They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same might be said of “contamination,” the latest buzzword among the enemies of biotechnology. It’s in the eye of the beholder, too--but the people who claim to see it clearly need to have their eyes examined.
“Contamination” isn’t merely a buzzword--it’s also a weasel word. In the past, I’ve said that the biggest weasel words in the English language are “maybe,” “possibly,” and “perhaps.” The extremists who despise biotechnology have used them to terrible effect, especially in Europe, where they’ve convinced many people that “maybe” the scientists are wrong and “possibly” biotech-enhanced foods are bad for you and “perhaps” we should ban them entirely.
That’s some pretty slippery rhetoric, and it’s matched by the anti-biotech crowd’s new favorite word. Everywhere you look, they’re jawboning about how biotech enhanced crops threaten non-biotech crops with “contamination.”
This is silly. First of all, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of appreciation for how agriculture has developed over thousands of years. Today, we don’t plant any crops that occurred naturally in the wild. Think about it: Not a single item on sale in the produce section at your local grocery store existed before the advent of man’s effort in agriculture.
The notion that some plants are more pristine or more pure than others is simply a fantasy. All of the crops we enjoy eating have evolved, either through survival of the fittest, or thanks to careful crossbreeding by farmers going back many years. They’ve all been genetically enhanced, and we’ve all benefited as a result. Farmers have turned tiny red berries into big ripe tomatoes and poisonous gooseberries into delicious kiwi fruits.
These are not sinister cases of “contamination”--they’re obvious improvements!
The difference today is that modern science allows us to work much more quickly. Instead of waiting for plants to transform as they slowly pass on new genetic characteristics from one generation to the next, we can speed up the process and eliminate “hit and miss” efforts to discover crops that allow us to produce higher yields, reduce weeds in our fields, and help the environment--and do it in record time.
To call this “contamination” is like saying tractors “contaminate” our fields because they’re not “natural” --and that we should all return to the days of backbreaking manual labor. I’ve been farming for more than five decades and I’ve seen a lot of technological progress. I know how far we’ve come. Believe me, we don’t want to go back to the “good ole’ days”.
Instead, we want to look forward. We live in an era of biotechnology. There’s no point in denying it or shaking our fists at it. Farmers have harnessed this powerful tool to grow more and enrich our world, both materially and environmentally. What we’re facing now is the difference between embracing progress and fearing it.
We’re much better off embracing it. The potential benefits are astounding. In fact, the anti-biotech radicals are precisely wrong when it comes to this matter of “genetic contamination.” Biotechnology surely doesn’t cause “contamination”--but it may help cure actual contamination.
Scientists already use plants to clean up industrial contaminants that have seeped into soil and groundwater. This process is called phytoremediation and the Environmental Protection Agency currently employs a form of it at ten Superfund cleanup sites.
Genetic enhancement soon may help us do an even better job of using phytoremediation to fight pollution.
Recently, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch described how researchers have identified genes that help certain plants thrive in soil full of cadmium, a toxic heavy metal, and another that helps bacteria reduce high levels of zinc. “They would like to augment and transfer both traits to large, fast-growing plants and trees, enabling them to store various heavy-metal pollutants absorbed from the ground,” wrote Rachel Melcer in her report. “The plants could be harvested and incinerated, leaving a relatively small amount of ash for proper disposal.”
When the enemies of biotechnology learn about this, what on earth are they going to say? That contamination is a beautiful thing?
I wouldn’t put it past them. By now we know there’s almost nothing they aren’t willing to assert.
Maybe they’ll stick to their Orwellian ways and call it “contamination.” I prefer a different word--“decontamination”--and I’m excited that biotechnology is on the threshold of helping us turn brownfields green with life.
News 
They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same might be said of “contamination,” the latest buzzword among the enemies of biotechnology. It’s in the eye of the beholder, too--but the people who claim to see it clearly need to have their eyes examined.
