Genetically Modified Food?

By

Vasantha Kumar Roll# - 23050

BE & CG Final Assignment

Genetically - modified foods The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. In the past, the main areas of contention have included nuclear weapons, eugenics and experiments on animals, but in recent years the list of "immoral" research areas has grown exponentially. In particular, reproductive biology become ripe for moral outrage: GM Crops Below are few advantages of GMOs claim by the corporate those are doing the research.
Less pesticide is needed to be used due to insect pest resistant plants. More economically friendly as pesticides do not go into the air, soil, and water (especially freshwater supplies). Their production hazards to the environment also decreases. Decrease in costs of growing and farming, due to the reduced use of pesticides Higher crop yields. Farmers have more income, which they could spend on such things as, for example, the education of their children.

BE & CG Final Assignment

Decrease in food prices due to lower costs and higher yield. As people in poor countries spend over half of their income on food alone, lower food prices mean an automatic reduction of poverty. Less starvation in the world due to decreased food prices. More nutritious. This has been proven and tested many times

There is other thought of school on disadvantages of GMO Foods.

Harm to other organisms. For example genes and their effect included in a crop may turn out to be poisonous to insects (monarch butterfly poisoned by GMO corns). Taste of GMOs is not as good or "natural". Cross-pollination with traditional, organic plants. Cross pollination can occur at quite large distances. New genes may also be included in the offspring of the traditional, organic crops miles away. This makes it difficult to distinguish which crop field is organic, and which is not, posing a problem to the proper labeling of non-GMO food products. Spread of new, more resistant "super weeds Spread of new, more resistant "super pests". Major trading countries that obtain most of the benefit from the production and trade of genetically modified crops. This might cause more geopolitical conflicts. New trade, tariff and quota issues may arise between countries, regions. Critics say GMOs may cause health problems. As the USA is the biggest producer of GMO crops, their exports may rouse more antiAmerican feeling, due to Americanization worldwide. Possible damages to the environment. Possible greed of GMO manufacturing firms. Unharmonized test and safety standards around the world. GMOs are made because it is possible to make them, not because consumers feel their need. Possible creation of new kinds of weapons; genetic food and beverage weapons. Additional costs of labeling whether products are GMOs or not. This might increase costs of foods. Widening corporate size gaps between food producing giants and smaller ones. This might cause a consolidation in the market: fewer competitors increase the risk of oligopolies, which might increase food prices. Larger companies might have more political power. They might be able to influence safety and health standards (example: less stringent regulations, standards and requirements). Activists increased ability to boycott and influence food market, food retailing, and food prices. Unforeseen risks and dangers due to the complexity of nature. Allergies may become more intense, and also, new allergy types may develop.

BE & CG Final Assignment

History of Bt Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) is a Gram-positive, soil-dwelling bacterium, commonly used as a biological pesticide; alternatively, the Cry toxin may be extracted and used as a pesticide. B. thuringiensis also occurs naturally in the gut of caterpillars of various types of moths and butterflies, as well as on the dark surfaces of plants.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporulation

During sporulation, many Bt strains produce crystal proteins (proteinaceous inclusions), called -endotoxins, that have insecticidal action. This has led to their use as insecticides, and more recently to genetically modified crops using Bt genes. Many crystalproducing Bt strains, though, do not have insecticidal properties B. thuringiensis was first discovered in 1901 by Japanese biologist Shigetane Ishiwatari. In 1911, B. thuringiensis was rediscovered in Germany by Ernst Berliner, who isolated it as the cause of a disease called Schlaffsucht in flour moth caterpillars. In 1976, Robert A. Zakharyan reported the presence of a plasmid in a strain of B. thuringiensis and suggested the plasmid's involvement in endospore and crystal formation. B. thuringiensis is closely related to B.cereus, a soil bacterium, and B.anthracis, the cause of anthrax: the three organisms differ mainly in their plasmids. Like other members of the genus, all three are aerobes capable of producing endospores. Upon sporulation, B. thuringiensis forms crystals of proteinaceous insecticidal -endotoxins (called crystal proteins or Cry proteins), which

BE & CG Final Assignment

are encoded by cry genes. In most strains of B. thuringiensis, the cry genes are located on the plasmid. 1. How is food and livelihood linked to ethics?

