millions of years of evolution, although even this can have its problems (e.g. Moulin wheat).
In contrast, GM allows the isolation and transfer of only one or a few genes between totally unrelated organisms. GM plants and animals start life in a laboratory where artificial units of foreign genetic material are randomly inserted into the host which, to a lesser or greater degree, always disrupts natural genetic order and function. Furthermore, GM brings about combinations of genes that would never occur naturally.
The artificial nature of GM does not automatically make it dangerous. It is the imprecise way in which genes are combined and the unpredictability in how the foreign gene will behave that results uncertainty. In a post-BSE era it should be logical to think twice about using a technology that blatantly violates well established natural boundaries. Unfortunately, people are rushing into the field with a badly thought through technology.
GM crops have produced very variable yields. A US company is currently paying millions of dollars in compensation to cotton farmers after severe crop failures. Crops engineered to produce their own pesticide not only kill pests but also natural predators (e.g. ladybirds, lacewings) and pollinators. Complex GM management methods are now recommended in an attempt to avoid the rapid appearance of herbicide resistant volunteers/weeds and pesticide resistant insects. Therefore, in the long term GM is incompatible with low-input, sustainable farming methods (e.g. Integrated Crop Management). According to the NFU’s Biotechnology Working Group, "In general, it can be said that scientists do not have a complete understanding of natural ecosystems. It is therefore impossible to predict accurately the effects of large scale releases of genetically modified organisms".
The only "safe" use of GM in it’s current form would appear to be clinical applications which by nature and necessity do not result in the intentional release of viable GM organisms into the environment.
Consumer pressure has forced processors and retailers to resource raw materials to ensure a full range of GM-free products. Imports into the EU of GM soya, maize and oilseed rape from North America have already suffered substantially. Therefore, by staying GM-free the UK will not only avoid the inevitable health, farming and environmental problems which basic science and mounting evidence tells us will arise, but also enjoy a premium and security in the market.
Footnote: Minor elements of the above document submitted to Farmers Weekly were excluded from the final published article.
Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers? - some
realities behind biotechnology myths
Why consumers are concerned about GM foods
Earlier letter in Farming News on lack of markets for GM crops
Why GM crops will put farmers at legal risk
GM crops a threat to future viability of farming in Hampshire
Hampshire firm develops non-genetically engineered Soya for growing
in UK
Dorset farmers react in support of NLP GM warnings
Natural Law Party campaign to ban genetically modified foods in
Wessex
