Bio-technology and the future of Food Production - Essay Example

Genetic Engineering/Bio-technology and the future of Food Production Introduction The debate about the safety and need for genetically modified (GM) crops and foods began in the 90's. Although for years together man has been breeding and cross breeding plants and animals, it is only in the recent years that these issues have taken a serious turn. This paper will address some of the most important questions regarding genetically modified crops and also present a detailed account on the positive and negative impact genetic modification. I have taken up this topic is because I feel that this is an area which will determine the future food production. With the increase in global population, man has to produce enough food with the limited land and water resources. Modern agriculture produces significantly more food per area unit than traditional agriculture. However, genetic and other improvements can allow for still higher agricultural productivity without the need for extensions of cultivated areas (Sanandaji and Brandberg, N.D.). This paper begins with a brief history of the new GM technology, and then explains what is genetic modification and how it is carried out, further it explains the benefits and controversies of genetically modified organisms on environment and health and finally concludes the paper with an answer to all these questions. Definitions Biotechnology: According to the draft Protocol on Biosafety, modern biotechnology means the application of: in vitro nucleic acid techniques, and fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family that overcomes natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt): Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a soil bacterium that produces toxins against insects (mainly in the genera Lepidoptera, Diptera and Coleoptera). Bt preparations are used in organic farming as an insecticide. Bt crops: Bt crops are genetically modified to carry genetic material from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Crops containing the Bt genes are able to produce Bt-toxin, thereby providing protection against insects during the growth-stage of the plant. Genetic engineering: The manipulation of an organism's genetic endowment by introducing or eliminating specific genes through modern molecular biology techniques. A broad definition of genetic engineering also includes selective breeding and other means of artificial selection Genetically Modified food: Foods and food ingredients consisting of or containing genetically modified organisms, or produced from such organisms. Genetically Modified Organism (GMO): An organism produced from genetic engineering techniques that allow the transfer of functional genes from one organism to another, including from one species to another. Bacteria, fungi, viruses, plants, insects, fish, and mammals are some examples of organisms the genetic material of which has been artificially modified in order to change some physical property or capability. Living modified organisms (LMOs), and transgenic organisms are other terms often used in place of GMOs. Plant breeding: Plant breeding is use of techniques involving crossing plants to produce varieties with particular characteristics (traits) which are carried in the genes of the plants and passed on to future generations. Conventional/traditional plant breeding refers to techniques others than modern biotechnology, in particular cross-breeding, back-crossing. Transgenic plants: Transgenic plants result from the insertion of genetic material from another organism so that the plant will exhibit a desired trait (Based on various sources). Brief History of Genetic Engineering Selective breeding started shortly after man initiated domestication of animals such as dogs, horses and oxen. The concept of artificial pollination is described in Assyrian relief art, dated to approximately 800 B.C. and plant grafting and animal breeding were common in Roman times. Gregor Johann Mendel in the 19th century demonstrated the statistical patterns of heritance. In 1909, Wilhelm Johannsen the Danish botanist coined the term "gene" from the Greek word meaning "to be born". Research during the first half of the 20th century gave birth to the modern genetics. A major step towards the extensive knowledge in genetics that we have today was taken when James Watson and Francis Crick proposed the double helix model of DNA in 1953 (Sanandaji and Brandberg, N.D.). Thereafter a chain of research continued and still continues in the areas of agriculture and medicine. Current status of GM crops Since 1996 the global area planted with genetically modified (GM) crops has consistently increased each year. In 2005 the estimated global area of GM crops was 90 million hectares with an annual growth rate of 11% compared to 2004 (James 2005). Today GM crops are grown by more than 