Genetically modified food

From Free net encyclopedia

A genetically modified food is a food product derived in whole or part from a genetically modified organism (GMO) such as a crop plant, animal or microbe such as yeast. Genetically modified foods have been available since the 1990s. The principal ingredients of GM foods currently available are derived from genetically modified soybean, maize and canola.

Some governments have a very strong mutual disagreement over the labelling and traceability requirements for GM food products. For example the European Union and Japan require labelling and traceability while regulatory agencies in the United States do not believe these requirements are necessary.

Contents

[edit]

Background

Genetic engineering or genetic modification (GM) refers to technologies that allow single genes to be inserted or altered in living organisms such as animals, plants, or bacteria. Biotechnology, a more general term, refers to using living organisms or their components, such as enzymes, to make products that include wine, cheese, beer, and yogurt. Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and the resulting organism is said to be "genetically modified," "genetically engineered," or "transgenic." Genetic engineering may more correctly be termed genetic re-contextualisation where genes can be transferred to new contexts in order to generate new characteristics. GM products (current or in the pipeline) include medicines (e.g. insulin, vaccines), foods and food ingredients, feeds, and fibers.

Locating genes for important traits—such as those conferring insect resistance or desired nutrients—has until recently been one of the most limiting steps for the use of genetic engineering for developing new or improved products for humankind. Genome sequencing and discovery programs for hundreds of different organisms are now generating detailed maps along with data analysis technologies to understand and use them.

[edit]

Development and application

The origins of genetic engineering represent a series of sequential scientific advances from the Nobel prize-winning discovery of DNA to the production of the first recombinant E .coli bacteria.

The first commercially grown genetically modified food crop was a tomato created by Calgene called the FlavrSavr. Calgene submitted it to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for assessment in 1992; following the FDA's determination that the FlavrSavr was, in fact, a tomato, did not constitute a health hazard, and did not need to be labeled to indicate it was genetically modified, Calgene released it into the market in 1994, where it met with little public comment. Considered to have a poor flavor, it never sold well and was off the market by 1997. However, it had improved solids contents which made it an attractive new variety for canned tomatoes.

Transgenic crops are grown commercially or in field trials in over 40 countries and on 6 continents. In 2000, about 109.2 million acres (442,000 km²) were planted with transgenic crops, the principal ones being herbicide- and insecticide-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola. Other crops grown commercially or field-tested are a sweet potato resistant to a US strain of a virus that affects one out of the more than 89 different varieties of sweet potato grown in Africa, rice with increased iron and vitamins such as golden rice, and a variety of plants able to survive extreme weather.

Between 1996 and 2001, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 30, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 520,000 km² (128 million acres). The value for 2002 was 145 million acres (587,000 km²) and for 2003 was 167 million acres (676,000 km²). Soybean crop represented 63% of total surface in 2001, maize 19%, cotton 13% and canola 5%. In 2004, the value was about 200 million acres (809,000 km²) of which 2/3 were in the United States.

Four countries represent 99% of total GM surface in 2001: United States (68%), Argentina (22%), Canada (6%) and China (3%). It is estimated that 70% of products on U.S. grocery shelves include GM ingredients. In particular, Bt corn is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides.

The US Agriculture Department estimated that 38 percent of the 79 million acres (320,000 km²) of corn planted in 2003 will be genetically engineered varieties as well as 80% of the 73.2 million acres (296,000 km²) soybeans. The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient.

Future envisaged applications of GMOs include bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties. The next decade may see exponential progress in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects.

[edit]

Benefits and risks

The majority of commercially available crops have an agronomic advantage like herbicide tolerance or insect resistance. These traits offer major benefits to the farmer. However, there are indirect benefits to the consumer from these traits: GM crops have been shown to contribute to significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This reduction results from decreased fuel use, about 1.8 billion liters in the past nine years, and additional soil carbon sequestration because of reduced ploughing or improved conservation tillage associated with biotech crops. In 2004, this reduction was equivalent to eliminating more than 10 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. [1]

Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.

