The GMO Saga
Ruslana Radchuk, ABC magazineTaking up this large-scale project, I do not set myself the task of promoting genetically modified organisms, as well as fighting obscurantism.
I will try to dispel the unnecessary worries of those sane people who want to eat food without fears and unreasonable worries. In the case of GMOs, this is especially true.
Most fears about GMOs are irrational by nature — people are not afraid of what they should be afraid of. The real problems and real questions remain without attention, although they require both answers and solutions, because — let's face it — biotechnologies will gain momentum every year and the number of GMOs will steadily grow.
In my articles, I will take the side of the consumer in order to understand sincerely and with understanding the confusing interweaving of intuitive caution and irrational fears. In general, it is quite normal that people worry about themselves, for their health, for their future, the future of their children, even if they do not understand the topic too much.
This position seems to me healthier than the doomed "nothing can change, everything is transgenic anyway: wheat, tomatoes, apples ...". Agree, being afraid and being ready to eat foods at the same time, considering everything around transgenic, is harmful to mental health. Therefore, I immediately hasten to reassure the most impressionable: there are no transgenic wheat, tomatoes, or apples on the shelves yet.
As a scientist, I'm used to making decisions with as much information as possible on a particular issue. At the same time, it is especially important to me how reliable and transparent such information is, and what its quality is in general. The articles that I will write on the topic of GMOs are addressed primarily to those who share this approach. In this sense, the inscription on the product label "Does not contain GMOs" does not meet any of the information requirements: I do not know what kind of GMOs are not there, I do not understand who and how tested the product for GMO content, I do not fully understand why this information was put on the label at all. From the point of view of a reasonable consumer, the message "does not contain GMOs" can be safely considered zero information. She's not so much communicating something as manipulating me as a customer.
For everyone who really cares about accounting and control, there is good news: all current information about all modern GMOs is available both at a deep professional level and for consumers, carefully systematized and open to everyone who wants to receive it. I am sending everyone who speaks English to the GMO Compass website. It contains all the world's legal documents, discussions, scientific articles, admissions, analysis results, who, when and how did these or other GMOs, where they are grown, in what volumes, at what stage of admissions new varieties, what has already been done and what is planned to be done. There is everything here — starting with information about which GMOs are already on the shelves, and up to laboratory detection protocols. Everything that can be counted and taken into account is counted and taken into account, including the assessment of black markets. My task is rather to reveal the pros and cons of GMOs, risk assessment and comparison with existing technologies.
So, let's start with the basics. First of all, I propose to learn once and for all: all GMOs have one common property — the artificial introduction of certain specific and well-known genes into the genome of the organism. This is where their commonality ends. All GMOs differ in the ways of introducing genes, gene designs, as well as the properties that the body acquires as a result of the introduction. In other words, raking all GMOs into one huge pile is not worth it. This is illiterate. It's like saying that all medicines have common properties and all medicines are bad (or good). And medicines have only one thing in common — they somehow affect our body, fighting diseases, while both the methods of obtaining and the way of influencing the body, as we all know, they all have different. Although the comparison of GMOs with medicines also makes me a little uncomfortable. After all, we use GMOs as a normal daily product, and not in emergency cases. Therefore, it is better to immediately forget this metaphor.
However, since we are dealing with an advanced technology that changes the genome, it is quite natural that we will pay more attention to such technology than to the traditional cultivation of ordinary beets in the garden or eating potato chips (it is often unclear how they were produced, but these are details that we will ignore for now). I assure you that GMOs are precisely under such vigilant and close control of scientists, which cannot be compared with any other product of human activity. Personally, I think it's good and right!
Also, for the introduction, we recognize the indisputable fact that humanity has technology in its hands that allows changing the genomes of any organisms: viruses, bacteria, fungi, plants, animals or even humans. There is a technology — it will be used. Like any other technology, it can be used both for good and for evil. Like any other technology, it is devoid of zero risk. More than that! Like any new technology, it is full of a wide variety of risks! And these risks are different, since, as I wrote above, GMOs are different, the methods of obtaining them are different, their properties are also different and their creation goals are different. All possible risks can be divided into economic, legal, environmental, health and even social and political risks. Not only scientists or technologists have to answer all the questions that arise in the course of technology development, but also economists, sociologists, lawyers, environmentalists, doctors, politicians and even philosophers. And since the technology itself is extremely complex, a dialogue of professionals from a variety of fields of knowledge is often necessary.
The technology is fraught with a great many pitfalls, complex nuances. We, as consumers of this technology, should not shy away from the conversation and even more so allow ourselves to be manipulated through our own fears, delusions or deliberate misinformation. Not in paradise, tea, we live. The world around us is already quite unstable and full of dangers. The stupidest thing that could be done is to ban technology that can make our lives qualitatively better, instead of studying, assessing risks in order to be ready to react in time in case of danger and prevent the consequences.
The main problem of any technology, and more philosophical than scientific, has always been the inability to prove its absolute safety. It's not that 100% safety doesn't exist or GMOs are necessarily dangerous. This is a built—in problem of scientific search - it is logically impossible to construct such an experiment that would confirm its 100% safety. We are limited in knowledge and cannot know all the factors that should be taken into account. We can only separate the greater danger from the lesser danger based on our current level of understanding of the world. You really have to put up with this scientific fact and learn to live with it somehow. Yes, such non-guarantee does not add confidence and optimism, but it also has its own positive. Knowing this immutable scientific fact, we can easily discern the cunning of those who require scientists to prove 100% safety of GMOs. Yes, we don't know everything about genes. We may never know everything about genes at all. But scientists have learned how to work with the genome, change it, get the desired properties, which means that scientists understand something about the genome, understand the work of genes and the risks associated with their manipulation.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru26.09.2011