Food Biotechnology Ethics Clark Ford, Ph.D. Food Science and Human Nutrition Iowa State University

What is Food Biotechnology? Food technology based on biology Ancient food biotechnology: Fermentation by microbes Cheese Beer Wine Bread Modern food biotechnology Tissue culture Genetic engineering Different from plant and animal breeding

Genetic Engineering Genetic Engineering involves manipulating DNA molecules DNA from one species is spliced into the DNA of another species Called: Recombinant DNA Genetically Engineered organisms are called: Genetically Modified Transgenic

Milestones in Food Biotechnology 1953: Structure of DNA discovered 1973: First gene cloned in microbes 1977: Asilomar Conference in USA Recombinant DNA safety Regulation Risk assessment Containment

Milestones in Food Biotechnology 1990: Recombinant Chymosin Approved by FDA Enzyme for cheese making Originally from calf stomach Bovine gene expressed in GRAS microbes In 80% of U.S. cheese “Vegetarian” cheese in England

Other Products from Genetically Engineered Microbes Food enzymes Bread HFCS Sweeteners Amino acids Peptides Nutrasweet Flavors Organic acids Polysaccharides Vitamins

Milestones in Food Biotechnology 1994: FDA approves “Flavr Savr” Tomato Prolonged shelf life Improved quality Voluntarily labeled

Other Genetically Engineered Plants Agronomic traits BT Corn Roundup Ready Soy Disease Resistance Food quality Nutrition Metabolic products Vaccines

Bt Corn Natural insecticide from Bacillus thuringiensis Non-toxic to humans Target insect: corn borer Potential to: reduce insecticide use reduce mycotoxins 40% U.S. Corn crop Bt (2006)

Bt Concerns Bt pollen harms non-target species? Bt crops select for resistant insects Bt pollen can drift to organic fields Food system failed to keep BT Starlink corn out of human food products

Herbicide Resistance Roundup Ready Soy, Corn, Canola Allows post-emergence herbicide spraying Increases yield Facilitates no-till farming 89% U.S. Soy crop (2006)

Herbicide Resistance Concerns Encourages herbicide use Groundwater contamination Kills beneficial soil microbes Cross-pollinates weeds Fosters dependence on Agrochemcial companies

Disease Resistance Canola Cantaloupes Cucumbers Corn Rice Papaya Potatoes Soybeans Squash Tomatoes Wheat Genetically engineered papaya resistant papaya ringspot virus

Health and Nutrition Golden Rice Vitamin A and Iron enhanced Seeds given to the poor for free Improved Amino Acid Balance for Soy, Maize Banana Vaccines

Milestones in Food Biotechnology 1999: GM corn and soybean products are present in 80% of processed foods in USA Corn: starch, high fructose corn syrup, oil Soy: oil, Lecithin, protein

Milestones in Food Biotechnology 1999: European Union requires GM labels, blocks import of GM corn, beans Ban lifted 2004 but no change in anti-gm sentiment in Europe

Milestones in Food Biotechnology 1999: Gerber and Heinz baby foods GM-free 2000: Mc Donalds and Frito-Lay products GM-free

Milestones in Food Biotechnology 2000: USDA Organic Foods Standards Must be GM-free

Milestones in Food Biotechnology 2005: 222 million acres worldwide Planted in Genetically modified crops 55% in USA Soy Corn Cotton India, China Canola http://www.isaaa.org/kc/bin/briefs34/es/index.htm http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2483/24833301.jpg

Controversy over Biotech Foods Debate pits consumer and ecology groups against Multinational Corporations Many farmers, scientists, government agencies caught in the middle

Arguments for Genetically Engineered Food Potential to: Increase productivity Increase purity Increase safety Improve nutrition Improve food quality Improve sustainability Benefit ecosystem Process not inherently harmful Similar to traditional Plant and Animal breeding Unless misused, outcome expected to be beneficial Is a powerful technology that could help humanity Bad ideas weeded out by the market, regulation, lawsuit --Paul Thompson

Arguments against Genetically Engineered Foods Potential safety risk for humans Unintended Consequences Genetic Engineering is playing God Not Natural to move genes between species Potential safety risk for environment Could spread Genetically Engineered label not required in U.S. Benefits multinational corporations not consumers or developing nations

Frankenstein Foods: Unintended Consequences? Random gene insertion Toxicity New gene products? Allergies Eating DNA!

Arguments for Labeling Not Substantially equivalent to non-GM Must use Precautionary principle Is uncertainty in risk assessment Labeling indicates process used Consumer’s right to know and choose Country’s right to know and choose

Arguments against labeling Suggests non-existent hazard Expensive to segregate crops and change labels FDA labels required if change in: Allergenicity Nutrition Food Quality

Will it Feed the World? Disease resistance will benefit developing nations Technology requiring increased inputs benefits wealthy, multinationals, plantations Small, subsistence farmers can’t compete, lose land Inequity, poverty increase Thus more food and more hunger Green Revolution unsustainable