Editorial – Page 4

Will Engineering Make Bananas a Super Food?

Vitamin A is one of the most important nutrients the body requires. While it is easy in developed countries to get enough Vitamin A each day from different sources, in many developing countries like Uganda the toll from Vitamin A deficiency is frighteningly high. As “Genetically Engineered Bananas: Frankenfruit or Life-Saving Miracle?” from Shape magazine states, the numbers equal out to about 2 million deaths each year, and 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness. The article laments the numbers because Vitamin A deficiency is actually easily avoided with a simple supplement each day, but the challenge of developing countries is they cannot manufacture and distribute those supplements to their people. That’s where the idea of the enriched banana comes in.

The goal of the enriched banana project was one much akin to the goal undertaken with golden rice, another staple crop that feeds billions in poorer parts of the world. By increasing the amount of Vitamin A available in bananas, the hope is that the crop can be planted in places like Uganda where it will grow well and thrive, providing an easy means of giving the necessary Vitamin A to the people to protect them from the dangers of Vitamin A deficiency. The article states that only about one banana is needed each day to give that protection, and for billions of people in these areas it can make a life changing impact.

The creators of the enriched banana acknowledge though that while they have beneficial goals, they have a hard fight ahead of them to bring the plan to fruition. People are afraid of genetic modification of food, although the Shape article points out that it would be more correct to label the banana a genetically engineered organism, rather than a gmo. This is because the enriching of the bananas isn’t achieved from inserting a gene into the banana that isn’t naturally there- it’s actually using the existing genetic structure of the banana and just changing how it operates. Some hope the naming difference of geo and gmo might be enough to dodge the controversy that often stalls or outright shuts down the implementation of such foods. The scientists aren’t so sure, and are already prepared for activists to against the video porno gratis, the article points out.

The controversy, while time consuming in developed countries, can pose a bigger danger to people in developed countries. The article reports that golden rice, though also fought against, has managed to save upwards of one million children’s lives per day, and the hope is that the bananas can achieve something similar. Also like the golden rice, the bananas look just a little physically different from regular bananas- whereas regular bananas often look green or yellow on their peels, the enriched bananas have a more orange tinge to their skins.

For now, the enriched banana is set to go through a series of clinical trials so as to see if it meets the rigorous testing standards for toxicity, allergens, side effects, and other categories as set forth by the FDA and other regulatory government bodies. It is hoped that, if the bananas can pass such trials, and if they can survive the scrutiny and protesting that follows the food approval process that they can begin to be distributed around the world by 2020. From there time will tell if the enrichment process of the genetically enriched organism is enough to save the millions in need of Vitamin A each year, or if the project itself wasn’t quite as super as everyone else had believe it was.

Source:
Anderson, C.H. (2016). Genetically Engineered Bananas: Frankenfruit or Life-Saving Miracle? Shape. Retrieved on May 5, 2016 from http://www.shape.com/blogs/fit-foodies/genetically-engineered-bananas-frankenfruit-or-life-saving-miracle

The Legacy of the GMO movement- the Flavr Savr tomato

Each movement has its mascots and icons that are emblazoned in the minds of the public as being representative of the whole. For cloning animals it had been Dolly the sheep, for transgenic animals it had been the goats who had spider silk producing genes implanted in them to make their milk into spider silk fibers, and for the genetically modified plant movement the Flavr Savr tomato by Monsanto had become the face of what some worried was the future of their gardens.

What the Flavr Savr tomato had hoped to accomplish in the early days would be seen as tame by the ambitions set forth by modified plants today. As the name suggests, the only alteration to the tomato had been to allow the tomato to ripen for longer on the vine, which would have hopefully resulted in a longer shelf life and a better, more full taste. This was accomplished through the deactivating of one of its processes. As the article “Tomatoes” on gmo-compass explained, the process to create the tomato was called the Antisense approach and it occurred by the deactivating of the creation of an enzyme, called polygalacturonase, that was in charge of the fruit softening.

What ended up happening was much different, though. Though the Flavr Savr tomatoes had passed the legislation necessary to be on market back in the day, they had turned out to be a market failure, not recouping the cost of their creation and distribution. In addition to that, modified tomatoes have had a lengthy battle in the European Union, where they had trouble being passed as safe for consumption. The same article on gmo-compass states that tomato puree had been very popular in Great Britain, but that nearly all other states could not decide whether they had wanted to legalize the sale and consumption of the plant, and whether they had deemed it safe, which eventually led to the removal of all pending applications by modified crop producers. There are no modified tomatoes for sale in any markets in the EU now.

This doesn’t mean that the tomato was a total loss. There are plenty of scientists today who are trying to figure out ways to alter the tomatoes to give them more traits like better herbicide and pesticide resistance, or a natural defense against pesticides. With the strides made in the modifying of other fruits and vegetables, there are always more options to apply to tomatoes before they are sent for approval to the market again.

