Genetically Modified Foods

Genetically Modified Foods
Speaker: Mrs. Deepa M Madalageri PGS12RHS5718 III Doctoral Seminar Department of Food Science and Nutrition

Contribution of GM foods to human nutrition
Topics covered Introduction Controversy History Benefits Risks Consumer acceptance Contribution of GM foods to human nutrition Future consideration

Introduction What are Genetically Modified (GM) Organisms and GM foods???? Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, “recombinant DNA technology”, “genetic engineering” It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species. Such methods are used to create GM plants – which are then used to grow GM food crops.

Three categories of GM traits can be distinguished
First-generation GM crops: involve improvement in agronomic traits (better resistance to pests and diseases). Second-generation GM crops: involve enhanced quality traits or value-added output traits (higher nutrient contents of food products). Third-generation GM crops: designed to produce special substances for pharmaceutical or industrial purposes.

History Sl. No Year Author /s Product Gene transferred Purpose 1
Immemorial Schardt, 1994 Plants and animals Seeds of fatter grains and meatier and hardier animals To create new varieties that exhibit the most desirable character of the parent plants 2 1967 McMillan and Thompson, 1979 Potato called Lenape potato Bread for its high solid content useful for making potato chips 3 1979 Cornell University Synthetic growth hormone for cows Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) To increase milk producing capacity 4 1980 US Monsanto Tomato Slow ripening associated gene Slow ripening characteristic to increase shelf life 5 US govt. Approval for use of rBST in dairy cows 6 1990 Pfizer corporation Cheese GM rennet To produce softer cheese Lets have a look on breaf history of GM foods

Sl. No Year Other Product Gene transferred purpose 6 1990 First Genetically engineered foods were made available to the public 7 1991 The American Medical Association and The National Institute of Health (NIH) concluded that meat and milk from Cows treated with rBST were safe on par with untreated ones 9 1992 American Paediatric Association approved rBST 10 1993 FDA gave approval for rBST in dairy cows 11 Cornell University Pigs Recombinant porcine somatotropin (rPST) To produce lean pork and reduce feed intake but more meat production in pigs 12 1994 FDA gave approval Flavr Savr Tomato First GM whole food approved for the market Improved Flavour and to remain firm even after extended shipping and storage times. 13 Koch The use of the gene gun or biolistic gun technique to shoot foreign genes directly in to chromosomes of some hardy crops 14 1999 Lesney Production of herbicide and pest resistant plant

The GM food Controversy
Genetic engineering is aimed at benefiting mankind: never purposefully use a known toxin or allergen that would hurt their customers, consumers or anyone GM foods has been surrounded by controversy since the early 1990’s The cloning of dolly the sheep in Scotland (Wilmut et al., 1997) Recent food controversies include The cloning of farm animal in Great Britain (Dyer, 1996; Wilmut et al., 1997) 2. The incidence of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or a ‘mad cow disease’ in Great Britain in early 1990’s (Patterson and Painter, 1999; Weihl and Rose, 1999) The advent of the so called ‘terminator seed’ technology ( Koch, 1998) The decision by the FDA to classify irradiated and GM foods as organic foods ( Cummins, 1997; Weiss, 1998) 5. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin on Monarch butterflies ( Hileman, 1999b; Losey etal., 1999; Palevitz 1999b) 6. The effect of Herbicide and pest resistance on environment (Longman, 1999)

Some of the GM foods Critics and supporters
Consumer and health advocacy group Grain importers Organic farmers Public interest group Some concerned scientists and environmentalists Politicians Trade protectionists Ethicists Human rights Animal rights Religious rights groups Chefs Food producers Food advocacy Members of private industries Food technologist Food processors Food Distributers Retailers Scientists Nutritionists Some consumers US farmers Regulatory agencies Advocates for the world’s poor and hungry people Proponents of the Green revolutions The supproters think that GE have become simplified, the method can be applied to large scale production of food and drugs needed by ever growing world population, can lead to faster growing, disease, weather pest resistance, herbicide tolerant crops as well as tastier, safer, more convenient, more nutritious, long lasting and health enhancing foods

Critics believe that genetic engineering of foods touches on several issues
The right of consumers to know what is in the food they buy The right of individual countries to set up standards as they deem fit The relationship between multinational companies, scientists, farmers and govt. regulations The impact of GM crops on biological diversity The possible negative impact of GM crops on the security of food supply The possible spread of antibiotic resistance to man and livestock The possible development of resistance by insects to GM plant toxin The ecological impact of growing GM foods

Proponents of genetic engineering of foods believe
The prospects for benefiting humanity are almost limitless GM can potentially solve critical problems of world agriculture, health and ecology They also believe that opposition to GM foods stems from irrational fear and trade protectionism rather than from realistic concerns for health, environment and livelihoods of farmers in developing countries In fact they accuse opponents of GM foods of basing their argument on politics rather than on sound science It is ironic that medical biotechnology, which accounts for most of the products of genetic engineering, encounters the least controversy while food biotechnology shows the opposite trend

Existing GM crops Some foods and fibre crops have been modified to make them resistant to insects and viruses and more able to tolerate herbicides. The major crops that have been modified for these purposes, with approval from the relevant authorities, are: Grains Oil seeds Horticultural crop Others Maize Rape Chicory Cotton Rice Canola Squash Alfalfa Wheat Potato Soybean

