The World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations is among those that endorse food derived from genetically modified organisms (GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The comparatively new technology, also popularly referred to as agricultural biotechnology has stirred up controversy between the pro- and anti-GMO. The technology and terminology involved can be mind-boggling to a non-biologist, non-agriculturist, non-scientist, even non-environmentalist.

Although pro-GMO scientists say the technology has been around for centuries, the antis say the old ways have been in use since the beginning of time and they work with and don't attempt to be better than Nature. Perhaps the crux of the problem lies there-the technology is comparatively new and it is being foisted on people much too soon.

WHO (whose report seems to jibe with that of the Food and Agriculture Organization or FAO, also of the UN) believes, like other GMO supporters, that the technology paves the way for attaining global food security. Populations, GMO supporters say, are increasing and threatening to explode in the near future. More people would need fast-growing, high-yielding, possibly lesser-priced crops to feed them. This is why pro-GMO scientists are fast-tracking the adoption of the technology.

Frank and open

On reading the WHO report; "20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods," however, one notes the WHO is not exactly viewing things with blinders. It is quite frank in its explanations and assessments.

It recognizes that the initial objective for developing plants based on GMO is to provide better protection for crops through the introduction of varieties resistant to plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or by increasing tolerance to herbicides. The organization also admits there are risks in this.

In determining the potential risks of GMO to human health, WHO says it considers three main issues: one, tendencies to provoke allergic reactions; two, gene transfer; and three, outcrossing. While WHO says no allergic affects have been found in GM foods now in the market, gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or bacteria in the gastro-intestinal tract could cause concern (Itals ours) if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health.

"This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistant genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred..." The probability of a transfer is low, but just the same, a WHO/FAO panel of experts would rather that a technology without antibiotic resistant genes is used.

'Real' risk

Outcrossing - the movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild, as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM planting materials- "may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security." WHO termed this risk as "real," giving as example an occurrence in the United States where traces of a maize type intended only for animal feed appeared in maize products for human consumption. This is why WHO recommends continuous monitoring and safety surveillance of GM food products.

GMO & the environment. WHO's current investigations focus on four areas: the potentially dangerous effect of GMO in beneficial insects, the potential generation of new plants with disease-producing organisms (pathogens), the potential negative effects for plant biodiversity and wildlife, a decreased use of the important practice of crop rotation in certain situations, and the transfer of herbicide-resistance genes to other plants.

Safety of GM foods. The safety of individual GM foods should be assessed on a case-to-case basis, for "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Those now available in the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. Just the same, WHO advises continued use of the assessments and market monitoring to further evaluate GM food safety.

Acceptance of GM foods. Many countries and agencies outside of the US (and in the US itself) still resist the use of GM foods. Some places have even called for a moratorium on the release of such foods in the market. WHO cites the case in Southern Africa where, despite a critical lack of food, some governments in the region refuse humanitarian help, expressing environmental and food safety fears.

The WHO report mentioned here is only part of many other explanations about GMO. As a matter of fact, it is only one of several reports from other GMO supporters. There are 22 other organizations from the US as well as from other countries, and over 3,300 scientists, including Nobel laureates, who have signed Declaration of Support. We chose to quote WHO because, to our mind, it is the lead international organization on issues such as the health and safety affects of GMO foods.

On the other side of the GMO controversy are environmentalists, concerned consumers and farmers, and a small group of scientists who are not members of big organizations but feel they must be heard on this crucial issue. They call themselves The Independent Science Panel (ISP). More on them next time.

(Author may be contacted at dorisnuyda@yahoo.com)