But in a young biotech industry the fact was that what captured the imagination of the public about the possibilities had been a small red tomato called the Flavr Savr. For some it was the opportunity at technology making a better life for people once again, preserving taste and serving as a gateway to a future of even better traits and possibilities for what crops could be for people around the world. The tomato had also served as a scary beacon of the overreach of science, with a new technology that was too young to be fully studied in the biological ramifications it caused to consumers and to a crossing of the natural boundaries where we weren’t meant to tread.

The Flavr Savor became a casualty of a culture war over genetic modification the world over, but for both good and bad it cemented itself as the progenitor of what would become one of the most contested and transformative scientific movements the world had ever seen.

Source:
Gmocompass. (2016). Tomatoes. Gmo-compass. Retrieved on May 5, 2016 from http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/15.genetically_modified_tomatoes.html

Sugar Beets- The Cautionary Tale of GMO Acceptance

Sugar beets seem to be an innocuous crop, not spoken of as much as other modified plants. However, the story of the rise and fall of the modified sugar beet gives a possible outlook to how the mass adoption of genetically modified foods can backfire when the public perceptions and political forces change to go against such adoptions.

According to the Reuters article “GMO backlash threatens beet farmers as foodmakers swap sugars”, the problem occurred when all American beet growers, located in agrarian states like Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho, had all switched their crop production to genetically modified variants. The farmers had done this in an effort to stay competitive in the world sugar marketplace where importation of sugars such as cane sugar had begun to eat into American market share. The hope was that the genetically modified various would benefit farmers two-fold, giving American producers an increased yield as well as a decreased cost in maintaining the seed and growth. Uniquely among any other farming segment in America, while there is contention between growers and their switch from all natural to gmo crops (and the unintentional spread of gmo seeds during pollination to non-gmo farms), the seeming success of the beet crop had a 100% conversion rate. Soon all American beet farmers were growing only the genetically modified versions of the crop.

However, this success couldn’t last forever. Eventually the sentiments against the gmo community grew to a fever pitch and both consumers and distributors stopped buying the modified crop. With this boycott also came the rising imports of cane sugar from abroad. These two factors led to disastrous result for the beet growing community- the U.S. of beets in satisfying the sugar demands of the American public fell to just 41%, the Reuters article reported, which was a record low.

One of the biggest economic blows that effects gmo growers is when large, established businesses refuse to use the modified ingredients in their products. Beet producers felt the sting of this type of decision when the Hershey Corporation announced that it would stop using the modified sugar crops in the production of its popular chocolates. Hershey announced this move was to better connect with the target market of health conscious millennials. But what are they afraid of?

Again, the article gives some clues. It states that some of the biggest worries regarding genetically modified plants was whether the use of gmo seed has led to a greater industrialization of the farming sector, where it has becoming harder for mom and pop farms to keep operating amongst billion dollar companies. While the loss of one of the oldest types of American dream is hard to deal with, the other problem is that many contend that there isn’t enough research yet to prove that genetically modified crops are safe for the ecosystem or consumption. Both arguments are ones that are used often in the controversy surrounding the gmo movement, and there are voices on both sides.

But the modified beet farmers are holding tough, because many can’t afford to go back to non-altered seed given the investment they’ve already made into the modified variety. So instead they are trying numerous efforts, from lobbying the government and surviving off of federal quota systems that pay the difference of a shortfall crop year to social media campaigns where they are trying to promote the idea of using beet sugar as beneficial to the modern consumer. In an uncertain economy, beet growers are doing all they can to keep their genetically modified businesses running.

Source:
Prentice, C. (2015). GMO backlash threatens beet farmers as foodmakers swap sugars. Reuters. Retrieved on May 5, 2015 from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sugar-gmo-insight-idUSKCN0SN0C720151029

Bt Cotton and the promise of Toxic Pest Protection

One of the biggest threats to a growing, successful farm of any kind of crop is the unstoppable hunger of pests. In biblical days this was represented by locusts devastating entire fields of crops, leaving thousands hungry. The article “Cotton” on “GMO compass” states that in the modern day, cotton- an especially valuable crop due to its varied uses in textiles, animal feed, and processed food ingredients- struggles against destruction from pest populations, including a few types of caterpillar that bore into the bolls of the cotton ruining quality of harvest and reducing the yields of that harvest. One answer that farmers had been using to deal with the insect threats had been the use of pesticide poisons to try and eradicate the populations as they came, but the introduction of bt cotton offers another line of defense for the crop: the cotton itself.