Table1: Grocery store foods and products containing GM ingredients
Sl.No Grocery store food/ product GM component 1 Pickles Dextrose from corn, corn syrup 2 Milk Recombinant bovine growth hormone 3 Soda/ soft drink Corn syrup 4 Catsup Tomatoes, corn syrup 5 Fruit drink Corn syrup, dextrose from corn 6 Bread Yeast, corn syrup, soybean oil, cornstarch, soy flour, dextrose from corn 7 Aspirin Corn starch 8 Honey GM enzyme (alpha amylase) 9 Beer Corn, yeast, enzymes 10 Some antibiotics

(waffles, toasters, pop-tarts, swirls)
Con... 11 Tomatoes/ peppers Genes from bacteria and viruses 12 Breakfast cereals Corn, corn syrup, soybean oil 13 Peanuts Longer shelf-life peanuts 14 Peanut butter Peanuts, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, dextrose from corn, corn syrup 15 Food tenderizers Food enzymes 16 Candy and gum Corn syrup, corn starch, dextrose from corn soy flour 17 Cookies Corn starch, corn syrup, corn flour, canola oil, soy bean oil, cotton seed oil 18 Breakfast pastries (waffles, toasters, pop-tarts, swirls) Corn syrup, soybean oil, soy flour, corn flour, potatoes, cottonseed oil Sources: BOI, 1998 National Corn Growers Association, American Soybean Association. Alliance For Better Foods (

Benefits of GM foods

Table 2: Potential benefits from GM technology
Sl. No. Benefits of GM technology References 1 Increase in food availability Jackson, 1991; Moffat, 1992; Rudnitsky, 1996; Schardt, 1994 2 Improved shelf-life and organoleptic quality of foods BIO, 1998; Thayer, 1994; Walters, 1994 3 Improvement in nutritional quality and health benefits Ames, 1998; BIO,1998 ; Clinton, 1998; Elliot, 1999; Nguyen and Schwaart, 1999; Smaglik, 1999 4 Improved protein quality BIO, 1998;De Lumen et al., 1997; Haumen, 1997; Kitamura, 1995; Roller and Hallander, 1998 5 Increase in food carbohydrate BIO, 1998; Liu, 1999; Starke et al., 1996 6 Improvement in quality and quantity of meat, milk and livestock Bishop, 1996; Dalrymple, 1998; Rohricht, 1999; Wilmut et al., 1997 7 Increased crop yield BIO, 1998 Hadfield, 1996; Jackson, 1991; Jackby, 1999; Paoletti and Pimental, 1996; Wood, 1995 By refering in to different article i have pooled the benefitsof GM in this table so lets have a look on it

Benefits of GM technology References 8
Con... Sl. No. Benefits of GM technology References 8 Manufacture of edible vaccines and drugs Ames, 1998; Daie and Belanger, 1993; Hsu, 1999a,b; Kiernan, 1996; Lesney, 1999; Oldham, 1996; Sloan, 1999 9 Biological defence against diseases, stresses, pests, weeds, herbicides, and viruses BIO, 1998; Hileman, 1999a,b,c; Jacoby, 1999; Liu, 1999; Losey et al., 1999; Wilkinson, 1997; Wood, 1995 10 Bioremediation Howe, 1997; Gray, 1998; Paoletti and Pimental, 1996 11 Positive effect on farming/ food product Thayer, 1999 12 Protection of environment BIO, 1998 13 GM crops function as bio- factories and source of industrial raw materials Block and Langseth, 1994; Del Vechio, 1996; Goddijin and Pen, 1995; Hercberg et al., 1998 Moffat, 1992; Sloan, 1999 14 Wealth/ job creation Alliance for Better Foods, 1999; Thayer, 1999

1. Improvement in fruits and veggies shelf life and organoleptic quality
Flavr Savr Tomato : longer shelf life by having delayed ripening, softening and rotting processes. Delayed ripening of fruits and veggis leads to superior flavor, colour, texture, longer shelf life and better shipping and handling properties (BIO, 1998; Thayer, 1994) Sweet-tasting, firmer, seedless pepper and tomatoes The slow and delayed ripening characters in raspberry, strawberry and pineapple Extending a product’s shelf life not only benefits the producer and seller, but also helps the consumer to utilize the product for longer time before it spoils Good shipping and handling properties will also benefit farmers and consumers in developing countries where refrigeration is unreliable and expensive and transportation network rudimentry (Phillips, 1994)

2. Improved nutritional quality and health benefits
Bovine growth hormone enhances milk production in cows Pigs with Recombinant Porcine Somatotropin (rPST growth hormone), Increases meat production in pigs and reduces the amount of fat thereby producing low fat pork Soy bean is bio engineered to nutritious and flavourful crop (reduced off flavor) Increases levels of minerals and naturally occurring anti-oxidant vitamins(carotenoids, flavonoinds, vitamin A,C and E) that can slow or shut down biological oxidation, a damaging chemical reaction that promote the development of some cancers, heart disease and blindness (Ames, 1998; Smaglik, 1999)

