Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

GMOs: What’s all the fuss? Alan McHughen University of California Riverside, CA

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "GMOs: What’s all the fuss? Alan McHughen University of California Riverside, CA"— Presentation transcript:

1 GMOs: What’s all the fuss? Alan McHughen University of California Riverside, CA alanmc@ucr.edu

2 FPI Survey (2004) Are GM foods in US supermarkets? Are GM foods in US supermarkets? Do ordinary tomatoes contain genes? Do ordinary tomatoes contain genes? Would a tomato with a fish gene taste “fishy”? Would a tomato with a fish gene taste “fishy”? If you ate a GM fruit, might it alter your genes? If you ate a GM fruit, might it alter your genes? Can animal genes be inserted into a plant? Can animal genes be inserted into a plant? Give an example of GM food on the market Give an example of GM food on the market

3 What is GM/GE/Biotechnology ? Any of several techniques used to add, delete or amend genetic information in a plant, animal or microbe Any of several techniques used to add, delete or amend genetic information in a plant, animal or microbe Used to make pharmaceuticals (insulin, dornase alpha, etc.), crops (Bt corn, disease resistant papaya, etc.) and industrial compounds (specialty oils, etc.) Used to make pharmaceuticals (insulin, dornase alpha, etc.), crops (Bt corn, disease resistant papaya, etc.) and industrial compounds (specialty oils, etc.)

4 History of genetic engineering rDNA began in 1973, with GE bacteria rDNA began in 1973, with GE bacteria First commercial product- insulin- in 1982 First commercial product- insulin- in 1982 First food- cheese – 1988 (UK), 1990 (US) First food- cheese – 1988 (UK), 1990 (US) First food crop, FlavrSavr™ tomatoes, in 1994 First food crop, FlavrSavr™ tomatoes, in 1994 So far, there have been no documented cases of harm from GMOs. So far, there have been no documented cases of harm from GMOs.

5 Who uses Biotech products ? Consumers: diabetics, victims of CF, cancer, etc. Consumers: diabetics, victims of CF, cancer, etc. Farmers in US (USDA data, 2005): Farmers in US (USDA data, 2005): Soybean: 87% of acreage Soybean: 87% of acreage Cotton: 79% of acreage Cotton: 79% of acreage Corn: 52% of acreage Corn: 52% of acreage Others: papaya, canola, squash, etc. Others: papaya, canola, squash, etc. Farmers in developing countries (ISAAA data) Farmers in developing countries (ISAAA data) 90% of GE crop farmers are poor, subsistence 90% of GE crop farmers are poor, subsistence

6 World GE crops 2005* 21 countries grew GE crops commercially: 21 countries grew GE crops commercially: US, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, India. New countries: New countries: Portugal, France, Czech Republic, Iran New crops: New crops: Bt Rice (Iran); stacked traits (e.g. Bt +HR) *ISAAA data, 2006

7 Economics of GE crops In the USA, six GE crops— soybeans, corn, cotton, papaya, squash and canola — provide: Over 5 billion additional pounds of food and fiber on the same acreage, Over 5 billion additional pounds of food and fiber on the same acreage, improved farm income by $1.9 billion, and improved farm income by $1.9 billion, and reduced pesticide use by 46 million pounds. reduced pesticide use by 46 million pounds. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP), 2004

8 Documented benefits of biotech crops Farmers Farmers Increased yields (especially in developing countries) Increased yields (especially in developing countries) Decreased chemical input costs Decreased chemical input costs Cleaner fields, less dockage Cleaner fields, less dockage Less fuel used Less fuel used Less tillage Less tillage Fewer adverse health effects (esp. China). Fewer adverse health effects (esp. China).

9 Documented benefits of biotech crops Consumers Consumers Safer food (less mycotoxin in maize, esp Africa/Asia) Safer food (less mycotoxin in maize, esp Africa/Asia) Safer food (greater regulatory scrutiny) Safer food (greater regulatory scrutiny) Less pesticide Less pesticide Environmental benefits. Environmental benefits.