The way bt cotton works is similar to other types of genetically modified plants that protect themselves from insects. A gene was inserted into the cotton that allows the plant to produce a toxin that kills the attackers. When the insects (in this case most often the caterpillars mentioned) start to nibble into the plant, the toxin enters the insects causing an enzyme reaction in them that halts the attack and ends in their death. Now, this inborn defense is very important because one of the largest producers of cotton in the world is China, and before the modified bt cotton was introduced into their agricultural system, the main way they combatted their pest problems was through heavy use of pesticides. While spraying tons of poisons over the plants can have a few questionable consequences- such as killing helpful insects in the vicinity, and the thought of poisons dripping all over food that is to be eaten- the biggest problem of this method of cultivation was that the way evolution worked it resulted in the flourishing of resistant pests. Because they could withstand the normal amounts of pesticides being sprayed, the farmers would have to spend more money on spraying even more pesticides, which would still result in more resistant pests down the line.

But, as the “cotton” article states, now more than 68% of cotton grown in China is of the genetically modified variant, and because of this Chinese farmers have been able to reduce their use of pesticides on their crop drastically. With the successful use of the crop shown in China, there is hope that the bt cotton will be used in many more places too- it already accounts for most cotton growth in other countries such as India, the U.S., Chile, Mexico, Australia, and South Africa.

However, while bt cotton is grown in many places, there are still a number of countries that refuse to grow the crop. The chief holdout is the European Union, where many applications have been submitted for review but the process and decision is still pending. However, there is hope on the horizon as the EU does allow for lines of genetically modified cotton to be imported into their territory for use as food and feed. Given the expansive list of uses for cotton other than in textiles, including as cooking oil, food additives, animal feeds and milks, and even margarine, there are a lot of reasons for the EU to seriously consider bt cotton into their farming community as another alternative to using greater amounts of pesticides to protect their yields of crops. As with any genetically modified crop there are stigmas to be overcome, and time will only tell.

Source:
Gmo-compass. (2016). Cotton. Gmo-compass. Retrieved on May 5, 2016 from http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/161.genetically_modified_cotton.html

Production of GMO Roundup Ready Soy plants

There is a broad range of methods that are employed in the process of producing GMOs. This often involves insertion of a gene of interest into living organisms depending on the species that you are working on. In plants mainly, two most common biotechnology-based techniques include; Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and bombardment of particles. According to the regulations given by FSANZ, it is a requirement that clear description of the method employed in genetically engineering plants is given.

Case study- Roundup Ready soy

This was produced using the particle bombardment method. This process of biotechnologically engineering soybeans involved; bombardment of the plant cells with microscopic particles of gold coated with DNA that contains the gene of interest. The gene of interest is the EPSPS gene that is derived from Agrobacterium. The aim of this is to introduce the novel gene of interest through the cell wall so that it integrates into the genetic material of the soy plant.

The new round up soy that is genetically engineered contains a new gene that codes for the EPSPS enzyme. The new plant cell controls the activity of all the genes through the use of regulatory sequences. These regulatory sequences do not code for any protein but rather plays a central role in the regulation of gene activity in the soy plant by either switching the genes on or switching them off. However, in the case of the roundup soy, plant cells often do not recognize the regulatory genes derived from bacterial cells. This means that when the regulatory sequences are introduced from the bacterium into the plant, the regulatory DNA has to be replaced with those that can be recognized by the plant. Thus, the EPSPS gene derived from Agrobacterium works in the soy plant through replacement with those that are recognized by the soy plant.

The figure above demonstrates the manner in which gene regulation takes place in the roundup soy. At the front of the bacterial EPSPS gene in the roundup, soy is the regulatory sequence that directs the plant to switch genes on or off. This is the CaMV 35S promoter sequence is derived from cauliflower mosaic virus. At the end of the EPSPS gene is another regulatory gene that directs the gene of interest to end. This is referred to as NOS 3’’ and is derived from nopaline synthase gene in bacteria but can function in plants.

Another regulatory sequence that is introduced into the soy plant is the chloroplast transit peptide gene that is derived from a petunia. The role of this gene is to direct the soy plant cell to transport the bacterial EPSPS gene into the chloroplast of the plant cell. This is because for the soy plant to demonstrate tolerance to roundup herbicides, the EPSPS enzyme has to be present in the chloroplast. This is because this is the location where the amino acids that make up the protein are produced. Once the EPSPS enzyme is in the chloroplast, the chloroplast transit peptide is eliminated for the gene of interest to function.

With this GMO soy plant, standard molecular biotechnological methods were employed in demonstrating that a single complete copy of the bacterial EPSPS gene was present and flanked by two DNA sequences found in the genome of the roundup ready soy plant. This is an indication that the right size and correct sequence of the gene of interest were genetically engineered into the soy plant to confer resistance to herbicides.