5. Increases levels of lycopene in tomatoes, tomato product and peppers by GE 6. GE can be used to achieve oils low in saturated or trans fatty acids but high in unsaturated fatty acids which have health benefits and good cooking performance characteristics 7. Biotechnology is used to introduce or concentrate certain nutrients (Vitamin A, zinc, iron, iodine) into common dietary staple food plants as a way of delivering optimal levels of key nutrients or fighting some nutritional deficiencies endemic in some regions of the world (Wambugu, 1999)

3. Improved protein quality through GM
Protein quality of foods and feeds have been improved by GE with the less risk of allergies from GM foods than conventional foods (Brazil nut and Peanut) Increase in essential amino acid content: methionine and lysine content Improvement in functional properties: organoleptic qualities there by expanding the use of plant protein in various food system Ex: To remove the beany flavour in soy bean through removal of lipoxygenases Fish (source of protein) conditioned to grow larger in a shorter period

4. Increase in carbohydrate content through GM
Tomatoes with high solids content : useful to food processors for making tomato paste and sauce GM Potato to have high solids content useful for making French fries and absorbs less oil, decrease in cooking time, cost and fuel (Starke et al., 1996)

5. Improvement in quality and quantity of meat, milk and livestock production
GE lead to large scale production of livestock to meet the high demand for meat and protein foods Exported to cheaply to countries with scare meat and milk low cost Dairy cows can be treated with BST, approved by FDA to enhance milk production BST is not a human health hazard, as it is a protein which is digested in GIT so it is regarded as safe Transgenic animals will be tailored to produce more milk and meat with special qualities like lactose free milk, low fat milk, low cholesterol meats, low fat meats or meats with special protein and nutrient composition in a cost effective process (Koch, 1998) Transgenic livestock can also be used to express large quantities of recombinant proteins such as fibrinogens in milk of mammary glands Transgenic proteins become useful alternatives to blood proteins derived from human blood which is feared as potential source of HIV and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)

6. Increased crop yield GE increases crop yield and reduce crop loss : by making plants tolerant to pest, weeds, herbicides, viruses, insects, salinity, pH, temperature, frost, drought and weather. Insect resistant apple, virus resistant papaya and cucumbers, Herbicide tolerant corn, tomatoes, potatoes and soybean Annual crops can be converted to perennials : Reduce tillage and erosion and conservation of water and nutrient Increase crop yield during year Decrease labour cost, improve labour allocation and improve agriculture sustainability Drought resistance crops Reduce the water use in agriculture Useful in tropical and arid regions where water is scarce

7. Manufacture of edible vaccines and drugs
Banana: Consumed unprocessed when ripe, have been bioengineered to produce proteins that may be used as vaccines against hepatitis, rabies, dysentery, cholera, diarrhoea or other gut infections prevalent in developing countries (Anon, 1996a, 1998; Ferber, 1999; Kiernan, 1996) Vaccines in the form of edible foods, beneficial to children in developing countries where food are grown and distributed at low cost and where resources and medical infrastructure for vaccine production are scares. These nutritionally enhanced crops will help To reduce malnutrition Meet basic dietary requirements Fight against diseases Promote health

Potato and tomato is engineered to carry vaccines
Rice has GM to make a vitamin A precursor and to accumulate more iron to prevent infection, blindness and anaemia Potato and tomato is engineered to carry vaccines Antioxidant rich Broccoli Flavonoids rich tea Tobacco to produce antibodies in man Tobacco and potato have been engineered to produce human serum albumin Work is going on to produce insulin in plants: insulin may be ingested than through injections These plant vaccines have longer shelf life and more stable storage capacity Tobacco

8. Environmental benefits of GM
Biological defence against diseases, weeds, pests, herbicides, viruses and stresses Potato, soybean and corn engineered with Bt gene which produces Bt protein (an insecticide) Bt is non toxic to human, degrade in stomach acid but toxic to insects European corn borer, cotton boll worms and potato beetles use of chemical pesticides strain of pesticide on the environment Tomato, tobacco, squash and corn have been GM to become virus resistant (Vaccinated against crop destroying viruses or viral diseases)

2. Positive impact of GM on farming and food production Agricultural productivity is increased Increases fertilizer efficiency Improves crop production efficiency Increases the world’s food supply by creating environmentally friendlier crops Absorb more nitrogen directly from soil (reducing the chemical fertilizer and less damage from fertilizer run off) Waste fertilizer, which usually evaporates or washes into waterways and estuaries, can endanger the environment Farmers have grater flexibility and choices in pest management. Herbicide tolerant crops promote conservation tillage, preserve topsoil and protect water quality Herbicide tolerant crops leads to increased productivity and cost reduction ( reduction in the chemicals and making farming more profitable and rewarding venture for farmers)

3. GM plants can remove industrial waste and improve recycling of toxic chemicals GM plants has been useful in bio-remediation Bioengineered to remove toxic waste from the environment Several researcher have reported using plants like mustard greens, alfalfa, river reeds, poplar trees and special weeds to clean up the ravages of industries, agriculture and petroleum production (Contreras et al, 1991; Howe, 1997; Paoletti and Pimental, 1996) Plants can digest the poisons and convert them to inert compounds (Gray, 1998)

9. GM products useful in organ transplants and in the treatment of human diseases
Cloned animal model for human diseases where in scientists can effectively study human diseases such as cystic fibrosis Cloned animals can be used to produce pharmacologically useful proteins such as clotting factor used by hemophiliacs and insulin used by diabetics Some farm animals like goats, pigs and sheep may be cloned and used to grow organs such as heart, liver, kidneys and foetal cells suitable for transplant into humans.

