biology biotech cloning english11 food gdpi genemodifiedorganism genetically geneticaly geneticmodification genetics gm gm_food gmfoods gmo knight mb304_jan09 mesa modified research sac5 science syngenta world_issues

My tags:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (March 2009)

Genetically modified (GM) foods are made from plants and animals that have been given specific traits through genetic engineering, unlike plants and animals developed through the conventional genetic modification of selective breeding (plant breeding and animal breeding). Some authorities consider genetically engineered crops to be a subset of genetically modified crops, as conventionally bred crops undergo genetic modification and may pose unintended health consequences.^[1] GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. Typically, genetically modified foods are plant products: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil, but animal products have been proposed. For example, in 2006 a pig engineered to produce omega-3 fatty acids through the expression of a roundworm gene was controversially^[2][3] proposed.^[4]

Contents 1 Method 2 Development 3 Growing GM crops 4 Crop yields 5 Coexistence and traceability 6 Controversy 7 Economic and political effects 8 Intellectual property 9 Future developments 10 Health Risks 10.1 Gene transfer 10.2 Allergies 10.3 New Diseases 11 See also 12 References 13 External links 14 Suggested Reading

[edit] Method

Genetic engineering begins with the identification and isolation of a gene which expresses a desirable trait. Then a recipient plant or animal is selected, and the gene is inserted and incorporated into its genome through a vector such as a bacterium (commonly agrobacterium), through a gene gun shooting an elemental particle covered in plasmid DNA, electroporation, or a virus. Once part of the recipient, the newly inserted gene is indistinguishable from its native genes and will be used by the recipient like any other gene. If a strawberry plant is given a gene from an alpine plant that is highly tolerant of cold, it may improve the strawberry's resistance to frost, or if a pig receives some genes from a spinach genome which barely has any fat, it will most likely reduce the fat content of the meat.

[edit] Development

The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was the tomato puree (called FlavrSavr), which was made more resistant to rotting by Californian company Calgene.^[5] Calgene was allowed to release it in 1994 without any special labeling.^[6] It was welcomed by consumers who purchased the fruit at two to five times the price of regular tomatoes. However, production problems^[5] and competition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety prevented the product from becoming profitable. A variant of the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996.^[7] The labeling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment, which proved, at the time, that European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods.

Currently, there are a number of foods of which a genetically modified version exists.

Food	Properties of the genetically modified variety	Trade name	Company	Modification	Percent in UK	Percent in world
Soybeans	Resistant to herbicides	Roundup Ready,	Monsanto	Herbicide resistant gene taken from bacteria inserted into soy bean	89%	TBA
Corn, field	Resistant to pesticides (tolerating crop spray - this way a farmer can use amounts of pesticides which would normally kill the plant, without harming it)	Roundup Ready,	Monsanto	New gene added/transferred into plant genome	60%	TBA
Cotton	Pest-resistant cotton	TBA		New gene added/transferred into plant genome	83%	TBA
Hawaiian Papaya	Variety is resistant to the Papaya Ringspot Virus.	TBA		New gene added/transferred into plant genome	+50%	TBA
Tomatoes	Variety that does not rot (degrade) as fast - the genetically modified (gm) tomatoes do not produce the enzyme that normally causes tomatoes to rot and degrade.	E.g. FlavrSavr		First genetically modified tomatoes contained genes that made them resistant to antibiotics. After concern from doctors and the medical community, tomatoes were then genetically modified in a different way.	Taken off the market due to consumer protest.	TBA
Potatoes					TBA	TBA
Rapeseed (Canola)	Resistance to certain pesticides (tolerating crop spray)	Bt		New gene added/transferred into plant genome	75%	TBA[8]
Sugar cane	Resistance to certain pesticides (tolerating crop spray)	TBA		New gene added/transferred into plant genome	TBA	TBA
Sugar beet	Resistance to certain pesticides (tolerating crop spray)	Roundup Ready,	Monsanto	New gene added/transferred into plant genome	TBA	TBA
Sweet corn	Produces its own insecticide (a toxin to insects, so insect attacks are less likely)	Bt corn		Gene from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis added to the plant.	TBA	TBA
Rice	Genetically modified to contain high amounts of Vitamin A (beta-carotene)	"Golden rice"		Three new genes implanted: two from daffodils and the third from a bacterium	TBA	TBA

In addition, various micro-organisms have been genetically engineered to produce aspartame, amino acids, and various chemicals. ^[9]

[edit] Growing GM crops

Between 1997 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km² (222 million acres), of which 55 percent were Brazil.

Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. For instance in 2005 the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops (soybeans) was in Brazil (94,000 km² in 2005 versus 50,000 km² in 2004.)^[10] There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002. (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) It is predicted that in 2008/9 32,000 km² of GM cotton will be harvested in India (up more than 100 percent from the previous season). Indian national average cotton yields of GM cotton were seven times lower in 2002, because the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered variant was not well suited to the climate of India and failed. The publicity given to transgenic trait Bt insect resistance has encouraged the adoption of better performing hybrid cotton varieties, and the Bt trait has substantially reduced losses to insect predation. Though controversial and often disputed, economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented.^[11][12]

In 2003, countries that grew 99% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (63%), Argentina (21%), Canada (6%), Brazil (4%), China (4%), and South Africa (1%).^[13] The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient^[14] . In particular, Bt corn, which produces the pesticide within the plant itself, is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides. These constitute "input-traits" are aimed to financially benefit the producers, have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers.

In the US, by 2006 89% of the planted area of soybeans, 83% of cotton, and 61% maize were genetically modified varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide-tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the Bacillus thuringiensis Bt insecticidal protein). In the period 2002 to 2006, there were significant increases in the area planted to Bt protected cotton and maize, and herbicide tolerant maize also increased in sown area.^[15]

[edit] Crop yields

Several studies have found that genetically modified varieties of plants do not produce higher yields than normal plants.^[16]

A study from Berkeley says that despite claims from the biotech industry and academic researches, there is no indication that biotechnology will solve the shortcomings of industrial agriculture. Compared to the novel and untested crop systems that biotech corporations are pushing as the only solution to food security problems, organic farming has many advantages. The majority of genetically engineered crops currently in cultivation do not appear to show higher yields. For example, contrary to claims by Monsanto, a recent study by Dr. Charles Bendrook, the former director of the Board on Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences, indicates that genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans do not increase yields (Bendrook, 1999). The report reviewed over 8,200 university trials in 1998 and found that Roundup Ready soybeans yielded 7-10% less than similar natural varieties. In addition, the same study found that farmers used 5-10 times more herbicide (Roundup) on Roundup Ready soybeans than on conventional ones. The only reason farmers seem to prefer Roundup Ready soybeans is because they simplify management of large chemically-intensive farms by allowing them, for example, to spray larger doses of herbicides from planes on crops engineered to be resistant to the particular herbicide. Applications of biotechnology continue the legacy of industrial agricultural with monocultures and high energy and chemical inputs. ^[17]

[edit] Coexistence and traceability

In many parts of the world, such as the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and Australia, consumers demand labeling so they can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins.^[18][19] This requires a labeling system as well as the reliable separation of GM and non-GM organisms at production level and throughout the whole processing chain.^[18][19] Research suggests that this may prove impossible, one reason why GM opponents use the 'genie out of a bottle' analogy.

For traceability, the OECD has introduced a "unique identifier" which is given to any GMO when it is approved. This unique identifier must be forwarded at every stage of processing.

Many countries have established labeling regulations and guidelines on coexistence and traceability. Research projects such as Co-Extra, SIGMEA and Transcontainer are aimed at investigating improved methods for ensuring coexistence and providing stakeholders the tools required for the implementation of coexistence and traceability.

[edit] Controversy

Some scientists^[20] argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production, so people should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk.^[21][22]

A media firestorm erupted in 1999 when scientist Árpád Pusztai found that consumption of potatoes genetically modified to contain lectin had negative intestinal effects on rats. He felt he had a duty to speak out, "just to inject some caution into this business". He says, "Make no mistake, this is an irreversible technology. It is no good 50 years later to say: 'We should have known.'" ^[23] Because of the controversial nature of his research, the data paper was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual number. Five gave it the green light. The paper - which used data held by Ewen and so was not subject to veto by James - showed that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut tissue compared with rats fed on normal potatoes. ^[24][25] It has been criticised on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet.^[26] As a consequence, he became the victim of a smear campaign, but was eventually vindicated.^[27]

[edit] Economic and political effects

• Many proponents of some current genetic engineering techniques claim that it will lower pesticide usage and has brought higher yields and profitability to many farmers, including those in developing nations.^[28] A few genetic engineering licenses allow farmers in less economically developed countries to save seeds for next year's planting.^{[citation needed]}