Additionally, the novel gene introduced into the roundup ready soy was assessed in the third and the sixth generation of soy plants using biotechnological approaches. This indicated that the new gene of interest was stable and had integrated itself well into the Soy genome. Again, the roundup ready feature of the soy plant was examined across a wide range of generations thus indicating its ability to be passed on from the parents to the offspring in a rational and predictable manner following the laws of heredity.

The issues that arise from the discovery and production of the GM roundup ready soy are mostly relevant to the potential transfer of the gene that confers antibiotic resistance from the GM soy foods to the gut of the bacteria. However, it is important to note that roundup ready GM soy does not contain the antibiotic resistance gene, but the only gene that could potentially be transferred to the human digestive system is the bacterial EPSPS gene. This gene does not have any impact on the people’s health since EPSPS gene in the GM soy plant functions in a similar manner as the one predominantly found in the bacterial gut. There is also no evidence that points at the ability of the new gene in GM soy having a potential to integrate into the DNA genome of humans and thus poses no known health hazard. Additionally, there is no sequence similarity to the gene to allergens and thus has no ability to cause allergenic reactions.

The genetically engineered soy is similar in structure as well as function to the naturally occurring soy plants while the EPSPS gene in plants and bacteria are also similar regarding the roles they play. However, the difference between the two soy varieties is based on the fact that the GM soy is more tolerant to herbicides as compared to the other naturally occurring type. According to scientific publications of GM soy, there is a single amino acid alteration in the EPSPS enzyme that confers its tolerance to glyphosate. On the other hand, the bacterial EPSPS enzyme is made up of over 400 amino acids. Additionally, bacterial EPSPS levels present in fresh edible soy constitutes less than 0.1 % of the total protein levels. According to research, the enzyme of interest in the GM soy has not been demonstrated to have any activity when eaten. This is because the enzyme is inactivated upon exposure to heat during food processing.

Genetically modified plants

The aspect of genetic engineering is not something new. For a century now, farmers have depended on selective breeding techniques and cross-fertilization to alter plants and animals to give rise to particular traits that are deemed desirable. This is aimed at improvement of food production as well as human health hence creating a food secure and disease free planet. In this case, the use of biotechnology is central to achieving these goals both in the agricultural and medical system. The use of these biotechnological techniques in agriculture includes bio-fertilization; marker assisted breeding, tissue culture as well as transgenic.

For instance, scientists have been able to utilise the traditional fermentation methods in the process of transforming grains into bread and beer; and milk to form cheese thereby contributing to food security and alleviation of poverty. Transgenic applications, on the other hand, involve the process of modifying the genetic makeup of one organism by introducing a gene of interest from another organism. This technique has been widely exploited in the modification of a wide range of plants, animals, and micro-organisms. The products of these genetically engineered plants are used as vaccines, drugs, foods, food additives, among other purposes. The biotechnological modification of these plants may be beneficial in molecular diagnostics, drug delivery approaches, and bioinformatics among other techniques beneficial to humans. Additionally, this can be used as a way of bioremediation of the surrounding environment.

GM Crops

Bt Cotton

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a bacterial toxin naturally occurring in the soil. This gene has been isolated for production of the bacterium that in turn is used for genetic modification of cotton and maize. The main reason for this kind of change is to increase their resistance to pests. Since 1997, farmers in South Africa have relied on cotton growing for their upkeep. However, since the introduction of the Bt cotton that showed pest resistance traits, over 70 % of the farmers were growing Bt cotton by the end of 2003. This led to a yield increase of over 20 % while limiting the amount of chemicals used in the control of pests.

Potatoes

Many poor communities in developing countries cannot afford vaccines and even the local clinics in remote areas do not have the infrastructure for the appropriate storage of the vaccines. This poses a significant challenge to safeguarding the health of millions of children and adults across the globe. Scientists have exploited potatoes for the development of edible cholera vaccines against the deadly cholera disease causing severe diarrhea in patients. Part of the cholera bacterium can be recognized by the human immune system and thus could be used for development of vaccines. This gene was transferred from the bacterium and engineered into potatoes so that it is consumed as a vaccine.

However, the primary challenge is the fact that people do not consume raw potatoes. The hope thus has been that even in cooked potatoes, the vaccine is still active and thus upon consumption, the vaccine triggered the immune system to produce antibodies against them and thus offering protection against cholera infections. This is cost effective, less labor involved and the fact that the delivery system of the vaccine into the body is not invasive.

Rice

Research has been done in the creation of genetically modified rice with high levels of beta-carotene. This was an inspiration from the bright yellow daffodil and the mechanism it employs in the production of beta-carotene. There was evidence that rice has the molecules that are required for manufacture of bête-carotene but does not have the enzyme that rearranges in the kernels. Can rice be engineered with this gene to make it work? Researchers managed to insert the genes into two Agro-bacteriums. The bacteria were then infected on the rice, and soon Golden rice was produced carrying the three genes. Selection of the golden rice was quite easy because the rice kernels had a golden glow thus providing sufficient Vitamin A for a human health.

