Chan 1

Adrian Chan Writing 2202F Professor Green-Barteet December 6, 2011 Genetically Modified Foods Possess the Potential to Address Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Issues In this paper, I argue that genetically modified (GM) foods are crucial to ensuring food security and sustainable agriculture in a growing population with decreasing availability of natural resources. I prove this by first providing a context of the global issues threatening food security and outlining the major abiotic (non-living) and biotic (living) stresses that hinder crop yield. Each description of the stresses will be accompanied by an explanation of how genetic modification can increase crop yields by creating hybrid crops that can combat these stresses. Furthermore, I discuss the benefit of GM foods in terms of providing micronutrients, specifically vitamin A, to developing countries who suffer from vitamin A deficiency. Afterwards, I provide an overview of the opposing arguments and corresponding counterarguments. At the end, I summarize my arguments and make recommendations on how GM foods fit in the overall strategy of food security and sustainable agriculture. Food security is defined as the "physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet [the] dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life" (WHO, 2005). By 2050, the world population will reach approximately 9.2 billion, thus food production will need to increase by 70% (Ferry and Angharad, 2009; Bruinsma, 2009). However, food production is threatened by global climate change, natural disasters, and limited natural resources such as land, energy, and water. In addition, the use of agrochemicals to

Chan 2

increase crop yields causes environmental damage such as destruction of soil and local biodiversity, and pollution of water. Food production requires energy and chemical input, but at the expense of the environment; this balance between food production and sustainable agriculture is economically and scientifically difficult to maintain. However, genetic technology may be able to answer this predicament; by engineering GM crops to withstand numerous abiotic and biotic stresses, crop yield can be increased without additional land and energy input. Moreover, pesticide and herbicide usage can be reduced, thus preserving the environment. Despite these benefits, people oppose GM foods because they fear their potential risks and lack a general knowledge about biotechnology. In fact, a survey conducted in Europe showed that most consumers were wary of GM foods because of its perceived environmental and health risks, but were unaware of its benefits (Tzotzos et al., 2009). Now with the necessary background information, I will start the discussion off with a description of abiotic stresses. The major abiotic factors are drought, salinity, cold, and flooding. For example, salinity is, estimated to affect 20% of agricultural land and 40% of irrigated land
worldwide, (WHO, 2005). When plants are dehydrated or exposed to high salinity, they

synthesize small molecules, such as glycine betaines, that prevent further water loss. The higher the concentration of glycine betaines, the stronger the plant's tolerance to salinity. In addition, glycine betaines are non-toxic to humans, even in high concentrations. Therefore, glycine betaines are an excellent target for genetic modification. For example, labs have inserted a gene into rice plants to express more glycine betaines. Since only 35% of the world's potential arable land is in use, farmers can be more efficient by planting salt-tolerant crops on previously unusable land (Ferry and Angharad, 2009).

Chan 3

Another abiotic stress is drought, which can prevent oxygen from reaching the roots of a plant. This lack of oxygen induces ethylene synthesis, which can cause death. ACC synthase is the main enzyme that catalyzes this biosynthesis. Tomato plants have been modified so that ACC synthase production is suppressed. This had a dramatic effect on ethylene production, as levels were decreased by more than 99% (Ferry and Angharad, 2009). These GM tomato plants survived the best under flooding stress. In addition to salt-tolerant crops, farmers can grow crops on land that is commonly flooded, thereby expanding agricultural production to previously unusable land (Ferry and Angharad, 2009). Biotic stresses are living entities that decrease crop yield by interfering with the plant's growth, and consuming and spoiling its products. Examples of biotic stresses are weeds, insects, viruses, and bacteria, which reduce crop yield by 30% worldwide (Ferry and Angharad, 2009). Pesticides can reduce crop loss due to insects, but they pose a threat to the environment and humans. By using crops genetically modified to naturally resist pests, pesticide use can be significantly reduced. In fact, it is estimated that the use of GM soybean, oilseed rape (canola), cotton, and maize reduced pesticide use by 22.3 million kg in 2000. If half of the crops in Europe were genetically modified with insect/herbicide-resistance, then pesticide use would decrease by 14.5 million kg per year, 20.5 million liters of diesel fuel would be saved, and the production of 73,000 tons of carbon dioxide would be prevented (Ferry and Angharad, 2009). Weeds compete with crops for resources, thus hurting the crops' growth and development. Since herbicides can also kill crops, more specific herbicides that target weeds and avoid crops are used but they are toxic to wildlife and the soil. Therefore, GM plants with herbicide resistance were developed so that safer herbicides can be used. For example, glyphosate is strong enough to kill weeds and it has very low toxicity to humans and wildlife. Also,

