Monday, April 30, 2012

Final Paper Annotated Bibliography


Final Paper Annotated Bibliography

Bharathan, Geeta, et al. "Crop Biotechnology and Developing Countries." Bioethics for Scientists. Eds. John Bryant, Linda Baggot LaVelle and John Searle. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2002. 171-198. Print.

This chapter starts off by referring to food security and how we will be able to meet the world’s growing food needs. It then transitions into the use of biotechnology with food and the different reasons it should or should not be used. The green revolution is mentioned here as an example of how biotechnology has proved to be beneficial in the past and similar advancement can be made to address future food problems. There are some specific examples involving nutrition deficiency statistics and how GM intervention can help save millions of deaths per year. Mainly this chapter deals with the use of biotechnology in less developed countries and the various effects on health it will have.

Falk, Michael C., et al. "Food Biotechnology: Benefits and Concerns." Journal of Nutrition. 132.6 (2002): 1384-1390. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.

This article, as the name implies, talks about the benefits and concerns of agricultural foods. It addresses that these foods have shown clear benefits for the producers, giving traits such as greater yields, longer shelf life, and decreasing the use of insecticides and herbicides, and has also shown benefits for consumers through producing food with higher nutritional content, better looks and tastes, and medicinal properties. It also talks about the process of modified food having to go through four different federal regulatory agencies to ensure the foods safety and to make sure it has minimal risk to the environment.

Fedoroff, Nina V. "Engineering food for all." New York Times 19 Aug. 2011. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.
This article starts off by explaining how food prices have increased along with the world’s population and that we have been able to make great strides in food production thanks to science and technology, but these advancements must be further developed in order to produce enough food to sustain the growing population. Federoff claims that genetically modified foods can do this and that this technology is constantly improved and has been shown to have a long track record of safety and that millions of dollars have gone into testing the safety of these foods. She restates that there are many concerns for the safety of these foods, but that the concerns have not held up to scientific scrutiny, and that all these unexpected consequences and effects have still not yet been revealed.

Ferber, Dan. "GM Crops in the Cross Hairs." Science. 286.5445 (1999): 1662-1666. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.

This article highlights some of the key points in the debate on GM foods and was interesting and informative. It includes many quotes and statistics from researchers around the country, both who are for and against GM foods. Some of the issues discussed include antibiotic resistance, effects on human health, allergenicity, crossing of traits to non-GM crops. It also gives some facts on how some GM crops did well, while others did not, and the reasons why. Explains some of the health benefits of GM foods and how their effects differ from developed countries to developing countries. Finally the article sums of with an overview of the various agencies that regulate the testing and distribution of GM crops and their methods.

Hassan, Tina A. "GMO Debate - FG Still Lags Behind [analysis]." Daily Trust [Abuja] 8 Nov 2011. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.

This article addresses one of the major concerns of GM foods which is whether they are safe or not. Specifically, some African countries have made it illegal to grow and even use GM foods because of this health skepticism. Studies from the USDA have shown that these foods, which according to their use for the past few years, have shown no adverse health effects and are safe to use. Even with this assurance from the USDA, GM foods are still met with high resistance in certain African countries. 

Hughes, Steve, and John Bryant. "GM Crops and Food: a Scientific Perspective." Bioethics for Scientists. Eds. John Bryant, Linda Baggot LaVelle and John Searle. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2002. 115-140. Print.

This chapter talks about the theory behind how GM foods came to be, how modification of plants to yield desirable characteristics is something that has been done for tens of thousands of years, but now modification is done slightly differently by using molecular tools. These new tools allow for an even wider variety of crops and can be made to produce traits that wouldn’t found in crops using traditional methods. Also addresses other concerns about GM crops such as ethical, contamination, and safety issues. 

Kahare, Peter. "Drought Persuades Govt to Import GM Maize." Africa News Service [Nairobi] 11 Aug. 2011. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.

This article relates to the other article in regards to the resistance to the use of GM foods in African countries because of their unknown possible negative health effects. Kenya however, has made a controversial move, in relation to other African countries, and allows the import of GM foods. Even though they are still skeptical about the possible health effects, experiencing a drought and having 2.5 million people in urgent need of food has convinced the Kenyan government to accept help, even in the form of GM foods.

Lurquin, Paul F. High Tech Harvest: Understanding Genetically Modified Food Plants. Boulder: Westview Press, 2002. Print.

This book covers the introduction of biotechnology to food, how it has been used so far and possible uses for it in the future. It shows links between the food produced and its effects on human health. It also adds to information from some of my other sources in relation to the green revolution and GM foods with enhanced nutrient qualities to help address issues of malnutrition. This book covers a wide range of topics related to agricultural biotechnology, but I mainly focused on the sections related to the effects these products and technologies would have on human health.