Another rice project focused on improving the efficiency of CO₂ to boost its productivity. This involved relying on the photosynthetic pathway of rice. The gene derived from corn was transferred into rice for the CO₂ pump protein synthesis. This led to the faster growth rate of rice and over 35 % lusher grain production due to efficient utilization of CO₂. This technique can also be used in the future on such plants as potatoes, wheat, and oats among other cereals that have poor CO₂efficiency.

Maize

Years ago, farmers discovered the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) infected and killed the caterpillars that often destroyed their crops. This bacterium produces a protein that is not harmful until it transforms in the stomach of the caterpillars due to protein lock action. Scientists, therefore, came up with a way of inserting the gene that codes for the BT protein into crops such as maize to prevent destruction by caterpillars. The gene codes for the protein in the leaves of the plant and hen the caterpillars feed on the leaves, they die. This is a pesticide-resistance strategy thus protecting crops from pest destruction. This approach gave rise to GM maize resistant to parasites and thus ensuring food security in different parts of the world.

Many people believe that GM plants are quite unnatural and thus the reason for the heated disputes and debates across the media houses around the globe. However, there are some that believe that the most promising approach is through sustainable organic farming rather than the gene revolution technological approaches. The aspect of genetic engineering of plants has paved the way for improved nutrition content of foods, improved resistance to pests by crops as well as drought resistance, It is, therefore, important that we all stop debating and tap into the DNA language of genes. This is by only learning the most beneficial ways of practicing plant genomics to catalog all genes that possess desirable traits while eliminating harmful genes. The results of which is promising in leading to the production of safe foods for human consumption, food security and poverty eradication.

GMO plants and the impact on the environment

Agricultural activities have in the past and even presently attributed to causing some effects on the environment. This can only mean that the genetically modified plants derived from biotechnological processes and research have the potential impact on the environment too. The effects of these GM plants can either be beneficial or destructive. This is by either accelerating the damaging effect of agriculture on the environment or improving the sustainability of agricultural practices for better environmental conservation. The evaluation of the environmental impact of GMO plants and the application of the novel technologies on the environment can only be done through comparison to those effects brought about by present practices.

However, it is important to note that these GMO plants have adverse environmental effects because of the large scale growth and as a result, the human health is also jeopardized. The following are concerns that arise concerning the impact of GM plants on the environment;

GM plants may have the ability to sexually hybridize with the non-GM plants through the transfer of their pollen grains. Additionally, GM plants may have the potential of becoming invasive weeds. Finally, the condition that is required for the growth of GM plants may pose a significant threat to the local wildlife population.

Researches revolving around GM plants and the environment

Gene transfers through seed dispersal

Based on a study that was revealed to the public in 2001, there was substantial evidence pointing at the transfer of GM genes from GMO maize through cross-pollination with the wild type maize in Mexico thus causing a cross contamination of the local wild type. The validity of this particular study was highly disputed because the research that followed were not able to demonstrate the spread of the transgene and its presence in the wild maize. There are recent reports that GM herbicide-resistant is creeping bentgrass scientifically referred to as Agrostis stolonifera L. around the US region of Oregon was spotted growing outside its designated area. The postulation drawn from this was that its occurrence in other areas is due to effects of dispersal of pollen grains that crossed sexually with the wild plants and thus GM plants seed dispersal.

Additionally, a study that was published back in 1999 raised the concern after genetically modified maize was found expressing insecticidal Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin. This insecticidal Bt toxin was shown to have harmful effects on the larval stage of the Monarch butterfly. This was postulated that the larval stage of the butterfly depended on milkweed as its staple food, and it dusted itself with pollen from Bt maize. As a result, they ate less, had a slow growth rate and were susceptible to the high rate of mortality. Since then, a wide range of researches and discoveries have focused on the probability of the larval stage of the Monarch butterfly to get exposed to large quantities of Bt maize pollen and thus its ability to elicit a toxigenic response.

Effect of wildlife population

Based on a four-year program research, there was evidence published concerning the effect of management practices that were associated with GMO herbicide tolerance on the wildlife as compared to conventional methods employed in controlling weeds. According to the study, three out of four of the crops tested led to a significant decline in the level of wildlife in GM fields compared to those in the non-GM field. However, this was quite opposite in the case of GM maize which the researches stated that the variation may have been due to different herbicidal regimes and not because of genetic engineering. This study paved the way for a government-funded platform that evaluates the impacts of GM plants and its hazardous impact on the environment. Despite this evidence, the government of the UK has permitted the commercial planting of GM maize that is resistant to herbicides.