10. GM crops act as bio factories and yield raw materials for industrial uses
Some GM crops are specially designed to produce food enzymes, vitamins, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, anticancer compounds, antioxidants, fibre, polyesters, interferon, human blood proteins and carotenoids. (Goddijn and Pen, 1995; Hsu, 1999b; Moffat, 1992; Palevitz, 1999a) GM can also be used to produce food ingredients like protein, enzymes, stabilizers, thickeners, emulsifiers, sweeteners, preservatives, colorants and flavours used in food industries(Laane and Willis, 1993) Microorganisms used in food processing and pathogen detection are being produced by GM Food enzymes like chymosins used in cheese production cheaply produced through GM Some plants are bioengineered to produce environmentally friendly non petroleum based fuel alternatives at low cost and convenient form for storage and transport

Amylase can be produced in large quantities from tobacco to be used for preparation of bread, low calorie beer and in clarification of wines and fruit juices and other uses Genetically engineered and naturally occurring foods with special health benefits are now called nutraceuticals (A cross between nutritious foods and pharmaceuticals) Foods designed to contain not only nutrients but also other compounds such as antioxidants, low cholesterol oil or poly unsaturated fatty acid oil, flavonoids, fructans, vitamins, carotenes, lycopenes, phyto-chemicals and pharmaceuticals that have disease-preventing, disease-fighting, symptom-reducing and performance-enhancing capabilities Nutraceuticals are designed to slow down the aging process by suppressing oxidative processes

Risks of GM foods

Table3 :Potential Risks or concerns from use of GM foods
Sl. No. Risks or Concerns References 1 Alteration in nutritional quality of foods Phillips, 1994; Young and Lewis, 1995 2 Antibiotic resistance Hileman,1999a; Phillips, 1994 3 Potential toxicity from GM foods Phillips, 1994 4 Potential allergenicity from GM foods Billings,1999; Coleman, 1996; Nordlee etal., 1996 5 Unintentional gene transfer to wild plants Hileman, 1999a; Kaiser,1996; Rissler and Mellon, 1993, 1996 6 Possible creation of new viruses and toxins

Limited access to seed through patenting of GM food plants
7 Limited access to seed through patenting of GM food plants Lustgarden, 1994b; Koch,1998 8 Threat to crop genetic diversity Koch, 1998; Phillips, 1994 9 Religious/ cultural/ ethical concerns Crist, 1996; Ribinson, 1997; Thompson,1997 10 Concerns for lack of labelling Fedral Register, 1992; Hoef et al., 1998 11 Concerns of animal rights group Kaiser, 1999, Koenig, 1999 12 Concerns of organic and traditional farmers Koch, 1998 13 Fear of the unknown Koch, 1998; Longman, 1999

1. Alteration in nutritional quality of foods
Foreign genes might alter nutritional value of foods in unpredictable ways by Decreasing the levels of some nutrients while increasing levels of others. This may cause a difference between the traditional strain and the GM-counterpart There is little information regarding the effect of the changes in nutrient composition of food plants and animals on Nutrient interaction Nutrient gene interaction Nutrient bioavailability Nutrient potency Nutrient metabolism 3. There is less information on situations in which these altered nutrients are involved in the complex regulation of gene expression (Young and Lewis, 1995)

2. Antibiotic resistance
Antibiotic resistance : the ability of an organism to be unaffected by the antibiotic, occurs naturally by evolution. In genetic engineering, marker genes which have antibiotic resistance are often used in the target organism. There is a concern that deliberately breeding antibiotic resistance into widely consumed crops may have unintended consequences for the environment as well as for humans and animals consuming the crops (Phillips, 1994) According to a report from the British Medical Association, antibiotic marker genes inserted into certain crops could be transferred to disease- causing microbes in the gut of humans or animals consuming GM foods This could result in antibiotic resistant microbes in the population and contribute to the growing public health problems of antibiotic resistance (Bettelheim, 1999 and Hileman, 1999a)

3. Potential toxicity Genetic modification could unintentionally enhance natural plant toxin by switching on a gene that has both the desired effect and capacity to pump out a poison. Genes for some natural toxins such as Protease inhibitor in legumes Cyanogens in cassava and lima beans Goitrogens in canola species Presser amines in bananas and plantains These may be turned on and lead to an increase in levels of these toxins which can pose a hazard to the consumers of these crops

4. Potential allergenicity from GM foods
Genetic modification of food plants could transfer allergenic properties of the donor source into the recipient plant or animal In addition, many genetically engineered foods use microorganisms as donors whose allergenic potential are either unknown or untested Genes from non- food sources and new combinations could trigger allergic reactions in some people, or exacerbate existing ones GM foods containing known allergens (like peanuts, wheat, egg, milk, tree nuts, legumes, crustacea, fish and shellfish proteins could spark allergic reactions in susceptible consumers.

