Just this week, The Sunday Herald a London-based newspaper revealed the existence of a "secret document" circulated by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The document urged the government to "proceed rapidly" in amending a law that would allow it to silence objections raised against the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops in the United Kingdom.
In Europe, United States, Canada, and Australia, the debate on genetically modified organisms (GMO) has been a contentious one, with much public protest against the open planting of GM crops, and the release of artificial genes into our natural environment via commercial means.
GM critics argue that the release of genetically modified material is irreversible and potentially quite damaging, as we cannot safeguard our ecosystem against unintended effects of these artificial genetic creations. On the other hand, others argue that despite risks, there are enough regulations and research being conducted that will allow us to safely produce such GM products and foods.
This debate is similarly beginning to show up in Malaysia as the government plans to conduct field trials on GM crops, formulate laws and regulations on GM use and trade, and open up our market to the commercialisation of GM food and products, much of which are perhaps being sold on our local shelves.
The first National Conference on Life Sciences, which concluded on Wednesday evening, has brought to attention the radically different positions which were presented on crucial questions such as the safety of GM food for consumption, the effectiveness of risk assessment tests on GM food, and whether it is prudent to invest in the development of a biotech industry.
Flaws in GE techniques
Also highlighted are major flaws inherent in current genetic engineering (GE) techniques and testing methods. These stressed the need for Malaysia to press for greater public discourse on the issues of research, production, commercialisation and consumption of GMOs.
Dr Harrison Aziz Shahabudin, food quality control division director at the Health Ministry, says she believes that biotechnology is here to stay as there is "no evidence to show that GM food is harmful to human health".
As consumers are still sceptical about the safety of GM food, the ministry's role would be to assuage that fear via risk assessment and proper labelling of GM food in order to provide consumers with the choice on whether to consume, she said in a speech delivered by Nik Shabnam Nik Mohd Salleh, principal assistant director for the food quality control division.
Dr Umi Kalsom Abu Bakar, deputy director of the Biotechnology Research Centre at the Malaysian Agricultural and Research Institute, believes that Harrison is on the right track.
"In the context of human health, we need and want good quality food. But with traditional plant breeding, for example cross-breeding, it is difficult to get a good breed.
"With GE technology, it is very precise, so you can just put in the feature that you want and get the results," she said.
She adds that given the regulatory mechanisms currently under draft at the Health Ministry, consumers can be assured of safety standards of GM food in Malaysia.
Conflicting views
However, Terje Traavik, a professor of virology from the University of Tromso in Norway and scientific director for the Genok-Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, disagrees with the position.
According to him, he backs up his opinion with almost 20 years' worth of research experience in biotechnology, and that "there is something that you cannot say about GE technology, is that it is precise. It is not".
Earlier in his presentation, Traavik argues that there are no safety tests that can comprehensively assess the safety of GMOs, and that current methods in genetic technology are still at a crude level.
He cites his experiment with the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) 35S promoter, currently used extensively in GM crops already commercialised or undergoing field trials, which showed that the promoter was unstable in the construction of artificial genes and could recombine with other viruses to generate new disease-causing viruses.
Furthermore, Traavik argues that as we have not been able conduct any adequate and comprehensive safety testing on GMOs, his experiment with the CaMV is proof of the grave problems faced by commercialisation of GMOs.
According to Traavik, the use of the term "risk assessment" with reference to providing adequate safeguards against the potential health hazards of GM food is absolutely wrong.
"The term 'risk assessment' entails calculating the probability of certain events taking place multiplied by the consequences arising if those events took place. The problem is, we're in a historical period right now with no knowledge at hand to assess the probability of certain events happening and the consequences that can result from the release of GMOs."
Commercialised too soon
He argues that because commercialisation came too early, ahead of our knowledge on genes and of the environment, it would be highly problematic to rely on that limited knowledge to rush headlong into the production and consumption of GMOs.
"Malaysia Mohamed Saifulaman Mohamed Said, head of the Special Interest Group in Molecular Biotechnology at Universiti Teknologi Mara; Mae-Wan Ho, director of the Institute of Science in Society based in London; Rusli Ismail, head of the Phamacogenetic Research Group at Universiti Sains Malaysia; Faizal Baharuddin, from the health services division in the Defence Ministry; and Mohamad Nizam Isa, director of the Human Genome Centre at Univesiti Sains Malaysia.
This final panel session of the two-day conference highlighted the clash of opinion among biotechnology practitioners.
On one side, there is Dr Nor Shahidah Khairullah who is a member of the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC), the group responsible for the National Guildelines for the Release of Genetically Modified Organisms released in 1997.
She says, while there is recognition within GMAC and the Science, Technology and Environment Ministry of problems in biotechnology, there is confidence that the work being pursued in developing, monitoring and assessment procedures, and the establishment of food labelling requirements, will allow Malaysia to work through the pitfalls of biotechnology.
"For any sort of technology, there are pros and cons. We have to appreciate the concerns over this issue.
"But in order to put Malaysia on the map, we have to be seen as being technology-savvy. We are cognizant of the problems but we are going ahead," said Nor Shahidah who is also part of the conference organising committee.
A gamble
Along the same lines, Rusli believes that pursuing biotechnology can be done as long as we are clear on its pros and cons. "Life is a gamble. As long as we take a clear objective on what we're gambling on, then we'll probably do well."
Despite this argument and optimistic declarations by Nor Shahidah that the "20th century is the century of biotechnology", the unanswered questions and missing scientific scholarship on GE and its associated risk spin-offs fail to inspire much confidence in others.
Traavik questions whether our basic knowledge level is adequate to inspire confidence when it comes to making gambles on the commercialisation and consumption of GMOs.
He also further questions if we can be confident when formulating blanket laws on biotechnology and GMOs, given our inadequacies in scientific knowledge, especially since GM crops vary according to various factors.
"If we tell consumers that everything is fine just because we have laws, it does not seem to match the reality of what's said by scientists today," he said.
Moreover, some even say that there is evidence surfacing of failures in the use of artificial genetic material in commercial crops.
Larger problem
According Ho, experience in the United States — with their accumulated experience with GE technology — shows that GE crops do not necessarily lead to improved yields and may face the larger problem of becoming herbicide-resistant, therefore making them harder to control, and forcing farmers to face higher costs in handling GE crops.
"In fact, current biotechnology techniques are considered a big failure. Malaysia should not be blocking scientific imagination by following what has already been discredited in other countries" but rather "scientists should take the challenge of finding other approaches besides biotechnology", she said.
In offering options, both Ho and Traavik argue that it would be prudent to have a moratorium until uncertainties can be scientifically proven.
According to Ho, "Europe has had a de facto moratorium on the release and commercialisation of GMOs since 1998".
Despite strong arguments presented by Ho and Traavik, Umi Kalsom say the Malaysian government will pursue commercial field trials soon for the review and use by GMAC.
She said this in response to questions raised by panel chairperson Gurdial on the figures used by GMAC in formulating guidelines on GMOs. Gurdial had questioned if GMAC had relied solely on figures released by biotech companies, or had commissioned an independent study on the subject.
The question received no direct answer, except to raise further questions on where Malaysia is heading on the issue of biotechnology — whether we are capable of safeguarding the natural diversity of our environment, and whether we can afford the gambles on genetic engineering.
YOON SZU-MAE is a member of the malaysiakini team.
