Dan Koeppel, in the essay ‘Can This Fruit be saved?’ Explains two contrasting visions of how well to address the impending (banana) crisis. One of the visions is based on the traditional methods of production, aimed at the manufacture of a banana plant with the same taste and appearance as the Cavendish to the extent that consumers cannot tell it is not the one. Aguilar is one of its proponents. Aguilar serves as a head banana breeder at Honduran Foundation for Agricultural Investigation (FHIA).The other vision is shared by bioengineers and is aimed at altering the chromosomes of the banana plant through the use of decoded genome. It also involves utilization DNA from other banana species targeting resisting diseases such as Panama disease. It has received the backing of Rony Swennen, a specialist in banana genetics and the representative of Biodiversity International in Belgium. He is also in charge of International Transit Centre of Banana. He specializes in the production and supply of thriving banana plantlets and lyophilized leaves. Swennen firmly believes in phenotyping.
The traditional method of banana reproduction involves the application of natural ways, commonly dismissed by many bioengineers as being too dependent on happenstance. Aguilar justifies this method by saying that most Americans do not accept genetically-modified foods. This method involves planting a large number of the same variety of a banana whose flowers are manually pollinated at nine months by workers with the use of pollen from bananas of desirable traits. The method produces a very small number of seeds and runs the risk of yielding a plant with other undesirable traits such as low fruit production.
The first step in Swennen’s research is fungus identification for him to create a disease-resistant banana plant. He works with a wide variety of banana species. The study intends to identify the genes in the banana plant that resist the Panama disease and cross-breeding that particular banana plant with another containing genes for tasty fruits. The process is faster and more efficient than the traditional method and the most suitable for saving the Cavendish since it is seedless hence difficult to improve through the conventional methods. Swennen’s approach eliminates need to use pesticides. Swennen also claims that the traditional approach is too slow as it involves developing a new variety from scratch. Recent research, however, shows that a large population of consumers does not approve of genetically modified foods.
The two approaches have their advantages and shortcomings. I would support both of them. The traditional approach is facilitated by nature and does not involve the use of chemicals hence would be more acceptable as it eliminates the chances of having any health side effects on the consumers. The biotechnology approach gives timely and fast results hence efficient in preventing the rapid spread of banana diseases such as Black Sigatoka and Panama disease. Swennen’s approach also significantly reduces the amount of space required by the research as opposed to Aguilar’s which requires large fields with very low yields.
"I can't comprehend this romantic notion that nature is perfect and that is the creation of Frankensteins." This statement by Swennen shows his disapproval of people’s negative perception of the genetically modified foods which they see as being harmful. He dismisses the view that nature is harmless and only gets dangerous upon human modification. He attempts to dissuade the fear that genetically modified foods are detrimental to consumers by showing that human interference does not always cause harm: sometimes it contributes to the betterment of nature. He claims that with time, it will be necessary to have science intervention in agriculture to save the banana plant.
People are scared of genetically engineered foods for a variety of reasons. They are known to have various hazards and side effects on consumers and the environment. These effects include an increase in the rate of toxin production as a result of the addition of exotic genes which would be harmful to humans upon consumption. The foods may contain proteins that provoke an allergic reaction. The foods also have a relatively low nutritional value compared to the traditionally produced foods due to the presence of indigestible elements in their composition. For instance, a certain genetically engineered soybean has been proved to produce lower levels than traditional soybeans. Phytoestrogen compounds provide immunity against cancer and heart disease. There are also rising concerns over genetically modified foods causing resistance to antibiotics through natural mutation. Natural mutation can be caused by the insertion of antibiotic resistance genes in plants to serve as selectable markers. There is also a prevalent cynicism in the methods used to test the safety of these foods. Biotechnology companies are thought to use rigged research meant to conceal the adverse effects and assure the consumers of the security of these foods.
The fear exuded by the consumers is legitimate especially due to the massive global cynicism surrounding the production of these foods. The consumers are right to worry about their health and doing all they can to safeguard their healthy well-being. The biotechnology companies have a role to play in wading off these fears by committing themselves to carrying out in-depth and credible research into the side effects of their products and rectifying them.
Jeremy Riskins has illustrated the impact of corporate power which seems to have significant influence on the belief of many consumers towards genetically engineered foods. He has exposed how major insurance companies are not willing to insure bioengineered foods or reduce their risks. They attribute this hesitance to the unpredictable outcome in this sector with more than eight hundred scientists lobbying for the hazards of genetically engineered foods and seeds to be declared publicly and patenting of life forms to be banned. The article mentions corporates such as The World Scientist, The Union of Concerned Scientists and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, all of which have labelled genetically modified foods unfit for human consumption and have called for them to be banned. It also portrays the efforts by scientist groups calling for new safety measures concerning handling these foods. He also cites contradicting safety claims by the respective companies as a cause of cynicism by consumers. Any efforts to convince the public to accept genetically engineered foods will need to address the issues raised by these corporates first. Public opinion has already been swayed into believing that these foods are not safe for their consumption, and people are better off consuming traditionally-bred foods. In the 1960s, banana companies were also forced into improving their staff’s working conditions after pressure from labour and environment activist groups which closely monitor their dealings. Corporate power has made banana companies seek approval of corporates and activist groups in a bid to earn public support for their products.
References
Koeppel, Dan. "Can This Fruit Be Saved?" Popular Science 267.2 (2005): 60.
