The technology, when it intervenes on food production, generates concern (curiously, the treatments of processing and storage much less);
the use of genetic engineering for the production of "GMO" (genetically modified organisms) unleashes fantasies related to the consequences that would have in the human genetic modification and any information that teases these fears is uncritical attention: the consequence is that go wrong information and misleading to create a "secular obscurantism" that, when added to the religious resistance, in other areas can make a lot of damage to human progress.
In the food, given the growing needs of populations growing steadily, technological research is crucial; becomes very important information about biotechnology use and even more important that this information is correct.
Hypothesis occasionally supported by experiments to be verified is that modify the genetic heritage of the plant will lead to food carcinogens: this assumes that the plant DNA modified enter into human cells taking the place of the cellular DNA, or at least modifying it: but can this happen?
The symbol indicates DNA deoxyribonucleic acid; acts as the warehouse of information necessary to the synthesis of other nucleic acids and protein structures; if damaged, leading to the production of molecules without the necessary activities or worse with irregular activity.
Its molecule is composed of three elements: the phosphate group and the deoxyribose (a carbohydrate) are always the same, in all the DNA molecules of any living being: the genetic changes made do not in any way such components;
the third component has a relative variability is a "purine base" and they are four: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine; even these basics are always the same in every cell of every organism plant or animal: then the cells that secrete the lianas curare have the same four purine bases of nerve cells that curare paralyzes;
is the different arrangement of these bases in the DNA chain which gives the different characteristics of code to each DNA molecule.
Genetic engineering makes variations of this sequence of bases, not "invent" new, so it fits into the DNA elements other than universally present.
When we consume foods we assume a high number of cells each containing many DNA molecules: the body does not absorb these molecules whole, but the digestive processes of the melt in the core components, for which:
1) if we assume wild chicory grown on fallow land ingest the separate molecules of phosphate, deoxyribose, adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine.
2) if we assume transgenic corn ingest the separate molecules of phosphate, deoxyribose, adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine.
So after digestion of DNA, there is no difference regarding the nutrients taken; the risk (not cancerous) may derive from proteins synthesized IN PLANT by the modified DNA, in the sense that the food may contain different proteins, and therefore potentially toxic or allergenic than the natural variety: it is assumed that the result of the varieties Transgenic can not be produced and placed on the market without a simple qualitative assessment of the components.
The greatest danger inherent in the use of genetic engineering is another, namely the depletion of biological species on the planet: if a variety of transgenic corn provides more abundant yields will eventually replace all other varieties in crops; if it proves to be vulnerable to a parasite the world's population suffer for a whole year an appalling lack of food and survive only individuals and nations, able to grab the food resources remaining.
In later years he could have recourse to the cultivation of other cereals to appease hunger, but before seeing a production of enough corn may take decades.
In truth, we run the risk not only with the use of genetic engineering but also with selections of varieties propagated by cuttings (individuals generated by a single parent and therefore no genetic variation) and not with the natural system of planting (which gives individuals generated by two parents, with genetic variable).
The cuttings, such as genetic engineering, shape then plant populations by genetic mobile, so that in case of damage by pests is no longer a fraction of the population to perish, but all species.
This example happened to the Gros Michel banana in the 50s for the fungal infection called "Panama disease" and is the fate that might be encountered in the coming years the Cavendish banana, that consumed all over the world, since the plantations all derive from the same single parent and do not show any genetic variability.
It should be also evaluated the environmental impact of what we can anticipate how new species may be less "hospitable" with no pest insects like bees; parasites to which the new varieties will be resistant could develop new strategies of attack.
Then there are economic factors such as the worsening of the difficulties of the countries "developing" whether patents should be expensive, forcing them to cultivate less competitive original varieties (some varieties are made sterile to force the purchase by producers).
It should therefore avoided the risk that genetic engineering is applied to apprentice sorcerers and will need to handle it all supranational bodies, but the same is not appropriate food unfounded fears because, if properly controlled, GMOs can increase the food resources of the planet and allow a lower pesticide use.
Nicola Lembo
