GMO Food for Thought

For years, I have read about the opposition that environmental organizations and grassroots groups have voiced against biotechnology and genetically modified foods and have heard about the number of demonstrations these organizations have held protesting against the technology and the products all over the world. So, it did not surprise me that green groups recently attacked a draft European Union (EU) law on labeling organic produce (Green Groups fear GMOs creeping into EU Organic Law, CheckBiotech, 12/23/05).

According to the news article, the European Commission recently proposed new regulations on organic farming that would allow products with up to 0.9 percent of genetically modified content-acquired through accidental or unavoidable contamination-to retain a label of “EU organic.” However, any producer who knowingly used genetically modified materials in their processed food or feed, even from a product supplied by a third party, would not be allowed to use an organic label.

Environmental organizations and green groups were outraged by the proposal, saying that it threatened to allow genetically modified content to creep into what should be completely biotech-free farming. According to the article, the European Commission is likely to present the draft law to European Union agriculture ministers in January although a decision on the proposed law is not expected for several months.

“Genetic contamination of organic food is completely unacceptable to consumers throughout the European Union,” said Helen Holder, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe. “The European Commission should be protecting organic farmers and consumers with laws that prevent organic farming from being contaminated by genetically modified organisms.”

The London-based GM Freeze Campaign slammed the Commission’s proposal as the “thin end of a wedge which will allow the creeping contamination of organic food all across Europe.”

While green groups and GMO wary European Union governments would like to see very low thresholds of genetically modified organisms permitted for traditional farming, and preferably zero for the organic sector, according to the article, both Commission and biotechnology industry experts say this is impossible to achieve. The best that can be hoped for, the article states, would be to aim for 0.1 percent of genetically modified content, known as the “detection level,” which scientists say is the minimum genetically modified organism presence that they can identify.

The European Union’s looming debate on organic labeling is expected to form part of a long-running discussion over how to separate genetically modified organisms, traditional, and organic crops: a concept known as coexistence in European Union jargon, according to the article. Several countries, including Austria and Luxembourg, want hard and fast legislation on genetically modified products. European Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has often said she may consider a legal framework, possibly in 2006, for how European Union governments should deal with coexistence and minimize crop cross-contamination.

Debate and protest over genetically modified foods has been in existence since the first foods were created over ten years ago. Countless tests and trials of these foods over the years have proven time and time again that these foods are safe. Although environmental and grassroots groups will continue to voice their opposition because of their fear over the technology, the opposition will eventually diminish as more and more people use genetically modified products and consume foods created through biotechnology around the world.

Posted by AC Baumer at 4:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The acceptance of genetically modified foods has been an uphill battle in different parts of the world for a number of years. We are all familiar with the opposition that biotechnology and genetically modified foods has faced from many grassroots groups and different organizations around the world like the European Union. That’s why I was interested in reading that Germany is now jumping on the genetically modified foods bandwagon and has recently approved such crops for use in the country (Germany begins sowing GM Seeds, Checkbiotech, 12/22/05).

According to the news article, Horst Seehofer, Germany’s new Agriculture and Consumer Minister, recently began promoting biotechnology and genetically modified foods and approved the first of three types of genetically modified corn seed for use in the country.

Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred, which produce the three types of newly approved MON 810 seed for general use and sale by German farmers, hailed the new decision as a break from the policy propagated by Germany’s former agriculture minister Renate Kunast. His department blocked approval for the seeds-which produce bacteria to kill corn pests found in parts of Germany while remaining safe for humans-on several occasions and encouraged organic farming methods instead, according to the article.

“The seeds have been stuck in the system for a while,” said Heinz Degenhardt of Pioneer Hi-Bred. “The regular approval process could have actually been finished a long time ago, if it was not slowed down for political reasons.”

Many within the genetically modified food industry expect a number of changes to the law and hope that these changes will give genetically modified products the same status as non-modified products. According to the article, current practice in Germany “discriminates against those who use genetic technology” and keeps them from using new technologies to increase their harvests.

