Genetic Engineering for Nutritional Enhancement: Coming Soon to a Plate Near You? November 13, 2009

Genetically modified (GM) foods, as they exist today, offer little direct benefit to the consumer—the explosion of biotechnology in this field over the past decade has instead focused primarily on the farmer, whose genetically engineered crops can withstand non-ideal climate conditions and ward off nasty invaders like weeds and insects. As such, many are wary of bioengineered food, questioning its safety and necessity in today’s organic, all-natural, pesticide-free obsessed society.

This article specifically discusses the development and potential implication of food items which are genetically engineered to increase nutritional value, i.e., altered food products which might even appeal to diehard Whole Foods fans, while simultaneously destigmatizing the GM industry. The article focuses specifically on the newly developed “purple tomato”, whose unusually high levels of anthocyanins, introduced to the fruit by the foreign genes of snapdragons, have been shown to increase life span in cancer-susceptible mice. Related research is focused on increasing levels of vitamins, healthy fats like Omega-3’s, and the antioxidant resveratrol found in red wine. The problem, however, comes with the lack of any concrete results in the field (the “purple tomato” notwithstanding), replaced instead with a barrage of promises.  For many years, the industry has assured the public that nutritionally boosted GM foods that might help prevent chronic diseases would hit the market, but most products are still in early research stages, with the spotlight instead focused on crops traditionally modified to defend themselves against pests. This article ran in the Washington Post one year ago, although I doubt that much progress has been made in the meantime. Why not shift the focus, at least partially, to the consumer? Doing so would benefit not only the general public, many of whom—let’s face it—need a nutritional boost, but also the industry itself. Financial incentives aside, the stigma associated with genetically modified food, which many view as some sort of warped, alien, and unnatural product of human invention, would likely decrease with the advent of foods modified solely for a consumer-friendly purpose.

Margaret Mellon, the food specialist quoted in the article, brings up an interesting point.  Even if the R&D were accelerated to a point where nutritional enhancements  are possible in the foreseeable future, do we even want these products? Mellon says no, but I would disagree. Crop enhancement by natural means alone can only go so far in providing a sufficient quantity of nutrients, especially in a single piece of fruit. Most people would be more likely to eat a single “purple tomato”, than five conventional ones. Milk is regularly—and, gasp, unnaturally—fortified with Vitamin D, and salt similarly with iodine; the high levels of anthocyanins in the purple tomato hinge on the same concept, but through an alternate, genetic means.

In addition to foods engineered to enhance nutritional content as presented in this article, current research is also focused on foods genetically engineered to remove common allergens. The allergenic properties of peanuts comes from only eleven proteins; if the genetic synthesis of these proteins could be halted, a hypothetical allergen-free peanut could be produced. This is exactly what  horticulture expert Peggy Ozias-Akins at the University of Georgia is working to accomplish. Genetic modifications, therefore, have the potential to not only prevent diseases and increase life span, but also save lives. Before this can happen, however, the industry must be willing to focus their research and efforts on the consumer, and the consumer must be willing to accept the prospect of foods which are genetically modified for their own benefit.

Kaufman, Marc “Extra-Nutritious Bioengineered Foods Still Years Away.” The Washington Post. 3 Nov. 2008.

Rowe, Aaron. “Genetically Modified Peanuts Could Save Lives.” Wired. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/peanuts-with-le/

Global Food Security through GM crops November 12, 2009

Food Security and the Green Revolution

Food security is an upcoming issue that the world is facing, and the situation is likely to get much worse in the following years if action is not taken soon. The importance of the issue has been recognized by the United Nations and the G-8 countries. The Global Food Security Act 2009 includes a mandate to increase research on genetically modified food crops which lead the fight for food security. The use of GM crops has come under intense criticism from environmental activists particularly Greenpeace, who claim that GM foods do not really have any advantages over normal crops and that they can be potentially harmful for the human population. Greenpeace also claim that the threats to food security like climate change and loss of farmland due to industrialization and urbanization are much more important to deal with in order to tackle this crisis. Presently, there are two main types of GM crops, one which are resistant to pesticides and have high yields, and the second type is modified to have extra nutritious value.

This article appeared in the Gov. Monitor a little over a month ago, and describes some of the progress made in this field and the battle between Greenpeace and the GM crops. It is clear that GM crops are shown to have tremendous benefits. This is evident from the fact that the U.S. Congress has put its faith in research in this field and is being backed by multi-billion dollar projects like the Gates Foundation who aim at ushering a new “Green Revolution” especially in developing parts of the world like Africa. Opponents claim that the GM crops like rice are less nutritional than ‘natural’ rice, but the scientific community is quick in counteracting by claiming that organic products do not have any more nutrition than conventional crops including GM crops.The article goes on to describe the campaign of Greenpeace against Bayer’s GM rice which is engineered to be resistance against herbicide, ‘glufosinate’ and thus has a very high yield. It is interesting to note the conflicting claims of the two parties, as Bayer says that the herbicide is safe for agricultural use, where as Greenpeace claims that exact opposite. This does fuel an argument for the common man, about who to believe in this situation. As large pharmaceuticals like Bayer are generally viewed suspiciously by people in general, the public opinion tends to support environmentalist groups like Greenpeace. Greenpeace also claims that it is just a ploy to boost sales of glufosinate which is also manufactured by Bayer.