Gene flows in the environment

A wide range of strategies has been proposed to curb the movement of genes from GM plants to a wide variety of environmental entities. This is because of the particular concern of protein expression designed for utilization in the pharmaceutical industry. This gave rise to the discovery of strategies geared towards preventing the occurrence of this namely; physical isolation and genetic containment. Physical isolation involves breeding of the plant in isolation in isolated areas whether large or small-scale. Containment method involves the growth of the plants in contained greenhouse environmental conditions or other designated areas that are free from weeds and other food crops. Additionally, areas, where the GM plants have been previously grown, is supposed to be allowed to lie fallow to ensure no seed remains can grow in the next planting cycle.

The employment of the genetic containment method is achieved through biotechnological means. This is through existing sterility and incompatibility strategies that ensure that pollen grains are not transferred. Additionally, this involves the use of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies that are aimed an interfering with seed fertility and seed formation. Another strategy discovery from these GM plants is the transfer of foreign genes into the genome of the chloroplast, and this is based on the fact that chloroplasts are inherited maternally and are not present in pollen grains.

Another research is that in Canada based on two varieties of GM rapeseed. One is designed to have high levels of erucic acid while the other aims to have low levels of erucic acid. This acid is extracted from the high producing variety for use as a lubricant in industries. However, this variety is particularly harmful for human consumption. The low erucic acid producing variety is typically used in large scale production of canola cooking oil. Because of their differences, farmers in Canada have made it a routine to separate the two during growth and processing.

In the future, other impacts of the GM plants in the environment may potentially emerge from biotechnological and scientific developments designed to alter plants with complex traits controlled by a large number of genes. This may have the benefit of extending marginal land or otherwise cause destruction to the fragile environment. For instance, drought tolerant maize may increase the supply of water-retention especially in semi-arid regions across the globe. This means that the threats and benefits of GM plants require a case-by-case assessment of the impact it has on the environment across different agro-ecological zones.

Genetically modified plants and its impact on the human health

Genetically modified plants have attracted a wide range of attention from the media in the past and still continue to do so even today. Despite all the media coverage concerning the GM Plants and their impacts on the human health, very few people know what GM plants are and what contribution biotechnology has to offer on the full range of applications of the plants and their products. Since the introduction of the first GM plant, there has been the emergence of two main areas of interest namely; the risk of the GM plants to the environment and the risk on human health. Despite the fact that there have been campaigns to sensitize the general public on what GM plants are, most of the information that is published are quite unreliable and does not state the real facts and scientific evidence of the GM plants.

This article will, therefore, examine the manner in which GM plants directly impacts the human health. This is regarding nutrition and advancement of the recombinant medicine production. This form of discovery is exciting in ensuring that the people’s health is advanced through vaccine production, monoclonal antibodies.

GM plants food applications

Globally, there is a total of 850 million that are undernourished and a surviving on a small ration of calories per day. This translates to approximately 1.3 million people living below the poverty line of spending $1/day. Most of these people are often rural smallholder farmers that occupy rural regions in developing countries who rely almost entirely on agriculture for upkeep. GM plant technologies are one of the approaches that have been developed to take care of these problems by increasing the yield and the nutritional content of the plants.

Nutritional content

In developing countries where people often depend on one food as their staple source of energy, the nutritional content is one of the major areas of focus for biotechnological advancement to alleviate some of the issues associated with plant engineering. This is to ensure that the GM plants can express more products to prevent the problem of malnutrition. An excellent discovery example of the GM plants is “The Golden Rice Project”.

Vitamin A deficiency is a problem that is of global health concern and is estimated to account for over two million deaths in children, especially in developing countries. Additionally, it is this deficiency that is the main reason for blindness among surviving children. Human beings can synthesize Vitamin A from its precursor called β –carotene commonly found in many plants and not cereals. The strategic discovery of the Golden Rice project was based on the targeted introduction of correct steps of metabolism in the endosperm of rice that would permit synthesis of β-carotene. Ye et al. (2000) engineered rice thus giving rise to rice with moderate levels of β-carotene thus paving the way for increased yields of vitamin A. This is estimated that 70 g of dry GM rice produces 50 % of the RDA of Vitamin A for a child aged between 1-3 years. This serves as a brilliant example of a health solution offered through plant biotechnology.

Increasing food production

The yield of crops across the globe is often affected by a wide range of factors that includes pathogens, parasites as well as insects. There are two brilliant examples of discoveries of commercial GM plants that are resistant to insects by expressing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene and GM papaya that is resistant to viruses. The primary cause of plant loss across the globe is abiotic stress, salinity, drought and unfavorable temperatures. Despite the fact that a wide range of abiotic stress tolerant GM plants has been produced, the research is still at the laboratory level. A good example of this is the GM maize that expresses a protein that plays a central role in oxidative signal cascade responsible for tolerating extreme conditions of cold, heat and salinity.

