Last month the Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety committee (ENVI) of the European Parliament voted to oppose the European Union’s plan to approve four crops—varieties of cotton, soybeans, and maize (corn)—genetically modified to resist herbicides.
Their vote exemplifies the mistaken belief that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are unsafe. No one would be sadder than the late Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug.
Aside from scientists and students in agricultural colleges, few people have heard of Borlaug. Yet, he has been called The Man Who Fed the World. He developed modern varieties of rice, wheat, maize, and other food crops now used all over the world. His high-yield, disease-resistant crop varieties feed billions.
But before today’s students can study the history of crossbreeding, they are bombarded with anti-GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) messages from non-profits and environmental activists.
Crossbreeding
Crossbreeding, like that done by Borlaug, brings out the best traits of plants in order to achieve higher productivity.
For example, Borlaug crossbred numerous wheat varieties to produce high-yield varieties. But their stalks could not support the weight of the additional wheat. So he crossbred them with a Japanese dwarf variety.
The final product—semi-dwarf wheat—was disease resistant, high yielding, and strong. It was revolutionary. Today it dominates 99 percent of wheat grown globally.
Borlaug did the same with many other food crops, including rice and maize. As a result, almost every corner of the world now grows his disease-resistant, high-yield crops.
The wheat, rice, or maize you eat today almost certainly has Borlaug’s handprints on it. He is globally recognized as the ‘Father of the Green Revolution’. In addition to his Nobel, he received the Congressional Gold Medal, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the National Medal of Science—and many other awards.
Gene editing: an advanced form of crossbreeding
Fears of genetically modified organisms are rooted in misunderstanding.
In principle, genetic modification is the same as crossbreeding. It combines traits of several varieties to produce high-yield, disease-resistant, environmentally-adapted crops that enhance food security. Most plant varieties we eat today went through careful crossbreeding before they became fit for human consumption.
Surprisingly, even the methodology is the same: identifying desirable gene traits and making food crop variants that have a stronger expression of genes with beneficial characteristics. The only difference is that modern
genetic modification happens at the molecular/microscopic level, whereas earlier crossbreeding occurred at the macroscopic level without high-precision technology.
“Genetic transformation is a very powerful tool for generating scientific proof of the roles and functions of key-genes. Based on the knowledge of functional genomics, plant biologists can alter the structures and functions of selected key genes through genetic manipulation,” explains a recent paper in BioMed Research International.
There are many methods of gene editing, but the most popular is known as CRISPR-Cas9 (bacterial Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats). Introduced in 2012, it revolutionized the field of eukaryotic genome editing. Unlike earlier techniques, CRISPR-Cas9 does not introduce foreign genes into an organism.
As explained in a 2018 article in the Wall Street Journal, “The new gene-editing technologies enable scientists to achieve some of the same effects by altering the plants’ own DNA, without inserting new genes. With CRISPR-Cas9, the most widely used system, scientists can program genetic guides to target a location along the plant’s DNA, where the Cas9 protein cuts the DNA. The cells change the DNA sequence as the cut is repaired.”
Because CRISPR-Cas9 is widely accepted across the globe and is operationally simple, it has become the scientific community’s preferred gene editing technique. Some of the recent outcomes of CRISPR technology include drought-resistant corn, wheat with less gluten, and tomatoes with easy-to-remove stems.
So technically, what traditional crossbreeding achieved through painstaking, time-consuming hybridization, gene editing achieves with more precision. Portraying genetic modification as something new and alien to farmers is pure propaganda.
Speaking to researchers and food scientists in Nairobi, Kenya, Borlaug said, “there is no evidence to indicate that biotechnology is dangerous. After all, mother nature has been doing this kind of thing for God knows how long. We need sophisticated scientific technology to boost our production.”
He even supported earlier forms of genetic editing that involved introducing foreign genes into a plant’s genetic composition: “If we could get a gene from rice—because rice does not suffer from rust—and then use it to protect other crops that suffer from rust like wheat, that would be a big revolution, and that will not be dangerous to human health in any way.”
Borlaug wasn’t alone in supporting genetically edited/modified organisms. Over the past several years, health and agricultural agencies of the US and Canada have approved multiple genetically modified crop varieties.
