FREE ESSAY ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN

JUST as 130 nations were meeting in Montreal recently to forge the first global treaty
regulating genetically modified crops, Frito-Lay Inc. was telling its farmers in the
United States not to grow genetically engineered corn for use in Doritos chips and other
snacks. The problem, the company said, was not a risk to health from the corn but a risk
that consumers wouldn't want it. 
These two events reflect the unease with which genetically engineered foods have been
received. Science has reached what might be the takeoff stage for a new green revolution.
But it may instead go the way of nuclear power -- a once-promising technology largely
rejected by society. 
The potential benefits of genetic engineering are huge. The use of cotton with a gene
allowing it to make its own pesticide has already led to a reduction in the amount of
chemical pesticides being sprayed in fields. Bio-engineered plants might soon be used to
produce plastics and other substances now made using diminishing supplies of petroleum in
dangerous, polluting petrochemical plants. 
For consumers, biotechnology could also make food healthier -- think tomatoes with
cancer-fighting substances and cooking oils lower in fats. And for the developing world
it could offer the promise of increased food output and of vaccines incorporated into
bananas rather than syringes, making them cheaper and easier to deliver. Swiss
researchers have already used genetic engineering to develop a strain of rice with
vitamin A, a lack of which now causes millions of cases of blindness. 
So far, there is no evidence that any of the genetically engineered foods now on the
market have harmed anyone, or have much of an impact on the environment. But such
engineering seems to conjure up images of mad scientists playing God. Opponents have been
quick to use the label ''Frankenfoods.'' 
Proponents of biotechnology argue that mankind has long been manipulating genes through
conventional plant and animal breeding. If anything, they say, genetic engineering is
more precise because it introduces just one or two known genes into a plant. With
conventional breeding, thousands of unknown genes are transferred in order to get the one
with the desired trait. 
BUT cross-breeding works only between plants or animals of the same or closely related
species. Genetic engineering allows species barriers to be crossed in a new way -- to put
bacterial genes in corn or fish genes in tomatoes. Even biotechnology supporters concede
that genetic tinkering can have unanticipated results. It is possible that unexpected
toxins or allergens can be introduced into crops through genetic engineering, though the
Food and Drug Administration insists all modified crops are now screened for adequately.

There is more evidence to support the possibility of negative effects on the environment.
A plant with a gene to fight off insects might spread that gene through pollination,
creating, say, weeds that can no longer be controlled. Genetically improved fish might
drive native species to extinction. And a study has shown that genetically altered corn
plants can harm monarch butterflies. 
What is particularly worrisome is that because biological systems reproduce, such genetic
pollution cannot be cleaned up like a chemical spill or recalled like a defective
automobile. Once the gene is out of the bottle, so to speak, it cannot be put back in. 
In Europe, where opposition to genetically modified foods has been strongest, other
factors are also at play. There have been food scares unconnected with genetic
engineering, such as mad cow disease and dioxin-contaminated chickens, which have
contributed to unease. IT is also true that consumers do not yet see the benefits of
genetic modification. The products now out, such as insect-resistant corn and Roundup
Ready soybeans, which are impervious to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, are meant to help
farmers. 
Similarly, while the developing world could benefit greatly from a vitamin-A rice or
plants that can tolerate drought, the current products are seen as aimed mainly at
wealthy farmers in developed countries. ''Roundup Ready -- that doesn't solve any
problems except for the shareholders of Monsanto,'' said Dr. Ossama El-Tayeb, a delegate
from Egypt at the Montreal treaty talks. 
Some executives at bio-engineered seed companies say their mistake was to regard the
farmer and not the consumer as the customer. With no apparent benefit, it is easy to shun
even a miniscule risk, just to be safe. That puts the industry in a position of having to
prove absolute safety, which is impossible. 
For the moment, some food and beverage companies like Frito-Lay, Seagram and Gerber are
forgoing genetically modified crops so as not to scare off consumers. So what started as
protests from a tiny group of activists has become a trend that is forcing farmers and
grain processors to segregate non-modified from modified grains. This could ease the way
toward labeling foods containing genetically modified organisms, something the food
industry fears would be tantamount to a skull and crossbones. 
Still, it is very early days in the bio-engineering era, and genetically altered foods
may well succeed. After all, society accepts drugs made by putting human genes in hamster
cells, even though this crosses species barriers as much as agricultural biotechnology
does. The analogy is not perfect; drugs are targeted to particular people who are willing
to bear the risks, and indeed may have no choice. Food, on the other hand, is sold to the
whole populations, which have alternatives. Moreover, drugs are tested in advance for
safety and efficacy more thoroughly than food is. Nonetheless, it seems clear that the
way to acceptance of genetically engineered foods lies through the creation of
regulations that the public trusts and the delivery of benefits the consumer sees and
tastes.