GMO Food for Thought

Everyone I know has made some kind of resolutions this new year. Some, including myself, have resolved to lose weight and eat healthier. As part of my new lifestyle, I’ve started to consume more dairy products, especially one of my favorite foods from childhood, yogurt. Now, I’ve read that this favorite food of mine is being used to fight a deadly epidemic – the spread of the HIV virus and AIDS (Researchers use Yogurt to fight AIDS, Medical Research News, 1/25/06).

It seems that researchers at Brown University have genetically modified some of the “friendly bacteria” found in yogurt to release a drug that blocks the transmission of the HIV virus. According to the article, the bacteria the researchers have modified is known as lactococcus lactis, which naturally produces lactic acid and is found in some parts of the human anatomy. By using electric current to make tiny holes in the membranes of the lactic acid bacteria, the researchers were able to genetically modify the bacteria’s makeup so that it generates cyanovirin, which binds to sugar molecules attached to the HIV virus and blocks a receptor that HIV uses to infect cells. The research team’s findings were published in the December 15, 2005 edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.

The genetically modified bacteria have been effective in preventing HIV in animal tests and tests on human cells. The research is on track for human trials to take place sometime in 2007.

The research team hopes to use these bioengineered bacteria as the active ingredient in a microbicide that can be used before sexual intercourse to prevent HIV transmission. The use of this genetically modified bacterium offers more advantages over injected vaccines, which often have trouble reaching peripheral areas of the body, according to the article. There is also an economic benefit in using these bacteria, especially if they can be taken orally, as in probiotic yogurts. The drug could be produced wherever there are facilities to make a dairy product.

“It makes lifelong treatment more feasible,” said Lothar Steidler, a molecular biologist at Cork University in Ireland.

One of the biggest problems this bacterium could address is the protection of individuals in developing countries, where HIV and AIDS are rampant. According to the World Health Organization, HIV and AIDS has killed more than 25 million people, which makes the epidemic one of the most destructive in recorded history.

Despite these benefits, public fear of genetic modification could stop this innovative research from going forward. It’s a shame that this fear would stand in the way of potentially treating this devastating disease. Without the work done by the research team at Brown University, scientists and researchers would be no closer to stopping the spread of the HIV virus and AIDS than they were some 20 plus years ago. I firmly believe that research like this needs to continue and be supported. If these scientists and researchers can have success with this treatment and with similar projects using genetic engineering in order to benefit individuals around the world, there most certainly have to be a rise in acceptance of the technology.

Posted by AC Baumer at 3:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

There have been so many reports over the years regarding biotechnology and genetically modified foods. Some of these reports have condemned the creation of such foods and their usage in today’s society while other reports have touted the benefits of biotech foods and the needs these products can address in feeding individuals in developing nations. That’s why I was interested in reading about a recent public report promoting the contributions that genetically modified foods are making in helping world hunger and poverty (Anti-Poverty Association labels Modified Crops Helpful, CheckBiotech, 1/11/06).

The report was published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, a not-for-profit organization devoted to reducing poverty by boosting farm income and crop productivity. According to the report, genetically modified crops are not a cure-all for poverty and world hunger, but the foods are making a significant and growing contribution in the fight to combat the problem.

Approximately 7.7 million subsistence farmers planted biotech crops in 2005, up from 7.5 million in 2004. Most are cotton growers in China, India, South Africa, and the Philippines. Their incomes have increased 25 to 30 percent with the use of biotech crops, which improve yield and reduce the need to apply costly weed and insect killers, said Clive James, chair of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application’s (ISAAA) board and author of the report.

“It’s not a silver bullet. It’s a technology, like any other technology, with strengths and weaknesses,” Mr. James said.

To boost production, farmers need a combination of biotech traits, high-quality seeds and good conventional agronomic practices. According to Mr. James, genetically modified crops are a contribution, not a solution, to the alleviation of poverty.

According to the report, the growth in the use of biotech crops in developing countries is outpacing acreage expansion in industrialized nations that have approved the technology, in part, because the United States already has widely adopted biotech soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola. So, countries that are newer to the technology have more room for rapid expansion.

Yet, biotech crops remain controversial. Friends of the Earth, a nonprofit group that opposes the technology, contends that genetically modified crops could harm the environment, reduce biodiversity, and lead to “super weeds” that could resist even the most widely used herbicide. In a recent report issued by the organization, the group questioned the technology’s benefits. According to the article, Friends of the Earth said genetically modified crops benefit big corporations rather than farmers or consumers. Its report said adoption of the technology is a sign of big corporation’s “objectionable” influence over policymakers in many countries and international bodies.

Over the years, we’ve all heard about the efforts of scientists and researchers to develop new foods using biotechnology. Despite the opposition, there have been countless studies that prove genetically modified foods are safe. In this ever-changing society, biotechnology uses what is found in nature to address the vital needs we face, including helping to alleviate world hunger and poverty.