Not long ago, more than 500 scientists signed a petition calling for increased use of GMOs. They believe GM crops are perfectly safe for consumption, and the greatest tool in tackling global poverty and malnutrition.
Modern gene editing techniques are not evil. They will ensure the future of global food security.
Originally published in World Commerce Review.
Featured photo by Melissa Askew on Unsplash
John T. Reagan says
I appreciate the careful explanation presented by Mr. Jayaraj, especially his emphasis on how the CRISPR-Cas9 technology does not introduce outside (foreign) genes into the organism. When limited in this fashion, his claim that GM is really just an advanced form or crossbreeding rings true. Thought of that way it is no different than when, during my growing up years on the farm, we bred a Holstein cow to a Hereford bull producing offspring that had the high milk production of the Holstein and the beef-producing body type of the Hereford. It was a highly successful hybridization that worked well for us on our tiny farm. Yet, Mr. Jayaraj failed to hold to that model at the end of his article when he seemed to be cheering on the practice of introducing foreign genes into certain types of crops. The goal of producing more food is noble, but the practice of moving genes between species is dangerous.
Don’t get me wrong — I am not a technophobic obstructionist naysayer. I support some use of GM technology, but I not only see great potential for disaster, but gross violation of God’s domain and order. Let me deal with that potential disaster first. Several years ago genes from the Thuringiensis soil bacteria (BT) were introduced into corn producing a variety of corn that is deadly to insects that eat it. The benefits to farmers (and to the world’s food supply) have been tremendous. My greatest concern about BT corn has been the development of resistance in the targeted insects. Once this resistance develops (and it has developed in some places), what will we use to combat these pests? My understanding right now is that the problem has been properly managed, but the very fact that it has to be managed sets me back. It causes me to wonder if bigger problems are waiting for us down the road. Management plans and efforts always fail at some point. What will be the result when (not if) that happens?
That brings me to my second concern: by moving genes from one species to another we are violating God’s sovereignity. Let me go back to the above example. God designed the thuringiensis soil bacteria for a specific purpose. He inserted genes into that bacterium that produces an insecticidal protein. Why He did that is a mystery to me, but clearly He had something in mind. Yet He knew what He was doing and, I suspect, that protein likely affects the eco-system of the soil in which the bacterium lives. He designed corn without the genes that produce that toxic protein. He did that for a reason. For us to selectively breed corn that produces bigger crops is all part of how we, His created images, work together with our Father in managing this planet for/with Him. For us to transfer genetic material from a bacterium to a corn plant violates His domain. He created these things, not us. When the Bible says that each and every species was created to reproduce “after its kind”, we see a boundary beyond which we should not go. We are here on this planet as His stewards and caretakers. For the Cornwall Alliance, a proponent of that stewardship, to support and cheerlead the practice of moving genetic material from one species to another violates the stated purpose of that organization.
B. Dulock says
Until GMOs are tested over long periods of time (100 or more years), it is uncertain if they are indeed safe. Believing them not to cause harm is a weak basis for deciding to make fundamental changes to food used for human consumption.
Unless the situation is so critical (that is, starvation will occur), it is imprudent to introduce GMOs not knowing their long-term effects on human beings, the environment, and the ecosystem in which they grow.
Certainly GMOs have great potential, but jumping ahead of the curve of safety does not make sense (unless you profit from their introduction or mass starvation will occur).
Sheri Duff says
Aren’t some forms of Genetic Modification introducing non-food DNA into plants? Such as, either adding glyphosate, or a resistance to it? If so, that does not sound healthy, and how is the consumer to know the difference?
Andy Doerksen says
“Fears of genetically modified organisms are rooted in misunderstanding.”
Well said, but I’d add that this fear is also at least partly based on the unbiblical worldview assumption that “what is, is good” – that nature is fine the way it is; that it’s the way it’s “supposed” to be; and that we shouldn’t tamper with it.
This viewpoint rejects the Biblical teaching that we live in a /fallen world/, and therefore shouldn’t expect to find nature being what it’s “supposed” to be. What it’s actually supposed to be has only existed prior to the Fall. Since then it has degraded.
That being the case, genetic modification is a rational human response, since it is a means of countering some of the effects of the Fall and Curse (just as medical science counters some of those effects on our health).