The Ethics & Effects of Plant Biotechnology
Presented by Fred Deneke, PhD, Educator, botanist and horticulturist
About the Speaker
About the Event
Announcements
In addition to the bulletin, a “Freethought Resources” sheet was distributed, featuring publishers of skeptical and freethought magazines and books as well as a recommended reading list.
Thanks to Bill Merriman for the handsome improvement for our donation box and thanks to those who contributed to it.
NOTE: We will have a business meeting on March 21st at 7PM, regarding the future direction of the group, planning and programs. This meeting is on a different Wednesday than our regularly scheduled discussion nights. One idea Jeff put out for us to digest is that, with our larger numbers, maybe some smaller, special interest groups may wish to gather, culled from our membership, in addition to or instead of our traditional 2nd and 4th Wednesday meetings.
There are some exciting things on the horizon for our group, including interest by GRTV in televising our meetings. More on this and other items to be discussed later.
A membership directory was passed around to amend information contained therein.
The calendar of upcoming events and topics has been revised, including that the Dan Barker debate is no longer on. Our current line up is as follows:
>FEBRUARY 28th, 7PM: “ADHD: Disease or Deception?” Moderated by Dr. Robert W. Collins.
>MARCH 2-4, various times: “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time”, >presented by Dr. Markus Borg, author and member of the Jesus Seminar. NOTE: This will be held at Christ Community Church, NOT on the GRCC campus. For more information contact: http://www.christ-community.net/html/marcus_j_borg.html.
>MARCH 14, 7PM: “Surely We’re Different! Is there ‘sanctity of life’ for human and non-human animals?” Moderated by Jeff Seaver. (This is a program change from the previously scheduled topic.)
>MARCH 28, 7PM: “Guns, Germs & Steel”- a discussion based on the ideas in Jared Diamond’s book by the same title, dealing with the fates of human societies. Moderated by Marshall Grate.
>APRIL 11, 7PM: “Is Alcoholism a Disease?” Moderated by Jill Pinkerton.
>APRIL 25, 7PM: “Are There Objective Human Values? Human Hope vs Randian Logic as an Answer to Relativism” to be moderated by Dr. Joseph Ellin, Philosophy Professor, WMU.
For more information, to make comments, suggest a topic, or request a membership directory visit our website: http://www.cfimichigan.org or .
Presentation
Our topic for this meeting was “The Ethics & Effects of Plant Biotechnology.” It was moderated by educator, botanist and horticulturist, Dr. Fred Deneke. Despite his credentials, he led off with a disclaimer that he is biased and not an expert in this topic.
The NAS (2000) definition of biotechnology is: “The application of our knowledge and understanding of biology to meet practical needs.” Tellingly, regarding the dearth of scientific literacy in our country in general, when American consumers were asked if they support the use of biotechnology in food and agriculture, nearly 70% said that they do. However, when asked if they approved of genetically engineered (or genetically modified) foods, 66% replied in the negative! Dr. Forbes gave a similar example in a presentation on evolution and education in a past meeting, showing that people were interested in plants, but not in botany; the history and genealogy of humans and other animals, but not in evolution; the Earth, but not geology and so on.
Dr. Deneke pointed out that humans have been altering crops for their benefit since the beginning of civilization, but biotechnology in the modern sense is more controversial, quicker and with more far reaching implications in its applications. This includes Genetic Modification (GM) Technology, the part of biotech. dealing with applications in medicine and agriculture based on our understanding of the genetic code of life. This technology involves altering the genetic constitution of cells or individuals by the selective removal, insertion, or modification of individual genes or gene sets.
First developed in the 1970’s, GM technology was used to produce insulin from modified bacteria in ‘78; saw the first food ingredient approved in ‘90, and the 1st whole GM food (the FLAVR SAVR tomato- designed to ripen on the vine to develop full flavor without softening at market) in ‘94. Some examples given of applications of GM tech. were for pest control, such as the incorporation of Bt into some food and fiber crops, and the development of resistance in rice to yellow mottle virus, where traditional breeding was not successful, and which threatened parts of Africa with total crop failure. The incorporation of dwarfing genes from wheat plants into other crop species results in shorter, stronger plants, responding to fertilizer with increased yields but w/o the plants falling over.
