EU – GMO SAFETY

First Public Results of GRACE Project

GMO is a fascinating subject and having in mind that it is a fairly recent phenomenon, there are so many researches that are underway at the moment of speaking. GMO managed to divide the scientific community so any breakthrough in the research is a front page news. We are still uncertain about the long-term effect GMO foods can have on human bodies and health. European Union is highly involved in regulating GMO foods. They have commissioned a team of researchers to take a closer look at both medium and long-term effects of GMO products. The team has made the preliminary results available to public in April of 2016 and here is what they found.

The researchers working on GRACE project have a clear goal – getting accurate information on both short term and long term effects of GMO foods on living organisms. Therefore, they began trial testing on rodents who were fed GMO foods. One group was given genetically modified corn for ninety days, and the other one will be consuming the said product for one year. On the other hand, the control group is fed standard and non-genetically modified corn in the same time frame.

The results from the short term test group was published in Archives of Toxicology and it clearly showed that there were absolutely no differences between the two groups of rodents. It means that genetically modified corn has the same effect on an organism as the standard crops. European Union’s food regulators require this type of testing before they can give a green light to genetically modified products, and even though they have the positive results from the ninety days trial, they will be waiting for the one year study before they allow the mass production and distribution of MON810 GM corn.

Following the European Union’s strict rules regarding genetically modified food, the GRACE Project will be releasing all the data they have collected in this study so far on their official web site. It will be accessible to anyone who is interested in this topic and they will not be holding back on any documentation. European Union is very involved in the research of GMO foods and the GRACE Project is not the only study they are working on at the moment. As a matter of fact, the findings from two more studies will be added to GRACE’s results once they are completed.

Projects G-TwYST and GMO90+, which are conducted by a group of French researchers have agreed to share the information, data, materials, and their findings with the scientists that are working on GRACE. This is done in order to help each other reach the accurate results that will have an impact on the future of GMO products in European Union. The things are looking good so far and it seems there should be no concern about the production of MON810 GM corn in Europe.

All in all, the results of the one year trial will be published in Archive of Toxicology once it reaches its end, as well as the collaborative results from the other trials. Until then, the researchers working on GRACE Project are inviting all of you to take a part in the public discussion about their latest findings. As we have previously mentioned, all the documents and findings will be on their website. So it doesn’t matter if you are a scientist who is heavily involved in this field of study or a regular person simply interested in the topic of genetically modified foods – you are free to comment and share your opinion on their findings.

Papaya and the Use of Genetic Viral Protection

The Papaya plant may seem exotic to most mainlanders, but it is actually a very important fruit grown in the islands of Hawaii. While a large part of agricultural life on the island, Hawaiians faced a growing threat to their livelihood in the form of a devastating virus known as Papaya Ringspot Virus. Gmocompass describes the effects of prv in its article “Papayas” as stunting to the trees, causing them to take on an unhealthy, naked look as they are shorter than regular papaya trees and have less leaves covering their tops (2016).

The process undertaken to protect the papaya trees is highly reminiscent of the way immunities are developed in humans through vaccinations. The article describes how certain types of viral proteins are inserted into the genes of the papayas which causes the papaya to fight back and develop a more powerful immune response to the viruses of that type. This results in the papaya plants getting total protection from the papaya ringspot virus, as they are better equipped to fight off the affliction with their genes. This development has allowed cultivators in Hawaii to plant the gm papayas in widespread locations and have them thrive even while prv is running rampant around their crops. There are actually pictures of natural and modified papaya trees planted parallel to each other, showing how the prv in the area is devastating the natural trees, while the modified papaya trees are as strong and healthy as if there were no viruses around whatsoever.

The modified papayas first appeared in 1999 but have over time become the dominant form of papaya grown in Hawaii. The total cultivated space covers 3/4ths the entire papaya crop area with little sign of the adoption rates changing. As far as world acceptance, there is growing research and development into the process used to combat the papaya ringspot virus by other Asian countries who want to alter the crop themselves to combat the viral strains it would face being grown in their local areas. Both the United States and Canada have approved the consumption of GM papaya in their territories and serve as the largest customers of the crop.

Meanwhile, the European Union has not approved the consumption or import of gm papaya, and because there have been no proposals to the EU for approval, it may be a while before their status gets reviewed. For now, it is illegal to import and market the modified papayas in any of the member states of the EU.

While many genetic modifications of plants tend to increase resistance to herbicide and pesticide use, and maintain the aesthetic appeal of the crop by eliminating brown spots from bruising and cutting, the modification of papayas presents a unique appeal of modification that cannot as of yet be managed by anything else. There are no pills or medicines that can be given to plants that are already sick, and so genetic modifications of the plant so as to provide it a defense against debilitating pathogens have proved to be one of the best ways to preserve yields and growth of successful fields. However, for many people the dangers of genetic modification still outweighs the benefits of it, and even the rarity of overcoming the problem through other means still doesn’t provide enough of a justification to promote the acceptance and use of gm plants. For the papaya there are hopeful signs with the widespread adoption already seen in North America, but the approval of the EU on using the crop will be integral to seeing a more widespread acceptance of what the technology offers.

Source: Gmocompass. (2016). Papayas. Gmo-compass.

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

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