Busting the myths about GMOs in agriculture

It is now four decades since the first experiments with recombinant DNA that led to a brief voluntary moratorium. It is also about two decades since the first genetically modified plant was commercialised. In these two decades, the use of agricultural biotechnology has developed from zero to about 11 per cent of the soil used for agriculture. This is a remarkable rate of introduction for a new agricultural technology.

The precautionary measures taken at an early stage in these developments were justified by lack of knowledge about a new technology and our inability to predict its negative consequences for environment and society. In particular in Europe, this is the way biotechnology is often still discussed. We think it is time to dismiss three myths that are common in those discussions.

The first myth is that GMO is still a new technology about which we know very little. This is wrong because the technical processes used for moving genes in the laboratory are now fairly well understood, and they do not give rise to major worries in terms of risks. In addition, we now begin to unravel the possible effects of genetic modifications on the environment, through large-scale practical applications, extensive field trials, and a much better understanding of both genetic and ecological mechanisms. Although there are still large knowledge gaps, which limit our understanding of the full spectrum of ecological implications of using different types of biotechnologically derived organisms, we are now in a much better position than a couple of decades ago to assess the possible effects of modifications in the genomes of plants and animals. Therefore the old approach of treating all genetic modifications alike is no longer tenable.

Myth number two is that there are no different risks involved in GMO than in traditional breeding. Based on our improved understanding of the technical processes used for moving genes between organisms, the effects of moving genes from, say, one cultivar of rice to another can reasonably be expected to be the same if they are moved with GMO or with traditional means. However, GMO makes it possible to move genes across biological barriers that traditional breeders cannot cross, even from animals to plants. For obvious reasons, the effects of such modifications may be different from those of intra-species transfers, and they are often more difficult to predict. Therefore it is simply wrong to claim that the risks of GMOs and traditional breeding are the same.

The third myth is that all uses of GMO are extremely dangerous. This is equally wrong. Both experience and strongly supported theoretical knowledge give us reason to consider the targeted transfer of genes between organisms that could have exchanged the same genes in nature as a process with a comparatively small risk of unpredictable negative effects, in particular if the function of these genes is reasonably well understood. Instead of considering all uses of GMO to imply a high risk for environment and society, major focus in the discussion should be on the specific traits of modified organisms and their possible effects, rather than the technologies used to modify those traits.

In summary, all genetically modified organisms should not be treated alike. Today we know enough to distinguish between high-risk and low-risk genetic modifications. It is now time to apply that knowledge in practice.
Original Article Here