GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS MAY HOLD GREAT BENEFITS (11-2003)

One of the most fervent of global controversies over the past few years concerns whether or not
genetically modified (GM) crops are safe and necessary. Lined up on the pro side are biotech
companies, of course, along with many world governments and the food industry. Taking up a
contrary position are environmental activists, some scientists, and lately, a few people in the
religious community.

What does "genetically modified" mean and why is it the fodder for so much controversy? Like
the debate itself, the answers are complex.

Throughout its history, mankind has been modifying the gene pools of wild plants and animals in
order to convert naturally-occurring species into those with traits that are better suited to the
needs of humans. The process is called domestication and involves the selective breeding of
organisms.

Selective breeding is a long and tedious process, taking many generations to develop a suitable
strain. It is also very inexact, since the outcome of breeding cannot always be predicted. But,
over the centuries, it has given us Red Delicious apples from native crabapples. It has given us
navel oranges from their tiny, bitter cousins in nature. And it has turned wolf-like wild dogs into
French poodles and dachshunds. 

Genetic engineering speeds up the process, and makes it more nearly exact. By adding specific
gene sequences to plant DNA, it is possible to produce a crop with desired characteristics in the
first generation.

Proponents of the technology claim that GM foods will help to feed the world by increasing
yield. It can also be used to increase the nutritional content of foods, making them healthier to
consume. And, by making crops insect resistant, the use of pesticides can be decreased or
eliminated, thus making GM agriculture more environmently-friendly.

Opponents, however, counter that GM crops are beneficial only to the biotech industry, since it
controls the seeds. They say world hunger can be addressed only through political means, not by
increasing yield, which can already adequately feed the world if distributed properly.

Environmentalists caution that GM crops may spread disease resistance to the wild, allowing
weeds to run amok. They also claim that fields that grow GM crops produce bacterial
communities that are anomalous, with unknown consequences to the soil.

And there is also a concern that GM foods have the potential to create new allergies in those who
are sensitive.

But the latest attack on genetic engineering comes from two Jesuit priests in Zambia who told a
Vatican biotech conference that genetic engineering goes against church teaching because, in
their view, it is like playing God.

"Nature is not just useful to us as humans, but is valued and loved in itself, for itself, by God in
Christ," they told the conference. They want the Catholic Church to oppose the use of
biotechnology and GM foods.

But Cardinal Renato Martino, the organizer of the conference, remained favorable to the
technology and encouraged scientists to continue their research into genetic modification of food
crops. 

Regardless of one's position on the benefits or drawbacks of genetically modified foods, it is
going too far to ban the technology on moral grounds. Technology itself is amoral. It is neither
good nor bad. Like anything else, how the technology is used will be either good or bad. Or,
more likely, it will be some combination of both.

Hundreds of people are killed each year by drunk drivers. Yet there is no push to ban the
production of cars just because some people use them inappropriately. By the same token,
bioengineering research must be allowed to proceed, unimpeded by those who believe it to
violate their version of morality, or by those who fear its consequences. 

Although there may be hidden dangers, which must always be guarded against, the potential
benefits that may be derived from this new technology are vast. 

Research on embryonic stem cells has already been hampered by President Bush, who has taken
a moral stance against it. Although the U.S. government is an advocate of genetic engineering,
protest groups, and now even some members of the Catholic Church, may impede its progress. 

It would be a shame if they were to succeed in their efforts.