Are GM plants safe for human consumption?

There is evidence that demonstrates that GM plants are not safe for human consumption because of the potential toxins present in them. In 1999, a study showed that GM potatoes expressing a gene coding lectin Galanthus nivalis agglutinin were significantly affected in the sense that they caused damage to the gut mucosa.

The question that most people ask is whether there is any priori reason to believe that GM plants are harmful to humans upon consumption. Many of the reasons often point at the presence of foreign DNA sequence in the food. However, this does not have any intrinsic impact on the human health. What is of most concern is the possibility that protein produced by the GM plant may be toxic and is absorbed into the human system. Potential Allergenicity of the GM plant on consumption poses a great challenge to people’s health such as soft-fleshed fruits, soy among other foods. This is because there is a possibility of protein-protein interaction between the allergenic gene introduced into the plant and the allergenic protein already existing in the plant thus giving rise to novel allergens or altering the expression of proteins by the plant, thus contributing to the toxicity of the plant. Two examples of this include.

A project that was geared towards the production of GM peas through the addition of protein derived from beans. This protein conferred resistance to weevils and in addition to this, the consumption of GM peas led to lung allergies among mice. Another project is that of GM soybeans that involved the expression of Brazil nut protein that caused allergies when consumed by humans.

Non-food discovery of GM plants

The use of GM plants has been a great platform for the production of pharmaceutical products. For instance, GM plants have been used to produce multimeric antibodies. These antibodies have been shown to play a central role in the treatment of topical, mucosal infections. Currently, there is the production of Hepatitis B vaccine using GM yeast.

Based on the findings discussed in this article, it is evident that GM plants play a central role in contributing positively to the human health through nutrition and drug production. However, the major challenge is the exorbitant cost of the product that makes it less affordable by the poor in developing countries. Additionally, the production of GM plants requires a wide space to increase production to meet the growing demand for the products across the globe.

The safety of genetically modified plants produced through use of biotechnology

The safety of genetically modified plants has been at the forefront of many scientific debates trying to ascertain the safety of the plants and its produce to human and animal health upon consumption. This is where the Society of Toxicology comes into play to ensure that they offer maximum protection and enhancement of the human, animal as well as environmental health. This is achieved through the sound application of biotechnological processes in production. Typically, in this context, biotechnology refers to the processes that involve the transfer of transgenes from organisms to plants hence food production. This may also apply to the expression of individual existing genes s modified permanently by employing genetic engineering techniques. Therefore, it is important for you to realize that it is not the method of modification of plants that is the concern of human and environmental safety but rather the product.

In this article, the question we will try to answer is whether the product of the transgene is capable of presenting a risk to both the consumers and the handlers of genetically modified plants. This means that the potential toxicity of the transgene plant product has to be considered by case-by-case design. This means that taking into consideration the possibility that the transgene produces toxins that are known such as protein allergens.

Toxin production

The level of toxins that are produced by the genetically modified plants and the threat it possesses to the producers and the consumers is often the focus of interest of toxicologist. This is through the use of standard toxicological approaches such as the evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) endotoxins as described by US EPA in 2001. The safety of these plants is therefore determined by their digestibility and absence of intrinsic activity in the mammalian systems. In this case, therefore, in-depth comprehension of the mechanism of action of the Bt toxin and the selective pressure that takes place in their biochemical systems increases the surety of safety assessments. However, each transgenic novel product of plants has to be considered individually. This is based on the levels of exposure, potency in causing toxic effects among other safety paradigms.

Allergen production

Allergenicity is one of the major safety concerns of consuming foods derived from transgenic plants. In as much as we are raising eyebrows on the safety of GM plants and their products, consumption of conventional foods is not equally safe. This is because the occurrence of allergies has been reported with conventional foods. However, some of the issues that have to be addressed with a high level of stringency are the potential Allergenicity associated with genetically modified plants/crops. Some of these issues include;

Do the products of the novel gene inserted into plants elicit allergic reactions in humans or animals that are already sensitized to the same protein? Does the transgenic approach employ induce alteration of the level of expression of the proteins that exist in the host crop? Do the products derived from genetically engineered plants used for food have the ability to induce de novo sensitization among humans or animals that are susceptible?

Characterization of the potentially allergenic proteins produced by the GM plants produced through biotechnological technique is based on three factors;

Structural similarity, serological and sequence homology; the principal aim of this is to determine whether and to what level does the protein produced by the genetically modified foods have similarity to other known proteins that have the potential of causing allergies among humans and animals. This is through the determination of the overall structure of the protein of interest and its similarity to allergens that are known. The use of the protein database offers the possibility of determining the similarity of the novel protein of interest with those of allergens that are known on their sequence alignments homology. This could also be compared to discrete motifs and domains in the protein where there is complete sequence similarity with that which is present in known allergens, therefore, indicating possibility of shared protein epitopes. The third approach is the use of serological techniques to determine whether there are specific IgE antibodies present in the serum of sensitized humans or animals capable of recognizing the protein of interest.

