Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) – The hidden agenda of
GMO, as the term implies, is organism whose genetic has been modified by techniques of genetic engineering generally known as recombinant DNA technology. The application of GMO is rather diverse from animals to plants and fungi of all kinds. Its purpose too are varied, chief among them is to better food production for mankind.
The process to benefit mankind, however, has been extremely slow due to many justified and unjustified fears. Oppositions came mostly from the application in plantation. The GMO plants are pest resistance, herbicides, better nutrition value, longer shelf-life and many more.
Then why are all the noises? First, since GM plants are grown on open field, they are often associated with environmental pollution. This is especially true in Europe. Another concern is the meddling of limited human knowledge to the evolution of Mother Nature. Some critics have raised the fear of out-crossing as the process is known in threatening the survival of the wild and indigenous plants.
But is the controversy justified? Should we continue to drag our feet in food production to satisfy “Terminator” – a word dubbed to mean over technology protection on hypothetical ground? Should we continue to ban GMO practice to the detrimental of world hunger? Should we continue to employ some trade tactics such as stringent Food safety, un-practical Traceability, over detail Food labeling and the like to deter GMO advancement?
My answer is “No” and “No”. Throughout my participation in the Codex meetings of many Food Committees from 1993-2005, I learned that the real issue behind all the debates of GMO is actually Economy. There were always two sides of the argument led by the American pro and the E.U. con. In the early years of the Code introduction, E.U. would go totally against the idea with suggestion to bar the practice. Later, when the tide became high, E.U. opted to the call on food security in GMO production.
The opened secret behind the scene at that time was not strictly GMO by itself but the pace in developing GMO technology. Tailing far behind USA. EU needed more time to learn and develop GMO technology before it would allow GMO to grow. USA with more advance knowledge in the field, would rather spear ahead for production and reap profit. Certainly, this difference was never discussed on the table. It was always problem of strict food labeling to protect GMO consumer or this and that. All these involve a great amount of time in Codec Alimentarius procedure to work out a world consensus food code. The problem was not the matter of whether GMO good or bad. The ultimate intention was to catch up with technology through time buying tactic. I heard E.U. has a better attitude for GMO and is on the way to share the profitable GMO production with USA now.
Back home in Thailand, the outcries were more serious. Farmers dumped trucks load of Papaya and Tapioca in front of the Parliament in protest against GMO plants. The prime reason cited was the fear of the extinction of local papaya species through pollen mutation. The opened secret to the problem, however, is really an economic one. Farmers were unhappy that superior GMO papaya may affect income. Abundant production means lower price for them. But we never hear they give such a problem as reason against GMO.
So, this is why we have all the objections to GMO throughout these past years. Yet, I am sure the intensity will subside now that EU has somewhat caught up with the technology. Also farmers realized now that GMO papaya can hold up to much longer storage time suitable for export that means higher values for their papaya production.
Leave Your Comments