“The conventional and genetically modified crop import market already shows that coexistence is possible in Germany,” said Monsanto’s Andreas Thierfelder. “The cultivation of genetically modified crops puts greater demands on coexistence since it deals with relatively smaller particles, but coexistence is possible on farms.”

However, opponents of genetically modified foods don’t agree. They argue that consumers opposed to the technology end up paying for the existence of genetically modified foods by covering all the separation costs. Opponents also argue that the dangers of these crops have not been subject to enough scrutiny before being put on the open market.

The approval of these new genetically modified seeds by Germany’s agriculture minister is a great first step toward a coexistence of genetically modified and traditional products in that nation. These products, despite the possible chance of a risk that any new technology can have, could be accepted just as much as those already on the market. This initial approval could lead to more genetically modified products being introduced in Germany and lead to a greater acceptance of the technology by farmers and consumers.

Posted by AC Baumer at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Scientists and researchers are continuously working on developing new foods using biotechnology. Some of these new crops have been genetically modified to resist harmful herbicides and insecticides. Other genetically engineered foods, like “golden rice”, are used to help children around the world who suffer from Vitamin A deficiency. Still other crops have been genetically modified for drought resistance. Now, researchers in Texas have genetically modified tomatoes to grow in areas where there is limited water (Drought Resistant Tomatoes promise Increased Yields, Truth about Trade & Technology, 12/14/05).

A team of researchers from Texas A&M University have recently modified tomato plants to over-express the gene, AVP1, which resulted in stronger, larger root systems. This modification allowed the researchers to develop roots that make better use of limited water. The team’s research was published in a recent issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“The gene gave us a better root system and the root system could then take the adjustment to drought stress better and thus grow better,” said Dr. Kendal Hirschi, a researcher at Texas A&M University’s Vegetable and Fruit Improvement Center and Baylor University’s College of Medicine.

Dr. Hirschi said that regular or control tomatoes used in the experiment suffered irreversible damage after five days without water. The genetically modified tomatoes, however, began to show signs of damage after thirteen days, but rebounded completely as soon as they were watered, according to the study.

Tomatoes remain one of the most popular vegetables within the food industry all over the world. Tomatoes are also packed with the health-promoting antioxidant lycopene, a carotenoid attracting growing attention in recent years due to research linking it to a reduction in the risk for cancer, according to the news article.

“This technology could ultimately be applied to all crops because it involves the over-expression of a gene found in all plants,” said Dr. Roberto Gaxiola, a plant biologist at the University of Connecticut and the lead author of the study. “It has the potential to revolutionize agriculture and improve food production worldwide by addressing an increasing global concern: water scarcity.”

According to the news article, the study noted that drought conditions throughout the world each year carve out a huge amount of food production. To overcome the food shortages, the study’s authors suggest that it will be necessary to increase the productivity of land “already under cultivation and to regain the use of arable land lost to scarce water supplies.”

Tomato plants that can withstand drought hold a lot of promise for the future of biotechnology and genetically engineered foods. With ever changing weather conditions, these genetically modified tomatoes could help conserve fresh water, which may ease the fears that opponents have about the technology. These crops can ultimately be a benefit for the farmer who plant them and for the individuals around the world who consume them.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As a grant researcher at a large university, I’ve seen many interesting and exciting projects in which university scientists and researchers are developing new types of foods and products through the use of biotechnology. These particular products under current development hold a great number of benefits for those who will ultimately use them. It still baffles me, however, why there is still so much opposition to these “Frankenfoods” (The GM Food Debate Continues, CheckBiotech, 12/1/05) when it is becoming increasingly clear that the opposition’s control is slowly slipping away.

According to various recent news reports, it appears the opposition to genetically modified foods is slowly fading all over the world. For example, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) said recently that with the struggle in Asia to feed a growing population, opposition to genetically modified (GM) rice was likely to dissipate by the end of this decade. Gurdev Singh Khush, a consultant with IRRI, said that the course of genetically modified foods in that region has been set by the example of GM corn, which, despite strenuous opposition from organizations like Greenpeace, was passed for commercial growth in the Philippines in 2002.