Chan 4

glyphosate is bound to soil particles and inactivated by soil bacteria, so it does not remain in the soil, unlike conventional herbicides (Ferry and Angharad, 2009). Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops provide an environmental benefit as well. For example, the introduction of HT soybean has reduced herbicide use on HT soybean by 10%. In addition, the introduction of HT oilseed rape (canola) increased yields by 10% and reduced herbicide use by 1.5 million kg in 1997 and 6 million kg in 2000. The transgenic oilseed rape allowed fuel savings of 9.5 million liters in 1997 and 31.2 million liters of diesel in 2000. Evidently, the use of transgenic food crops have proven to be significantly helpful in reducing its environmental impact while providing high crop yield (Ferry and Angharad, 2009). Insect pests are one of the most significant biotic stresses that affect food security; about one-half of crop production in third-world countries is lost to insects, with 15% of these losses due to postharvest consumption and spoilage (Ferry and Angharad, 2009). Not only do insects directly consume/spoil the food, they commonly carry viruses and microbes that can contaminate crop batches. Conventional methods to stop insect pests are insecticides, but these also kill beneficial insects. In addition, these chemicals can accumulate in water and soil, destroying local biodiversity and soil quality. With GM foods that have been modified with insect resistance, broad spectrum insecticides that kill both harmful and harmless insects can be avoided since GM foods can exert specific resistance to only harmful insects. One of the most used and well-studied GM crops are crops modified with the Bt gene, giving them insect-resistance. The Bt gene comes from bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis (hence abbreviated as Bt). This bacterium produces Bt toxins, which are natural insecticides that are activated in the alkaline midgut of insects (Ferry and Angharad, 2009). Once activated, the toxins paralyze and ultimately kill the insect. Bt toxins are harmless to humans and animals

Chan 5

because they are only active in an insect's midgut. This concept is similar to how antibiotics work; they target bacteria-specific biology that is not present in mammals. The Bt gene can be inserted in any crop and give it insect-resistance. This has significant economic, environmental, and health benefits, especially in populations that are most affected by pest infestations. For example, Bt cotton has allowed farmers in India to reduce insecticide applications by 70%. This resulted in a saving of $30 USD/ha in insecticide costs coupled with an increase of 80% in cotton yield. In addition, the same survey showed that the percentage of farmers with pesticide poisoning was reduced from 22% to 4.7% (Ferry and Angharad, 2009). One of the controversies with the use of Bt crops is how it affects the Monarch butterfly, a conservation species in the US (Ferry and Angharad, 2009). In a scientific study published in Nature, a peer-reviewed journal for the sciences, Losey et al. (1999) claimed that the mortality of Monarch larvae fed milkweed leaves dusted with Bt pollen increased after consumption. They suggested this would have severe ecological consequences, as well for the conservation of this species. This incident triggered a series of risk-based studies that evaluated the impact of Bt pollen on the Monarch butterfly. A study done by Sears et al. (2001) measured the effect of Bt pollen on the Monarchs based on i) how long the Monarchs were exposed to the pollen during active growth periods, ii) the fact that only species of Monarchs reside near crop fields, and iii) the level of Bt pollen actually encountered in the field. They conducted 5 field studies in Iowa, Maryland, New York, and Ontario where they observed larvae growing in milkweed plants under exposure to natural levels of Bt pollen from a nearby crop field. No acute effects were observed, so it was concluded that the commercial wide-scale growing of Bt crops demonstrated negligible risk to the Monarch population. One of the drawbacks of the initial study was that it did not mention the dose of Bt pollen fed to the Monarchs, nor if that dose is realistically

Chan 6

encountered in the environment. Therefore, the original study concluded that since Bt pollen is dangerous at high amounts, Bt crops should be banned. However, this is a logical fallacy since many foods contain nutrients and minerals that when consumed at high amounts, are toxic but they are still safe to consume at reasonable levels. Poor people in developing countries usually consume only staple foods, thereby missing out on crucial micronutrients provided from other food groups(Herring, 2007). This makes them susceptible to micronutrient-deficient diseases as well as lower levels of energy, cognitive development, and immune function. Therefore, creating transgenic staple crops to provide micronutrients for those who cannot afford a well-rounded diet can potentially reduce mortality and disease due to malnutrition. Although conventional supplementation and fortification programs are helpful in providing nutrients to poor populations, they are flawed by the limited nature of the assistance, inability to reach remote areas, and its high cost (Herring, 2007). If deployed properly, genetically modified staple foods can sustainably provide poor communities with necessary micronutrients to prevent disease and death. One of the leading crops that have been developed for this purpose is golden rice, a variety of rice that is genetically modified to synthesize 35 micrograms (ug) of beta-carotene, a vitamin A precursor, per gram of rice (Potrykus, 2010). It is recommended to consume about 400 ug - 1300 ug of vitamin A depending on a person's gender and age; for comparison, a half cup of carrots provides 766 ug of vitamin A (Office of Dietary Supplements, 2006; EatRight Ontario, 2011). This means that a single bowl of rice can provide the recommended daily value of vitamin A (Chassy, 2010). With the vitamin A present in golden rice, it has the potential to prevent, 6,000 deaths a day due to vitamin A deficiency, and to save the sight of several hundred thousand people per year, in rice-dependent populations (Potrykus, 2010). Indeed, an

