Of airbags, genes, and peaches

Citation

Hines, P.J. (2001), "Of airbags, genes, and peaches", British Food Journal, Vol. 103 No. 11. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj.2001.070103kaa.001

Of airbags, genes, and peaches

Of airbags, genes, and peaches

Recently, I was sitting in a new car that had not just one but eight air bags. And I thought of my own car, manufactured before airbags became ubiquitous. Being without an airbag seemed fine at the time because the car had seat belts. Indeed, why would I need anything else? Of course, the idea of airbags sounded good – and, really, who wouldn't want a nice, squishy balloon bouncing up between one's head and the unyielding dashboard one's head is about to hit? But the technology was still new and, like many new technologies, it was the subject of a vigorous debate. One of the issues was that the technology wasn't perfect. We discovered, because of a number of tragic accidents, that while airbags could save lives, they could sometimes take them if the person was sitting too close to the opening airbag. The result of debate and experience was airbags that were more carefully designed, as well as airbags in more places were needed (airbags were even critical to landing Pathfinder safely on Mars in the summer of 1997) and a more knowledgeable use of them on the consumer level. Note that the end result was not the elimination of airbags but the more thoughtful use of airbags. Even though, at one point, we lacked a clear understanding of all the possible outcomes from using airbags, we did not ignore the technology and in fact worked on ways to improve it, to make it live up to its promise.

Genetically modified foods (GMF), like the airbags of several years ago, are the result of a new technology. While this technology may not have the consequences of a badly deployed airbag, its ramifications are far more complex. Make no mistake, the debate surrounding GMF is justifiably significant. The benefits that can be achieved from GMF crops are potentially tremendous, but if the technology isn't thoughtfully applied, any number of problems could occur. Scientists are now studying both the potential benefits and the potential problems of GMF, and consumers and policy makers are similarly exploring, within their areas of experience and expertise, the potential benefits and problems.

How should the debate over GMF be resolved? On one hand, the issue concerns facts and scientific progress. The question, say, of whether engineering a fish protein into a fruit to enhance the fruit's tolerance to freezing temperatures actually changes the allergenicity profile of that fruit will only be decided by scientific analysis. The allergenicity profile can be tested and the result may ultimately determine whether such a modified fruit reaches the general market. On the other hand, the issue is surrounded by ethical, political, and moral considerations. Would a vegetarian consider fruits containing fish protein a suitable food? Ultimately, it should be the individual who makes that decision. The distinction between these various sorts of arguments sometimes gets blurred in the heat of the debate, and it will be well worth some effort to recognize which unresolved questions can be satisfied by further scientific investigation and which will remain individual choices.

The GMF debate also impacts both politics and economics. Accepting GMF at the dinner table in one region of the world can affect monetary investment in the technology in another food-producing region of the world. Indeed, the choices made by large, food-for-export producers may affect what sorts of supplies and technologies are available to nearby regional or subsistence farmers.

Often overlooked is the fact that the GMF crops currently under debate are actually an outgrowth of technologies used for millennia by farmers to improve their crops. "Traditional" plant breeding technologies modified the genomes of these crops. The techniques of molecular biology now allow more complex modifications, as well as a more precise control of the modification of the genome. Interspecies and interkingdom boundaries can be breached to find solutions for otherwise unsolvable problems. The technology has manifold potential benefits. For example, development of pathogen-resistant crops may reduce exposure of the environment to pesticides. Development of drought- or salt-tolerant crops may improve yields for subsistence farmers who may only have poor lands to work with. Improved nutritive content of foods may address certain public health issues. And we just might eventually see ripe, juicy peaches in the grocery store during the winter. These are only a few examples. Along with this increase in potential benefit comes the potential for risks of sorts we haven't seen before, such as unexpected negative impacts on health or the ecosystem, gene flow to wild plant relatives, and invasiveness or persistence of new non-native plant variants. A vigorous and well-informed debate inclusive of all interested parties is critical to thoughtfully balancing the risks against the benefits and making the best use possible of our perpetually imperfect knowledge.

The essays you'll find collected in this issue of the British Food Journal are reprinted with permission from the Web site "Science Controversies: On-Line Partnerships in Education" (SCOPE) (URL: http://scope.educ.washington.edu/forum/). Please note that these commentaries are opinion pieces, and have not been peer-reviewed, but may have been edited for clarity. The opinions expressed in the essays are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SCOPE project, its members, or its affiliated institutions. SCOPE is supported by generous funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), and is a collaboration between research groups at the University of California at Berkeley, University of Washington, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. SCOPE explores the ’use’ of the Internet and innovative classroom teaching approaches for promoting discussion of and insight into controversial scientific topics among scientists, students, and the interested public. For this past year, SCOPE has been focusing on the topic of GMF. The Web site is open to all who are interested. We encourage you to visit the site to read more extensively about GMF and to add your own voice to this dynamic and important debate. Hopefully, out of the very different views of the question will emerge a consensus about how to use this technology for the benefit of the planet and its many residents.

Pamela J. Hines