4. Potential allergenicity from Gm foods
Pioneer Hi-bred International seed company incorporated brazil nut genes into soybeans to increases the protein content of its animal feed. This gene modification caused allergic reaction reactions in consumers who were allergic to Brazil nut, so this product was voluntarily recalled (Nordlee et al., 1996) The FDA does require food companies to demonstrate through scientific data that potential allergens are not contained in any of their GM foods, and if they are , the FDA requires a label indicating that fact Although the regulatory agencies, FDA and EPA(Environmental Protection Agency), require biotech companies to report presence of problem proteins in their modified foods, there is a concern that unknown allergens can slip through the system

5. Environmental concerns
1. Unintentional gene transfer to wild plants Transgenic crops will present an environmental risks when they are widely cultivated( Kaiser, 1996) GM crops having herbicide and insect resistance could cross pollinate with wild species, and unintentionally create hard-to- eradiate supper-weeds especially in small farm fields surrounded by wild plants. This unintentional gene transfer, although hard to substantiate, can have consequences that are not yet known (Hileman, 1999a) These supper-weeds can become invasive plants with potential to lower crop yields and disrupt natural ecosystems

5. Environmental concerns
Transgenic crops could also become weeds requiring expensive and environmentally dangerous chemical control programs (Rissler and Mellon, 1993, 1996) Bt toxin can threaten beneficial insects by entering the food chain 2. Possible creation of new viruses and toxins Plants engineered to contain virus particles as part of a strategy to enhance resistance could facilitate the creation of new viruses in the environment (Phillips, 1994) Plants engineered to express potentially toxic substances such as drugs and pesticides will present risks to other organisms that are not intended as targets.

6. Limited access to seeds through patenting of GM food plants
Some critics of GM argue that patenting which allows corporations to have monopoly control of genetically altered plants and animals violate the sanctity of life (Dickson, 1999; Lustgarden, 1994b) Critics also oppose the fact that seeds which have been largely known as commodity products are now regarded as proprietary products because of GM Many critics view the ‘terminator gene’ technology as a monopoly and anti-competition. Terminator gene technology produces sterile seeds which will never germinate when planted (Koch, 1998) It forces farmers to buy new seeds each year from MNC so that farmers become dependent on the MNC instead of sowing seeds from the previous years’ harvest. It is argued that this would destroy traditional farming practices There have been several protests against the terminator gene technology in many developing countries, especially India

7. Threat to crop genetic diversity
Critics of GM foods fear that commercialization of transgenic crops will pose a new threat to crop genetic diversity already endangered by current agricultural practices that favour the worldwide adoption of a few crop varieties(Phillips, 1994) GM also reduces bio-diversity of the world’s food supply through the use of terminator seed technology which produces sterile seeds and control seed supply especially in developing countries (Koch, 1998)

8. Religious, cultural and ethical concerns
Religious concerns are also voiced as some of the reasons for opposing GE of foods, while some people object to bio-engineered foods for personal, ethical, cultural and esthetic reasons, as well as infringement on consumer choice and inability to distinguish GM foods from non-GM counterpart ( Robinson, 1997; Thompson, 1997) Examples Jews and Muslims may be aversive to grains that contain pig genes and usually insist on Kosher and Halal foods whose purity can be documented Vegetarians may similarly object to vegetables and fruits that contain any animal genes (Crist, 1996) Some people fear eating foods containing human genes

9. Concerns for lack of labelling GM foods
Many critics are concerned that GM foods are not labelled They insist that labelling can help the consumer trace unintended consequences to a certain consumed GM food In United states, the safety and wholesomeness of food supply (except meat and poultry) is regulated by the FDA, this FDA agency regulates biotech-derived products under its official policy on foods derived from new varieties (Federal Register, 1992) With regard to these new GM Foods, a summary information on safety and nutritional assessment shall be provided to the FDA, while a scientific presentation of data shall be made informally to the FDA scientist (Maryanski, 1995) All these notification process will help the FDA to be updated on recent developments in the technology and facilities further resolution of safety or regulatory issues that may arise

This policy applies whether the new plant arose from genetic engineering or by conventional breeding methods This policy determines Whether consultation with FDA is mandated When labelling is required What information should be conveyed in the labels Most plant breeders subject theris products to safety and quality control practices such as chemical, physical and visual analysis as well as sensory testing and these practices are acceptable by FDA. Further testing is required if the product’s history of use, composition and characteristics warrant it The FDA and USDA have been staunch defenders of GE foods and high chemical input agriculture and both agencies are strong opponents of labelling of GM foods

Some international organizations support GM foods provided the safety of the foods are assured (FAO/WHO, 1991; OECD,1993) The FDA has concluded that genetically altered seeds and products are additives that do not affect either safety or nutritional quality of foods (Kessler et al., 1992; Ronk et al., 1990) The FDA requires a label if an additional poses some identifiable threat such as an allergic reaction or leads to a dramatic change in nutrient content. However, others feel that labelling will benefit both the consumer and manufactures for the following reasons It will help the consumers who prefer specially engineered GM foods ( those with health enhancing properties) to get them while enabling others to avoid certain foods for ethical, cultural or religious reasons Labelling would enable manufacturers to emphasize the improved quality of their product (improve taste, longer shelf life, insect resistance) and those would be good selling points that could appeal to consumers Lack of labelling would deny producers a chance to build brand identity