10 Documented benefits of biotech crops Environment Environment Less pesticide burden Less pesticide burden Safer pesticides Safer pesticides Improved soil from less tillage Improved soil from less tillage Less fuel usage Less fuel usage Increased biodiversity Increased biodiversity Sources: NCFAP, Plant Biotechnology, June 2002; November 2004 Sources: NCFAP, Plant Biotechnology, June 2002; November 2004 Canola Council of Canada, An agronomic and economic assessment of transgenic canola, 2001 Canola Council of Canada, An agronomic and economic assessment of transgenic canola, 2001 Munkvold, G.P., Hellmich, R.L., and Rice, L.G. 1999. Comparison of fumonisin concentrations in kernels of transgenic Bt maize hybrids and non-transgenic hybrids. Plant Dis. 83:130-138. Munkvold, G.P., Hellmich, R.L., and Rice, L.G. 1999. Comparison of fumonisin concentrations in kernels of transgenic Bt maize hybrids and non-transgenic hybrids. Plant Dis. 83:130-138.

11 So, What’s the fuss? GE is unnatural, ‘crossing the species barrier’ GE is unnatural, ‘crossing the species barrier’ GE food contains bacterial genes GE food contains bacterial genes GE plants spread uncontrollably GE plants spread uncontrollably GE is unethical GE is unethical GE is ‘risky’ GE is ‘risky’ GE is controlled by corporate interests GE is controlled by corporate interests GE crops are unregulated; no prior scrutiny GE crops are unregulated; no prior scrutiny

12 Concerns with GMOs Scientific Scientific Environment Environment Health safety Health safety Non-scientific Ethical Socio-economic Political Covert Trade Covert Technological FEAR!

13 Problem of context “Fear subverts rational and critical thinking” “Fear subverts rational and critical thinking” E.g. use of pesticides in agriculture E.g. use of pesticides in agriculture “Natural” products are invariably safe “Natural” products are invariably safe Synthetic chemicals are invariably hazardous Synthetic chemicals are invariably hazardous Toxicology doesn’t matter: Toxicology doesn’t matter: all chemicals are equally hazardous all chemicals are equally hazardous Amount doesn’t matter: Amount doesn’t matter: any amount is too much. any amount is too much.

14 Fear and loathing: the context of risk Roanoke (Va) Times (9/20/2004): “Mellisa Williamson, 35… worries about the effect on her unborn child from the sound of jackhammers.’ Roanoke (Va) Times (9/20/2004): “Mellisa Williamson, 35… worries about the effect on her unborn child from the sound of jackhammers.’ Is Ms Williamson (or other similarly concerned parent) likely to feed GMO babyfood to her child? Is Ms Williamson (or other similarly concerned parent) likely to feed GMO babyfood to her child?

15 Science vs. Non-science Non-scientific approach Non-scientific approach Starts with conclusion, searches for evidence to support it (cherry picking) Starts with conclusion, searches for evidence to support it (cherry picking) Discredits alternative views Discredits alternative views Often lacks Context Often lacks Context Scientific approach (n.b. not all scientists) Scientific approach (n.b. not all scientists) Collects and analyses all available evidence before (perhaps) reaching conclusion Collects and analyses all available evidence before (perhaps) reaching conclusion Actively seeks alternative interpretations Actively seeks alternative interpretations Is his/her own greatest critic Is his/her own greatest critic Applies Critical thinking skills. Applies Critical thinking skills.

16 Applying Context and Critical Thinking Crops: traditional and modern All new crops (traditional or biotech) must be genetically altered and distinct All new crops (traditional or biotech) must be genetically altered and distinct DUS= Distinct, Uniform, Stable. DUS= Distinct, Uniform, Stable.

17 Variety release requirements: genetically engineered crops USDA (APHIS) - environmental issues USDA (APHIS) - environmental issues HHS (FDA)- food and feed safety HHS (FDA)- food and feed safety EPA- pesticide usage issues. EPA- pesticide usage issues.

