I have been following with interest the correspondence and reaction to the EU Commission’s approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). These have been with us now for around 20 years and have not caused any profound problems in the countries where they have been introduced. It is natural to expect people to react to issues that are relatively new and there have been serious lapses in the past regarding the quality of food control in other issues. In medicine we have a maxim, “never be the first to use the new, nor the last to leave the old”. Although this is usually used with respect to medical treatment, one can equally apply it to the case under review.

We have now been using GMOs unwittingly for several years, as it has always been US policy to mix GMO crops, like wheat, with non-GMO ones. We have also been using products of GMOs for several years. I remember that when I graduated , we were still using porcine insulin for diabetics. This had gross side effects on the skin of the individuals who used it. However today, diabetics use pure human insulin. This is produced from bacteria that have been genetically engineered to include the gene for human insulin. The result is that we inject diabetics, not to mention other medicines, with pure human insulin with relatively no side effects.

FAO has reckoned that the way forward for world agriculture is through the use of GMOs in the future. It is the only way that ever diminishing agricultural areas can feed an ever-growing world population. Organic food alternatives are a rich man’s option, which, granted, has a niche market but which will not feed the world’s ever increasing hungry mouths.

There are in fact certain theoretical dangers connected with the use of GMO release in the environment, but if managed in a technically and legally proper manner, there is very little threat involved. Over the years, the EU has laid down very stringent legal requirements for the use of GMOs in the EU. The first piece of legislation Directive 90/220/EEC was very stringent in laying down risk assessments and risk management systems plus the proper notification to neighbouring countries and the technical verifications for their use. This has been now replaced by the even more stringent Directive 2001/18/EEC, which provides better consumer protection and mandates labelling of GMO foods for optimum consumer information and choice.

In my humble opinion, other western countries such as North America and Japan do have an advantage on EU countries on the use of GMOs and it is time that this imbalance is redressed so as not to fall behind the others. They also attract many scientists from Europe. I also believe that the Maltese government has been given bad advice in pursuing a policy against the use of GMOs in Malta. It is a technically oriented industry with a high value added content that is known to provide work for well technically educated people in the medium term range. I believe that John Dalli has taken the correct and courageous position in approving their use and if the government here is wise, we should be one of the first to allow the use of and allow place for investment in the technology concerned. If we fail to look ahead and do so, we would be one of the last to use the new with all the consequences involved. Missing the bus is only one of them.

Dr Michael Asciak MD

BIRKIRKARA