• In August 2003, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme. This left a famine-stricken population without food aid.
• In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the importation of GM maize.^[29] However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying "We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods."^[30][31]
• In April 2004 Hugo Chávez announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in Venezuela.^[32]
• In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic modified maize seeds, although these were agreed authorized by the EU.^[33]
• On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly due to accidental cross-pollination with conventional crops.^[34]

[edit] Intellectual property

Enforcement of patents on genetically modified plants is often contentious, especially because of gene flow. In 1998, 95-98 percent of about 10 km² planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto.^[35] The initial source of the plants was undetermined, and could have been through either gene flow or intentional theft. However, the overwhelming predominance of the trait implied that Schmeiser must have intentionally selected for it. The court determined that Schmeiser had saved seed from areas on and adjacent to his property where Roundup had been sprayed, such as ditches and near power poles.^[36]

Although unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for piracy since he knowingly grew Roundup Ready plants without paying royalties(Ibid). The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto’s favor.^[35][36] The dissenting judges focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto's patents covered only the gene itself and glyphosate resistant cells, and failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety. All of the judges agreed that Schmeiser would not have to pay any damages since he had not benefited from his use of the genetically modified seed.

In response to criticism, Monsanto Canada's Director of Public Affairs stated that "It is not, nor has it ever been Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when they are present on a farmer's field by accident...Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act."^[37] Currently Percy Schmeiser spends a large amount of his time traveling and speaking about how Monsanto ruined his career as a farmer. He also talks about the possible harms of genetic modification and why others in addition to himself should be protesting it.

[edit] Future developments

Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B,^[38] metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, foods no longer containing properties associated with common intolerances, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.^[39] There are natural non genetically engineered alternatives to plastic being considered such as liquid wood ^[40] While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also, at the same time, be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development. Plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.^[41][42]

[edit] Health Risks

Currently there are only a few dozen peer reviewed studies completed on the health effects of genetically modified foods. The results of many of these studies strongly challenges the industry and government standard of substantial equivalence.

[edit] Gene transfer

As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on genetically modified foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who had their large intestines removed. These volunteers were to eat GM soy to see if the DNA of the GM soy transferred to the human gut bacteria. Researchers identified that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soy transferred into their gut bacteria.^[43]

"This transgene was stable inside the bacteria and appeared to produce herbicide-tolerant protein... In the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM crops, long standing assumptions that genes would not transfer to human gut bacteria were overturned. The findings should prompt immediate comprehensive follow-up tests to determine the implications for health among both the general population and at-risk groups."^[44]

[edit] Allergies

Since 2004, some cotton workers in India have experienced allergic reactions to only Bt cotton, and not to other conventional varieties. The longer the workers were exposed to the genetically modified Bt cotton, the more severe their symptoms were. An investigation concluded that reactions included: "mild to severe itching; in severe cases, eyes also became red, and swollen"^[45] One doctor reported that he had seen approximately 150 cases of allergies to Bt Cotton in 2005, and another 100 in 2004. ^[46]

In the mid 1990's Pioneer Hi-Bred began to genetically modify a soybean that would take a gene from a Brazil nut in the hopes that soy would increase the production of the amino acid methionine. While this particular new crop was being designed for animal feed, as the case of StarLink corn clearly showed, that food only for animal consumption will undoubtedly enter the human food supply. Pioneer Hi-Bred decided to test the new GM soybean with the Brazil nut gene for allergens as many people are allergic to Brazil nuts. To the company's surprise in three separate tests (radioallergosorbent testing, immunoblotting, and skin-prick testing), all studies showed that individuals allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the new GM soybean.^[47] "In trying to build a better soybean the company had made a potentially deadly one."^[48]

In 1999 soy allergies in the United Kingdom increased from 10%-15% in a single year. Coincidentally, GM soy entered the UK shortly before 1999. One study using skin prick test showed that of the 49 subjects, 13 individuals experienced a positive reaction to non-GM soy, 8 individuals reacted to the GM soybeans, and "one patient had a positive skin test result to GMO soybeans only."^[49]