18 DUS, plus… Molecular characterization of inserted DNA, Molecular characterization of inserted DNA, Southern and restriction analyses Southern and restriction analyses PCR for several fragments, PCR for several fragments, Various enzyme assays (ALS, NOS, NPT-II) Various enzyme assays (ALS, NOS, NPT-II) Copy number of inserts Copy number of inserts Size of each fragment, Size of each fragment, Source of each fragment Source of each fragment Utility of each fragment Utility of each fragment How fragments were recombined How fragments were recombined How construct was delivered into flax How construct was delivered into flax Biological activity of inserted DNA (genes) Biological activity of inserted DNA (genes) Quantitative analyses of novel proteins (western analyses) Quantitative analyses of novel proteins (western analyses) Temporal activity of inserted genes Temporal activity of inserted genes spatial activity of inserted genes spatial activity of inserted genes complete amino acid analysis complete amino acid analysis detailed amino acid analysis for valine, leucine and isoleucine detailed amino acid analysis for valine, leucine and isoleucine Toxicity (feeding trials were not warranted) Toxicity (feeding trials were not warranted) Allergenicity (feeding trials were not warranted) Allergenicity (feeding trials were not warranted) Biological analysis: Biological analysis: Pathogenicity to other organisms dormancy, outcrossing potential for horizontal gene transfer seed production flowering time, flower morphology analysis of relatives stability of inserted genes over seed generations survivability in natural environment survivability in agricultural environment in presence of herbicide survivability in agricultural environment in absence of herbicide Interaction with other organisms- alterations to traditional relationships Interactions with other organisms- novel species Changes to persistence or invasiveness Any selective advantage to the GMO Any selective advantage to sexually compatible species Plan for containment and eradication in the event of escape

19 Methods of Genetic Modification Recombinant DNA (rDNA) Recombinant DNA (rDNA)------------------------------------- Mutagenesis Mutagenesis Somaclonal variation Somaclonal variation Embryo rescue Embryo rescue Crossing or selection within a population Crossing or selection within a population Introduction Introduction Succession/invasion. Succession/invasion.

20 Similar products, similar risks ? HT Canola:Group Sulfonylurea 2. ALS/AHAS inhibitor Sulfonylurea 2. ALS/AHAS inhibitor Trifluralin 3. Mitotic inhibitor Trifluralin 3. Mitotic inhibitor Bromoxynil 4. PGR Bromoxynil 4. PGR Triazine 5. Photosynthetic inhibitor Triazine 5. Photosynthetic inhibitor Glyphosate 9. EPSP Synthase inhibitor Glyphosate 9. EPSP Synthase inhibitor Glufosinate 10. Glutamine Synth. Inhibitor Glufosinate 10. Glutamine Synth. Inhibitor

21 Different process, same product Rice: disease resistance (Xa21 gene) Rice: disease resistance (Xa21 gene) Canola: herbicide tolerance (SuRs) Canola: herbicide tolerance (SuRs) Coffee: reduced caffeine Coffee: reduced caffeine Maize: enhanced tryptophan Maize: enhanced tryptophan Flaxseed: reduced linolenic acid Flaxseed: reduced linolenic acid Soybean: increased oleic acid. Soybean: increased oleic acid.

22 Changes in Genetically Modified Food: DNA content: DNA content: highly variable, depends on species highly variable, depends on species GM additional DNA, GM additional DNA, approx. 1 gene added to 25,000 genes. approx. 1 gene added to 25,000 genes. Or, approx. 0.000 000 7% new DNA. Or, approx. 0.000 000 7% new DNA. Protein: Protein: highly variable, depends on food. highly variable, depends on food. GM protein, approx. 0.00004 % of total protein is novel. GM protein, approx. 0.00004 % of total protein is novel.

23 NAS/IOM Conclusions Foods with a novel substance or altered levels of usual components should be scrutinized for safety, regardless of method of breeding Foods with a novel substance or altered levels of usual components should be scrutinized for safety, regardless of method of breeding A new modified food, whether GE or other, whose composition is similar to conventional version may warrant little or no safety evaluation. A new modified food, whether GE or other, whose composition is similar to conventional version may warrant little or no safety evaluation.

24 Consensus of scientific societies The method of breeding is immaterial to the risk of hazard. All breeding involves changes to DNA and carries some (albeit small) risk The method of breeding is immaterial to the risk of hazard. All breeding involves changes to DNA and carries some (albeit small) risk There is no scientific justification to single out GE for ‘special’ regulatory or liability considerations. There is no scientific justification to single out GE for ‘special’ regulatory or liability considerations.

25 Conclusion When you encounter concerns with GMOs: When you encounter concerns with GMOs: Is it science or non-science? Is it science or non-science? Science is product oriented Science is product oriented Science is evidence based Science is evidence based If science, demand peer reviewed evidence If science, demand peer reviewed evidence If peer reviewed data, ask how it compares to Status Quo If peer reviewed data, ask how it compares to Status Quo Apply critical thinking and context: Apply critical thinking and context: Evaluate all evidence, both pro and con. Evaluate all evidence, both pro and con.


Download ppt "GMOs: What’s all the fuss? Alan McHughen University of California Riverside, CA"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google