GMO Food for Thought

Participants at the recent World Food Prize interational symposium promoted biotechnology as a way to help combat hunger around the world, but stressed the need for more of a public discussion of the pros and cons of genetically engineered crops (Panelists urge Biotech Discussions, Des Moines Register, 10/14/05).

The panelists attending the symposium in Des Moines, Iowa represented some of the largest agribusinesses in the United States. According to news reports, the participants promoted the benefits of biotechnology during the symposium, such as reduced pesticide use because crops can be engineered to thwart pests. The panelists also cited the rapid and widespread adoption of biotech-based crops, particularly in the United States.

Earlier in the symposium, Jack Bobo, the Deputy Chief of the Biotechnology and Textile Trade Policy Division in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, spoke to the participants, stating that he hopes developing countries will come on board and start using biotechnology and grow genetically engineered crops. Mr. Bobo also stressed that genetically engineered crops may not solve problems such as starvation and malnutrition, but can be a major tool in combating them (Expert touts Biotech Crops, CheckBiotech, 10/13/05).

“We think it (biotechnology) is one tool that should be in the arsenal of the scientists and regulators of these countries,” Mr. Bobo told the symposium participants.

Mr. Bobo stated that about 81 million hectares – or about 200 million acres - of genetically engineered crops were grown in 17 countries throughout the world in 2004.

Other participants at the symposium disagreed with the benefits that biotechnology can bring to countries around the world. These participants cited concerns that genetically engineered seeds are too costly for developing countries and could damage human health and the environment, according to news reports.

“We welcome any technology for the benefit of the country, but we need to understand the pros and cons, “said Roseyln Makhumula of the Malawi embassy in Washington, DC, who was part of a delegation of officials from several African countries.

We are all aware that the first genetically engineered seeds were introduced into the marketplace a decade ago and the advancements that biotechnology have brought about to help struggling farmers survive and to provide new and more nutritional foods for the public have been well noted. People have the right to learn about the benefits and concerns that any technology can have in order to make an informed decision about it. However, with biotechnology, the pros can certainly outweigh the cons.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For years, scientists and researchers have been working on developing foods that can withstand harsh weather conditions. I’ve seen similar projects being developed by researchers during my time as a grant researcher. That’s why I was interested in reading recently about the work of researchers at Southern Illinois University Carbondale who have developed a genetically modified corn crop that can weather a drought (Scientist develops corn that can weather drought, CheckBiotech, 10/10/05).

David A. Lightfoot, Ph.D., a biotechnologist at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, developed a genetically modified corn crop using a gene from a common soil microorganism that can weather a drought while yielding about ten percent more crop than corn that lacks the gene. Dr. Lightfoot also headed the ten member team that tested the transgenic corn’s properties.

“Drought is the farmer’s most damaging problem, but it hasn’t gotten the investment it deserves because before transgenes, traditional breeding wasn’t working as hoped because most drought-resistant cultivars just yielded less. True drought resistance, where the corn goes on growing when there’s no water, doesn’t exist,” said Dr. Lightfoot. He stated that this new corn suffers only slightly in drought and recovers very quickly.

According to the researchers, the yield advantage from this genetically modified corn does not happen in wet years because with sufficient water, the transgenic corn and its unaltered counterparts perform pretty much the same. Still, because most farmers never know ahead of time when they’re going to have a dry year and buying seed corn that can handle the stress of a drought might serve as a kind of insurance.

This genetically modified corn has more going for it that just its ability to survive a drought, according to the article. The corn can capture ten percent more of the nitrogen in ammonium-based fertilizers than unmodified corn and also can tolerate certain weed killers. Because of a small change in its amino acids, the genetically modified corn many be slightly more nutritious.

Corn containing this genetically modified gene could go on the market within the next three to five years, according to Dr. Lightfoot. With the recent decision by the European Food Safety Authority that three American corn hybrids bred from genetically modified parents posed no health or environmental threats, products like this genetically modified corn could be accepted in areas like sub-Saharan Africa.

This new crop developed by Southern Illinois University Carbondale is a great step in biotechnology. As scientists and researchers continue to work to develop new foods that can feed the poor people of the world, this new corn could be the answer especially in countries that traditionally suffer from drought. If similar foods can be developed, the possibilities for alleviating problems with poverty are endless. This, most definitely, will lead to greater acceptance of the technology throughout the world.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Fear that genetically modified foods containing genes that make them “immune” to antibiotics would increase the resistance of antibiotics in humans is unfounded, according to researchers (“No Risk to Human Health” from GM Crop Drug Resistance, Science and Development Network, 9/29/05).