[edit] New Diseases

In the 1980s one brand of L-Tryptophan that was genetically engineered and created by Showa Denko in Japan, caused a deadly epidemic in the United States. Symptoms of those individuals whom contracted this disease, later named Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS), included: swelling, coughs, rashes, physical weakness, pneumonia, breathing difficulties, hardening of skin, mouth ulcers, nausea, shortness of breath, muscle spasms, visual problems, hair loss, difficulty with concentration, memory and paralysis.^[50] Discovering the cause of EMS required numerous coincidences which suggest that adverse reactions to genetically engineered foods may be difficult to identify. In 1984, progressively the more genes that Showa Denko added to the L-Tryptophan supplement corresponded to the higher levels of contamination. "The final strain, which caused the most illness, contained five separate transgenes.".^[51]

Some individuals from the FDA disputed that it was the genetically engineered L-Tryptophan that was to blame, but rather tryptophan itself; however, this theory was unsubstantiated. According to Edwin Kilbourne, who investigated EMS with the Center for Disease Control (CDC), if L-Tryptophan itself was to blame, "all tryptophan products of equal dose produced from different companies should have the same effect."^[52] However, Kilbourne insists that there is currently no evidence to support this claim. According to the CDC, the genetically engineered supplement killed about 100 people, 1500 became permanently disabled and caused between 5,000 and 10,000 to fall sick.

[edit] See also

• Plant breeding
• Transgenic plant
• International trade of genetically modified foods

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of Genes, Technology and Policy

• Resolution To Label GMO Food Resolution to secure mandatory labeling of GMO food.
• Website Citizens To Label GMO Food Information on GMO food labeling.
• FAO Agriculture Department and its SOFA report on Agricultural Biotechnology addressing GM food safety
• GMO Compass Information on the use of genetic engineering in the agri-food industry. Authorization database with all GM plants in the EU.
• GMO Safety Information about research projects on the biological safety of genetically modified plants.
• Approved GM crop database
• New Scientist article on GMO foods
• The FDA List of Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods

[edit] Suggested Reading

Mendel in the Kitchen, by Nina Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown

• The environmental food crisis A study done by the UN on feeding the world population (2009)
• Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, Ronald and Adamchak (2008) ISBN 978-0195301755
• Biotechnology, Agriculture, and Food Security in Southern Africa Edited by Steven Were Omamo and Klaus von Grebmer (2005) (Brief and Book available)
• Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey M. Smith.
• Beth H. Harrison (2007) Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food: What You Don't Know About the Food You're Eating and What You Can Do to Protect Yourself
• World Hunger by Brian Kenneth Swain is a new fiction book concerning the topic of genetically-modified food and some potential consequences on society. ISBN 978-0595686254
• McHughen, A. Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods, Oxford University Press, 2000
• Tokar, B.(ed.) Redesigning Life? Zed Books, 2001.
• Let Them Eat Precaution. How Politics Is Undermining the Genetic Revolution in Agriculture. By Byrne, J., Conko, G., Entine, J., Gilland, T., Hoban, T. H., Moore, P., Natsios, A. S, Newell-McGloughlin, M., Paarlberg, R. L., Prakash, C. S., Tucker Foreman, C., Edited by Jon Entine AEI Press (Washington) 2006. Facets of the GM crop debate not covered by antagonists to the technology.
• Genetics by Nina V. Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown
• Helena Norberg-Hodge, "The Pressure to Modernize and Globalize", in The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn Toward the Local 45 (J. Mander & E. Goldsmith eds., 1996)
• Ellen Ruppel Shell, New World Syndrome, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, June 2001
• Vandana Shiva, A World View of Abundance, ORION, Summer 2000
• Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal (2001)
• Michael Pollan, The Futures of Food: The Industry Has Found a Way to Co-opt the Threat from Organics and ‘Slow Food.’ Remember the Meal in a Pill?, NY TIMES MAG., Sun., May 4, 2003, at sec. 6, p. 63
• Matt Lee and Ted Lee, The Next Big Flavor: Searching For the Taste of Tomorrow, id. at 66
• Amanda Hesser, Vintage Cuts, id. at 72
• Danylo Hawaleshka with Brian Bethune and Sue Ferguson, Tainted Food, (Kraft to develop nanoparticles that can change food color, flavor, and nutrient value to suit a person’s health or palate)
• Gary Ruskin, The Fast Food Trap: How Commercialism Creates Overweight Children, Mothering Mazagine, Nov./December 2003
• Kate Zernike, Is Obesity the Responsibility of the Body Politic?, NY TIMES, Sun., November 9, 2003, at sec. 4, p. 3
• Carl Hulse, Vote in House Bars Some Suits Citing Obesity, NY TIMES, Thurs., March 11, 2004, at sec. A., p. 1
• Garcia, Deborah Koons (Director). 2004. The Future of Food. film.