Debate over genetically modified foods essential

The kind of awkward silence that can envelope university lecture halls during the Q & A portion of a presentation was one problem the organizers of Hope or Hype?-Do We Need Genetically Modified Food to Feed the World? didn't have to contend with.

Nor was there a rush for the catered spread waiting outside the theatre in which Dr. Channapatna S. Prakash of Tuskegee University, Alabama, presented a pro-GMO seminar, hosted in part by the University of Alberta's Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science. Instead, those in attendance at the public presentation wanted answers to their questions, or simply to voice their opposition.

"I think we could have kept debating for hours at length, and we could have sat there all night, because people come in with preconceived opinions and notions," said Dr. Nat Kav, a researcher in AFNS, a few days after the talk. "Or, in some cases, they may be unwilling to change those, so we could keep the debate going. But, on the other hand, there were also certain important issues that need to be openly discussed."

Prakash did a good job in making a positive case for genetically engineered crops, saying that "practically everything we do in agriculture is unnatural" in regards to the age-old practices of selective breeding and hybridization, and that the transfer of genes into crop plants is "more like a logical extension of those tools used in breeding."

Furthermore, Prakash cited an impressive list of benefits of the 'Green Revolution,' such as the prolonged shelf life of fruits and vegetables, extended crop areas and seasons, and increased stress tolerance for those crops. "The most important impact is when we make our crops hardier, especially against drought," he said.

That is the kind of work Kav is researching at the U of A, namely identifying genes that may be useful for improving crop tolerance towards drought, salience, and diseases. But, like Prakash, Kav concedes that the primary beneficiary of such developments would be the private sector – an overriding concern of the audience.

"The producer has a better guarantee that what he puts into the ground will germinate better if some of our research comes through," he said, adding, "but, if you look at the developing nations, let us say the highly saline soils in a country like Bangladesh or parts of India ... if you can take some of this and put some of these varieties into the ground there, you're talking about basic food production. And there it benefits humanity."

Both scientists believe – given the example of all previous technologies – that although large multinationals whose primary concern is profit, not philanthropy, will use bio-tech for commercial yields, eventually a trickle down effect will take hold, especially after patents expire and genetically modified foods become public domain. Still, neither offers up GMOs as the solution to the world's food shortage problems, citing the socio-political factors that plague traditional resource distribution. And, they know the debate will continue.

"If there is a new genetically modified plant that is being considered for regulatory approval, we need to look at its toxicological safety, its safety to human health, animal health, safety to the environment and all those things need to be asked because they are valid questions," said Kav. "I don't think (Prakash) or I, or any responsible scientist would say genetic engineering is the answer to all the food problems. No. What I would say comfortably is that genetic engineering is such a powerful tool with the potential to assist in solving some of those problems."