Regulatory agencies oppose labelling for the following reasons
Labelling of GM foods would stigmatize biotech products and scare away shoppers and unduly alarm consumers about potential safety risks thereby putting some retailers out of business Biotech products should therefore not be singled out for special regulatory treatment unless there is a significant difference in composition, a safety problem or missing material information When biotech foods are labelled differently from their traditional counterparts, it will have the unintended and unfortunate consequence of confusing consumers or misleading them into thinking that biotech products have different effects 2. Labelling could also be difficult to implement because the label has to be maintained throughout the food chain no matter how many times the GM food is used as an ingredient, food or feed. This could create a logistical nightmare 3. Labelling GM foods may be expensive and cost of labelling will be passed on to the consumer However, some people are optimistic that a technology that can easily distinguish GM foods From non GM ones would soon be developed thereby making labelling an easy task (Hoef et al., 1998)

10. Concerns of animal rights groups and organic farmers
Animal rights groups are among the loudest opponents of GE They strongly oppose any form of cloning or GE involving animals or use of animals in research and have sometimes resorted to vandalizing animal research facilities (Kaiser, 1999; Koenig, 1999) Organic farmers fear that GM foods would obscure organic foods because of lack of labelling and they feel that the biotech revolution could make it difficult for people to locate non GM crops Organic foods are generally defined by consumers as those foods produced naturally without toxic chemicals, drugs, pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fertilizers, hormones, GM products, sewage sludge, irradiation or factory farm techniques. There is a concern that organic crops might be contaminated through cross breeding of herbicide resistant plants with wild relatives or through cross pollination with GM crops in neighbouring farms, thereby creating ‘monster weed’ resistant to natural pesticides normally used by organic farmers.

11. Fear of the unknown Consumers also have a genuine ‘fear of the unknown’ in that deadly microorganisms or super plants might be released during field testing or field trials, and accidents in biotech labs might lead to release of toxin agents, poisons, or biological toxins which will threaten human and animal populations. Critics, especially members of Alliance for Bio-ethics, the Pure Food Campaign, the Green Peace Movement, the Sierra Club, International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements, Mothers For natural Law, and Council for Responsible Genetics, are angry at the FDA for opposing labelling of GM foods and accuse the FDA of ignoring the uncertainty created by genetic changes, there by robbing consumers of the right to know what is in their food. The science of GE is relatively young, less than 50 years old, and nobody knows the consequences of these genetic alterations in the future

11. Fear of the unknown This fear of unknown has made some baby food manufacturers to refrain from using GM crops in baby foods For similar reason, some breweries in Japan and tortilla chip factories in Mexico are hesitant about GM corn in their products Some traditional family farmers also fear that biotech farming can someday drive them out of business as farmers would no longer have control over the farming business. There is a fear that wealthier nations would no longer choose to import vanilla, cocoa, coffee, Basmati rice and other tropical crops from poorer Latin American, Africa and Asian countries The livelihood of tropical farming families and agricultural workers would be in jeopardy, and this would lead to a dislocation of the world’s poorest people (Longman,1999)

11. Fear of the unknown On the contrary, many people in the united states and Japan believe that they are sufficiently informed about the new technology and GM foods, and accept such foods without worries as long as the regulator agencies give scientific assurance for the safety, wholesomeness and nutritional quality of the foods (Hoban, 1999). Canada, Australia, Brazil and Argentina have accepted agriculture; biotech crops according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), while a positive reaction is expected in China (Thayer, 1999) However, there is a concern that continued opposition of GM foods abroad may soon influence acceptability of GM foods in the United States

Consumer acceptance of GM Foods

Fig1: Willingness to consume GM breakfast cereal with calcium by type of gene transfer technology (% of respondents) Onyango and Nayga, 2004

Fig 2: Willingness to consume GM breakfast cereal with omega fatty acids by type of gene transfer technology (% of respondents) Onyango and Nayga, 2004

Fig 3: Willingness to consume GM breakfast cereal with anti-oxidants by type of gene transfer technology (%of respondents ) Onyango and Nayga, 2004

Consumer acceptance Consumers’ concern with food safety and quality for GM food ingredients are continues to be an important and internationally contentious issue for public policy. Individuals are concerns about foods derived from the application of certain molecular biology procedure directed at transgenic modification to food crops rather than benefits and they are uneasy about the risks associated with this new technology (Onyango andNayga, 2004)

Contribution of GM food to human nutrition

It is often said that there is enough food in the world to feed everyone – this is largely the case for cereals. Cereals provide the cheapest source of energy to meet requirements for poor populations The availability of affordable staple foods prevents only hunger, as in terms of energy requirements However, non staple foods (meat, fish products , fruits, pulses and vegetables) rich in bio-available vitamins and minerals or micronutrients and other food components which are necessary for good health and productive life. Half of the population in developing countries are micronutrient under-nutrition Poor want to eat large amounts of non staple foods and are available in local market but expensive to be eaten in large quantities It is important to keep in mind that the final, sustainable solution to micronutrient malnutrition in developing countries is a substantial improvement in dietary qualities through bioengineering or GM

