3rd quarter 2005
WHO sees agricultural biotechnology as a chance to improve world nutrition
In its study "Modern food biotechnology, human health and development", the World Health Organisation (WHO) concludes that the overall effect of agricultural biotechnology is positive, stating that it can contribute to improving human health and development in many countries, provided that genetically modified plants are released only after undergoing rigorous testing to preclude any impairment of human health or the environment.
Genetically modified (GM) plants can increase the yield, quality and variety of crops and thus improve a given region's nutritional situation and standard of living. GM plants can also help to reduce the use of chemicals and thus alleviate the burden on the environment and the health of the people using them.
The WHO study provides an overview of the currently available genetically modified plants with herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance. The study sees future potential in the development of plants containing improved nutrients, citing among other things the development of "golden rice" and "high-iron rice". Also under development are plants possessing improved tolerance of dryness, salt and aluminium. In the area of animal production, the WHO points out that salmon with increased growth hormones may be the first genetically modified animal to enter the market.
The report continues with a risk analysis of genetically modified organisms and their effects on human health and the environment. In this context, the WHO states that the genetically modified foods currently on the market have been tested extensively and that it is not probable that these foods entail different risks for health than conventionally produced foods do. Unintended effects such as higher levels of toxic constituents — for example due to gene silencing, environmental effects or positional effects — also occur in conventional breeding. The WHO considers horizontal gene transfer to be rare, but states that it cannot be entirely excluded. That it why the WHO recommends as a precaution that safety researchers assume that DNA fragments can be absorbed by microflora in the human digestive tract or by somatic cells and dispense with using genes with antibiotic resistance. With regard to allergies, the WHO refers to the example of transgenic soybeans containing a gene from Brazil nuts: adding new genes to foods increases the risk of allergies. While the allergenicity of Brazil nuts was known, it may be difficult to determine the allergenicity of entirely new proteins.
In the area of environmental effects, the WHO study discusses a variety of aspects, for example the reduced need for chemicals in agriculture and for chemicals and waste water in the industrial sector, the introgression (penetration of one population's genes into the genome of another) of transgenic DNA into traditional Mexican maize strains, the StarLink case, the case of the Monarch butterfly and the extensive studies in England on the effect of GM plants on biodiversity, which are based on the world's largest outdoor trial.
Developing countries have to build their own competence. To do this, they need specialists who have experience with genetic engineering and can help the government develop laws and regulations for dealing with genetically modified organisms. Organisations such as WHO, FAO and UNEP should coordinate their efforts in this respect. Developing countries are already conducting their own research: public research institutions in fifteen developing countries are currently focusing on more than 40 plants, including rice, potatoes, maize, soybeans, tomatoes, bananas and papayas. However, most of these developments are not protected by intellectual property rights because the researchers either are not even aware of this possibility or because acquiring patent protection in the USA or the EU is extremely expensive. The issue of the rights to genetic resources was regulated in 2001 in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources.
Social and ethical reservations regarding agricultural biotechnology cannot be attributed primarily to a lack of knowledge. The sceptical public knows of the dangers, but also of the opportunities posed by genetic engineering — and does not demand a "zero risk" approach. Despite that, genetic engineering methods are felt to go beyond natural limits. The very disparate rules regarding the labelling of genetically modified foods and the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops are attributable to cultural and social backgrounds. In this respect, international harmonisation is extremely unlikely. The WHO also points out that labelling does not free government authorities from the obligation to analyse risks and make decisions.
Brigitte Engelhard, CUGC
4 July 2005