Mattoo, Autar K. "Genetic Engineering to Enhance Crop-Based Phytonutrients (Nutraceuticals) to Alleviate Diet-Related Diseases." Bio-Farms for Nutraceuticals: Functional Food and Safety Control by Biosensors. Eds. Maria Teresa Giardi, Giuseppina Rea, and Bruno Berra. Dordrecht: Landes Bioscience and Springer Science Business Media LLC., 2010. 122-138. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.

This chapter starts off by explaining how many studies have proven that a large number of age and lifestyle related diseases that affect the population today can be associated with their diets. Increasing the public’s awareness of how consumption of certain foods can be harmful to their health has led to many consumers becoming more conscious of their food choices and helping them get healthier. Even though this is a step in the right direction, many people still aren’t meeting their recommended daily allowance (RDA) of certain key nutrients that ensure their health. This has triggered research into nutraceuticals and the molecular engineering of crops to express more of these beneficial nutrients that promote human health. Increasing beneficial molecules while removing some that are harmful, through the use of molecular modification, can help reduce the incidence of food-related diseases.

Nottingham, Steve. Eat Your Genes: How genetically modified food is entering our diet. London: Zed Books Ltd, 1998. Print.

This book explains in detail many of the different topics related to agricultural biotechnology. It starts out by explaining the origins of how genetic engineering started to be used in agriculture, and then continues to explain in detail the various ways crops can be scientifically modified. Addition topics that are covered include how crops increase yield, how crops become insecticide and herbicide resistance and its advantages and possible negative effects, development of antibiotic resistance, allergies, ecological risks, risks to human health, and ethical issues. It also describes impacts GM foods have on the third world, government-related issues such as patenting, labeling, and regulation, and future prospects for agricultural biotechnology.

Scapagnini, Giovanni. "Therapeutic Potential of Dietary Polyphenols against Brain Ageing and Neurodegenerative Disorders." Bio-Farms for Nutraceuticals: Functional Food and Safety Control by Biosensors. Eds. Maria Teresa Giardi, Giuseppina Rea, and Bruno Berra. Dordrecht: Landes Bioscience and Springer Science Business Media LLC., 2010. 27-32. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.

This chapter deals with a specific type of nutrient found in foods known as phenols and polyphenols and their link to human health. It gives some stats about how as the life expectancy increases, so does the rate of age-related diseases. One of the major diseases that is on the rise, now being the fifth leading cause of death in people over the age of 65 is Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Studies have shown that cultures and diets rich in this type of nutrient have shown lower numbers of people with this disease and how harnessing this nutrient can help others receive the same disease avoiding benefits.

Sharma, Monika, and Bhumika Sood. "A banana or a syringe: journey to edible vaccines." World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 27.3 (2011): 471-477. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.

This article introduced the concept of edible vaccines, why they would be useful some of the more technical details on their development and use. Some of these specifics include what plants could be used to make these vaccines, the different molecular techniques that can be used, how these edible vaccines would interact with the human immune system, advantages of these vaccines, clinical uses, and future possibilities. The article highlighted many positive aspects of the technology, but also gave many details that would need to be addressed before such a possibility would be ready for human use.

Ticciati, Laura, and Robin Ticciati. Genetically Engineered Foods: Are They Safe? You Decide.. Los Angeles: Keats Publishing, 1998. Print.

This books seems to provide somewhat of a biased view on scientifically modified food by explaining in great detail all the possible risks and concerns these foods pose, while not really addressing many of the benefits or results of testing and research. It asks a lot of rhetorical questions without giving many balanced answers. This book is, however, printed in 1998, which I would like to attribute to the lack of accurate and balanced information in this book; however I don’t think that would be accurate either because another book I used printed in the same year goes into great detail on both the positive and negative aspects of this technology and food. It does however summarize many concerns people against GM foods would have and their reasoning behind it, but it mainly concentrates on that side of the argument.

Wahle, Klaus W.J. "Plant Phenolics in the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer." Bio-Farms for Nutraceuticals: Functional Food and Safety Control by Biosensors. Eds. Maria Teresa Giardi, Giuseppina Rea, and Bruno Berra. Dordrecht: Landes Bioscience and Springer Science Business Media LLC., 2010. 36-48. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.

Similar to the other cited chapter from this book, this chapter deals with a different nutrient found in food, but instead of reducing the risk of age related problems such as AD, these nutrients have the potential to not only get rid of existing cancer cells, but to even prevent them in the first place. This is, however a potential benefit and there is still much research to be done, but the possibility is there. These nutrients are naturally found in many foods, and if their concentration could be increased or other foods could be enhanced to produce the same nutrients, then the health benefits would be even greater.