Proteolytic stability: According to research, there is evidence of a correlation between protein resistance to proteolytic digestion and their potential to cause allergic reactions. The theory, in this case, is that relative resistance plays a role in inducing allergic responses on condition that the protein of interest possesses allergenic characteristics. In this case, the approach that is effective is characterizing the susceptibility of the protein of interest to its digestibility by pepsins and other gastric stimulated proteins. However, it is important to note that this approach alone may not be sufficient for the identification of cross-reactive proteins that have the potential of eliciting allergic responses in foods.

Use of animal models: animal models are the other biotechnological approach that may be used to assess the safety of products derived from GM plants. Currently, there is the absence of adequate animals that can be used as model organisms to simulate the same environment as humans thus facilitating their use in identification of protein allergens. However, there is ongoing research geared towards the development of techniques that are suitable for characterization of allergic responses in rodents and other species that mimic human physiological surrounding.

The safety of the GM plant and plant products has been lots of concern across the globe. However, it is important to appreciate the fact that despite the safety concerns, it is also playing a significant role in charting the path towards food security. However, a major limitation is predicted to occur in future if the transgenic technology gives rise to more substantial and complexity in the products derived from GM plants. This means that there is a need for improving the methods that are used in plant profiling of their proteins as well as studying their gene expression. This is especially important in detecting any changes that occur unexpectedly in the GM plants to determine their substantial equivalence. Therefore, continuity in the evolution of toxicological methods, as well as regulatory strategies, are necessary to be put in place to ensure that safety of GM plants and products comes first as far as human, animal and environmental factors are concerned.

Golden Rice and the Possibility of Overcoming World Famine Through Genetic Modification

Golden rice is a crop that has been in development in one way or another since 1984. The crop itself is named after the golden yellow color it has, which contrasts greatly with the normal white color of rice. The signature trait of golden rice is that it is infused with beta-carotene, an extremely important nutrient that is the source of Vitamin A. It is the addition of that nutrient that also gives the rice its distinctive color.

According to the article “In A Grain of Golden Rice, A World of Controversy Over GMO Foods” on NPR, the idea for golden rice came about from a group of master plant breeders talking after a Rockefeller Foundation funded meeting at the International Rice Institute. Peter Jennings, who had helped to orchestrate the Green Revolution that had saved billions, suggested that altering rice to include beta-carotene could vastly improve the lives of millions or even billions itself.

The reason for this was simple. In many poorer and less developed countries in the east, most children grow up on rice from a young age. Because rice lacks the ability to give meaningful amounts of Vitamin A, children tend to grow up malnourished and suffer from that lack for their whole lives. Because parents in many of those countries wean their children on rice gruel predominantly, it would be imperative to have some way of introducing the absolutely important vitamin into the diet of the less wealthy masses.

One of the hurdles that must be overcome in selling the long developed idea of golden rice to people in both the developed and developing world is to overcome the stigma of the odd coloration. While gold is not a color that is generally looked at with disdain, it still triggers the parts of our brain that warn us about off coloration of food. Those parts of the brain were evolved to protect us from spoiled food and edible items that may have been poisonous, and they also allowed us to notice the natural warning colors that dissuaded us from trying to touch harmful plants or animals. But now it is serving to scare people away from trying the healthier rice for their benefit.

On the goldenrice.org website under the heading “Sociocultural Issues”, the team behind golden rice points out that early in their inception carrots were actually white or purple. They state that while they understand why people may be hesitant to try their golden rice out of tradition for using only their specific kinds of grains, they hope that the curiosity of people in places ranging from Africa to Latin America to Asia will have them try out their golden rice.

Back on the NPR article, the writer states that while golden rice has taken decades to cultivate and turn into a viable product, the developers have gotten close to the release of the rice and were working on passing rigorous testing standards and accompanying legislation so that they could plant in countries like the Philippines and Bangladesh. Being that the rice was designed so that very low income people would have access to the nutrient it provided, it was important to make the most headway in those locations. Even with their positive goals, though, the comments were ripe with anti-gmo sentiments, and illustrated how even with the best intentions it would still be hard to get the passage approved to where the rice could do the most good- in some of the most tradition focused areas on earth. However, there was hope that all the effort that has gone into the rice would pay off for those in need.

Source:

Charles, D. (2013). In A Grain Of Golden Rice, A World Of Controversy Over GMO Foods. NPR.

Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. (2016). Sociocultural Issues. Golden Rice Project.