[edit]

Controversies over risks

Although no major health hazards have come to light since GM food was introduced 10 years ago, some fear for the long term health risks which GM could pose, or that the risks of GM have not yet been adequately investigated.

[edit]

Dangerous Potatoes?

In August 1998 widespread concern, especially in Europe, was sparked by remarks by nutrition researcher, Dr Arpad Pusztai, regarding some of his research into the safety of GM foods.

Pusztai claimed his experiments showed that rats fed on genetically modified potatoes had suffered serious damage to their immune systems and shown stunted growth. He was criticized by leading British politicians, the majority of scientific peers with expertise in the area and by the GM companies because he announced his preliminary results in a television interview before the publication of the results in a scientific journal. When his studies were finally published in The Lancet 1999 354:1353-1354, no evidence of stunted growth or damage to immune system was substantiated. The Royal Society's review of the Pusztai data led to the conclusion that the study "is flawed in many aspects of design, execution, and analysis and that no conclusion should be drawn from it" Royal Society Report.

[edit]

Dangerous Corn?

Another controversy recently arose around biotech company Monsanto's data on a 90-Day Rat Feeding Study on a strain of GM corn. In May 2005, critics of GM foods pointed to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in this study, suggesting that the observed differences called into question the regulatory doctrine of substantial equivalence - that GM food with similar proteins and toxins is deemed no different than conventional food, without further investigation of the effects of any other differences. Some argued that this study suggested human health might be affected by eating GM food.

However, the European Food safety authoriy has examined the Monsanto data and concluded that the observed small numerical decrease in rat kidney weights were not biologically meaningful, and the weights were well within the normal range of kidney weights for control animals. There were no corresponding microscopic findings in the relevant organ systems, and all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the "normal range of historical control values" for rats. Thus, the experts concluded that there were no effects on the functioning of kidneys in rats fed a diet of GM corn.[2]

[edit]

New Allergens

GMOs that induce allergies have been produced in the laboratory. In 1993 Pioneer Hi-Bred International developed a soybean variety with an added gene from the Brazil nut.[3] This gene increased the levels of methionine, a nutrient commonly added to poultry feed, in the GM soybean. However, a preliminary Pioneer funded study by the University of Nebraska indicated that the added gene could cause allergic reactions in humans. The completed study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine ([4]), later confirmed the preliminary results. Pioneer discontinued further development of the GM soybean and had all material related to the modified soybeans destroyed. While this study indicates the possible risks of GM foods, some point out it establishes the commitment the developmental community has toward consumer safety as well as the competence of current safeguards. A similar result was published in November 2005, when a pest resistant field pea developed by the Australian CSIRO for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic reaction in mice. The immunologist who tested the pea noted that the episode illustrated the need for each new GM food to be very carefully evaluated for potential health effects.[5]

[edit]

Environmental and Ecological impacts

As discussed above there is some evidence for positive impacts of the planting of GM crops on reduced green house gas emissions and pesticide loads in the environment. However, there has been controversy over the results of a farm-scale trial in the United Kingdom comparing the impact of GM crops and conventional crops on farmlandbiodiversity. Some claimed that the results showed that GM crops had a significant negative impact on wildlife.[6]

Others pointed out that the studies showed that using herbicide resistant GM crops allowed better weed control and that under such conditions there were fewer weeds and fewer weed seeds. This result was then extrapolated to suggest that GM crops would have significant impact on the wildlife that might rely on farm weeds. In July 2005 the same British scientists showed that transfer of a herbicide-resistance gene from GM oilseed rape to a wild cousin, charlock, and wild turnips was possible.[7]

[edit]

rBGH

Template:Main rBGH, a genetically engineered version of bovine somatotropin, is a hormone used to increase the production of milk in cows. Although it is used in the United States, it is banned in Canada, the EU, and Australia. rBGH is a frequent target of anti-GMO groups, who claim that there is evidence of an increased risk of disease in consumers of milk from rbST-injected cows.