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries, and it was found that 90% of the farmers using the GM technology live in developing countries. USA, Argentina, Brazil, Canada and China are the five countries growing nearly 95% of the total area of these crops. There are four main GM crops that are grown worldwide. Soybean is the main GM crop occupying most of the global area, followed by maize, cotton and oilseed rape. Herbicide tolerance is the dominant trait that is deployed in all four crops, while maize and cotton are the only two insect resistant GM crops commercialized. Apart from the five principal countries, there are some countries with increasing GM crop cultivation. Paraguay, for example, reported the cultivation of 1.8 Mio hectares of GM soybean. India had, based on the annual percentage growth, the highest year-to-year growth with an increase of the Bt-cotton area from 0.1 Mio ha in 2003 to 1.3 Mio ha in 2005 counting for almost 15% of its total cotton area planted (James 2004, 2005). Additionally, there are various countries, which commercially grow GM crops on a smaller scale such as South Africa, Uruguay, Australia, Romania, Mexico, Spain and the Philippines (Sanvido et al. 2006). Techniques of Genetic Modification In simple terms, the gene technologist uses a "cutting-copying-pasting" approach to transfer genes from one organism to another. For this, bacterial enzymes are used that recognize, cut and join DNA at specific locations acting as molecular "scissors-and-tape". However, the selected gene is copied billions-fold, with the result that the amount of original genetic material in the modified organism is immeasurably small. Since DNA does not always readily move from one organism to another, "vehicles" such as plasmids (small rings of bacterial DNA) may be used; alternatively, some plant cells may be transformed by "shooting" small particles coated with the new DNA into the target cell using a special type of gun, called the "Gene Gun". The modified cell can then be used to regenerate a new organism (IFST, 2004). The new GM, involving the modification of specific genes in single cells using recently developed biotechnologies (Watson et al., 1992; Alcamo, 1999). Essentially, this process involves: The identification and isolation of one or more genes that will direct the synthesis of proteins with particular desirable characteristics. Then the movement of the desired gene(s) into another organism. Genes are usually moved into other organisms by exploiting natural pathogens whose mode of infection involves the injection into the host of genetic material. This gene transfer occurs into a single cell. And finally an entire plant must be regenerated from the single transformed cell. Thus, transfer into ovules or single-celled embryos is technically desirable (Desfeux et al., 2000), as these are programmed for growth into a multicellular organism. Totipotency, whereby cells from the adult plant have the ability to regenerate into new adults, is, of course, particularly useful in higher plants, as a range of cell types can be used for gene manipulations (Tester, N.D.). GM Products: Benefits and Controversies Benefits Genetic modification can lead to crop improvements more quickly than classical breeding, by efficiently identifying and transferring the desired trait. That characteristic alone is propagated (Community Affairs References Committee, 2000). There are many advantages of GM crops such as these crops have enhanced taste and quality; requires less time for maturation; have increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance; possess improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides; and have the potential to produce new products and growing techniques (Genomics.energy.gov, 2006). These advantages could, in turn, lead to a number of potential benefits, particularly in the longer-term, for the consumer, industry, agriculture and the environment such as Improved agricultural yields with less labour input and less cost input. It will also benefit the soil of "no-till" farming practice. Reduced usage of pesticides and herbicides will again result in less cost of cultivation. GM crops give an opportunity to grow crops in previously inhospitable environments through increased ability of plants to grow in conditions of drought, soil salinity, extremes of temperature, consequences of global warming, etc. As a result GM crops will help improve the ability to feed an increasing world population at a reduced environmental cost. Removal of allergens or toxic components, such as the research in USA to produce a non-allergenic GM peanut (University of Arkansas) and a non-allergenic GM prawn (Tulane University); and in Japan, to produce a GM non-allergenic rice (IFST, 2004). Last but not the least, the growing population could benefit from GM food. It is important to feed the increasing population with nutritious food contributing to alleviating hunger and