The dengue virus is the fastest growing vector-borne disease. The
global cost of dengue is estimated to be $17 billion including vector control,
mortality and healthcare. The Zika virus was first identified in Uganda (in the
Zika Forest) then jumping to islands in the Pacific. Zika is now present in
multiple countries throughout the Americas.
U.S. health officials have issued a travel warning for 14 countries and
territories in the Caribbean and Latin America where infection from the Zika
virus. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cautioned
pregnant women not to travel to those areas as Zika has been linked to serious
birth defects, such as microcephaly.
There is no vaccine to fight the Zika virus. The most promising
technology to control the Zika disease is through the genetic engineering of
mosquitoes. The private sector, led by the Intrexon Corporation, has developed
a way to modify male mosquitoes such that when they mate with the females their
offspring die before they can transmit the disease. The technology has been
approved in Brazil and last year Piracicaba, Brazil became the world’s first
city to release the modified mosquitoes. The technology is pending approval in
the United States. Hopefully, that will happen in the very near future.
Interestingly, a new survey done by Purdue University shows that he
U.S. public overwhelmingly supports introducing genetically engineered
mosquitoes to help control the spread of the Zika virus. The researchers said they
were surprised by the findings because of the public debate over GMOs in food
and agriculture.
"Yet when it comes to fighting the Zika virus, public sentiment
comes out pretty strong in favor of using these technologies to our
advantage," said Nicole Widman, of Purdue University's Department of
Agricultural Economics and lead researcher on the study.
"It's too soon to say what all the implications of our findings
mean, but we are already conducting further data analysis," said Wallace
Tyner, co-researcher in the Department of Agricultural Economics. "We can
certainly say that what we've discovered is startling, and we're pleased that
the U.S. public has demonstrated a willingness to be open to all the tools
we've got in fighting this outbreak."
The Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, Pedro Pierluisi, has called
upon the federal government, working in conjunction with the scientific
community, to take swift and proactive steps to eradicate or at least
substantially reduce the population of mosquitoes in Puerto Rico and other U.S.
jurisdictions.
The application of genetic engineering to medicine is not confined to
mosquitoes. Many of the drugs we consume are the product of genetic
engineering. A familiar example is insulin.
During my first trip to Africa for the World Food Program many years
ago I was surprised to see medical doctors in the fields farming. When I
inquired, they explained that the AIDS medications would not work without food
so they were learning how to farm. The program was being run by the University
of Indiana Medical School, headed by Dr. Joe Mamlin.
In short, there is a strong relationship between health care, nutrition
and food security yet the public (or a very vocal minority of the public) seems
to have a different standard for, and acceptance of, genetic engineering when
it comes to health care as compared to the production of food. Yet both
medicines and food are consumed and enter the human body.
Why the difference? Maybe it’s a secret that drugs are frequently
produced through genetic engineering. Maybe we just trust medical doctors more
than plant biologists. Or, maybe when we’re sick we just want to get better and
don’t ask questions.
The public understands there is a process for testing and approving the
safety and efficacy of drugs, including drugs that are genetically engineered.
The public doesn’t seem to know that there is a similar process for the
clearance of agriculture biotechnology.
The medical profession does not have to defend genetically engineered
drugs because there is no effort underway to challenge the effectiveness of the
products. That is not the case when it comes to agriculture. The use of genetic
engineering for the production food is being attacked and its efficacy called
into question. The reason for the attack is simply economic competition, which
is fine, but that is not understood. Therefore, there must be a much broader
effort by a wider range of experts and scientists, including medical doctors,
explaining the benefits of genetic engineering and debunking the myths. And the
messaging should include a blunt discussion of the economic motive to being
anti-genetic engineering. of being anti-GMO.
The Zika epidemic can become a teachable moment for all forms of
biotechnology. Biotechnology will surely not solve all of the world’s problems.
The challenges we face are very complex, with an still-growing world
population, climate change and increased resistance to some existing drugs. We
will need all the available tools to address these most serious issues. The
scientific community can help by speaking with one voice across disciplines in
an effort to assure the public on the safety of all genetically engineered
products and the rigor of the government’s clearance process.
Finally, the Congress must pre-empt multiple state labeling systems
that could lead to the labeling of genetically modified food products with
different schemes more in the nature of a “warning” than factual information.
Transparency on biotechnology would help inspire consumer confidence, but fifty
different labeling systems would be as confusing as having fifty different
nutrition labels or fifty rules for health claims.
Secrets make people nervous, but multiple state labeling systems will
impede commerce. As the Safe Affordable Food Coalition recently wrote to
Congress, “The application of biotechnology to agricultural production has led
to increased crop yields, decreased use of pesticides, and lower food costs for
consumers. Congress must ensure we avoid senseless (state) mandates that will thwart
agricultural advancement and hurt consumers—especially those low income
Americans who can least afford to pay more to feed their families.”
The federal government must step into the breach. Last week, Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack yet again called for Congress to solve the dispute over
genetic labeling, warning that failure to block state labeling laws will
"create real chaos in the market." He is right on target.
Marshall Matz specializes in agriculture and global food security at
OFW Law in Washington, D.C.
#30
For more news go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com