Three breeding sub-strategies that may be applied Improving the nutrient content and bioavailability of minerals and vitamins in staple food crops through bio-fortification Reducing the level of antinutrients in food staples, which inhibit the bioavailability of minerals and vitamins Increasing the levels of nutrients and compounds that promote the bioavailability of minerals and vitamins Increasing the mineral and vitamin content

1.Reducing antinutrients
A breeding strategy of lowering the level of antinutrients such as phytic acid, which binds metals in grain is suggested way to increase the bioavailability of minerals already consumed Raboy (1996) has developed low phytic acid content GM varieties of maize, rice and barley Phytic acid is reduced by 50-80% compared to non GM seeds A related strategy is to increase the level of phytase (Boiling destroys the phytases that occur naturally in rice). Phytase can breakdown phytates, thus improving bioavailability of minerals Lucca et al., (2001) Introduced heat stable phytase from Aspergillus fumigatus the transgene increased the level of phytase activity by 130-fold but unfortunately after expressing the gene in the grain the phytase was no longer stable to heat and lost its activity on boiling A new approach is now under investigation in which the A. Fumigatus phytase gene would break down phytate during seed maturation , expressed only in the endosperm of rice which is consumed after milling

2. Increasing the levels of compounds that improve absorption and utilisation
Certain amino acids (Cysteine) enhance iron and zinc bioavailability (Hallberg,1981) Cysteine occurs in many staple foods but in lower concentration that found in meat product The modest increase in the concentration of these amino acids in plant foods had positive effects on iron and zinc bioavailability in humans (Fe and Zn occur µmol in plants so only µmol increase in amino acid is required) Levels of lysine, which is an important, essential and limiting amino acid in rice and which might promote the uptake of trace minerals can be improved by transgenic method (Datta and Bouis, 2000). Increased intake of beta-carotene (Vitamin A), increased the utilization of absorbed iron and vice-versa. There is possible synergies between increasing intakes of these two nutrients(Garcia-casal et al., 1998) There is already considerable evidence for synergism between vitamin A and zinc intake (Smith, 1996)

The factors that affect the absorption and utilization of nutrients must be evaluated
The micronutrient and health status of subjects (iron deficient generally absorb a higher percentage of iron in the diet) The level of compounds and nutrients in the meals being consumed that promote or inhibit the absorption of nutrients (phytates inhibit the absorption of Zinc, the presence of parasites) The absence of other significantly limiting nutrients in the diet

3. Increasing micronutrient content
Increasing Iron in rice : Ferritin is an iron-storage protein found in animals, plants and bacteria. Ferritin is isolated and sequenced in plants (soybean, French bean, pea and maize) GM derived ferritin rich rice can provide a source of iron for treatment of anaemia ( Murray-Kolb et al., 2002) Human studies: Resent study has shown that intrinsically radio-labelled iron in soybeans is highly bio-available (27%) to iron-deficient women (Theil and Bread, 2003) About 50 % of the iron in the soybeans was ferritin; the remaining iron was in ferric phytate, is not thought to be highly bioavailable

The transgenic rice stored up to 3 times more iron than normal seeds
Whole (unmilled) GM rice – 23 mg/kg iron (11 mg/kg in non GM) The average iron content of endosperm of GM rice was 3.4mg/kg were as non GM 1.6mg/kg It is possible to store larger amounts of iron in the ferritin molecule by co-integrating the ferritin gene and the iron reductase-like transporter gene Robinson et al.,(1999) report a newly discovered ferric-chelate reductase gene , which allows plants to absorb more iron form soil. A doubling of the iron content in rice using a ferritin gene derived from Phaseolus vulgare has been reported (Gura, 1999) Metallothionine was also expressed in the rice grain, increasing the cysteine content 7 fold

Table4: Genetic modification intended to enhance the nutritive value of food crop
Nutritive component Target crop Targeted gene product References Fats &oils Soybean Omega-3-fatty acid Kinney, 1996 Canola Stearidonic acid (SDA) Volelker, 1997; Lvy, et al, 1998; Jalani etal, Sunflower Docosahexaenoic 1997;Knutzon, 2000 Protein Rice Beta-phaseolin Zheng et al,1995 Methionine enriched glycinin Kim et al, 1990 Sweet potato Essential amino acid rich protein Katsube et al,1991 Carbohydrate Potato/ cassava/ Banana Amylose and amylopectin structure/ratio Visser et al., 1991; Schwall et al., 2000 Carotenoids and Vitamin E Fruits and Veggies Beta-Carotene Haumtman et al., 1997 Alpha-tocopherol Romer et al., 2000

Feasibility 1.Will farmers adopt nutrient-rich varieties???
The first priority of farmers is to raise the yield potential of plants rather than to address human nutrition problem If yield and profitability are compromised by breeding for nutrient content , farmers will not want to adopt nutritionally enhanced cultivars Mineral dense seeds helps plants in resisting disease and other environmental stresses More seedlings survive and initial growth is more rapid, ultimately yield are higher, particularly in trace mineral deficient soils in arid regions