Final Paper Works Cited


Final Paper Works Cited

Bharathan, Geeta, et al. "Crop Biotechnology and Developing Countries." Bioethics for Scientists. Eds. John Bryant, Linda Baggot LaVelle and John Searle. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2002. 171-198. Print.
Falk, Michael C., et al. "Food Biotechnology: Benefits and Concerns." Journal of Nutrition. 132.6 (2002): 1384-1390. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.
Fedoroff, Nina V. "Engineering food for all." New York Times 19 Aug. 2011. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.
Ferber, Dan. "GM Crops in the Cross Hairs." Science. 286.5445 (1999): 1662-1666. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.
Hassan, Tina A. "GMO Debate - FG Still Lags Behind [analysis]." Daily Trust [Abuja] 8 Nov 2011. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.
Hughes, Steve, and John Bryant. "GM Crops and Food: a Scientific Perspective." Bioethics for Scientists. Eds. John Bryant, Linda Baggot LaVelle and John Searle. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2002. 115-140. Print.
Kahare, Peter. "Drought Persuades Govt to Import GM Maize." Africa News Service [Nairobi] 11 Aug. 2011. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.
Lurquin, Paul F. High Tech Harvest: Understanding Genetically Modified Food Plants. Boulder: Westview Press, 2002. Print.
Mattoo, Autar K. "Genetic Engineering to Enhance Crop-Based Phytonutrients (Nutraceuticals) to Alleviate Diet-Related Diseases." Bio-Farms for Nutraceuticals: Functional Food and Safety Control by Biosensors. Eds. Maria Teresa Giardi, Giuseppina Rea, and Bruno Berra. Dordrecht: Landes Bioscience and Springer Science Business Media LLC., 2010. 122-138. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.
Nottingham, Steve. Eat Your Genes: How genetically modified food is entering our diet. London: Zed Books Ltd, 1998. Print.
Scapagnini, Giovanni. "Therapeutic Potential of Dietary Polyphenols against Brain Ageing and Neurodegenerative Disorders." Bio-Farms for Nutraceuticals: Functional Food and Safety Control by Biosensors. Eds. Maria Teresa Giardi, Giuseppina Rea, and Bruno Berra. Dordrecht: Landes Bioscience and Springer Science Business Media LLC., 2010. 27-32. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.
Sharma, Monika, and Bhumika Sood. "A banana or a syringe: journey to edible vaccines." World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 27.3 (2011): 471-477. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.
Ticciati, Laura, and Robin Ticciati. Genetically Engineered Foods: Are They Safe? You Decide.. Los Angeles: Keats Publishing, 1998. Print.
Wahle, Klaus W.J. "Plant Phenolics in the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer." Bio-Farms for Nutraceuticals: Functional Food and Safety Control by Biosensors. Eds. Maria Teresa Giardi, Giuseppina Rea, and Bruno Berra. Dordrecht: Landes Bioscience and Springer Science Business Media LLC., 2010. 36-48. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.

Final Paper Possible Conclusions

Possible Conclusions:

1.) Even though GM crops have been in development and use for decades now, there still isn’t any conclusive evidence on whether these crops are a good or bad thing. That’s because its not that simple. Given all the changes biotechnology can make to all the different varieties of crops, simply using a blanket statement such as all GM foods are good or bad is being too critical. Instead, as new advancements in crop modification arise, they should be viewed in an individual manner to assess the possible risks and benefits along with any other concerning factors before they are made commercially available. Because this is still a relatively new technology, the data for comparison of these products is limited, but not non-existent. We can use the research and trials done in the past few years to help provide a better picture of what areas GM foods clearly provide a benefit and what areas could be improved.

2.) Instead, a case-by-case approach must be taken, analyzing the individual effects of each specific modification. Anti-biotech views certainly have their merits as proven by research and testing, however the benefits this technology can provide shows much promise as well. Agronomist M.S. Swaminathan, thought to be the father of India’s Green Revolution argues that it’s “important not to rule out the benefits of the new biotechnologies, which he asserts, based on his experience with the Green Revolution, can play an important role in meeting the need for food security” (Bharathan 177), but adds that “the new biotechnologies should only be developed and used according to an integrated vision of environmental and socio-economic sustainability” (Bharathan 178). Many of today’s food issues involve either a problem with quantity or quality, and are having negative health effects in populations around the world. The innovations brought by agricultural biotechnology can help alleviate some of these problems as well as open the door to a whole variety of new possibilities regarding food and health. It is true that, just with any new technology, there is a certain amount of risk involved, but with time and experience those risks will be lessened, while the benefits these technologies provide can continue to grow and lead toward a healthier future.
3.) Agricultural biotechnology, including genetic modification and all the other biological modifications that fall under this category can be implemented in a plethora of ways, which makes it difficult to give a simple yes or no answer when asking if this technology is safe for human use or not. Even though GM crops have been in development and have been used for decades now, there still isn’t any conclusive evidence on whether these crops are a good or bad thing. That’s because it’s not that simple. Given all the different changes biotechnology can make along with all the different varieties of crops it can affect, simply using a blanket statement such as all GM foods are good or bad is being too critical. Instead, as new advancements in crop modification arise, they should be viewed in an individual manner to assess the possible risks and benefits along with any other concerning factors before they are made commercially available. Because this is still a relatively new technology, the data for comparison of these products is limited. We can use the trials done in the past few years along with current research to help provide us with a better picture of what areas GM foods clearly provide a benefit and what areas could be improved. Then we will have a much better understanding of the human health and safety effects the foods produced using these biotechnologies can have and be able to make better decisions on whether or not to use these agricultural biotechnologies.