malnutrition particularly in the third world countries. Genetically modified crops can benefit the environment. The following are some of the benefits- "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides; Conservation of soil, water, and energy; Bioprocessing for forestry products; Better natural waste management; and finally more efficient processing (Genomics.energy.gov, 2006). GM Controversies The introduction of genetically modified crops into the food supply has generated a number of concerns about potential risks associated with this new agricultural technology. These risks fall under the broad categories of human health and the environment. For instance, when a new gene producing a novel protein is introduced into a crop, there is a chance that human subpopulations may have an allergic reaction to the protein (Byrne et al., 2004). GM crops may adversely affect non-target species; for example, a GM pest-protected plant targeting lepidopteran pests may spread toxin-containing tissues, such as pollen, that may contaminate the food of non-target lepidopterans. However this particular risk has been shown to be insignificant in the United States (Sears et al., 2001), but has not been thoroughly tested in the developing world. Cross-pollination between GM crops and non-GM crops, or GM crops and wild plant species, may take place, with unknown consequences. There are also chances of insects developing resistance to the insecticidal proteins produced by Bt crops, leading to inefficacy of both these crops and microbial Bt sprays (Gould et al., 1997; Andow and Alstad, 1998). A host of other risks surrounding GM crops may exist of which we are currently unaware (Wu, 2002). Many of these risks, particularly those regarding food safety and impacts on non-target species, have undergone extensive scientific research (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Most of this research has established no evidence that such risks exist among current GM crops. In fact, 81 scientific studies have all shown no evidence of risk to human and animal health or to the environment from genetically modified crops. These studies were financed by the European Commission (Paarlberg, 2003). However, it is impossible at this stage to fully investigate all potential risks, current and future, of GM crops, and the challenges posed for such investigations by the ongoing development of GM varieties are substantial (Wu and Butz, 2004). It would be useful to compare the potential impacts of GM crops in relation to the environmental impacts of modern agricultural practices that took place during the last decades. Through the applications of fertilizers and pesticides increasing nutrient and toxins in ground and surface waters, modern agricultural systems have an impact on all environmental resources, including soil fertility, water and air (Tilman et al. 2002). On the other hand potential environmental impacts of the currently commercialized GM crops can roughly be subdivided into direct and indirect effects (Wolfenbarger & Phifer 2000, Pretty 2001, Dale et al. 2002, Conner et al. 2003, Snow et al. 2005). Direct effects could result from the particular nature of the genetic change, i.e. from the resulting genotype and phenotype of the crop modified. In future GM crops could be able to hybridize with sexually compatible wild relatives and these could consequently suffer an increased risk of extinction. Introduced genetically modified traits could result in a crop more likely to be more persistent or weedy in agricultural habitats or more invasive in natural habitats. Transgenic products, particularly toxins produced to be active against certain pests, could be harmful to organisms or non target organisms that are not intended to be harmed. Besides target organisms could develop resistances against the insecticidal proteins produced in GM crops. As a result a loss of effectiveness of the transgenic product may occur. The new technology will demand a change in the agricultural practice such as soil tillage, cropping intervals, or cultivation area, these could result in indirect effects. Unintended effects of GM crops my result from the recombinant DNA methods. These have been viewed as particularly precise because the inserted gene sequences can be characterized and monitored. Nevertheless, some authors have raised concerns that the transformation process could result in various unintended effects, which are unrelated to the nature of the specific transgene (Wilson et al. 2004, Birch & Wheatley 2005, Snow et al. 2005). Unintended phenotypes could result from the random insertion of transgenic sequences into chromosomal locations. The random insertion could also lead to an alteration of primary and secondary plant metabolite processes. Several authors, in contrast, have also stated that the occurrence of unintended effects is not a phenomenon specific to genetic engineering. There are several instances when