Debate over genetic modification continues to rage

Frankenstein Lives!

06 November 2009 00:00  [Source: ICB]

Despite a widespread mistrust of GMOs, with Friends of the Earth, for one, favoring organic agriculture, the science of genetically manipulating food refuses to die

Philippa Jones/Brussels

Rex Features/Chris Eyles

THERE MAY be fewer headlines in the media about "Frankenstein foods" or "superweeds" than a few years ago, but the debate surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remains as heated as ever.

Many environmental organizations accept that biotechnology may have a role to play in tackling climate change - environmentalist group WWF recently suggested that industrial biotechnology could save the planet up to 2.5bn tonnes/year of carbon dioxide emissions. However, attitudes tend to become much less tolerant when debating agricultural biotechnology. One of the key questions under debate is whether scientists can create and bring to market GMOs with enhanced nutritional profiles compared with their traditional counterparts and whether such products can help cure various health problems around the world.

This attitude of mistrust remains particularly prevalent in Europe. At a recent conference, Catherine Geslain-Laneelle, executive director of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), said: "The field of GMO is characterized by a significant divergence in opinion among the various actors, low social acceptability and differing views on the potential benefits and beneficiaries of the technology."

The biotech industry and a swathe of scientists are extremely excited and bullish about the potential of GMOs to improve health worldwide. Environmental lobby groups such as UK-headquartered Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, remain resolutely opposed to the technology, however. Geslain-Laneelle reaffirmed the EFSA's role as a provider of scientific advice on GMOs, insisting that the organization was "neither pro-GMO nor anti-GMO" and existed "not only to inform but also to listen and learn."

Golden Rice is probably the best known of the nutritionally enhanced plants (NEPs). By inserting genes from corn and a soil bacterium into rice, scientists have created a plant that produces high levels of vitamin A - deficiency of which causes blindness in around half a million people, mainly children, every year. Despite numerous years of research, the product is still not available commercially.

Sense About Science, a UK nonprofit trust set up to debunk scientific myths, acknowledges that "applications for field trials for Golden Rice have been delayed by the regulatory process, which was designed with large companies rather than small humanitarian projects in mind." But it says it hopes that this project plus "similar beta-carotene-enhanced crops such as GM sorghum and sweet potato will soon be contributing to overcoming vitamin A deficiency."

APPROVAL IMMINENT
The Philippines-headquartered International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Golden Rice claims the product should be commercially available "following biosafety approvals, as early as 2012, first in the Philippines and Bangladesh, and to be followed in other Asian countries." It adds that "three lines of high-zinc rice developed by the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI), in collaboration with IRRI are now in advanced yield trials [and] may be available in Bangladesh and Eastern India from 2012."

In addition to beta-carotene-enhanced foods, scientists are working on a variety of products, including NEPs that could give us the same omega-3 found in fish or the anti-cancer goodness stored in broccoli. One breakthrough in the field seemed to come last October, when researchers at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, UK, developed tomatoes that were unusually rich in anthocyanins.

"We must let the voice of science speak - and act on what we hear" Mariann Fischer Boel, EU farm commissioner

Collaborating with colleagues in Italy, Germany and the Netherlands, the scientists inserted genes from the snapdragon plant (Antirrhinum) into normal tomato plants, apparently resulting in higher than normal levels of anthocyanins. They claimed in the journal Nature Biotechnology that cancer-susceptible mice that were fed the purple fruit showed "a significant extension of life span."

Cathie Martin, lead author on the paper, said: "This is one of the first examples of metabolic engineering that offers the potential to promote health through diet by reducing the impact of chronic disease," adding: "The next step will be to take the preclinical data forward to human studies to see if we can promote health through dietary preventive medicine strategies."

The UK Food and Drink Federation (FDF) would also like to see more research to understand the potential benefits of these foods, but warns that consumers would have to accept they were safe if they were to be successful. "The first wave of GM crops was modified for agricultural benefits, which were not perceived by consumers as offering any benefit to them," says FDF spokeswoman Sarah Lovell. "New GM events with enhanced nutritional properties could certainly offer a range of nutritional benefits provided they gain consumer acceptance."

The IRRI believes that such products are necessary to solve nutritional deficiencies and meet many of the UN's Millennium Development Goals. "Advocating a diverse diet is great for those people who can get food, but this is not an option for many," claims Gerard Barry, leader of the IRRI's micronutrient deficiencies program. Friends of the Earth is unconvinced. In a report published this year, it accused biotech firms of using genetically modified crops to feed profits instead of the world, and focused on the failure of companies to deliver a single nutrition-boosting GM product to the market, despite years of research and significant amounts of money.

In "Who Benefits From GM Crops?" FOE used a 2008 study 2008 by the UN Conference on Trade and Development and UN Environment Programme to conclude that "organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the long inherent cycle of poverty and malnutrition" and highlighted that "the conclusions and findings are relevant for many other developing countries around the world." Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the US Center for Food Safety, concurs and suggests that scientists may by overreaching themselves with their claims for NEPs.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
"Use of GM technology for nutritional enhancement is experimental and extremely limited," says Freese, adding: "The genetic manipulations required to alter nutritional content of GM crops are often very complex and difficult." He insists that "the best way to enhance nutrition and health is a diverse diet with lots of fruits and vegetables" and claims that agricultural policies need to be changed in developing countries to move populations away from monocultures and single-ingredient diets.

But EU farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel believes if we close the door on GM foods, we risk missing something. GMOs offered both "risks and opportunities," she told the European Policy Centre this month, and urged "clear judgment to identify them." She warned that it "and without logical consistency we could end up being blind to opportunities, while running away from shadows. We must be courageous and sensible We must let the voice of science speak - and act on what we hear."

 

MONSANTO MOTORS
Dave Stark, Monsanto vice president, consumer traits
"For more than a decade now, biotechnology has been delivering benefits to the world's farmers. These benefits have primarily been through herbicide tolerance and insect protection. Within the next few years, we expect to supplement those important benefits with enhancements geared toward healthier options for consumers. These products include soybean oil with stearidonic acid (SDA) omega 3s, which will help provide a sustainable, land-based source of SDA omega-3 soybean oil that will offer food companies additional choices when looking to formulate products with omega 3s. We are developing soybean oil with reduced saturated fats and improved oil stability, which will provide another option for food companies looking to develop products for the health-conscious consumer. We hope to commercialize both products after the turn of the decade, given commercialization and regulatory milestones that must be met prior to introduction."

Read Doris de Guzman's Green Chemicals blog

By: Philippa Jones
+44 20 8652 3214

For the latest chemical news, data and analysis that directly impacts your business sign up for a free trial to ICIS news - the breaking online news service for the global chemical industry.

Get the facts and analysis behind the headlines from our market leading weekly magazine: sign up to a free trial to ICIS Chemical Business.

Printer Friendly