Chan 7

estimated 250,000 - 500,000 pre-school children become blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency, and 50% of those children die within a year of losing their sight (WHO, n.d.). One of the more popular concerns regarding GM foods is: does it pose a health risk compared to non-GM foods? This health risk can be defined in terms of the GM food's potential allergenicity, toxicity, and gene transfer to humans. The protein created as a result of the inserted gene is analyzed for any potential allergenicity and toxicity. A database of all allergens and toxins and their corresponding gene sequence and protein structure is available for comparison. If the protein from the GM food is similar to a known allergen or toxin, the GM food is dropped and research is discontinued (Chassy, 2010). It should be noted that this prescreening is only required for GM foods and not for conventionally-bred foods. In fact, it is not often recognized by the public that plants themselves produce natural toxins to protect themselves from predators, including organically-grown crops. These toxins, in high dosages, can induce adverse reactions in humans, including death. For example, it has been documented that death from consuming green tomatoes and potatoes due to the high levels of glycoalkaloids (a poison naturally found in many plant species) present (Chassy, 2010). Contradicting to public belief, genetic modification can actually prevent plants from producing these toxins. Foir example, potatoes inserted with invertase, a gene from yeast, produced less glycoalkaloid toxin than conventionally-bred potatoes (WHO, 2005). This illustrates that conventional breeding methods are not always the safest; they are equally, if not more dangerous, than GM foods. A series of consultations with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) experts, noted that very little is known about the potential long-term effects of any foods, not just GM foods (WHO, 2005).

Chan 8

Due to insufficient scientific literacy, many people believe that GM foods contain DNA that when ingested could modify the human genome. However, this is very unlikely, especially since foreign DNA would be destroyed by enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract. Also, all foods contain DNA, not only GM ones; in fact, dietary intake of DNA ranges from 0.1 to 1.0 g per day (WHO, 2000). Given the long history of consuming DNA from numerous food sources, it is extremely unlikely to produce any health risk. Moreover, any novel genes ingested from the GM food would represent 1/250,000 of all DNA consumed per day, illustrating how unlikely it is for a particular gene to enter a cell (WHO, 2000). So far, there is no evidence suggesting that plant DNA can be incorporated into human DNA, much less transfer into a human cell. In conclusion, GM foods have a strong potential in ensuring food security and sustainable agriculture in the future. Abiotic and biotic stresses, and a growing population are exhausting current agricultural infrastructure but genetic technology can increase food production despite these threats. Land for agriculture is competing against land for biofuel production, and with saline and flooding environments rendering agricultural land unusable, it is imperative to be efficient with what land is left. Conventional breeding cannot produce crop varieties that can survive under these harsh conditions, which is why GM crops are needed. Since they pose little health and environmental risk, they are the most appropriate solution for achieving food security and sustainable agriculture. The World Bank stated that "Agriculture is a vital development tool for achieving the Millennium Development Goal that calls for halving by 2015 the share of people suffering from extreme poverty and hunger," (The World Bank, 2007). This goal, especially since its deadline is 3 years away, cannot be achieved unless we are proactive in utilizing current genetic technology and evaluating new technologies rather than focusing on hypothetical risks that are scientifically unjustified.

Chan 9

Works Cited Chassy, B.M. (2010). Food safety risks and consumer health. New Technology, 27(5), 534-544. Bruinsma, J. (2009). The resource outlook to 2050: by how much do land, water and crop yields need to increase by 2050? Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak971e/ak971e00.pdf EatRight Ontario. (2011). What you need to know about vitamin A. Retrieved from http://www.eatrightontario.ca/en/Articles/Nutrients-%28vitamins-andminerals%29/What-you-need-to-know-about-Vitamin-A.aspx Ferry, N., & Angharad, G.M.R. (2009). Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified Foods. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing. Herring, R.J. ( 2007). Transgenics and the Poor Biotechnology in Development Studies. New York: Routledge. Isaac, G. (2002). Agricultural Biotechnology and Transatlantic Trade Regulatory Barriers to GM Crops. Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing. Losey, J.E., Rayor, L.S., & Carter, M.E. (1999). Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399(6733), 214. Martineau, B. (2001). First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods. McGraw Hill. Office of Dietary Supplements. (2006). Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin A and Carotenoids. Retrieved from http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamina Protrykus, Ingos. (2010). Regulation must be revolutionized. Nature, 466, 561. The World Bank. (2007). Agriculture for development. Retrieved from http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.894.html

Chan 10

Tzotzos, G.T., Head, G.P., & Hull, R. (2009). Genetically Modified Plants: Assessing Safety and Managing Risk. MA, USA: Academic Press. Sears, M.K, Hellmich, R.L., Stanely-Horn, D.E., Oberhauser, K.S., Pleasants, J.M., Mattila, H.R., Siegfried, B.D., ... Dively, G.P. (2001). Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(21), 11937-42. WHO. (2000). Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin. from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/en/ec_june2000_en.pdf WHO. (2005). Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: an evidence-based study. Retrieved, from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/biotech_en.pdf WHO. (n.d.). Micronutrient Deficiencies. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/