Major Concerns About Biotechnology

The development of genetic engineering has been and is still very controversial. Fear of human misuse, cloning, health effects, mutations, deformities and environmental genetic pollution to name only a few have led to the development of strict policies concerning biotechnology and genetic engineering. Even though biotechnology can bring to humanity major benefits (refer to previous section), the risks encountered are still considerable and must be carefully examined.

Biotechnology and ethics

Is biotechnology good or bad? It is impossible to answer such a 'black or white' question. Biotechnology raises very complex issues touching economic, environmental and human interactions. Ethics, a part of philosophy related to morality, can help us to assess and study the moral issues raised by new biotechnological uses and applications.

Watanabe (Plant Biotechnology and Plant Genetic Resources for Sustainability and Productivity, 1997) sums up some criteria which may be useful in determining whether a biotechnological application is ethical, i.e. good or bad.

-What is the benefit? To whom? Is it life-saving? Human benefit should be considered greater than monetary benefit;

-Does not harm humans: what is an acceptable level of risk?

-Does not cause pain;

-Does not harm the environment: use of technologies that are most environmentally; sustainable over the long term and ones that minimize consumption;

-Protects biodiversity and endangered species. Allows farmers affordable or free access to breeding stock, and encourages the planting of diverse crops;

-Equity for all people and future generations: sharing benefits and risks;

-Independent and open decision-making on safety questions, considering ethical and social impacts;

-Public information and education: the public and scientists must be informed and educated about all dimensions of the projects, scientific, social, economic and ethical, using third party media.

Main concerns

Concerns about cross species gene transfer

From the 1993 International Bioethics Survey (Macer 1994), the acceptance of food products made from cross species gene transfer varies a lot, the most acceptable being the plant-plant gene transfers, with animal-animal next, and animal-plant or human-animal gene transfers being least acceptable to consumers.

Cross species gene transfer can also be a major concern for many religious and ethnic groups that avoid eating certain foods, such as Muslims and Orthodox Jews who do not eat pork. Vegetarians may also avoid some genetically engineered foods. What would they do when, for example, an apple contains an animal gene? What if a cucumber contains a human gene? Does the cucumber possess a human trait? Of course, these questions are rather philosophical, but they represent the types of questions posed by many concerned individuals and critics of genetically engineered foods.

Concerns about 'genetic pollution'

Biotechnology can be a source of various risks to the environment, such as the chance release of an hazardous genetically modified plant or animal into the natural environment. Major problems would be faced if the organism survives and multiplies in the environment, the gene being exchanged with other organisms or disseminated. The ecosystem is delicately balanced and the introduction of new organisms into the environment may upset this balance.

Concerns about food and product safety

Some fear that deleting genes also may introduce harmful side effects when the product is ingested. For example, plants produce secondary compounds that may protect them from fungal and bacterial infection.

One concern about food safety is related to the secondary compounds produced naturally by plants. Some of these compounds can be toxic to humans or livestock or can alter the quality of food if present in big quantities. Although these metabolites are present in very low concentrations in our foods, one fear is that a genetically engineered plant may produce these metabolites in higher quantities that may be toxic to humans. Some other compounds protect the plant from fungal and bacterial infection. If they are removed genetically, people could be exposed to cancer-causing compounds produced by the fungus. One example illustrating this is decaffeinated coffee: when genes involved in the biosynthesis of the caffeine, which normally inhibits fungal synthesis of aflatoxins, is removed, fungal aflatoxins may contaminate the coffee bean.

Concern about food allergies has also been raised. Many people have food allergies that vary from a mild reaction such as a rash to a more severe reaction such as anaphylactic shock. Allergic people may not be aware that a specific genetically engineered food can be the source of an allergic reaction if the allergenic properties of food from a donor plant can be conferred on the host plant.

Others have questioned the nutritional quality of engineered foods: could it change unexpectedly? A particular nutrient could change to a form that cannot be metabolized or absorbed properly. Of course, there is also the question of what is true freshness. If a vegetable or fruit looks, feels, and tastes fresher and riper, is it really just as nutritious as its non-engineered counterpart?

Ethically, ensuring that no harm is done is the priority and requires long testing periods of new products. However, industries, for which making profit is the priority, are not necessarily willing to test the safety of a new product or the environmental safety of a new organism for an undetermined period of time, and so assessing whether there might or might not be any 'harm' is not an easy question to answer; indeed there is no good or bad, right or wrong answer to be had.

There have been a variety of laws and regulations made in different countries around the world to ensure food and product safety through testing standards and procedures. Biotechnology presents new challenges to these legal frameworks as the products being subject to scrutiny and approval represent substantially greater change in much shorter time periods than ever before. The standard assessment to date has been referred to as the "risk/benefit" analysis: how much of each is there, and if the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, the product or process should be approved for use. Chemicals have provided enormous benefit for agriculture through increased yields and higher quality produce; some, however, might cause cancer when consumed in large quantities over short periods, but are a very low risk if there is exposure in minute quantities (parts per billion) from time to time.

Since these risk/benefit analyses are done in controlled circumstances on small populations of test subjects, such as rats and mice, and then the results extrapolated to the larger human population, doubts have been expressed about the reliability of the standard. What about accumulation of contaminants over a long period of time; what about their movement into and persistence in unintended environments; what about their combining with other chemicals to produce compounds of which the side-effects are unknown. These concerns are raised because there have been disasters that weren't supposed to happen: DDT sprayed to kill insects also started harming other wildlife; the drug thalidomide, administered for morning sickness in pregnant women, caused devastating deformities in their babies.

These concerns have lead to the emergence of a new standard of scientific analysis called the "precautionary principal". If there are potentially great risks, even if they are heavily outweighed by the benefits, and there is no proof that there will not be any negative effects, then the evaluation should be cautious and not grant approval until these questions are answered. The precautionary principal is controversial because critics claim that there will never be a 'no risk' product or process and that demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt will bring all scientific developments to a halt, the good will be stopped with the bad. Supporters of the principal reply that scientific advances are now so rapid and so dramatic in their potential that maybe saying "no" until there is certainty about the use of the product might not be a bad thing after all. At this time, however, there are no ready answers, and the debate will continue for some time.