Will breeding for micronutrient-dense seeds change the processing or consumer characteristics of staple foods???? Mineral micronutrient comprise a tiny fraction of the physical mass of a seed In milled rice 5-10 mg/kg 2) micronutrient dense bean seeds 100mg/kg Such small amount will not alter appearance, taste, texture or cooking quality of foods Increasing levels of beta-carotene will turn varieties from white or light colour of yellow to dark yellow and orange ( white varieties are much preferred by consumers) Major nutritional education programs will probably be necessary to encourage consumers to switch to more nutritious varieties. If these nutrition education programs are successful the yellow-orange colour will mark the more nutritious varieties from the less nutritious (Hagenimana and Low, 2000)

Outcomes and impact of breeding for iron and beta-carotene-dense rice
Impact on iron and beta-carotene intakes The primary staple food provide 40-55% of total iron intake ( Bouis and welch, 2000) If a single staple food provides 50% of total iron intakes for poor population then that would increase 50% iron intake Reduced the rates of anaemia among women The 3 % of women cross above the threshold of 12g/dl haemoglobin as a result of consuming GM rice The women who remained below this threshold have health benefit from 50% increase in iron intake Biofortified varieties may reach undernourished people “ cost of only $ per person per year compared with a cost of US $0.12 for commercial iron fortification and cost extending US $3 per person for iron supplimentation (Hunt,2002)

Rural Bangladesh population the percentage increase in total provitamin A intake provided by replacement of presently eaten white rice with Golden rice (1.6 µg beta-carotene per gram of dry rice endosperm The US Institute of Medicine recommend that a ratio of 12 to 1 be used for converting beta-carotene to retinol activity equivalents For leafy, green vegetables conversions 26 to 1 For orange fruits conversion 15 to 1 If Golden rice were to replace the non-transgenic rice, total provitamin A intake would be increased by 25% for adult women and preschool children

Non nutritive active compounds
Removing allergens and antinutrients The cabbage, broccoli, rape seed and mustard contain a compound called Glucosinolates Glucosinolates can be hydrolysed to bitter taste and potentially toxic isothiocynantes. GM have produced the mustered and rapeseed with very low levels of it so that the meal after oil extraction can be used to animal feed (Vageeshbabu and Chopra, 1997) Fumonisim (mycotoxin which accumulates in maize) been reduced by GM in maize This Fumonisin is human carcinogenic which causes oesophageal cancer and liver and kidney damage in humans. It causes liver cancer in rats and toxic to livestock ( IARI,2002; Gelderblom Abel et al., 2001) In Italy where fumonisin contamination of corn is a major problem, fumonisin levels in Bt corn were greatly reduced compared with traditional hybrids

Further consideration
Although Genetic modification of foods is important and beneficial, it should be adopted under conditions that avoid potential risks Time and efforts must be devoted to field testing before the release of any new GE organism or food GM products should be evaluated over long period of time to establish their effect on health, agricultural pest and environment Caution and suitable regulation are necessary to avoid possible environmental and safety problems, which can Jeopardize expected benefits of this new science The large agro-biotech companies should be establish measures to prevent movement of transgenic from pollens to relatives of GM crops or to weeds in nearby farmers

5. Insects should be monitored to avoid their becoming resistant to natural toxins in GM plants (before a problem develops) 6 . Antibiotic resistance marker genes used in GM crops should be evaluated to see if they, can be substituted with other equally effective selection method (when available) to protect human health and prevent potential risk of antibiotic resistance in human and animals 7. Splicing of genes in transgenic crops should be done between organisms closely related on the evolutionary ladder instead of between those widely separated to avoid unintended adverse consequences 8. Livelihood of farmers in developing countries should be protected by halting development of so called ‘Terminator crops’ which are specially designed to be sterile when their seeds are planted, forcing farmers to buy new seeds every year

9. Regulatory agencies should set up public health surveillance networks that will quickly flag any problems (such as allergens, toxins), that may arise among people eating GM foods 10. Researchers and regulators should assess ecological risks before farmers sow any GM crops around world 11. Government should restore public confidence in their ability to regulate GM foods by setting up special commissions to advice politicians on long term impact of GM technologies to human health, agriculture and the environment 12. Companies involved in GM food production should practice self-policing by conducting rigorous safety and allaergenicity testing , promptly withdrawing suspected foods before they hit the market shelf

13. The public needs to be sufficiently educated on GE of any product to enhance acceptability of GM foods (GE is relatively new science unfamiliar to many people 14. Private and public sector leaders should understand the level of consumer’s awareness and acceptability of new biotech products which will help them to plan a strategy for effective promotion of GM foods 15. They should also carry out campaign to balance flow of public information about biotechnology by setting up informative websites devoted to promoting benefits of biotechnology, and holding in-depth sessions with members of congress, universities and colleges, trade associations, grocery manufacturers, food associations and the news media

Conclusion The nutritional and health benefits of GE are so many and will be useful to the growing world population which is currently estimated at six billion and probably double by the 2050 according to the UN GE is the only logical way of feeding and medicating an overpopulated world GM has the potential to enhance the quality, nutritional value and variety of food available for human consumption and to increase the efficiency of food production, food distribution and waste management However, adequate regulations, constant monitoring and research are essential to avoid possible harmful effects from GM food technology

Thank you

What do you say????? Pro GM???? No GM????

Genetically Modified Foods

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Genetically Modified Foods"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Genetically Modified Foods

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Genetically Modified Foods"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback