Why society does not trust new biotechnologies
Dmitry Dorokhov, ForbesWe are now witnessing a rather strange phenomenon in the world – society's rejection of modern technologies.
Perhaps the most dramatic since the beginning of vaccination of mankind in the XVIII century in England. Today, a part of society absolutely does not want or cannot perceive the achievements of agricultural biotechnology. First of all, of course, we are talking about transgenic plants, since there are practically no transgenic animals on the market, except for glowing aquarium fish.
In the world, as of 2013, 175 million hectares are occupied by transgenic plants. This territory is larger than all the arable land in Russia, and every year it grows, demonstrating the choice of farmers. On the other hand, we see demonstrations of the "greens", a powerful protest movement, alternative experiments, the authors of which are trying to prove the harmful effect of GMOs on the environment and human health.
Why is there such a stratification of society? One of the main reasons is that few people know what a transgenic plant is. There are still arguments at the level of: "transgenic potatoes are harmful", "transgenic corn is harmful", but only transgenic corn has about 100 different lines with different signs.
Therefore, first you need to understand which plants we are talking about and against which plants the public is so negatively disposed. To do this, it is necessary to determine what a transgenic plant is. Geneticists have the concept of a "transformational event" – a set of random events during which a genetic engineering design is introduced into the genome of a plant. As a result, a set of independent transformants is obtained – this is about 10,000 unique transgenic plants. Among these 10,000, only one genotype is selected that corresponds to the task, i.e. it contains the trait that needs to be introduced, and the remaining signs practically do not differ from the original organism. Since the process of genetic transformation is not site–directed (a site is any structural fragment of the genome), each time the genetically engineered DNA is embedded in different places of the genome, causing the uniqueness of the transformational event, in one case it is embedded in site X, in another - in site Y and others. If the site responsible for a particular function was disrupted during embedding, then such genotypes are discarded. If the site was neutral enough, and genetically engineered DNA is embedded in it, then, in this way, the desired feature is obtained, preserving the existing useful properties of the original plant. There is also a unique genomic environment around the place where the recombinant DNA was inserted. And all this together is called an "independent transformational event" which, in fact, characterizes the uniqueness of each transgenic plant and is subject to further state registration. All descendants of this plant will give rise to the line that will be registered. But before this happens, the necessary biosafety assessment procedures must be completed.
What do they include? As a rule, there are expert structures defined by the state that have a certain methodology in order to identify and assess certain risks associated with the appearance of this organism in the environment. Such experiments are called "biosafety tests". They include both studies of the interaction of genetically modified plants with the environment and the impact on human health. Only after such studies, an expert opinion is prepared with a proposal for state bodies to register or reject registration, indicating the reason. If a positive recommendation is prepared, a GMO monitoring plan is drawn up, which comes into force after a decision is made on the state registration of a transgenic organism. Thus, the most important principle of separation of risk assessment and decision-making is implemented.
When experts talk about the acceptability of risks, the public asks the question: "Are you sure that it is 100% safe?". In fact, there are no completely safe technologies. When a new technology comes to us and we identify what risks it carries with it, the risk management process begins. When we understand how risks can be minimized, we turn to society to see if it is ready to agree to this.
Now it is clear that farmers are ready to take risks. On the other hand, consumers are not always ready. Why? It so happened that the first wave of genetically modified plants gave an advantage to the farmer. These were plants resistant to herbicides, insecticides, diseases and insect pests. Such technologies make life easier for the farmer and give a corresponding profit. But the consumer does not feel any advantage.
But now the situation is changing; there are plants of the second and third waves that contain an increased content of vitamins, an altered content of fatty acids that help prevent cardiovascular diseases, edible vaccines, etc. The list is quite extensive. And along with this, the perception of the public is changing. Plus, biotech companies are becoming more open. They reveal technologies when creating socially significant products - "golden rice" for Africa, which reduces the risk of anemia in children, show the friendliness of GM plants to the environment by reducing the pesticide load, more careful attitude to moisture, soil when using minimal tillage technology, etc. The state has learned to interact better with society, and disclosure of the results of biosafety experiments allows members of the public to express their opinions.
Thus, it is possible to minimize social tension around the use of GMOs. There is a successful experience. For example, a very good, efficient and harmonious system of "coexistence" has been developed in Europe, fixed by European directives, when the farmer himself decides which type of agriculture to use: organic, traditional or biotechnological. Accordingly, the consumer has the right to choose the products that he wants and is ready to use.
In Russia, the situation with the attitude of society to GMOs is still more complicated. But this is the topic of the next column.
About the author:
Dmitry Dorokhov is a Candidate of Biological Sciences, a leading researcher at the Bioengineering Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru03.09.2014