The Use of GM Crops in Developing Countries
The transfer of genes between species
3.11 Genetic modification enables researchers to insert genes from unrelated species into crop plants. This is the case with Bt crops (see paragraphs 3.28-3.38) where bacterial gene sequences have been transferred into many crop species. Transgenic varieties of rice are also being produced using genes from bacteria, daffodils and Arabidopsis (paragraphs 3.42- 3.50). For many people, such possibilities raise the ethical question of whether it is acceptable to mix the genes of different species in this way. The notion underlying this often intuitive response is that there is a meaningful order in nature that needs to be respected (see paragraph 1.43 of the 1999 Report).
3.12 There are several aspects to this view. First, it can entail a claim about the status of species and their role in nature. The diversity of wild species of plants can be seen as a reflection of the process of natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms. These are frequently interpreted as intrinsically valuable and ‘off-limits’. Genetic modification is sometimes viewed critically because it is thought to interfere with these processes. The possibility that GM crops might interbreed with wild relatives is also seen by some as changing natural selection (see paragraphs 4.28-4.42). However, the same objection can be made with respect to many other forms of plant breeding. In fact, crop varieties which are used in agriculture already frequently interbreed with their wild relatives. Given that the systematic cultivation of plants had begun by 6,000 BC, humans have been influencing natural selection for a long time.11
3.13 Secondly, the claim that the natural world order should be respected can also be understood as a reluctance to transgress boundaries between species. On this view it could be argued that they are established by nature ensuring a specific balance between different living organisms. However, it does not follow that because something exists in nature, it should exist, or that it is good in and of itself.12 Furthermore, even within nature, boundaries between species are not irreversibly fixed. There is, for example, increasing evidence that throughout evolution, gene transfer has occurred between lower and higher organisms, including humans.13 Horizontal gene transfer, as this phenomenon is called, appears to occur naturally.
3.14 It is therefore difficult to maintain that nature as such should never be altered. However, a third line of argument may be to say that the order of nature needs to be respected because biological and ecological systems are relatively robust and predictable, and pose few risks for humans. However, interferences may result in irreversible adverse consequences for biological systems, which in turn might eventually endanger the natural world and our relationship to it. While it may be the case that horizontal gene transfer has occurred in nature, this has happened over a very long timescale. But with genetic modification, the transfer of genes between species introduces a sudden change. If GM crops are released into the environment, biological and ecological systems might not be sufficiently adapted to integrate the plants, possibly resulting in unforeseeable and potentially irreversible changes in biodiversity. It could be argued that ‘nature knows best’ how to integrate genetic changes, and that it would be irresponsible to interfere with this highly complex system that evolves slowly over time.
3.15 Some conclude from this line of argument that all forms of genetic modification which introduce foreign DNA into another organism should be rejected, regardless of the possible benefits. Others conclude that changes in nature should only be undertaken if there can be absolute certainty that no risks are implied. However, while the latter position seems to differ from the former, it needs to be noted that the requirement of absolute certainty is unattainable (see paragraphs 4.35-4.42). Neither do we apply such criteria consistently in other cases where human intervention affects biological and ecological systems.14
3.16 A third conclusion is to challenge the assumption that ‘nature knows best’ with its corollary that altering nature requires proof of the exclusion of all conceivable risks. Proponents of this position would argue that it is more important to assess and balance risks in individual cases. In some instances, it may be clear that risks outweigh benefits. In others, it may be the case that the risks are not severe and that a step by step approach can allow for a responsible use of new technologies (see paragraphs 4.35-4.42).
3.17 For now, we conclude that the arguments about ‘naturalness’ are insufficient to rule out the responsible exploration of the potential of genetic modification. All forms of plant breeding have directly and indirectly changed biodiversity. It is undesirable to forgo likely benefits because of the possibility of hypothetical adverse events. This is particularly pertinent to the use of GM crops in developing countries. GM crops may prove to be effective tools for addressing specific agricultural problems, while any associated risks for human health and the environment might be contained. To examine this question further, we now consider possible benefits and risks that may arise as a result of the use of GM crops in developing countries. The issue of how best to make decisions about the use of GM crops in conditions of uncertainty is considered in more detail in paragraphs 4.35-4.42.
Footnotes11 Of course it does not follow that all the ways in which humans have influenced natural selection are unproblematic, see Chapter 3, footnote 14. It does mean however that attention should be given primarily to the consequences rather than to the act of interfering with nature.
12 There is a substantial philosophical discussion on the question of how to derive values from facts. Seminal contributions have been made by David Hume in A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40) and G.E. Moore’s Principia Ethica (1903).
13 Syvanen M (2002) Recent emergence of the modern genetic code: a proposal, Trends Genet 18: 245–8; Capy P, Anxolabehere D and Langin T (1994) The strange phylogenies of transposable elements: are horizontal transfers the only explanation?, Trends Genet 10: 7–12.
14 For example, we may question whether the rhododendron, which originated in Spain and Portugal, should ever have been introduced into the UK; it has been highly invasive and adversely affected the environment, but it seems that this did not prevent its cultivation. Similar effects have resulted from the introduction of other garden plants such as Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) which has resulted in a significant loss of biodiversity in some areas of the UK, particularly along waterways. See Royal Horticultural Society (2002) Invasive Non-Native Species (Surrey, UK: The Science Departments, The Royal Horticultural Society’s Garden). Available: http://www.rhs.org.uk/research/c_and_e_nonnative.pdf. Accessed on: 14 Oct 2003. These examples illustrate the inconsistency in decision making about risks to the natural environment. We take the view that a thorough assessment of the likely benefits and risks is required in all cases.