Terrorists in the State Duma

"Terrorism is to scare people with GMOs"

Maria Bochko, Rosbalt

It is proposed to make the distribution of genetically modified products a criminal offense. At least, such an initiative was made by the State Duma deputies, who are eager to protect their compatriots from the achievements of genetic engineering. At the same time, according to scientists, there are no examples of dangerous GM products in the world, so it is not yet clear what exactly the parliamentarians were guided by, equating the spread of GMOs to terrorism.

Even if the law is not passed, it has already done a lot to "regulate" the development of genetic engineering in Russia: he gave the public a new portion of doubts and fear of transgenic products.

The director of the Research Institute of Agricultural Microbiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor Igor Tikhonovich, told Rosbaltu about whether there is a future for genetic engineering in our country, whether it is possible to achieve food security without modified seeds, and who benefits from the ban on GMOs.

– The topic of genetically modified products was again raised at the highest level: a bill was submitted to the State Duma, according to which criminal liability for the spread of GMOs can be introduced in Russia. How do you like the new initiative?

– I haven't seen the text of the law itself, so I don't know what exactly they want to punish. But I hope that there will be sensible people in the State Duma who will correct this document so that later scientists who grow transgenic plants in their laboratories will not be equated with criminals. In addition, you need to understand that Russia is one of the leaders in the import of genetically modified products. If we are so afraid of GMOs, then it is necessary not only to prohibit the cultivation, but to restrict their import. Or, on the contrary, start growing at home in order to be competitive in the market.

– As far as it is known from open sources, criminal prosecution, according to the bill, may be threatened if harm is caused to people, and this will be done intentionally. Then such a crime is proposed to be equated with terrorism.

– This, on the one hand, is correct, but first you need to prove that it really did harm. And to date, all the world literature (at least, with which I am familiar) says that such products are harmless or, at least, that no harmful effects have been identified. I don't understand what kind of research the supporters of this bill will refer to. Of course, I am aware of a couple of publications about the allegedly revealed influence of genetically modified plants on the offspring of rats. Only the conclusions of these scientists and their publications have long been disavowed.

I would like to note this: if you distribute a product that you know about the harm of, then this is certainly terrorism. But if you scare people with a non-existent threat, then this is also pure terrorism. And when you, having no data on the harm of genetically modified products, still declare their danger, this is also terrorism. If I were the creators of the law, I would be very careful with this term.

In general, I don't even understand what the opinions of the opponents of GMOs are based on. If they had presented concrete results, then the conversation would have been completely different. But they don't show them. But all the time there are rumors and speculation. By the way, journalists are also trying hard in this sense. The world community says that it is necessary to create a scientific journalist, because people with only general knowledge can hardly understand the details of genetic engineering.

– Is such scientific education beneficial to the authorities? The same officials and deputies are the first to oppose genetically modified products.

– I do not agree that the government promotes this idea. It's just that the government is very dependent on society, and the trends in society now, unfortunately, are such that the achievements of world science in the field of genetic engineering are being rejected. It is clear that no government can so rudely go against the opinion of the people. If I were president or Prime Minister, I would also act very carefully and not try to put too much pressure on one side or the other. However, it is necessary to understand who in our country benefits from promoting the idea of the harmfulness of GMOs. Persistently, stubbornly promote, no matter what.

– And to whom, in your opinion, is it beneficial?

– I can't even imagine. On the one hand, it could be beneficial to those who import GM products into our country. However, they also want to ban the import.

– There is an assumption that this is in the hands of producers of chemical fertilizers.

– Transgenic products are less directed to chemical fertilizers. There are not so many ideas in genetic engineering related to the economy of mineral, nitrogen, phosphorus fertilizers. Rather, research is aimed at saving pesticides. Maybe there is a certain lobby of pesticide manufacturers, although this business is not so strong in Russia. To be honest, I don't see any real political forces and social strata that would be so interested in suppressing GMOs.

– No matter how much the government is dependent on public opinion, no one actively forms it with constant prohibitive bills and "revealing" speeches about the harm of GMOs.

– The existing attitude towards genetically modified organisms is based on some lack of education in society. I cannot understand who is behind the opponents of genetic engineering. Because in Europe, the situation has softened for a long time – as soon as the Europeans were able to compete with the States in the field of genetic engineering. But I can say that the rejection of GMOs is a general trend. I remember how about 15 years ago genetic engineering laboratories were smashed in Bielefeld in Germany. So such an attitude is not Russia's prerogative. Only for some reason it becomes hyperbolized in our country. Yes, you can discuss the pros and cons, you can study the harm or benefit, you need a clear system of registration and quality control of drugs and products, and not only genetically modified. But you can't deny everything so indiscriminately. After all, people should understand that the life of many millions of diabetics is based on genetically engineered insulin, and our medicine hopes for edible vaccines that plants should produce. The soybean harvest largely depends on how much it will be possible to manage with a minimum amount of pesticides. GM potatoes, which are protected from the Colorado potato beetle, also have the right to exist. After all, the gene of normal microbes that are around us is embedded in it, and nothing happens to us. There are many areas where genetically modified organisms are very useful, and for science in general they are necessary. And a ban on working with GMOs, even for scientific purposes, will simply stop the process in the field of genetics and molecular biology.