Other applications in nutrition are the creation of crops capable of growing in land marginalized by soil toxicity or high saline levels (from mangrove gene extraction). Genes introduced into rice that humans can convert into Vitamin A can create a food dramatically reducing blindness from Vit. A deficiencies that traditional methods were ineffective in producing. Also cereal grains, low in iron, resulting in anemia due to this deficiency, may be helped by the evaluation of transgenic rice.
As to the environmental impact, crops tolerant to low tillage reduce erosion and can be made tolerant to root diseases, as well herbicide tolerant crops reducing weeds. While a greater application of herbicides is needed initially, in the long run, the amount is reduced and without beneficial crops being destroyed along with the weeds. Monsanto has capitalized on this technology by creating Roundup Ready soybeans, for example. This, however, creates the concern about a very few companies monopolizing the market by patented seeds (some with a “Terminator gene” so that future seed purchase is necessary), and crops that accept only that company&Mac226;s herbicides.
Vaccines and pharmaceuticals are unavailable to many poorer countries due to their costs. When GM plants produce these drugs, costs are reduced. Increased yields of plants already producing medicines (currently about 1/3rd of medicines are derived from plants) could be achieved with this technology. The other side of this issue is that companies spending large sums on research and development of these modified crops may be unlikely candidates for marketing these to poorer areas. Sharing such potentially lucrative creations far and wide may not be seen in the company’s best business interests. Additionally, the crops being focused on are not typically staples in the developing world, but more for U.S. and European markets.
One application of GM technology even involves transgenic extraction/insertion from the Animal Kingdom to the plant! This is where an “antifreeze” gene from the flounder has extended the growing season of strawberries in northern climates. Also discussed were greater shelf life and storage of grains, the production of industrial products &Mac247;oils&Mac247; by modified plants and biomass production as a fuel source.
There are fewer wild species to cross-breed traditionally, for heartier hybrids and genetic engineering solves this, as well as creating crops suited to changing environments. Fewer natural resources are needed to cultivate such modified crops, reducing the environmental impact. Other reasons proffered for use of GM technology has to do with ultimate human health impact from traditional methods that make use of increased quantities of fertilizers, pesticides and disease potential from excessive soil tillage, as well as biological diversity being compromised. Misuse and overuse of productive lands has resulted in the degradation of a quarter of this land in the past 25 years. This could be reduced by GM techniques.
Already, an estimated 2/3rds of processed foods in U.S. supermarkets are made from genetically altered crops. This brought about discussion of labeling and what precisely constitutes a genetically altered plant. Even the spread of pollens from one GM field to a non-GM field and its impact was touched upon. Another concern is with the rapidity that we can alter crops and if we can keep up with the hidden dangers in our research. Also the profitability of this research makes for eager distribution, before total evaluation is possible in the minds of some people and groups. Some insects can be compromised by the introduction of crops that were formally beneficial but now increase mortality in certain species. There was the worry voiced too about how we may be artificially escalating the natural arms race between pests and crops, or the unintended creation of “Superweeds” with these techniques.
The creation of crops that no longer contain human allergens was talked about, since breeders can extract or inactivate specific genes. Traditional breeding methods were contrasted with GM, regarding the former involving the entire genome being crossed as opposed to GM where only one or a few genes are involved, so a more focused testing for toxicity can be done. However, there is the issue of genes with little or no history of human consumption being inserted into traditional food crops.
Since antibiotic resistance genes are used as selective markers in the GM process, the concern is there that this will result in the increase of antibiotic human pathogens. The counter argument is that scientists can remove these markers before being put into commercial use.
Much of the focus in the scientific community over concerns with this technology are in comparing/contrasting it with traditional methods. Is GM as safe or more dangerous than older techniques. Can biological diversity be suppressed by the introduction of a modified crop into an existing environmental niche? Could natural ecosystems be destroyed by widespread adoption of stress-tolerant plants that use lands formally unsuitable for this vegetation? In this vein, we discussed the regulations of this technology and the concerns by various other groups including the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, that comes at this issue from a spiritual (God’s creation) stance.
Dr. Deneke concluded his presentation with remarks from Michael Shermer on alternative vs scientific medicine, bringing up the alienation felt by many lay people with the perceived elite priesthood; keepers of rarefied knowledge, who do not readily share, in common language, the exact nature of these issues. Alternative medicine, despite other concerns, provides a more hands-on, attached and human-to-human approach that is more comforting and engaging for many. This is its lure and the problem that has to be addressed before this technology will ever be met with widespread public approval.
Recorder: Charles LaRue
