Milestones in Genetic Engineering of Food

• 1953:  Watson and Crick discover the structure of DNA
• Obtained entry to Rosalind Franklin’s lab to look at her x-ray crystal data while she was on vacation

• 1973 First Gene is Cloned by Boyer and Cohen

• Asilomar Conference in 1977 resolved issues in USA about:
• Recombinant DNA Safety
• Containment
• Risk Assessment
• Regulation
 

• 1990:  Recombinant Chymosin Approved by FDA
• Enzyme used for cheese making
• Originally from calf stomach
• Bovine gene expressed in GRAS microbes
• Now used in 70% of U.S. cheese
• Called vegetarian cheese in England

• Food enzymes
• Bread
• HFCS Sweeteners
• Amino acids
• Peptides
• Nutrasweet
• Flavors
• Organic acids
• Polysaccharides
• Vitamins

• 1994: Flavr Savr Tomato approved by FDA
• Delayed ripening
• Picked later
• Prolonged shelf life
• Reduced shipping loss
• Improved quality

• Agronomic traits
• Food quality
• Nutrition
• Metabolic products
• Vaccines
• Patent protection technology

Bt Corn

• Insect resistance from Bacillus thuringiensis
• Non-toxic to humans
• Target insect: corn borer
• 40% U.S. Corn crop Bt
• Potential to reduce insecticide use
• Potential to reduce mycotoxins

• Roundup Ready Soy, Corn, Canola
• Allows post-emergence herbicide spraying
• Increases yield
• Facilitates no-till farming
• 50% U.S. Soy crop

Disease Resistance

• Potatoes
• Squash
• Tomatoes
• Corn
• Rice
• Canola
• Soybeans
• Grapes
• Cantaloupes
• Cucumbers

• Iron Enhanced Rice
• Improved Amino Acid Balance

• Golden Rice
• Vitamin A enhanced
• Seeds given to the poor for free

• Express vaccine in banana
• Low cost
• Grows in many developing countries
• Eaten uncooked
• Palatable to children
• Potential problem: digestion of vaccine in intestinal tract

• “Terminator” protected seeds are sterile
• can not be replanted by farmers
• Designed to protect GMO patents
• Thus foster improvements in seeds
• Potential Dangers:
• Could spread to the environment
• All future seed improvements patent protected?
• Third world farmers could not replant own seeds
• Foster dependency on Multinational Corporations
• Domination of world crops by a few Companies?
 

• 1999:  GM corn and soybean products are present in 80% of processed foods
• 1999:  European Union requires GM labels,  blocks import of GM corn, beans
• 1999:  Gerber and Heinz announce their baby foods will be GM-free
• 2000: Mc Donalds and Frito-Lay announce their products will be GM-free
• 2000: USDA Organic Foods Standards: Must be GM-free
• 2000: Monsanto announces it will not use “Terminator Technology”

• Debate pits consumer and ecology groups against Multinational Corporations
• Many farmers, scientists, government agencies caught in the middle

• Potential to:
• Increase productivity
• Increase purity
• Increase safety
• Improve nutrition
• Improve food quality
• Improve sustainability
• Benefit ecosystem

• Process not inherently harmful
• Technology not new or unfamiliar
• Similar to traditional Plant and Animal breeding
• Unless misused, outcome expected to be beneficial
• Is a powerful technology that could help humanity
• Society favors science and technology
• Abandoning the technology would be costly
• Bad ideas weeded out by the market, regulation, lawsuit

• Therefore genetic engineering of foods is presumed to be good
• Burden of proof must be met by objectors, detractors
• Must be proved bad on a case by case basis
• Result: ethical objections and criticisms

• Potential safety risk for humans
• Unintended Consequences
• Genetic Engineering is playing God
• Not Natural
• Potential safety risk for environment
• Could spread
• Genetically Engineered label not required in U.S.
• Benefits multinational corporations
• not consumers or developing nations

• Arrogance
• Playing God
• Fooling with Mother Nature
• Moving genes between species
• Unnatural

• Random gene insertion
• Toxicity
• New gene products
• Antibiotic Resistance
• Allergies
• Eating DNA!

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

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

   -- Vandana Shiva
 
Bt Ecology Concerns

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

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

• Genetically engineered agronomic traits profitable for seed/chemical manufacturers
• Only benefit farmers if adopt technology early
• If farmers don’t adopt technology, get left behind
• Yield increases keep commodity prices low
• Farm squeeze between high input costs and low commodity prices
• Loss of small farms, rural communities
• Perpetuates unsustainable overuse of land, ecological damage

• More productivity, but increased inputs, costs
• Technology benefits wealthy, multinationals, plantations
• Small, subsistence farmers can’t compete, lose land
• Inequity, poverty increase
• Thus more food and more hunger
• Green Revolution unsustainable

• “Biotechnology  is being developed with the same vision that promoted chemicals to meet the single, short-term goals of enhanced yields and profit margins…
• …This vision embraces a view of the world characterized by beliefs that nature should be dominated, exploited, and forced to yield more…
• …by preferences for simple, quick,  immediately profitable 'solutions' to complex ecological problems…
• …by 'reductionist' thinking that analyzes complex systems like farming in terms of component parts,
• …and by a conviction that agricultural success means short-term productivity gains, rather than long-term sustainability.”

Genetically Modified Nonsense --Thomas DeGregori, Institute of Economic Affairs

"If anything clearly emerges from the debate about food biotechnology, it is that when the veneer of pious rhetoric is stripped from the anti-GM food claims, their argument is simply one of selfishly seeking to impose their own fetishes and New Age beliefs on society whatever costs to the rest of  humanity may be...“
 

Conclusions

• Genetic Engineering of food has potential to be very positive
• Problems must be envisioned and responded to
• GMOs force us to look at our values
• Agriculture
• Environment
• Hunger and Poverty
• Nature of Life
• Technology and Science
• Influence of Multinational Corporations

Return to World Food Issues 342 Homepage