[edit]

Public perception

Template:Cleanup-date

Research by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology has shown that in 2005 Americans' knowledge of genetically modified foods and animals continues to remain low, and their opinions reflect that they are particularly uncomfortable with animal cloning. The Pew survey also showed that despite continuing concerns about GM foods, American consumers do not support banning new uses of the technology, but rather seek an active role from regulators to ensure that new products are safe.[8]

[edit]

Policy around the world

In 2000, countries that grew 99% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (68%), Argentina (23%), Canada (7%), and China (1%). Although growth is expected to plateau in industrialized countries, it is increasing in developing countries.

There are two policy areas surrounding GM food:

  • The standards and regulation of testing for food safety and;
  • The requirements for labelling and traceability of GM products in the food chain.

Countries vary on their approach to both these points.

[edit]

United States

In the United States, genetically modified food is widely available. Some environmentalist groups believe the U.S. should regulate GM food more closely and have called for mandatory labeling and testing requirements.

[edit]

Testing

The Food and Drug Administration regulates the saftey of all foods sold including the safety of GM foods. Under these regulations <ref name=sec409>Section 409 of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)</ref>, substances added to food that do not meet the statutory definition of generally recognized as safe, and that are not pesticides <ref name=EPA>Note: Pesticidal proteins in foods are regulated by the EPA </ref>, are classified as food or color additives and must be pre-approved before they may be marketed. Prior to marketing food additives, manufacturers are required to submit to FDA documentation demonstrating their safety and await approval for their use [9][10]. For a list of the GM foods that have been regulated in this way see FDA's List of Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods

Section 402(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act covers unintentional introduction of unsafe toxicants into foods. Producers of the foods are legally responsible to ensure that no substance occurs in the food that "may render" the food injurious to health FDA Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties. In order to comply with this part of the act GM companies subject new GM foods to saftey testing in animal models.

Some people raise concerns that the safety of these novel food forms relies on the effectiveness of testing by food manufacturers. Defenders of the regulatory model point out that such a model has served the public well for many years with respect to non-GM food, drugs and food additives. They further point out that manufacturers data is subject to close scrutiny and that the law protects the consumers from manufactures of dangerous foods. It is thus in the manufacturers' best interests to ensure that the safety testing of GM foods is done adequately.

[edit]

Labeling

Section 403(i) of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that a producer of a food product must reveal on a label "all facts that are material with respect to consequences which may result from use".

Under the act a consumer must be informed by labeling if a food derived from a new plant variety differes from its traditional counterpart with respect to a saftey or usage issue. The FDA takes the view that the method of production of the new plant variety is not "material" to whether a food needs to be labled under the act. The FDA's policy is that foods be considered on case by case basis and that labling would be required on individual GM food products if these GM foods were materially different FDA Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties.

<references/>

[edit]

European Union

See also Trade war over genetically modified food

In Europe, a series of unrelated food crises during the 1990s (e.g. the BSE (or 'mad cow' disease) outbreaks and foot and mouth disease) have created consumer apprehension about food safety in general, and eroded the public trust in government oversight of the food industry. This has further fueled widespread public concern about GMOs, in terms of environmental protection (in particular biodiversity), health and safety of consumers and the right to make an informed choice. The apprehension might also be due to the novelty of GM foods, as well as cultural factors relating to food. The mishandling of the BSE crisis has left some consumers unwilling to consider "science" to be a guarantee of quality.

European consumers are demanding that their "right to know" the content and origin of the food they consume be respected. In a context of local food surplus where current GM food has little added nutritional value, many European consumers are wondering why any risk should be taken. However, as a result of the high quantity of GMO crops, the presence of GM in imported food products (shipments of grain for food, feed and processing for example), is now thought inevitable and largely unavoidable, and usually not mentioned.

[edit]

EU regulation

For these reasons, the marketing of GM food is regulated in a manner that helps to provide the necessary levels of safety, transparency and reassurance. At the beginning of the 2000's, European officials insisted that new regulations were needed to "restore consumer confidence" in the technology. These new regulations required strict labelling and traceability of all food and animal feed containing more than 0.5% GM ingredients. Directives, such as directive 2001/18/EC, were designed to require authorisation for the placing on the market of GMO, in accordance with the precautionary principle. (see also Tax, tariff and trade).