Final Paper Possible Introductions

Possible Introductions:

1.) So what is agricultural biotechnology anyway? It is the term used to refer to agricultural products that have been modified using biological processes and living organisms along with science and technology. The products that results from the use of this technology can be referred to as genetically modified (GM) foods, genetically engineered (GE) foods, functional foods, or nutraceuticals, which is derived from nutrition and pharmaceuticals. But where did this idea of modifying crops even come from. Steve Hughes and John Bryant, professors in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Exeter in the UK explain that humans have been collecting the seeds of plants that showed desirable traits for over twelve millennia and that “crop improvement, based on making use of the plant’s genetic makeup, has been a part of agriculture for a very long time” (115). This traditional method of modifying crops, however, only produces limited variation due to using the same species with similar traits and may not exhibit desired characteristics. The “rediscovery” of mendels work in the early twentieth century led to great strides in the field of plant modification when breeding between different varieties of a crop was done and led to an increased variety of products and characteristics. This continuing progression of plant modification has led to scientists finding new ways to use science and technology, especially genetics, in order to yield a more desirable products. These new genetically modified crops, although similar in structure to their traditionally modified precursors, exhibit a far greater variation of characteristics. Research on these new crops has shown many benefits in health, agricultural, and economical fields, but the results are not all positive. Many problems have also risen due to these products which has fired up both sides of the biotechnology debate. With this new technology available to us now, there are many wonderful new ways it can be used to help try to solve some of the current problems, but there is still much to be learned about this new technology and the risks must be taken into account as well.

2.) The modification of crops to help yield desirable traits is not something new. Steve Hughes and John Bryant, professors in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Exeter in the UK explain that “it is clear from archeological records that humans have been collecting, saving, and planting seeds for over 12,000 years” and have been “saving seeds from plants that had desirable characteristics” (115). This traditional method of plant breeding has evolved with the help of science and agricultural biotechnology to introduce techniques such as genetic modification which can produce an even wider variety of crops with desirable traits. Genetic modification was invented in 1973 and is “based on the natural gene transfer mechanisms that occur in bacteria” where they can “transfer small pieces of DNA” between cells (Hughes and Bryant 119). Further advancements allowed using a distinct set of molecular tools to precisely cut and rejoin DNA molecules. The application of these living molecular tools to food and agriculture has resulted in the broad field of agricultural biotechnology, which includes the technologies used to produce nutraceuticals, derived from nutrition and pharmaceuticals, and genetically modified food.

3.) It seems like a major flaw of the human body that if we go past the daily limit of certain nutrients such as fats, carbs, and sodium, the body keeps the excess, but does not keep a surplus of vitamins so that you get super vision from eating a whole bag of carrots or super immunity after drinking a whole bottle of orange juice. What the hell, body? There has been a long term love-hate relationship between food and health, but now we introduce a third party – technology! Innovations in the field of agricultural biotechnology hope to improve the relation between food and human health. This can be done in a wide variety of ways including increasing food yield, adding more nutrients, decreasing the risk of diseases and even preventing bacterial and viral infections. While all these sound like great prospects in improving overall human health, an important factor to keep in mind is whether or not these products will actually be safe for human consumption and the immediate and long-term effects the use of such technologies could have. After taking a look at how these products have been put into practice so far, past and current research and test results, and possible future benefits and risks, consumers will be able to decide whether or not they want these products to play a role in their agricultural future.

Final Paper Possible Titles

These are just a few of the titles I thought of and was messing around with. I was thinking of making it sort of a compound titles, with the beginning part being attention-catching and fun, while the part after the colon would be a more accurate representation of what my paper was actually about. The ideas are all mixed up and some are just parts of potential titles.