a new technology may result in unintended processes (Cellini et al. 2004, Snow et al. 2005). According to Cellini and associates, there is no indication that unintended effects are more likely to occur in GM crops than in conventionally bred crops (Cellini et al. 2004). In yet another report unwanted health and plant disease risks have, for example, also arisen in conventionally bred celery, potato and maize through the appearance of toxic compounds (NRC 2000). The safety of GM crops is better characterised than conventionally bred crops, including knowledge on the site and nature of the genetic modification (Cellini et al. 2004). In addition to the classical breeding process, the introduction of crops produced by genetic engineering is moreover regulated by a painstaking pre-market risk assessment of potential unwanted effects of the GM crop on the environment (European Community 2001). It is widespread practice today to perform a large number of so-called targeted analyses to show that the characteristics of a novel GM crop are comparable with those of the conventional counterpart. These analyses include key macronutrients, micronutrients, antinutrients and toxins (Lehesranta et al. 2005). Studies point out that there were considerably fewer differences among the GM and non-GM lines of the same genetic background than between different non-GM cultivars. Studies conducted by Catchpole and others in 2005 also confirmed these results (Catchpole et al. 2005). Effects of GM crops on non-target organisms It is generally accepted that for the currently commercially cultivated GM crops, toxic effects on non-target organisms are restricted only to GM crops expressing insecticidal proteins (Wolfenbarger & Phifer 2000, Dale et al. 2002, Conner et al. 2003). Herbicide tolerant crops are considered to have no direct toxic effects on non-target organisms, because the enzymes conferring the herbicide tolerance are in general expressed in plants and they are not known to have any toxic properties (APHIS-USDA 1994, Carpenter 2001). The use of herbicide tolerant crops could, on the other hand, result in indirect environmental effects caused by changes in the agricultural practice (Sanvido et al. 2006). Conclusion Plant breeding through modern genetic methods is a technology that has many clear advantages to consumers, farmers, the food industry and nature. Genetic engineering is the new science of genomics that offer potential options for land use. For instance, traditionally we had to select the crop suited to the land but with the development of stress tolerant varieties it is possible to produce crops to suit the land. The new GM crops may pose some risks but these risks need not be exaggerated. The critiques of genetically modified crops that claim that the modified genes will spread in nature typically exaggerate the risks involved. However the benefits to mankind are much more when compare to the risks. With the introduction of genetically modified crops agricultural productivity has increased. These will not only economically benefit the farmer and but also allow at least a few from the 800 million who go to bed without food. Above all the new GM products that come into the market are screened for its potential risks several times in the laboratory and field trials. It is very essential to communicate scientific facts about genetically modified foods to consumers. This will make them more aware of the benefits that GM technology could have on agriculture. References Alcamo, E (1999) DNA Technology, London: Academic Andow, D. A., and Alstad, D. N. (1998) F2 Screen for Rare Resistant Alleles, Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 91, 1998, pp. 572-578. APHIS-USDA (1994). Petition 93-258-01 for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Line 40-3-2, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Hyattsville MD. Birch, A.N.E., and Wheatley, R.E. (2005). GM pest-resistant crops: assessing environmental impacts on non-target organisms. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 21: 31-57. Byrne P. Ward, S. Harrington, J and Fuller, L. (2004) Transgenic Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, 2004. Retrieved on 16 March 2007 from http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/ Carpenter, J.E. (2001). Case studies in benefits and risks of agricultural biotechnology: Roundup Ready soybean and Bt field corn, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington DC. Catchpole, G.S., Beckmann, M., Enot, D.P., Mondhe, M., Zywicki, B., Taylor, J., Hardy, N., Smith, A., King, R.D., Kell, D.B., Fiehn, O., and Draper, J. (2005). Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102: 14458-14462. Cellini, F., Chesson, A., Colquhoun, I., Constable, A., Davies, H.V., Engel, K.H., Gatehouse, A.M.R, Karenlampi, S., Kok, E.J., Leguay, J.J., Lehesranta, S., Noteborn, H., Pedersen, J., and Smith, M. (2004). Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42: 1089-1125. Community Affairs References Committee (2000). A Cautionary Tale: Fish Don't Lay Tomatoes. A Report on the Gene Technology Bill 2000. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. November 2000: page 14. Conner, A.J., Glare, T.R., and Nap, J-P. (2003). The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant Journal, 33: 19-46. Desfeux, C., Clough, S.J., Bent, A.F. (2000) Female reproductive tissues are the primary target of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation by the Arabidopsis floral-dip method. Plant Physiology 123, 895-904. Dale, P.J., Clarke, B., and Fontes, E.M.G. (2002). Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops. Nature Biotechnology, 20: 567-574. European Community (2001). Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels. Genomics.energy.gov, (2006) Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms, Retrieved on 16 March 2007 from http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml Gould, F., Anderson, A., Summerford, D., Heckel, D., Lopez, J., Micinski, S., Leonard, R. and Laster, M. (1997) Initial Frequency of Alleles for Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins in Field Populations of Heliothis virescens, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 94, , pp. 3519-3523. IFST, (2004) Genetic Modification and Food, Institute of Food Science and Technology Information Statement, Retrieved on 16 March 2007 from http://www.ifst.org/uploadedfiles/cms/store/ATTACHMENTS/gm.pdf James C (2004). Preview: Global status of commercialized transgenic crops 2004, ISAAA Briefs No. 32. ISAAA, Ithaca NY. James C (2005). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2005, ISAAA Brief No. 34. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY. Lehesranta, S.J., Davies, H.V., Shepherd, L,V.T., Nunan, N., McNicol J.W., Auriola, S., Koistinen, K.M., Suomalainen, S., Kokko, H.I., and Karenlampi, S.O. (2005). Comparison of tuber proteomes of potato varieties, landraces, and genetically modified lines. Plant Physiology, 138: 1690-1699. NRC (2000). Genetically modified pest-protected plants - science and regulation, Sciences NRCNAo, National Academy Press, Washington DC. Paarlberg, R., (2003) Reinvigorating Genetically Modified Crops, Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 2003. Pretty, J. (2001). The rapid emergence of genetic modification in world agriculture: contested risks and benefits. Environmental Conservation, 28: 248-262. Sanandaji, N. and Brandberg, T. (N.D.) A scientific and ethical discussion regarding genetic modification of plants, Eudoxas Policy Study series number 6, Sweden. Retrieved on 16 March 2007 from http://www.eudoxa.se/content/archives/GMO.pdf Sanvido, O., Stark, M., Romeis, J., and Bigler, F. (2006) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops, Agroscope Reckenholz-Tnikon Research Station ART, ISBN 3-905608-83-9. Sears, M. K., Hellmich, R.L., Stanley-Horn, D.E., Oberhauser, K.S., Pleasants, J.M., Mattila, H.R., Siegfried, B.D. and Dively, G.P. (2001) Impact of Bt Corn Pollen on Monarch Butterfly Populations: A Risk Assessment, PNAS Online, September 14, 2001 Retrieved on 16 March 2007 from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/21/11937 Snow, A.A., Andow, D.A., Gepts, P., Hallerman, E.M., Power, A., Tiedje, J.M., and Wolfenbarger, L.L. (2005). Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: Current status and recommendations. Ecological Applications, 15: 377-404. Tester, M. (N.D.) The dangerously polarised debate on genetic modification, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing St, Cambridge, CB2 3EA, U.K. Retrieved on 16 March 2007 from http://plantscience.acpfg.com.au/files/gmdebate/GMdebate_2400.pdf Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., and Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418: 671-677. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (2001) Biopesticides Registration Action Document: Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants, Environmental Protection Agency, Retrieved on 16 March 2007 from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad.htm Watson, J D, Gilman, M, Witkowski, J, and Zoller, M (1992) Recombinant DNA 2nd Edn. New York: Freeman. Wilson, A., Latham, J., and Steinbrecher, R. (2004). Genome scrambling - myth or reality Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic crop plants, Technical Report. EcoNexus, Brighton UK. Wolfenbarger, L.L., and Phifer, P. (2000). The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science, 290: 2088-2093. Wu, F. (2002) Tools for Regulatory Decisions Concerning Genetically Modified Corn, Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa. Wu, F. and Butz, W.P. (2004) The Future of Genetically Modified Crops: Lessons from the Green Revolution, RAND Corporation, Retrieved on 16 March 2007 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG161.pdf Read More