– What is the current position and condition of genetic engineering?

"I'm afraid we're talking about things we don't have. Of course, all the unfounded hysteria around GMOs leads to the fact that the development of research on genetic engineering and molecular biology is hindered. People are just leaving this field. Who is interested in working, creating forms that will then be forbidden to you. Everything is interconnected. The ban on the cultivation of genetically modified crops can hit the country, scientific and technological progress.

– On the other hand, you can understand the arguments of those who advocate banning GMOs. After all, there may be people who decide to use genetic engineering to harm, and create biological weapons. How to avoid this?

– Can't microbiologists create strains that will become biological weapons? Or did physicists not create an atomic bomb, and chemists did not create chemical weapons? And what, should microbiology, chemistry and physics be banned on this occasion? Let's somehow logically talk about this topic. Of course, with the help of genetic engineering, it is possible to create some organisms that can be used for military purposes. But this is only theoretical, because there are no such examples, no one does this.

Opponents of GMOs basically say that the manipulation of genes itself leads to the fact that we cannot predict anything in the body. They say that if scientists get potatoes resistant to the Colorado potato beetle by traditional methods, then there will be no objections, and if with the help of genetic engineering, then it is already terribly harmful.

– Can scientists say with absolute certainty that today harmless genetically modified products will not play a cruel joke with us in two or three generations?

– This question has no answer. The safety of GMOs is proved not by a couple of experiments, but by more than 40 years of experience in creation, production and application. At the Poultry Institute, Professor Vladimir Fisinin has many dozens of generations of quails that grow on transgenic corn. Nothing happens to these quails.

– One of the arguments of the authors of the new bill is an increase in the import of GM products from abroad after Russia's accession to the WTO. Can such a tightening of regulation be an effective measure, and how, in your opinion, can our country protect itself from "wrong" products?

– Russia should be able to produce a sufficient number of products on its territory. But I want to emphasize that it's not so much the quantity as the quality and competitiveness of these products. And it will be very difficult to produce truly competitive agricultural products without genetic engineering, without varieties that have received certain properties for adaptation in the environment. Even though we have about 40 million hectares of arable land that are not used and can be put into circulation. But this territory will never be used if agricultural producers do not receive technologies that allow them to produce competitive products. The ideal situation would be if we started growing our own varieties and closed the import of GMOs.

– Can we do without genetic engineering products at all and develop agriculture only by traditional methods, for example, with the help of breeding?

– Yes, it will not work, unfortunately. Recently, the yield has been growing slightly. In addition, the leading crops – rice, wheat – have reached a plateau. Further, the yield does not increase, because it has reached the biological threshold. At the same time, there are external factors – climate change, the "invasion" of phytopathogens, heavy metal pollution, droughts, floods. To make the crop independent of external factors, a new allele of genes is needed. Instability is destroying agriculture. It will not be possible to stabilize the crop without searching for fundamentally new genes and without manipulating them.

– Let's imagine that tomorrow a miracle will happen, and the policy towards GMOs in Russia will change dramatically. Do we have something to explore and cultivate? Can Russia reach the world level in genetic engineering?

– If genetically modified seeds were allowed tomorrow, then, most likely, we would go to buy them abroad. And our dependence on the West would only increase. It would be much more effective and useful to stimulate our own research in this industry, create our own genetic engineering programs, and create our own varieties. While there are still specialists, there are still institutes that are able to conduct these programs. Now the scale of these works is insufficient, so it is impossible to say that we will manage on our own in this industry. We can't do it.

– Is Russian science, in particular, genetic engineering, somehow supported by the state?

– Many foundations are working, and I must say that money is allocated for science in general. But the fact is that special efforts are now needed to make the achievements of genetic engineering and biotechnology in agriculture a reality. There are a lot of not only scientific problems here. Take seed production – it is in a very difficult situation. We provide ourselves with grain, and we have to buy vegetable seeds.

– Are young people going into genetic engineering against the background of the all-Russian persecution of GMOs?

– There are young scientists. At the Department of Genetics and Biotechnology of St. Petersburg State University, every year there are good guys who are ready to devote themselves to this specialty. But it will be very bad if all this continues to develop against the background of a social misunderstanding of the role of modern science.

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru16.005.2014