Agricultural biotechnology: whats all the fuss?
Food of the future: what to expect.
Genetically Modified Foods: what are they and what to expect
Genetically Modified Foods: Welcome to the debate!
Health Effects and Future outlooks/Prospects.
The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown.
Playing God: Genetically Modifying Food and its Effects
Genetically Modified Foods: Science or Science Fiction?
The Truth behind this new agricultural biotechnology.
Bt or not Bt: Agricultural Biotechnology and Its effects on (human) health.
Pro or Anti Biotech? You Decide: An Overview of the Health Effects of Agricultural Biotechnology
Messing with Nature: Agricultural Biotechnology and its effects.
GMO’s OMG - Agricultural Biotechnology and its effects (on health).
Educating consumers on the positive and negative effects of Agricultural Biotechnology.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Final Paper Final Copy


Rohith Kolisetti
Benedict, Eng. 201
April 24, 2012
Bt or Not Bt:
The Effects of GM Crops and Agricultural Biotechnology on Human Health

It seems like a major flaw of the human body that if we go past the daily limit of certain nutrients such as fats, carbs, and sodium, the body keeps the excess, but does not keep a surplus of vitamins so that you get super vision from eating a whole bag of carrots or super immunity after drinking a whole bottle of orange juice. What the hell, body? There has been a long term love-hate relationship between food and health, but now we introduce a third party – technology! Innovations in the field of agricultural biotechnology hope to improve the relation between food and human health. This can be done in a wide variety of ways including increasing food yield, adding more nutrients, decreasing the risk of diseases and even preventing bacterial and viral infections. While all these sound like great prospects in improving overall human health, an important factor to keep in mind is whether or not these products will actually be safe for human consumption and the immediate and long-term effects the use of such technologies could have. After taking a look at how these products have been put into practice so far, past and current research and test results, and possible future benefits and risks, consumers will be able to decide whether or not they want these products to play a role in their agricultural future.
            The modification of crops to help yield desirable traits is not something new. Steve Hughes and John Bryant, professors in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Exeter in the UK explain that “it is clear from archeological records that humans have been collecting, saving, and planting seeds for over 12,000 years” and have been “saving seeds from plants that had desirable characteristics” (115). This traditional method of plant breeding has evolved with the help of science and agricultural biotechnology to introduce techniques such as genetic modification which can produce an even wider variety of crops with desirable traits. Genetic modification was invented in 1973 and is “based on the natural gene transfer mechanisms that occur in bacteria” where they can “transfer small pieces of DNA” between cells (Hughes and Bryant 119). Further advancements allowed using a distinct set of molecular tools to precisely cut and rejoin DNA molecules. The application of these living molecular tools to food and agriculture has resulted in the broad field of agricultural biotechnology, which includes the technologies used to produce nutraceuticals, derived from nutrition and pharmaceuticals, and genetically modified food.
            “One of the most publicized uses of biotechnology in agriculture is the modification of corn to express proteins produced by the common soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)” which is “effective against certain insect pests but are harmless to humans, mammals and birds” (Falk et al. 1385). Modified crops that have this bacterial gene are able produce their own Bt toxin to help ward off insects while also maintaining the health of the farmer by reducing the use of harmful chemical pesticides. An additional benefit provided by crops that are insect-resistant is the reduction of cancer-causing fungi in those plants. An article written in The New York Times explains that “contamination by carcinogenic fungal toxins, for example, is as much as 90 percent lower in insect-resistant genetically modified corn than in nonmodified corn. This is because the fungi that make the toxins follow insects boring into the plants. No insect holes, no fungi, no toxins” (Fedoroff). However a major concern regarding this technology is the possibility of producing Bt-resistant insects. If the amount of Bt toxin from the plants is not at a high enough level to kill the predator insects, the insects may start to develop resistance to the toxin. This is in fact the case, as field studies have shown the development of resistance in predator insects about a decade after the Bt spray started being used (Nottingham 55). The resistance of pests and their link to human health is shown by the development of antibiotic resistance. During the testing phase of GM crops, “marker genes are routinely integrated into transgenic crops to select transformed plants from untransformed plants. A common way of doing this is by transferring genes that confer antibiotic resistance into plants” (Nottingham 93). This antibiotic gene sometimes remains in transgenic crops and if these resistance markers come into contact with pathogens capable of invading the human body, they could assimilate the antibiotic gene. If this happened and the pathogen entered a human host, the antibiotic drug therapies typically used to combat such pathogens would become ineffective. Dr. Stephen Nottingham, Ph.D., a biologist who specializes in crop protection, has worked for the USDA, and has been involved in research groups in the UK and projects in the US aimed at developing novel insect pest control methods clarifies that “a number of studies have claimed that antibiotic resistance genes present no risks to humans or animals. However, there is concern that antibiotic resistance genes will be transferred to bacteria living in the guts of humans or animals” (Nottingham 93). The possibility of such negative effects create strong opposition to this technology from anti-GM advocates such as Laura and Robin Ticciati, authors of Genetically Modified Foods: Are They Safe? You Decide. who voiced their concerns by explaining that “unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, new living organisms, bacteria and viruses will be released into the environment to reproduce, migrate, and mutate. They will transfer their new characteristics to other organisms” (Ticciati 5). While it’s true that this is a possibility, “there is something wrong with the perception of risk” (Ferber) claims microbiologist Abigail Salyers of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. She continues by citing the conclusions made by several panels of antibiotic-resistance experts where “unanimously, the verdict has been that the chance of antibiotic-resistance genes getting into intestinal bacteria is minuscule” (Ferber), and even if they did, “the virtually unanimous verdict is that it wouldn't matter” (Ferber) due to the fact that these same resistance genes are already found in a number of bugs. The conclusions of these panels support the studies Nottingham cited and both agree on the fact that antibiotic-resistance genes pose limited risk to human health.
While the previous applications of biotechnologies focus on factors involved in GM crops and their effects on human health, a much more direct health effect is whether or not there is enough food and if it provides us with the nutrients we need to survive. This problem was partially addressed thanks to The Green Revolution, a combination of research, development, and technology devoted to increasing agriculture production in the U.S. in the mid-1900’s. Thanks to advancements in science and technology, maximization of yield potentials was possible and led to an increase in food production. While the U.S. was lucky to have experienced a green revolution which would help adequately feed its population, other countries were not so fortunate. Many countries, especially in Africa, have not had a green revolution and still depend on traditional farming methods using chemical pesticides, damaging the land and health of the farmers. The lack of science and technology in their agricultural development has led to the production of minimal food production which is inadequate to feed their populations. Scientists at the State University of Iowa, Seed Science Center explain how “GMs are crops that are genetically formulated with improved traits or characteristics such as drought resistance, shorter growth period, improved nutritional content among others and it is one of latest technological breakthrough in agriculture and food production” (Hassan). They continue to explain the benefits of GM crops provide by adding “pest resistance, high yield, tolerance to herbicides such as striga, cold resistance, high nutritional content and drought tolerance among others” (Hassan). Despite these benefits, GM crops are met with high resistance “especially in African countries due to speculations that they are not safe for human consumption” (Hassan). It’s understandable that the countries are concerned for the health of their people, but regardless of “speculations on the safety of GM foods, no one has been able to prove that the technology is dangerous or harmful to human health. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, GMs have been tested and proven to have no negative effect on human health whatsoever and is a technology that can help overcome the challenge of improving food production both in terms of quality and quantity” (Hassan). It may be true that just because no one has been able to prove there are no negative effects doesn’t mean there aren’t any, but is this possibility of a future problem worse than the very real current problem? While many African countries continue to refuse GM foods, the government of Kenya is making a controversial move by allowing the importation of GM food in order to help fight the hunger and starvation of its people. Even though it is still illegal to grow GM crops in Kenya, it’s good to see that they realized that not embracing these new technologies and allowing the “2.5 million people in Kenya that are in urgent need of food” (Kahare) to die of starvation due to a speculation wouldn’t have been the best option.
            In addition to food quantity being an issue, food quality must also be taken into consideration. There are two main categories of nutrition deficiency, undernourishment and malnourishment. Undernourishment refers to an inadequate caloric intake, when the amount of food eaten is not enough, while malnourishment refers to a deficiency of one or more essential nutrients. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that “one in seven people are chronically malnourished” and “if they manage not to die of starvation, lack of the necessary levels of proteins, vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients in their diet” (Bharathan 177). The biotechnological innovations that stimulated the green revolution helped address the problem of undernourishment by increasing the quantity of food, saving many people from starvation. However many of the core crops that were used for this include crops such as wheat, corn, and rice, where essential nutrients are not present in adequate amounts. This is where agricultural biotechnology can be of use once again. Just as science and technology helped improve crop yields and provide a larger quantity of food, it can also enhance the quality of the food as well. Gordon Conway, president of the Rockafeller Foundation in New York explained while addressing a recent OECD conference on GM foods that children with vitamin A deficiency “are more likely to develop infections and the severity of the infection is likely to be greater. Each year half a million go blind and some 2 million die as a result of the deficiency” (Bharathan 177). Paul F. Lurquin, author of High Tech Harvest: Understanding Genetically Modified Food Plants supports and adds to Conway’s claim that “1 to 2 million of these deaths annually could be prevented if vitamin A were administered to these children” (113). Lurquin, who recommends the use of a GM food called golden rice which is enhanced with vitamin A, explains that “a normal daily diet of vitamin-A containing rice would supply enough of the vitamin to eradicate deficiency and many health problems in at-risk children” (113). In addition to being able to provide vitamin A, other varieties of GM crops have been engineered to provide benefits such as increased vitamin E content by simply overexpressing a gene naturally found in the same plant and as well as increased iron retention. Lurquin explains that we need to be careful how much of these enriched substances we consume because it could become similar to taking medication where food may come with warning labels such as “Do not exceed the recommended dose” (126) in order to help consumers avoid potential overdoses. Taking this type of modification a step further would be to incorporate multiple beneficial nutrients into the same food, further helping in the fight against malnutrition.
