We live in strange times. We eat "healthy" breakfast cereals that contain more salt than seawater but also know over use of salt can cause heart disease, writes Dick Ahlstrom, Science Editor
We increasingly use "healthy" low fat spreads, but we dive into crisps and wolf oily chips whenever we get a chance
Many of us have turned the food pyramid on its head, shunning carbohydrates such as bread, potatoes and rice in favour of fatty, protein-rich meat and cheese as a way to lose weight. Few of us however would try exercise as a way to promote weight loss with only a tiny minority of us exercising the recommended 30 minutes several times a week.
More than two thirds of us reject genetically modified foods because we are afraid they might hurt us but almost a third of us puff away on cigarettes. Tobacco is a known carcinogen but no illness has yet been attributed to eating genetically modified (GM) foods.
Why is this happening? Why have we gradually become afraid of our food? Why do we doubt measured scientific results but readily embrace voodoo medicine that has no basis in fact?
There is no simple answer to this but it is a societal trend that has gathered momentum in recent years. And the phoney "debate" over GM foods has served to confuse rather than clarify the issues associated with risk and safety.
A good example of this at work could be heard last Wednesday as politicians and lobbies responded to the European Commission's decision to allow a new variety of GM sweet corn onto the market. Some of the reaction was so shrill it sounded more like we were about to get smacked by a giant asteroid than what actually happened-the arrival of a new brand of tinned maize.
Commentators attacked the decision saying it was an example of the Commission "dancing to the agenda of the multinationals". It was also derided as the EU being more determined to protect multinational interests than consumer interests.
Listening to the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it reaction made one wonder if we were going to be forced to eat this new GM sweet corn. The consumer legislation is pretty clear on this: you don't have to buy the stuff if you don't want to buy it. By extension you don't have to eat it either.
The fear and loathing associated with GM food technology is the latest manifestation of our collective inability to weigh up evidence and make decisions, suggests clinical psychologist, Mr Paul O'Donoghue. "There is something radically wrong with the way we are being taught science," he believes.
O'Donoghue is a co-founder of the Irish Skeptics Society, set up "for the promotion of science and critical thinking", he says. "I think critical thinking is unnatural. We are born credulous and have to be taught to think critically." The result is a gullible public unable to sort out fact from fantasy, reality from nonsense.
As example he refers to a UK company selling one litre bottles of water in Dublin for €20 each, the high cost associated with "unique" properties in the water. The company claims its water can "overwrite" bad information carried in tap water with "good" information, making it better for you. No this is not a joke, people are making money with this, especially at €20 a litre.
This credulity combined with the reach and persistence of our modern mass media produces a potent blend that encourages us to suspend our disbelief, O'Donoghue believes. He also suggests the media actually promotes alternative over mainstream approaches. "The whole thing is about media policy. I think it is massively balanced towards alternatives. People are credulous and taking it without questioning it."
This credulity helps to keep the GM "debate" in front of us and also serves to prevent balanced, authoritative information from getting in the way of a good story. Just look at the response to Bt-11 corn despite the fact that it has been tested and retested by EU labs and is approved and being eaten by millions of people without ill effect right around the world.
The media interacting with lobbyists from all sides also tends to confuse thing. Modern lobbyists are adept at exploiting media access, allowing their particular message to get out to the public. One message may sound just as authoritative as the next-in the GM debate both sides can point to scientific studies and quote eminent scientists. It becomes very difficult for the consumer to sort out these conflicting messages, making it simpler to ignore change and keep with the status quo.
Of course the scientific community doesn't do much to help itself. O'Donoghue believes scientists are generally very poor at explaining what they are doing and most would rather keep a low profile.
Work on GM foods also gives people the frighteners by its very nature. For example scientists have successfully transplanted a fish gene taken from a flounder into a tomato. The gene produces a form of "antifreeze", with the result a plant that can protect itself from frosts.
For many the thought of a fish gene in a plant is somehow unappetising. Yet this is where the consumer can exercise very genuine power over the international conglomerates that are pushing GM technology onto our dinner plates. We don't have to buy it. Many consumers would be happy to avoid the fish gene tomato and simply wait until the frost susceptible tomato plants produce fruit. You have a choice in this.
What we cannot escape is the further development of GM technology and the release of more modified foods. The Commission has a list of 23 GM products awaiting approval for release on European markets, and more will follow these.
Commerce drives this science, with the biotech and agribusiness multinationals using well established GM technology to produce new products. The goal for them is to produce unique seeds and plants that can deliver a high level of control over markets and ensure big profits.
The science itself is based on the manipulation of DNA, the helix-shaped molecule that exists in all living organisms, from fruit flies to humans, and lichens to salmon. We are learning more and more about DNA and the genes hidden along it. And because DNA uses the same building blocks no matter the species, there is no technical reason why genes from one species can't be spliced into another species to transfer a desirable trait.
Ethical considerations are they only brake on this activity and these it seems are not much of an impediment. Human DNA is well protected by legislative controls and limits to medical practice in most countries, but of course renegades can still make use of this technology and ignore ethics and laws. Two groups already claim to have produced cloned human infants, although their claims are doubted by orthodox science.
Opponents to GM food see only danger in its development and application. Long term critic of GM, Fr Sean McDonagh, cites risks to humans and the environment that may be inherent but hidden in the technology. "The precautionary principle says you shouldn't do something unless you are pretty sure about it," he says. "It is using humans as guinea pigs."