One of the features of the European system is a comprehensive pre-market risk assessment, a system trying to provide means for products to be followed at each stage of their production and distribution, by both transmission of accurate information and labelling. This traceability is a means to implement post-market measures such as monitoring and withdrawals (recalls).
This system is not only limited to GMO products but should encompass any food product ultimately.

The original EU rules for labeling of GM products were limited to products where transformed DNA and/or transformed protein are detectable, not to products that have been produced from GMOs but no longer appears to contain modified DNA and/or proteins. New rules for traceability and labelling which came into force in 2004 also require labelling of highly refined products made from GM ingredients like oil and corn syrup, even though that the presence of recombinant DNA or protein cannot be proven. The labelling rules do not apply to products of microbial genetic engineering, so the cheese made with the help of GM-chymosin doesn't have to be labelled. Officials stress that while traceability facilitates the implementation of safety measures, where appropriate, it cannot and should not be considered as a safety measure.

In April 1998, a five-year ban was pronounced on new genetically modified crops. At the end of 2002, European Union environment ministers agreed new controls on GMOs could eventually lead the 25-member bloc to reopen its markets to GM foods. European Union ministers agreed to new labelling controls for genetically modified goods which will have to carry a special harmless DNA sequence (a DNA code bar) identifying the origin of the crops, making it easier for regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and enabling products to be withdrawn from the food chain should problems arise. A series of additional sequences of DNA with encrypted information about the company or what was done to the product could also be added to provide more data. (see Mandatory labelling).

See Trade war over genetically modified food for more details on disputes and more recent developments between the United States and the EU arising from EU position on genetically modified organisms.

[edit]

Japan

Japan, like Europe, maintains labelling standards for GM food products. Japanese demand and assistance has led to a small effort to set up separate processing facility for non-GM soybeans in the U.S.

[edit]

Canada

Labelling is currently not required for GM food products sold in Canada. In 2005, a standing committee began work in the province of Prince Edward Island to assess a proposal to ban the production of GM foods within the province.

[edit]

China and other developing countries

China is currently a producer of GM cotton. Research published in Science claims that Chinese farmers growing GM cotton use significantly less pesticides, reducing costs and improving farmer health. The Chinese government has also released safety certificates following field and laboratory testing allowing the cultivation of GM tomato, pimiento and a species of morning glory. Development of new GM crops for food is an active field of research in Chinese institutions.

In March 2002, China introduced biosafety rules that demanded strict labelling, extensive documentation and government approval for food shipments. Under these new rules, all soybean shipments from the United States were briefly interrupted until interim safety certificates could be acquired.

In 2004 the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture announced its intention to assess the safety of GM rice lines developed by Chinese institutions for insect, disease and herbicide resistance. With government approval the crops may be planted as soon as spring 2006.

Agriculture officials from developing and other economically disadvantaged nations are receiving training courses on GMO at the American Agriculture Department, with instruction in the WTO rules on GM products and benefits of biotechnology. U.S. industry groups are also providing "technical assistance" to fund initiatives that promote "science-based and transparent biotechnology regulations" in countries such as China.

[edit]

See also

Template:Wikinewspar

[edit]

References

  • Huang, J. et al. 2002. Plant Biotechnology in China. Science 295:674-677.
  • Niu, 2003. Caution in China over GM Crops. Science 299: 1013
  • Lei, W. 2004. China Could Be First Nation to Approve Sale of GM Rice. Science 306:1458-1459.
  • Robert Ali Brac De La PerriFre and Franck Seuret (2001), Brave New Seeds: The Threat of GM Crops to Farmers, Zed Books
  • Stephen Nottingham (2003), Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food Is Entering Our Diet, Zed Books
[edit]

External links

[edit]

News/commentary

es:Alimento transgénico

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Genetically_modified_food"