Just as biotechnology is being used to address the problems of nutritional deficiencies by enhancing the quality of food through higher nutrient content, it can also be used to control a variety of age-related diseases. Populations today tend to have a much longer life expectancy than past generations, but this benefit comes with problems of its own. Certain neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) for example, has steadily increased over the past decade and is the “fifth leading cause of death in Americans aged 65 and older” (Scapagnini 27). If this problem is not addressed, the problem will worsen over time and start to place a serious burden on current and future generations. Scapagnini explains that “The potential role of curcumin as a preventive agent against brain aging and neurodegenerative studies identify a novel class of compounds that could be used for therapeutic purposes as preventive agents against the acute neurodegenerative conditions that affect many in the world’s increasingly ageing population” (27). Klaus W.J. Wahle, part of the Cancer Medicine Research Group in the School of Medicine and Dentistry at Aberdeen University, UK explains the correlation between the incidence and spreading of cancer cell and the consumption of certain nutrients called phenolics. He describes the nutrients beneficial mechanism of action by explaining that “Phenolics can enhance the body’s immune system to recognize and destroy cancer cells as well as inhibiting the development of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) that is necessary for tumour growth. They also attenuate adhesiveness and invasiveness of cancer cells thereby reducing their metastatic potential” (Wahle 36). This means that not only do these phenolics have the potential to eliminate existing cancer cells, but also to stop cancer from developing in the first place. While some consumers are aware of the benefical aspects of such foods, the naturally made and presently available sources of the nutrients is not enough to meet the recommended daily allowance (RDA) and reach its assumed potential. Just as vitamins were placed in genetically engineered foods to help address the problem of vitamin deficiencies, if these beneficial compounds were incorporated into a broader and more available type of food, it would help decrease the occurrence of these diseases. Autar K. Mattoo, who works in the Sustainable Agricultural Systems Lab, part of the Agricultural Research Center of the USDA agrees with this notion and adds that “staple foods such as rice, corn, wheat and cassava are relatively poor sources of health-promoting nutrients. In the developing world this contributes to health problems because the traditional diets are deficient in one or more essential nutrients, causing malnutrition and disease. Thus, a simple solution entails food biofortification with externally supplied vitamins and antioxidants, or via genetic manipulation of nutraceuticals in staple food” (Mattoo 122).
            Being able to fix health issues and diseases that are already present is a very important goal that these new biotechnologies help meet, but wouldn’t it be even better to prevent these issues from developing in the first place? While continuing to look for ways to improve human health, the search for “an easier and affordable means of immunization has led researchers to the idea of using fruit and vegetable plants as factories for synthesizing vaccines known as ‘‘edible vaccines’’” (Sharma and Sood 1). In addition to splicing in genes that produce desired vitamins and other phytonutrients that can alleviate their respectful deficiencies, bacterial and viral genes are also being used in foods to grant immunity from disease. Now at first the idea may seem unappealing, and with good reason, after all who would want to eat bacteria and viruses? That’s not exactly what happens in this process. When a person gets a vaccination, what actually happens is that they are being injected with a weakened or dead version of a pathogen, a virus for example, or just a weakened part of a pathogen, called an antigen. The purpose of this is sort of like a practice defense run for your body. Using the weakened pathogen, your body learns to recognize it and build up defenses quickly in order to fight it. As you can imagine, your body’s response may not be very fast or effective at first, which is why you give it a practice run with a vaccine so that if the actual pathogen happens to invade your body, then you would be able to respond quickly and effectively and stay healthy. Using vaccines, you can reduce and even prevent some of the lethal effects virus and bacteria can have on your body. The problem with using traditional vaccines lie in the costs of their production and distribution as well as physical limitations such as the need to be stored in refrigerated conditions as well as having sterile needles to safely administer the vaccines. This is where innovations in agricultural biotechnology shine once again, with the introduction of edible plant viruses. Lurquin explains how part of the pathogen is cloned, and the idea is that “by expressing partial toxin genes in edible plants, the treated individual’s body would trigger an immune response to a disabled, safe partial protein toxin” (127). Sharma and Sood support this claim and explain that these edible vaccines “do not contain the genes responsible for pathogenesis, making them safe as they can generate an immune response in the body without causing disease. Edible vaccines are likely to overcome the hurdles posed by traditional vaccines, as they can be delivered without needles, do not require refrigeration and can be made, less expensively, right in the area in which they will be delivered” (1).