Known by critics of biotechnology as “Frankenfoods”, genetically modified (GM) foods have been eyed as a potential risk to human health because they contain certain antibiotic resistance genes. These genes, often referred to as “markers”, are used to prepare genetically modified crops. In plant technology, antibiotic-resistance marker genes are coupled with a new desirable gene and the package is then injected into the plant’s cells. The marker gene is used to help track the successful (or failed) introduction of the new desirable gene, which is designed to boost the plant’s defenses against environmental threats, the researchers explained in their findings in the October 2005 issue of The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Critics of genetically modified foods are concerned that if these genetic markers “leak out” of the genetically modified plants and are absorbed by bacteria, they could create mutated resistant microbes.

Researchers Philippe Gay, a retired scientist and former head of technology and support at Novartis Seeds, and Stephen Gillespie, Ph.D., professor of medical microbiology at University College London, United Kingdom, reported in their findings that there is no evidence to indicate that these markers pose any significant risk as it would be difficult for the resistant genes to jump from genetically modified plants to bacteria.

First, the researchers said, once the plant cells come into contact with the bacteria, the plant’s DNA must be intact. Then, the plant’s DNA fragments that contain the resistance genes would have to physically meet up with the bacteria, and be integrated into the bacteria’s own DNA in such a way that the genes can function. According to the researchers, the probability of all these conditions being met is very small. They conclude that if the transfer were to happen at all, its effect would be insignificant compared with the resistance that arises through inappropriate medical prescriptions of antibiotics and from hospital environments.

However, the report adds that despite this conclusion, alternative genetic markers should be developed as a precautionary measure.

People are concerned with their health and with the foods they eat, practically on a daily basis. By showing that plants modified genetically have tremendous potential to improve human nutrition and that there is little, if any, risk to human health, this report is an important step toward showing the benefits of genetically modified foods.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A recent report released ten years after the first genetically modified crops were introduced stresses that social and economic concerns must be part of a comprehensive approach to regulate the introduction of agricultural biotechnology crops (Report Stresses Comprehensive Approach to Biotechnology Decisions; Public Participation is among the Keys to Effective Policy, SeedQuest, 9/23/05).

The report, entitled Integrating Socio-economic Considerations into Biosafety Decisions: The Role of Public Participation, was published by the World Resources Institute, a Washington, DC based independent nonprofit organization of scientists, economists, policy experts, business analysts, statistical analysts, mapmakers, and communicators working to protect the Earth and improve people's lives.

According to the report, modern biotechnology, as it is applied to agriculture, poses a common challenge to countries and societies worldwide and that is the need for careful decision-making to ensure that society enjoys the benefits of this technology while minimizing or avoiding its potential costs. The report also focuses on the social and economic issues of modern agricultural biotechnology and its products as well as ways to take these issues and concerns into consideration in making decisions regarding biotechnology. These social and economic issues are many, according to the report, and include concerns over the distribution of benefits between farmers in developed nations versus those in developing countries; public sector research; the possibility that GM crops could reduce the need for manual labor; global markets and trade relationships; competitive pressures among developing countries; organic agriculture; intellectual property rights; public opinion; and ethics, culture, and religion.

The report also emphasizes the importance of public participation. Public participation helps to identify, clarify, and resolve any social and economic issues and concerns related to modern agricultural biotechnology. According to the report’s lead author, Lindsey Fransen, effective public participation methods are one way to develop a policy that better serves the needs of people affected by this technology.

To accommodate social and economic concerns in better biotechnology policy, the report also contains recommendations for the scientific research community, industry, the agricultural sector, governments, and civil groups. The report also recommends that once the benefits and costs of agricultural biotechnology methods are clarified and participation by the public goes forward, countries and nations can make biotechnology policies that maximize the benefits of the technology to society, while minimizing the costs.

This report presents some interesting views on the acceptance of biotechnology in today’s society. Social and economic issues should be considered and the public should have the right to learn about biotechnology and to voice their questions in order to make an informed decision on the technology. It will also be interesting to see whether this report will be used by scientists and individuals involved in biotechnology or have any kind of impact on the biotechnology industry and its acceptance.

Posted by AC Baumer at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)