Feature Article of Thursday, 13 February 2014

Columnist: Agorsor, Yafetto, Otwe, Galyuon

Israel D. K. Agorsor, Levi Yafetto, Emmanuel P. Otwe and Isaac K. A. Galyuon

1. Introduction

At the turn of the last decade, Ghana signaled its intention to adopt plant genetic engineering as part of the efforts towards modernizing its agriculture when it established the National Biosafety Committee. This committee would, among others, activate the processes for the formulation of a Biosafety Bill. In 2011, a draft Biosafety Bill was passed into law by Ghanas Parliament, and is known as Biosafety Act 2011 or Act 831. Genetic engineering techniques enable scientists to modify the genetic make-up of an organism, otherwise known as its genome, by inserting into the genome pieces of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ? the genetic material ? that condition specific desirable traits from other organisms. These modifications result in what are known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or transgenic organisms (transgenics).

To say that the debates on GMOs are, perhaps, the fiercest of all debates that have ever engulfed any human endeavour and, for that matter, any scientific discipline in living memory may be an understatement. Why the GMO wars have been so fiercely fought is clear only to the extent that people and cultures have significant emotional attachment to food and food products, and thus anything that appears an aberration to these would always be fiercely resisted. However, the evidence, as we have it, is that these debates have at times gone beyond the science, and have assumed moral and speculative dimensions. The result is that quite often, moral questions are also asked to proponents of genetic engineering, questions whose answers may not be readily available.

Some of these moral questions include: Are scientists now playing God? Why do scientists interfere in nature and the natural order? Speculative ones include the myriad of diseases, such as cancer, heart diseases, diabetes and fibroid, that genetically modified (GM) food causes. Of course we are aware of some published reports which suggest GM foods could have adverse effects on human and animal health. But we are also aware that some of these reports have either been challenged or retracted from the scientific journals in which they were published after follow-up studies showed that the experiments leading to those conclusions were flawed. You may read, for example, Sralini affair at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair, as well as the widely-referenced Pusztai study which although hailed by some scientists, has been challenged by others including the UK Royal Society. See the Pusztai affair at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusztai_affair.

We have noticed, too, that in an opinion piece that appeared in the Daily Graphic of Monday, December 23, 2013, and titled GM Foods: Mass genocide, studies by Australian scientist Judy Carman and her colleague Jack Heinemann have been cited as evidence of health risks of GMOs. In fact, Carman and co-authors studies have been disputed. Many scientists, including the food regulator for Australia/New Zealand known as Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) have rejected Carman and colleagues claim that GM foods have health risks as reported in one study. See FSANZs response to Carman and colleagues claims at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/Pages/Response-to-Dr-Carman's-study.aspx. Basically, the charge is that it was flawed science that led to their claims.

For an example of a publication that discusses the health implications of GM foods, see the article (not an original research paper, but a review article) Health risks of genetically modified foods by Dona and Arvanitoyannis published in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition in 2009 (Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 49(2): 164-175) at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835 (click on View full text). For a challenge to the views expressed in Dona and Arvanitoyannis, see the article Response to Health risks of genetically modified foods by Craig Rickard in the same journal at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390903467787#tabModule.

Unfortunately, the independence of the authors of some of the pro- and anti-GMO articles and research papers have been questioned at times; the authors have been accused of doing the bidding of either biotechnology giants or anti-GMO movements because they have been receiving, allegedly, research funding from these groups. These accusations have also added to the complexity of the GMO debates.

Read more:
Ghanas GMO debates: beyond the sticking points (1)

Comments are closed.