For some unknown reasons, all questions and public debates are exclusively about genetically modified plants, but nobody raises the issue of widely used genetically modified microorganisms. The food industry, for example, uses them for making cheese and beer. The pharmaceutical industry uses them for making medicaments (such as recombinant interferon which is more effective than natural interferon). Nobody raises the issue of genetically modified animals which sell quite well.
 

Genetically modified plants were first commercialized in 1996. Since then, the area of their cultivation has expanded considerably. In 2006 such plants were grown on 100 million ha in 22 countries. This means that millions of people in dozens of countries (including the most developed ones) use GMO-containing products. In the EU countries, which are often referred to as examples of active resistance to GMO proliferation, the areas under genetically modified plants have expanded in recent years. Cultivation of such plants was banned in the EU from 1999 till 2004, but there was no ban on the use of products obtained from transgenic plants as food or fodder. In 2007 seven EU countries grew such plants on 100,000 ha.
 

Genetically modified plants are resistant to herbicides, pests, diseases, salinization, high and low temperatures; they change the color, composition, and shelf life of end products; they help resolve the problem of environmental pollution with organic compounds and heavy metals; they help synthesize certain compounds (including medications) in plants (which are further used as “factories” for producing such compounds). Genetic modifications of plants are also used in scientific research and genetic transformation has become a routine method readily applied by any Western university.
 

By now, about 140 plant species have been transformed. However, only a relatively small number of these have been commercialized (i.e. allowed to be grown for industrial purposes or used as food or fodder). The only species available on the global commercial market are transgenic soy, maize, rape, cotton, alfalfa, papaya, and cucurbit. The world leader in growing genetically modified plants is the United States. It is followed by Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and China. In 2006 the areas under cultivation of such plants totaled between 49.8M ha in the USA and 3.3M ha in China.

The basic foreign property of most commercialized GM plants is their herbicide and pest resistance. Before they are allowed for practical use, they undergo very complex and long tests. The test procedures are described in numerous detailed normative documents and laboratory protocols. At all stages – from pre-test research to commercial circulation – they are monitored by developers and authorized national agencies.

So far, there have been no proven facts of any negative effects produced by commercial GMO on the environment or human health. The September issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology (www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology) gives a detailed critical comment on the research conducted by I. Yermakova from Russia. The results of her research into “negative influence of transgenic soy on lab animals” were never published in any scientific journal. Those who criticize GMO are evidently neither geneticists nor biologists if they refer to such pseudo-results.

Of course, remote GMO hazards cannot be altogether ruled out. There are already successful experiments with plants transformed by artificial mini-chromosomes which transfer whole “blocks” of genetic information. It is already possible to transform plants by synthesized, not only natural, genes. The real prospects of creating new synthetic organisms raise new questions about bio-security and the ethical aspects of modern biotechnologies. Regrettably enough, opponents of GMO in Ukraine do not even mention these problems.

Why then do they pay so much attention to the use of genetically modified plants? The reason is simple and obvious: global redistribution of markets. In 2005 the world market of plant protection means was estimated at $34 billion, the world market of seeds – at $30 billion, and the world market of genetically modified agricultural plants – at $5.35 billion. Biotechnological companies must have begun to compete with producers of seeds and plant protection means. Protesting so actively and earnestly against GMO, public organizations must be working off the grants they receive, not even suspecting it. Another possible reason may be even simpler: some people seek publicity.

What should Ukraine do about transgenic plants? First of all, there should be a definite national policy with regard to the use of such plants. Any ban on their use or circulation in this country should be substantiated. At the same time, official registration should not mean automatic permission and uncontrollable use of transgenic plants or their ingredients.

There is much talk about “unauthorized spread and use of transgenic plant species and food products in Ukraine,” but there are no figures proving it, and most of those who raise alarm in newspapers and on TV are incompetent in agriculture and food processing. On the other hand, sampling analyses confirm the presence of transgenic products on the national market. The Agrarian Policy Ministry and other interested agencies need to know exactly which cultures are grown, where they are grown, and for what purpose they are grown. Then, possessing reliable information, they should adopt a further strategy. Unfortunately, nobody has ever made a systemic analysis of unauthorized circulation of transgenic products on the national market. Paradoxically, their uncontrollable spread seems to suit officials. It allows Ukrainian growers of transgenic plants to earn their profits, but it also helps foreign GMO patent holders to seize the Ukrainian market.

It is obviously necessary to determine which transgenic sorts Ukraine needs and whether it needs them at all. It is necessary to determine the degree of Ukraine’s potential dependence on foreign producers of seeds and its readiness whether to pay royalties to foreign patent holders or to fund national GMO research and selection. A considerable part of the national market of vegetables and industrial plants already belongs to foreign companies, but nobody raises alarm. Does Ukraine have sufficient intellectual, managerial, and economic potentials to stay on the global market as a producer of “pure organic” foods? Before introducing obligatory GMO marking, Ukraine should decide which principle to follow – the principle of “essential equivalence” (like in the USA, Canada, and South America) or the principle of “risk prevention” (as is accepted in the EU and under the Cartagena Protocol). Those “defenders of consumers’ rights” who demand obligatory GMO marking simply want to make money on expensive lab analyses. They omit one important circumstance: it is the consumer who would bear the costs of the analyses which would be made by accredited laboratories using an approved methodology (which is still unavailable in Ukraine).
 

It is urgently necessary to revise the active law on bio-security which was adopted hastily and with procedural violations and which lacks specific implementation mechanisms. It is necessary to distribute competences and responsibilities between government agencies and research centers in creating, testing, registering, and using genetically modified organisms.

We often refer to European experience. The Lisbon Initiative is meant to make the European Union’s economy competitive through applying new technologies. The EU already has long-term strategic plans for various areas (innovative medicine, forestry, global health care issues etc.). One such plan – “Plants of the Future” – aims at solving global problems: production of high-quality and safe food and fodder; creation of product groups for specific categories of people; increased productivity and directed changes of properties of plant species; preservation of biodiversity; conservation of landscapes; increased reliance on plants as renewable sources of energy; production of pharmaceutical and diagnostic products etc.). Ukraine needs such initiatives and strategic plans. Otherwise, it is doomed to turn into a mere source of raw materials for developed nations.