The transfer of modified genes from transgenic crops into wild plants is another consideration, he believes. Environmentalists strongly oppose the planting of modified crops because useful traits such as herbicide resistance if transferred into the wild could produce "super weeds" that would resist existing agrochemicals.
"We really don't think it is necessary or that enough testing has been done to confirm safety," says Ms Ruth McGrath, spokeswoman for VOICE, Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment. She also worries about gene release.
"Once you let genes out they are out. It is not like a chemical, they transfer, change and evolve. There is also the issue of biopatenting," she adds. "We think that is the real drive behind the technology. It is not about improving crops, it is about gaining control over agriculture."
Those supporting the technology point to the great benefits that could arise from GM, particularly in third countries. There is talk of engineering drought and salt tolerance into essential food crops but this has yet to be achieved.
Southeast Asian farmers are growing modified "golden rice", a GM release named for its rich colour and the excess beta carotene it produces. This is the substance that makes carrots orange and is a precursor for vitamin A, therefore adding nutritional benefit to those eating it.
It is an example of a "nutraceutical", a plant that carries nutritional or health benefits added by using GM technology. There are many examples with GM and conventional breeding being used to develop the plant.
Researchers at the University of Wisconsin are working on onions that contain substances that inhibit blood clots and so reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke. A team at Cornell University have developed bananas that contain a hepatitis B vaccine, something that could deliver immunity for just a few cent per dose.
Perhaps these products if released will offer sufficient benefits to break down existing consumer resistance. Nutraceuticals are related to that other key area of GM application, medicine. Those opposed to genetic technologies have consistently failed to criticise the use of modified bacteria and yeasts to produce drugs and hormones.
Virtually all of the insulin used to keep diabetics healthy is derived from GM organisms. Most of our antibiotics are produced in this way and many other drugs. The bacteria carry genes taken from humans and other sources to produce these substances, but there is little criticism of it because it delivers such an obvious benefit.
It is surprising then that opponents are so negatively vocal about GM rape and other ingredient crops. Oils, starches, sugars and other highly refined products can be produced from GM plants but will not themselves look any different than non-GM derived products, states Dr Patrick O'Mahony, chief specialist in biotechnology in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.
"With the oils it would be virtually impossible to determine whether it is GM or non-GM," he says. The same is true of high fructose corn syrup derived from GM corn, a sugar used to sweeten many products including soft drinks.
This however does not invalidate the strident application of laws relating to GM labelling and traceability of products. The FSA regularly tests products to measure GM content and whether GM material is being secreted in processed foods.
Of course "processed" is probably the key issue in all of this. We have become frightened of our food because we have become disconnected from our food. Food for most of us today means something out of a freezer compartment. Many live on convenience foods and packaged snacks.
Few of us grow food anymore and a diminishing number actually cook food, real food including raw vegetables and meat or fish. Who makes their own bread anymore and why would one bake cakes or biscuits when they are so cheap in the shops?
Yet as soon as we relinquish control of our food to the factories or biotech specialists we lose control of what happens to it. We discover to our horror that porcine proteins have been injected into chicken fillets to make them weigh more. We find that the salt and sugar content of our food rockets to suit the producers, not us. Salt and sugar are cheap and heavy additives, something that allows the producer to reduce the amount of real food left behind in a processed dinner.
As long as we remain disconnected from the foods we eat, allowing companies with a financial agenda to decide what we consume, we get the meals we deserve GM or otherwise.
The Irish Skeptics Society web site is: www.irishskeptics.net
Modified genes escaping into non-GM plants
Against: Research shows modified plants produce modified pollen that can reach non-GM fields when blown on the wind. This could transfer herbicide resistance genes into "cousin" weed species, to produce a superweed, or taint non-GM crops.
For: Research indicates pollen can travel long distances but most remains close to the plant. The EU has regulations defining best practice for reducing pollen spread, but even if a resistant weed developed it could be held in check by nature and new chemical treatments.
The impact on biodiversity
Against: The introduction of GM varieties will hasten the trend towards monoculture, the cultivation of very few crop varieties. Useful plant species could be lost and monoculture increases the risk that an opportunistic virus or bacterium could wipe out crops on a massive scale.
For: Scientists are strongly in favour of maintaining diversity, but GM technology in itself does not inhibit genetic variety. Monoculture holds the same risks in GM and non-GM farming. The development of seed banks helps to protect diversity and new GM varieties are on the way.
The impact on human health
Against: Genetic manipulation is still an uncertain science and gene constructs are unpredictable. There have been too few comprehensive studies on the safety of GM foods and so the technology should be controlled under the precautionary principle.
For: Member-state labs across Europe working within the European Food Safety
Authority comprehensively test every applicant GM product for safety. Almost 20 years of testing for health risks have found neither illness caused by GM nor any cause for concern.
The effect on Third World farming
Against: Modern techniques for conventional breeding and cultivation produce higher crop yield increases than improvements delivered by GM. The technology will not help subsistence farmers who can't afford the expense of fuel and chemicals.
For: Plant breeding cannot deliver traits such as drought- and disease-resistance as quickly as GM can, bringing advantages to poor farmers. Changes to the nutritional yield of crops using GM technology could also ultimately help to reduce human diseases.
Patenting and control over world agriculture
Against: Agribusinesses are gaining control over plant and seed varieties by patenting gene sequences in a form of "biopiracy". This will deliver control of world agriculture into the hands of a small collection of multinationals.
For: Researchers strongly object to the patenting of species and have supported limits to commercial control over agriculture.
They argue that only genuine innovations should be patentable in recognition of the development of new science.