Final Paper Draft 3

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.

            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.

            One of the most well-known modifications of a crop is its insect resistance. This is done by using the bacterium Bacillus thuringienis (Bt) which is naturally found in the soil and has an a plethora of insecticidal proteins. The spores of this bacteria can survive extreme weather conditions and remain undisturbed in the soil for a very long period of time. The way this toxin works to provide insect resistance is when the insect ingests the Bt spores, the spores open up to release their insecticide toxins which attach to the stomach of the insects and make them unable to absorb nutrients and therefore eventually leading to their death (Nottingham 47). Having these modified crops that have this bacterial gene and are able produce their own Bt toxin inside the plants helps to ward off insects while decreasing the amound of insecticide farmers need to use. Having to spray less insecticide means problems associated with spray drift will be decreased as well as less contamination of the surrounding farmland and groundwater. Because Bt is biodegradable and only targets certain insects, it is safe for organisms other than the target insect. The use of Bt spray also has beneficial effects on human health in the fact that reducing the amount of insecticide spraying that needs to be done due to the incorporated insect-resistance of the crop, it will decrease the incidence of spray operator poisoning. Another benefit to human health is while using GM crops with the Bt gene, you know what is present and the effects it will have. In contrast to Bt spray, if a chemical insecticide is used, which commonly includes some mix of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides that contain compounds harmful to human health, then the chemical residue left on the crops would pose an even greater health risk while using conventional unregulated plant breeding methods versus the highly monitored and regulated biotech method (Nottingham 55). 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).

            Even though Bt technology provides us with all these agricultural, economical, and health benefits, these benefits do not come without a cost. 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. Unfortunetly this is not just a theoretical concept, as field studies have shown the development of resistance in predator insects about a decade after the spray started being used (Nottingham 55). If this resistance continues to grow, then Bt technology will become ineffective against pests and farmers will have to switch back to chemical pesticides, therefore losing the benefits that Bt technology provided in the first place.

            The resistance of pests and their link to human health is also shown in the possibility of antibiotic resistance. While using Bt technology, the harm to human health was that if the pests developed a resistance, it would cause farmers to have to switch back to chemical pesticides which are less agriculturally friendly and would need to be sprayed more often, which would cost the farmers more and also increase their risk of pesticide poisoning. With antibiotic resistance, the health effect is a lot more direct. 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).  Sometimes this antibiotic gene, which is used for testing purposes only, remains in transgenic crops. The fear is that if these resistance markers happen to escape from a controlled laboratory setting, then pathogens capable of invading the human body could assimilate this antibiotic gene. If this happened and the pathogen entered a human host, the antibiotics we as humans would usually take to combat this pathogen would become less effective or even worse, completely useless. Dr. Stephen Nottingham, Ph.D., a biologist who specializes in crop protection who has been involved in research groups in the UK and projects in the US aimed at developing novel insect pest control methods as well as having worked for the USDA 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). These potential 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 have limited if any risks 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 adequetly 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 health of the land and the farmers. The lack of science and technology in the development of their agriculture leads to the production of minimal food yield which is not adequate 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 looking out for the safety 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 the possibility of a future problem worse than a very real current problem? While many African countries continue to refuse GM foods, the government of Kenya is making what it considers to be 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 because of a speculation doesn’t seem like it’s 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, or not enough food eaten, while malnourishment refers to a deficiency of one or more essential nutrients. While the problem of undernourishment has at least some solution method thanks to biological innovation and increasing maximum crop yields, malnutrition continues to be a growing global problem. 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 green revolution, which helped address the problem of undernourishment by increasing the quantity of food did in fact save 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 recommends the use of a GM food called golden rice, which is enhanced with vitamin A and 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 give such benefits as increased vitamin E by simply overexpressing a gene naturally found in the plant and also plants that have increased iron retention. Lurquin explains how we need to be careful how much of this enriched substances we consume because it could become similar to take medication in such a way where food may come with warning labels like “Do not exceed the recommended dose” (126) in order to avoid toxic levels of the modified substance, vitamins A, E, and iron in the examples given. Taking this modification a step further would be to incorporate multiple beneficial nutrients into the same food. This could be thought of as a food version of a multivitamin supplement.

Following a similar ideology to the vitamin related deficiencies that need to be addressed, there are also many age-related diseases which could use some biotechnological intervention. The modern day population tends to live longer lives, but these lives are not carefree. Certain neurodegenerative disease, 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). 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). 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 prevalence 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).

            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 genes that produce desired vitamins and other phytonutrients that can help with their respectful deficiencies, bacterial and viral genes are also available to be in your food today! 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 happened 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. Well this sounds great, everyone should get them. While that would be ideal, currently it’s just not feasible. Production and distribution of vaccines is costly, in terms of finances and time, and traditional vaccines also have limitations such as the need to be stored in refrigerated conditions and finding 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 has been 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 vaccine “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 introducing 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. “In July 2000, 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 infect humans (Lurquin 129). Nottingham adds 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 an exciting field test 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, you run the risk 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, and not something like a raw potato. 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).