This may seem alright in theory, but additional safety concerns must be addressed and tested before this can be approved for human use. Lurquin performed a series of experiments using this cloned partial toxin gene and introduced it to potatoes. The potatoes where then fed to mice, and the mice were observed to be producing antibodies, substances that act as a defense mechanism, to the toxin (Lurquin 127). A viral toxin gene was then introduced to potatoes and tested on human volunteers. The study, which was done by the Cornell University group in collaboration with clinicians at the University of Maryland, “successfully immunized nineteen out of twenty (95 percent) volunteers against the Norwalk virus, a leading cause of food-borne disease around the world” (Lurquin 128). A further benefit is that vaccines made by antigens from plants cannot be contaminated by viruses from animals, including humans, and also viruses that affect plants do not affect humans (Lurquin 129). Nottingham adds that there are additional benefits of using plants as a means to deliver vaccines by including that “large quantities of plant material can be easily produced, fewer ethical concerns are involved and crops such as modified bananas could provide an easy source of medicinal drugs, particularly in the developing world” (77). Nottingham continues by citing a field test with remarkable results where “bananas have been genetically modified to carry hepatitis B vaccine, and it was estimated that ten hectares would produce enough to vaccinate all the children in Mexico” (78). Even though this is very promising technology, there are still some major issues that need to be worked out before it can implemented for human use. One simple, yet fairly important fact is that the crop that is injected with the toxin gene must be consumed raw. That’s because if you cook or heat to the modified crop, there’s a possibility of denaturing the biological component (Nottingham 77). This may be why the crops that are currently in vaccine development include bananas, cowpeas, and other crops (Nottingham 78) that are more palatable to eat raw, unlike the potatoes that were used during testing. Many obstacles still lie in the way of edible vaccines becoming an everyday reality, some of which include “antigen selection, efficacy in systems, choice of plants, delivery, dosage, safety, public perception and quality control and licensing” (Sharma and Sood 5).
            While still dealing with the human body’s immune system and the effects GM foods have on it, one must also take into consideration the possibility of allergic reactions. When an antigen, a substance that causes a reaction from your immune system is consumed, your body quickly creates a sort of immune system army to fight off the invader. In an allergic reaction, a substance similar to an antigen, called an allergen, enters your body but doesn’t really pose much of a direct threat. In a person with allergies, the body thinks this allergen is dangerous and thus creates the defenses needed to fight it, when they are not needed. These defense mechanisms, in addition to being an overreaction and not needed, also cause damage to the body. The allergen, which is usually a protein, has been identified in some reactions and has been removed through genetic engineering. An example where this has been successful is in Japan, where “a protein that provokes allergic reactions has been experimentally removed from rice” (Nottingham 92).  This allows possibilities such as being able to enjoy peanuts-based foods, certain cereals, and many other foods without having to worry about an allergic reaction. However these modifications can work in an opposite fashion as well. A 1996 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine by Steve Taylor and his colleagues at the University of Nebraska, “showed that people allergic to Brazil nuts are also allergic to soybeans that have been engineered to express a Brazil nut protein to make them more nourishing” (Ferber). Nottingham adds to this study by explaining that “most new substances in food due to genetic engineering are likely to be proteins present in trace amounts. Unfortunately trace amounts of an allergen are sufficient to trigger physiological reactions” (92). This shows that genetic modification can not only take out harmful allergens, but displace them into different foods. The particular brand of soy beans was voluntarily discontinued before commercialization and the results of this study are reassuring says food microbiologist Bruce Chassy of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, a former food-safety adviser to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Chassy continues to add that “the producers of GM foods screen their products for allergenicity, he says. Among other methods, they can check to see if the amino acid sequences of the proteins made by the genes they put into crop plants resemble those of known food allergens” (Ferber). Nottingham clarifies from this study that “a genetic modification in one organism can affect a completely unrelated foodstuff” (93). Nottingham also addresses the increasing rate of allergy-related asthma and skin conditions and its correlation to the increased use of chemicals and modification of food, leading him to the conclusion that “as food becomes more synthesized, through the use of genetic engineering, the problems of allergic reactions from foods are unlikely to diminish” (Nottingham 93).
            Agricultural biotechnology, including genetic modification and all the other biological modifications that fall under this category can be implemented in a plethora of ways, which makes it difficult to give a simple yes or no answer when asking if this technology is safe for human use or not. Even though GM crops have been in development and have been used for decades now, there still isn’t any conclusive evidence on whether these crops are a good or bad thing. That’s because it’s not that simple. Given all the different changes biotechnology can make along with all the different varieties of crops it can affect, simply using a blanket statement such as all GM foods are good or bad is being too critical. Instead, as new advancements in crop modification arise, they should be viewed in an individual manner to assess the possible risks and benefits along with any other concerning factors before they are made commercially available. Because this is still a relatively new technology, the data for comparison of these products is limited. We can use the trials done in the past few years along with current research to help provide us with a better picture of what areas GM foods clearly provide a benefit and what areas could be improved. Then we will have a much better understanding of the human health and safety effects the foods produced using these biotechnologies can have and be able to make better decisions on whether or not to use these agricultural biotechnologies.