The concept of Golden Rice is just an example of what can be achieved by GM crops. Golden Rice has enhanced vitamin A, which was added by splicing a gene from the daffodil and one from bacterium. Vitamin A deficiency affects more than 100 million children many of which die or are blinded. Rice is a staple food in most of the developing countries around the world, and is thus ideal for countering the deficiency by adding it to diet. The rice have also been modified to add iron and improve iron absorption. The consequences of GM modified rice are unfathomable. In a similar fashion, nutrition can be added to different crops and made part of the diet to counter a number of deficiencies, diseases and prevent many health risks. Greenpeace has slammed the Golden Rice claiming that it will do nothing to counter the vitamin deficiency as an adult will have to take twelve times the normal intake of rice to make up for the daily requirement of vitamin A. But there are newer varieties of Golden Rice being introduced in the market which will have a much higher content of beta-carotene (required to make vitamin A) and will be available in the global market by 2011.

The debate about using GM crops to counter food security needs careful discussion and analysis. There is no doubt that GM crops offer immense benefits like higher yields, resistance to drought, pests and herbicides, and possible extra nutrition but claims of activists like Greenpeace, who have opposed them so fiercely, need to be addressed. Since the issue is of such vital importance, I believe that it is important that consumers and farmers have a holistic view of the entire debate rather than be influenced by one side. Presently, farmers think that using GM seeds will give monopoly to companies like Monsanto, instead of looking at the broader picture. Greenpeace has an important role of increasing public awareness, but in a sensible way. Considering that it spent $270 million to counter the vitamin enhanced Golden Rice compared to the R&D cost of  $2.6 million, one does raise questions if the money could have been more effectively by investing in research and other creating awareness.

Asad Hassan

Claudia Parsons, Russell Blinch and Svetlana Kovalyova. The fight over the future of food, Reuters, 10 Nov 2009

Golden Rice: All glitter not gold, Greenpeace, 16 March, 2005

Entine, John. Food Security and the Green Revolution, The Gov Monitor, 4 Oct 2009

A Global Perspective on GM Food in the Current Economic Climate November 10, 2009

While some consumers in the US might resist the notion of biotech foods, the overall attitude of Americans, especially  that of agriculturalists and governmental officials, can be generalized as one of acceptance.  While the US  was responsible for half the world’s acreage of GM crops in 2007, Europeans have fiercely resisted the advent of what they derisively call “Frankenfoods.” In 2003, the US, along with twelve other agricultural exporting nations, brought complaints about Europe’s biotech food policies to the World Trade Organization, describing their de facto ban on GM foods as an illegal “trade barrier”. Well, it seems as though the tides have turned, and the Europeans have changed their tune; in fact, just last month, Britain’s top science academy, The Royal Society, officially declared that the world needs GM crops, specifically those engineered to resist disease, salinity, heat, drought , and toxic metals— both to increase food yields in areas ravaged by diminished food supply  and to minimize the environmental impact of agricultural practices. What brought about this newly formed stance?

This article, which ran in the NY Times in April 2008, relays the weakening resistance to GM crops, in the wake of global food shortages and rising food prices.  Japan and South Korea, for example, began buying genetically modified corn last year, neglecting their former practice of paying more for conventionally sown corn. In today’s economic climate, they can no longer afford it. And with the global financial crisis that wracked the globe in the past year, I doubt that they have since reverted back to the “natural stuff”.  When 85% of corn grown in the US is of the biotech variety, the declining global supply of conventionally grown corn has increased its price dramatically. Even here in the US, producers of wheat (half of which is exported), who had been previously hesitant about growing GM crops because they feared that foreign buyers would reject it, have begun to alter their practices. Neil Parish, the chairman of the European Parliament’s agriculture committee, admitted that Europeans may become “more realistic” about GM crops, although recent polls have suggested that opposition is still widely prevalent.

As I mentioned earlier, I would assume that the economic crisis that occurred in the time since this article was written has exacerbated the rising prices and food shortages which are implicated here as the primary motivation of weakening resistance to GM foods. While it is unfortunate that a global disaster had to be the perpetrator here, the silver lining of this flagging opposition will have lasting consequences. With resistance to genetic modifications fading, even if it has occurred unwillingly, the biotech food industry has the opportunity to make important progress in fighting hunger and malnourishment, and in doing so, can improve health on a global scale. As The Royal Society has suggested, crops engineered to fight disease, extreme climate conditions, and toxic substances will be significant factors in the eradication of starvation and disease, an issue that is especially pressing with the UN estimating that the number of people without enough food could pass the one billion mark in 2009. But in order to make a real impact, acceptance of GM foods must continue to encompass the globe. Otherwise, the fear of big science will cause death – consider the case of Zambia and Zimbabwe, countries in Africa hit hard by severe famine, which in 2003 rejected GM food aid that was sent from the US and other donor countries (Zimbabwe later relaxed their stance, but Zambia did not).  Instances like these can be avoided if the global population has a better understanding of GM foods and what they entail. Educating the public about GM practices will cause fierce and unwarranted opposition to subside, which is especially important in those areas devastated by food shortages where GM foods can have a strong and immediate impact.

Pollack, Andrew. “In Lean Times, Biotech Grains are Less Taboo.” The New York Times. 21 Apr. 2008.

Wyn, Gerard. “World Must Use GM Crops, Says UK Science Academy.” ABC News. 21 Oct. 2009. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=8878843

Bianchi, Stephanie. “EU Defies U.S. in Row Over Genetically Modified Foods.” IPS. 14 May 2003. http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18191