Posted by AC Baumer at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As a grant researcher, I have always been interested in reading and hearing about new developments in the field of medicine, whether these advancements were created by scientists and researchers at the university I work at or by scientists at other universities and institutions. That’s why I was interested in reading recently about a vaccine created by researchers to combat the deadliest for of the plague using plant biotechnology (Plague to be beaten with Plant-Derived Vaccines, CheckBiotech, 1/10/06).

According to the article, through an innovative feat of plant biotechnology and vaccine design, researchers in the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University genetically modified tobacco plants into vaccine production factories to combat the deadliest form of the plague. The researchers modified the tobacco plants to make high levels of the plague antigens F1, V, and a combination of the two, a F1-V fusion antigen. All are known to be important for the plague bacteria to produce its toxic effects.

The antigens were then purified from the plants and injected into guinea pigs. Testing using an aerosolized form of the plague was performed at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. More than half of the vaccinated animals survived the testing with all forms of the antigen and guinea pigs vaccinated with the V antigen alone had the highest survival rates, according to the study.

A new concern over the plague has emerged in recent years with respect to bioterrorism. According to Luca Santi, a research assistant professor at the Biodesign Institute and lead author of the study published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, there have been some resistant strains to antibiotics that have been discovered and that poses a concern, especially if the plague would be used as a bioweapon.

“A new vaccine approach would be the best way to prevent infection,” she said.

Particularly worrisome to human health is the pneumonic form of disease, which can spread by an airborne route after infecting the lungs. It is considered universally fatal if not detected and treated after symptoms arise one to six days after initial exposure. Current vaccines against the plague are severely limited from widespread adoption by having problems with high adverse reaction rates and side effects.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th happened, there have been concerns about possible bioterrorism attacks in the United States. If this would ever happen, people need to be prepared and taken care of. Even though this vaccine has been tested on animals, it is a milestone for the development of a similar vaccine for human use. All thanks to biotechnology.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When the first genetically modified crops were introduced to the world ten years ago, the advancement was seen as the beginning of a new time that could help struggling farmers, the environment, and reduce hunger around the world, according to reports. Today, genetically modified beans, cotton, corn, and canola are driving profits at companies like Monsanto and Dow Agrosciences, LLC. However, I was not surprised to learn that as the biotechnology industry celebrated its 10th Anniversary, the early promises of genetically modified foods remain largely unrealized (Biotech Crops mark First Decade with Wins, Losses, CNETNews.com, 12/29/05).

Genetically modified products have not lived up to their early expectations, according to Joel Cohen, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute.

"We now have a series of dependable, reliable crops using this technology, but there is still a large precautionary perspective,” Cohen said.

According to the article, for every step forward in biotechnology, there is always a step back that the technology has taken. In late 2005, cereal giant Kellogg’s announced that it would start using a healthy low linolenic oil derived only from Monsanto’s biotech soybean in its cookies, crackers and other food products. Less than two weeks later, however, Kraft Foods said it would stop supplying all genetically engineered food products, including additives, to China due to a lack of market acceptance. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have made similar pledges.

The author writes of other recent setbacks, including a decision in November 2005 by Swiss voters to ban planting of biotech crops for five years and the recent revelation in Australia that a biotech pea caused health problems in research mice, forcing the cancellation of that project. Also, Monsanto was forced to withdraw a biotech wheat it planned to sell in the United States and Canada in 2004 because of strong market opposition.

“Genetic engineering has not delivered on any of its promises for human health benefits,” said Margaret Mellon, director of the Agriculture and Biotechnology Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “There are a lot of failures scattered at the side of the road.”

According to the article, backers of biotechnology say the crops are good for the environment because they can reduce the amount of chemicals needed to grow healthy crops, but opponents say chemical use many times increases because of weed resistance and other problems. Critics also say that farmer profits tied to better yields get eaten up by the higher prices they pay for biotech seeds and that biotechnology has not eased hunger because many poor countries are unable or are unwilling to adopt the technology.

Still, according to the article, more growth and acceptance of the technology is on the horizon. The author states that an industry report due in January 2006 is expected to show good growth not only in the United States, but in many other countries and barriers in Europe are slowly lowering and new products in the pipelines should help to improve acceptance.

The author writes that according to Michael Fernandez, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, there is currently an “enormous investment” in agricultural biotechnology in China, Argentina, Chile, and other countries, and genetically modified rice was likely to gain approval in China in the near future, a move that could shift acceptance globally in favor of biotech food.

Despite opposition, biotechnology and the acceptance of genetically modified foods is certainly moving in the right direction. Here’s to more advancement and breakthroughs in the industry in 2006 and the next ten years.

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)