Encontré unos interesantes artículos de opinión sobre los alimentos modificados genéticamente, en el cual presentan su postura al respecto destacados profesores universitarios y asesores gubernamentales. Un tema siempre polémico y vigente.
Engineering Food for All
By Nina V. Fedoroff
FOOD prices are at record highs and the ranks of the hungry are swelling once again. A warming climate is beginning to nibble at crop yields worldwide. The United Nations predicts that there will be one to three billion more people to feed by midcentury.
Yet even as the Obama administration says it wants to stimulate innovation by eliminating unnecessary regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency wants to require even more data on genetically modified crops, which have been improved using technology with great promise and a track record of safety. The process for approving these crops has become so costly and burdensome that it is choking off innovation.
Civilization depends on our expanding ability to produce food efficiently, which has markedly accelerated thanks to science and technology. The use of chemicals for fertilization and for pest and disease control, the induction of beneficial mutations in plants with chemicals or radiation to improve yields, and the mechanization of agriculture have all increased the amount of food that can be grown on each acre of land by as much as 10 times in the last 100 years.
These extraordinary increases must be doubled by 2050 if we are to continue to feed an expanding population. As people around the world become more affluent, they are demanding diets richer in animal protein, which will require ever more robust feed crop yields to sustain.
New molecular methods that add or modify genes can protect plants from diseases and pests and improve crops in ways that are both more environmentally benign and beyond the capability of older methods. This is because the gene modifications are crafted based on knowledge of what genes do, in contrast to the shotgun approach of traditional breeding or using chemicals or radiation to induce mutations. The results have been spectacular.
For example, genetically modified crops containing an extra gene that confers resistance to certain insects require much less pesticide. This is good for the environment because toxic pesticides decrease the supply of food for birds and run off the land to poison rivers, lakes and oceans.
The rapid adoption of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant soybeans has made it easier for farmers to park their plows and forgo tilling for weed control. No-till farming is more sustainable and environmentally benign because it decreases soil erosion and shrinks agriculture’s carbon footprint.
In 2010, crops modified by molecular methods were grown in 29 countries on more than 360 million acres. Of the 15.4 million farmers growing these crops, 90 percent are poor, with small operations. The reason farmers turn to genetically modified crops is simple: yields increase and costs decrease.
Myths about the dire effects of genetically modified foods on health and the environment abound, but they have not held up to scientific scrutiny. And, although many concerns have been expressed about the potential for unexpected consequences, the unexpected effects that have been observed so far have been benign. Contamination by carcinogenic fungal toxins, for example, is as much as 90 percent lower in insect-resistant genetically modified corn than in nonmodified corn. This is because the fungi that make the toxins follow insects boring into the plants. No insect holes, no fungi, no toxins.
Yet today we have only a handful of genetically modified crops, primarily soybeans, corn, canola and cotton. All are commodity crops mainly used for feed or fiber and all were developed by big biotech companies. Only big companies can muster the money necessary to navigate the regulatory thicket woven by the government’s three oversight agencies: the E.P.A., the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.
Decades ago, when molecular approaches to plant improvement were relatively new, there was some rationale for a cautious approach.
But now the evidence is in. These crop modification methods are not dangerous. The European Union has spent more than $425 million studying the safety of genetically modified crops over the past 25 years. Its recent, lengthy report on the matter can be summarized in one sentence: Crop modification by molecular methods is no more dangerous than crop modification by other methods. Serious scientific bodies that have analyzed the issue, including the National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society, have come to the same conclusion.
It is time to relieve the regulatory burden slowing down the development of genetically modified crops. The three United States regulatory agencies need to develop a single set of requirements and focus solely on the hazards — if any — posed by new traits.
And above all, the government needs to stop regulating genetic modifications for which there is no scientifically credible evidence of harm.
Nina V. Fedoroff, who was the science and technology adviser to the secretary of state from 2007 to 2010, is a professor of biology at Pennsylvania State University.
Questions About Gene-Modified Foods
To the Editor:
Re “Engineering Food for All” (Op-Ed, Aug. 19):
Nina V. Fedoroff is right that genetic engineering offers incalculable potential for humankind. Crops are being altered to resist drought and floods, grow in poor soils, make vitamins for people without pharmacies, and last longer on the shelf. Bacteria have been modified to make insulin and to digest hazardous waste. The list goes on.
Ms. Fedoroff is also right that current federal regulation hurts progress on genetic modification. In fact, it’s a trip down the rabbit hole to Wonderland. But there are risks if modified life forms escape from controls, reproduce and spread, and the federal government recently announced that some modified organisms are beyond its control.
We need a new transparent, understandable law. Public support for transgenics will come from knowledge and participation. The Clinton administration was working on such a law when its term expired. Now is a good time to take that off the shelf and move forward.
WILLIAM Y. BROWN
Washington, Aug. 19, 2011
The writer, a science adviser to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt in the Clinton administration, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
To the Editor:
Nina V. Fedoroff asserts that “there is no scientifically credible evidence of harm” caused by genetically modified crops. Her argument is marred by what she doesn’t say.
Most safety studies of genetically modified organisms have been conducted by the corporations that market them. Their results have generally been withheld from independent reviewers, and intellectual property rights restrictions are used to create barriers to conducting independent studies.
Genetically modified organisms are always used in a package that involves the use of various agrotoxics — for the most widely used kind of G.M.O.’s, herbicides containing glyphosate. Recent studies have indicated harmful effects of exposure to glyphosate in the field (fetal abnormalities) and possibly of its ingestion (liver disease).
Many international organizations have urged that approaches to farming like agro-ecology are better suited to meeting the food needs of poor peoples than those using genetically modified crops. Policies that prioritize using genetically modified crops undermine the development of these alternatives.
Montclair, N.J., Aug. 19, 2011
The writer, a philosopher of science and professor emeritus at Swarthmore College, is a research fellow at the University of São Paulo, Brazil.
To the Editor:
If Nina V. Fedoroff is correct in her assessment of the importance and safety of genetically modified food crops, then this research is much too important to be left in the hands of for-profit corporations.
Rather, it must be performed by government, with the resulting patents to be held by government or a nonprofit organization required to make the results available to all on a nonexclusive basis at a nominal cost.
Otherwise, we run the very real risk of our food supply’s being totally controlled by a few very large multinational corporations.
Staten Island, Aug. 19, 2011
To the Editor:
Nina V. Fedoroff’s argument that the federal government should weaken or even eliminate regulations for genetically engineered organisms lacks scientific merit.
According to several National Academy of Sciences reports — which all conclude that we need to regulate genetically engineered organisms — G.E. crop risks will vary depending on the gene-organism combinations and the environment into which they are released.
The allergenicity of herbicide-tolerant crops, for instance, is irrelevant to the potential allergenicity of drought-tolerant corn or vitamin A rice. To ensure safety, scientific inquiries must be made on a case-by-case basis.
That said, our rickety biotechnology regulatory framework does need an overhaul. Some parts of it, like some Department of Agriculture provisions, should be streamlined in light of our experience with G.E. crops, but others — in particular the voluntary Food and Drug Administration food guidelines — should be strengthened and made mandatory.
Dir., Food and Environment Program
Union of Concerned Scientists
Washington, Aug. 19, 2011