A September 2005 report commissioned by Agricultural Biotechnology Europe also asserted the European Union’s (EU) strongly anti-GM position was also unsustainable. According to the news article, in Britain, Iceland, and the Co-Op, two of the nation’s leading supermarket chains, refuse to stock any genetically modified foods, while other supermarkets have special shelves dedicated to guaranteed non-genetically modified products. They also attempt to keep genetically modified ingredients as absent from their merchandise as they can.

However, the efforts are difficult given that genetically modified soymeal and soy oil is widely used in animal feed and a number of GM-derived enzymes are used in bakery, dairy, and other food products without the knowledge of consumers because they are not, so far, required to be named on labels as they haven’t been officially defined as additives. In addition, the European Union has already approved oilseed and GM maize, which is countering the strong anti-GM position that the organization has had since the beginning, according to the news article.

In the United States, mandatory labeling of genetically engineered ingredients is not required and according to the article, it has been estimated that over 70 percent of foods sold in the United States and Canada contain genetically engineered ingredients. Opponents of genetically modified foods in the United States say that with some exceptions, companies are not even required under the current Food and Drug Administration regulations to notify the agency they are bringing new genetically engineered products to the market.

Genetically modified foods have been available for over ten years. Through numerous trials and tests, it has been shown that the use of biotechnology to create new foods or to enhance the nutritional value of an existing product is safe. Biotechnology can improve the quality and diversity of the foods that people purchase and consume which can lead to better nutrition and improved health for individuals around the world.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For the past several years, we’ve all heard of and read about the work that scientists and researchers have done to genetically modify rice. However, there haven’t been many studies that show the benefits of this modified rice. That’s why I was very interested in reading about a recent study by researchers that tested if genetically engineered rice that has been modified to boost its mineral and vitamin content can actually improve the health of the people who eat them (Iron Biofortified Rice Studies shows Improved Nutrition, CheckBiotech, 11/30/05).

According to news reports, researchers at Cornell University have conducted the first study that demonstrates that conventional plant breeding can affect human nutritional status. In a nine-month, double-blind study, researchers monitored the diets of 192 religious sisters in ten convents in the Philippines who ate biofortified rice, developed by the International Rice Research Institute, found that the iron status of the women who ate the genetically modified, iron-rich rice was 20 percent higher than in women who ate traditional rice.

“Although this sounds like a modest increase, it means that instead of 50 percent of women getting adequate iron, 71 percent of the women who consumed the biofortified rice, while eating a traditional Philippine diet, met the estimated average requirement for iron,” said Professor Jere D. Haas, the Nancy Schlegel Meinig Professor of Maternal and Child Nutrition at Cornell University and the lead author of the study, published in the December 2005 issue of the Journal of Nutrition.

Professor Haas said that the greatest improvements in iron status were in non-anemic women who had the lowest body iron reserves at the beginning of the study and in women who consumed the most rice and, therefore, the most iron from rice.

“The beauty of these findings is that using rice that is bred to be higher in iron has great potential as a sustainable approach to reducing the micronutrient deficiency problems so common in developing countries,” explained Professor Haas.

Current methods to improve iron in diets in developing countries, such as providing dietary supplements and fortifying the food supply, have limitations, according to Professor Haas, or are not sustainable in countries where resources are scarce.

“This study shows that developing new varieties of staple foods, such as rice, maize, wheat, beans, and cassava, by selectively breeding to enhance nutritional qualities nutritional qualities has merit for reducing micronutrient deficiencies in the developing world,” according to Professor Haas.

Now that researchers know that the biofortified rice can actually improve the nutritional status of people who eat it under controlled experimental conditions, Professor Haas said that follow-up studies will not only seek to confirm these findings but also will look at how well the rice is accepted by the general population.

The potential benefits of genetically modified rice have been well documented. We’ve all heard about the development of golden rice to help the millions of children who suffer from Vitamin A deficiency around the world and I’ve even seen similar projects being developed by scientists and researchers at the university I work at. This study by Cornell University researchers proves that genetically modified foods can improve nutrition and health of the individuals who eat them. Studies and tests on other genetically modified products need to be conducted, but the Cornell study is a great step toward the acceptance of such foods by individuals around the world.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)