Ruto is right! End debate on genetically modified food

Deputy President William Ruto studied botany and zoology at the University of Nairobi, and has postgraduate qualifications in plant ecology. The point is, the deputy president is highly learned in the area of plant (and probably animal) biology.

It therefore came as no surprise to many when he was reported in the media as having said that the government is considering the introduction of biotechnology, presumably including genetically modified organisms, to boost food supply and improve people’s health.

He is right and deserves support. For a long time, many people have argued forcefully about the potential harmful effects of genetically modified foods on human health, and many have taken these as gospel truth. Our government has even presumably come up with policies on the foods based on these kinds of arguments.

Unfortunately, to this day, the weight of evidence falls on the side of benefits rather than risks. Biotech foods have no more negative effects on human health than others. This should be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the science of genetic modification.

The process involves manipulation of the genetic material of living things in order to create new “types” with desired characteristics.

In nature, genes are a set of instructions detailing how amino acids should be arranged in order to produce certain proteins. These proteins, acting together with other chemical compounds naturally occurring in the living things, then determine the outward appearance and environmental interactions of the resulting organism.

At the heart of it, we are dealing with protein products, which are made up of amino acids that already exist in nature. The genes are also made up of nitrogenous bases that are already present in living things.
In summary, therefore, genetic modification does not involve creation of new basic elements of life. It only involves new arrangements of those naturally occurring elements to give an organism new, usually beneficial features such as disease resistance and hardiness.

Just like other proteins

When eaten, such genetically modified organisms will be broken down in the digestive system to their constituent parts, which will then be absorbed and used by the body for the many processes necessary to keep it alive and well.

These constituent parts (such as nitrogenous bases and amino acids) are the same as those found in non-GMO foods. It therefore defeats reason for one to argue that eating the modified proteins would have a deleterious effect on health, while ingesting the same proteins from foods not genetically modified.

The counter arguments, therefore, have little to do with health, and a close analysis reveals that when they are not driven by ignorance of science, they are actually about the economics of the enterprise.

Currently, only a few multinationals hold patents to most of the available genetically modified foods. The argument goes that allowing them into a poor country will put their food supply at the beck and call of these multinationals, which is potentially risky.

The proponents of this argument need to package it more astutely to avoid misleading consumers. Further, it is possible for governments to formulate solutions to this problem, perhaps by dealing with biotech food patents in much the same way as some countries deal with patents for essential medicines – by quickly licensing local companies to produce “generics”!

Dr Atwoli is a consultant psychiatrist and senior lecturer at Moi University’s School of Medicine. Lukoye@gmail.com