Innovations have made of test-tube babies, microwave ovens, organ transplants, CCTV and iPhones? Could they have believed that one day people might jet to another continent for a weekend break, meet their future spouse on the internet, have their genome sequenced and live to a private soundtrack from an MP3 player? Science and technology have changed our world dramatically, and, for the most part, we take them in our stride. Nevertheless, there are certain innovations that many people find unpalatable. The human race has methodically improved crop plants through selective breeding for many thousands of years, now these changes are as specific as individual food production techniques or as broad as the effects of globalization, they have refocused attention on ageold human values and fundamental human rights, including the right to adequate - and safe food. There should be ability to track any food, feed, food-producing animal or substance that will be used for consumption, through all stages of production, processing and distribution. It exists as a way of responding to potential risks that can arise in food and feed, and acts as a risk-management tool to ensure that all food products are safe to eat. This is very important in country like India, as many people living in rural areas who will not even know what products they should consume without reading labels as they may not even understand what is written on that. "Satyameva Jayate" recent episode provided how contaminated our food, every morsel of food and sip of water we take is important for our health and well-being, right from the time we are newborn infants. Yet, for decades our food and water have been contaminated by powerful, harmful pesticides which have been promoted as necessary for better agricultural output. But the reality is that we dont need pesticides for better yield, and the use of these pesticides is not only deadly for health but results in expensive farming methods. The solution is to adopt organic farming, which is possible and profitable, as the state of Sikkim

BE & CG Final Assignment

has shown. How pesticide companies unethically practicing and promoting their products on agriculture which result in high traces of pesticides in the food humans and animals eat. Traceability has recently been discussed from an ethical perspective, involving not only the protection of human health, but also animal welfare, terms of trade, working conditions and genetic modification. This is in response to consumers desires to know more about the food they eat and where it comes from. The idea of ethical traceability aims to create fuller visibility along food chains. Fisheries: - The state of world fisheries presents us with pressing ecological, economic, social and political challenges with significant ethical implications. For example, the depletion of a nation's fishery resources represents a moral failure by society to maintain the natural environment and its productivity. It compromises food security, threatening vulnerable communities in particular, and reduces the livelihood opportunities of future generations. The contamination, by pollution, of an otherwise extremely healthy source of food, reducing food safety and threatening human health, is another indication of moral failure in relation to both present and future generations. However, changes in ownership and access to fishing stocks take place in the context of dominant special interests. These interests may breed social injustice and compromise the livelihoods of traditional fishers and fishing communities, if not undermine the fundamental right to determine one's life. With above discussion food and livelihood is always linked with ethical practices of each and every person who involved in produce and support to produce to market those to consumer for final consumption. 2. Are we on the right path by going for genetically modified food?

Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations and other scientists and government officials have all raised concerns about GM foods, and criticized agribusiness for pursuing profit without concern for potential hazards, and the government for failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight. It seems that everyone has a strong opinion about GM foods. Even the Vatican and the Prince of Wales have expressed their opinions. Most concerns about GM foods fall into three

BE & CG Final Assignment

Categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns.

Environmental hazards
Unintended harm to other organisms Last year a laboratory study was published in Nature

showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have been flawed This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further. Wildlife in UK farmland is already in severe decline because of intensive, chemical farming. For example, plants which were considered to be arable weeds 40 years ago are now listed as rare or scarce and some are endangered species. Similarly more than 20 bird species including the tree sparrow, grey partridge and song thrush have shown drastic declines in numbers since the 1970s14. There is widespread concern that the use of GM herbicide tolerant crops could make this worse. Reduced effectiveness of pesticides Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides. Gene transfer to non-target species Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement

BE & CG Final Assignment

lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two away. More investigation is needed to resolve this issue. There are several possible solutions to the three problems mentioned above. Genes are exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways to ensure that non-target species will not receive introduced genes from GM plants are to create GM plants that are male sterile (do not produce pollen) or to modify the GM plant so that the pollen does not contain the introduced gene. Cross-pollination would not occur, and if harmless insects such as monarch caterpillars were to eat pollen from GM plants, the caterpillars would survive.

Human health risks

Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected allergic reactions. Extensive testing of GM foods may be required to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies. Labeling of GM foods and food products will acquire new importance. Unknown effects on human health there is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health. A recent article published in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats. This study claimed that there were appreciable differences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified potatoes. Yet critics say that this paper, like the monarch butterfly data, is flawed and does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Moreover, the gene introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flower lectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals. The scientists who created this variety of potato chose to use the lectin gene simply to test the methodology, and these potatoes were never intended for human or animal consumption. On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists believe that GM foods do not present a risk to human health.

BE & CG Final Assignment Economic concerns

Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and nonprofits will follow the lead of the Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at reduced cost to impoverished nations. Patent enforcement may also be difficult, as the contention of the farmers that they involuntarily grew Monsanto-engineered strains when their crops were cross-pollinated shows. One way to combat possible patent infringement is to introduce a "suicide gene" into GM plants. These plants would be viable for only one growing season and would produce sterile seeds that do not germinate. Farmers would need to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. However, this would be financially disastrous for farmers in third world countries who cannot afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest to plant in the next growing season. In an open letter to the public, Monsanto has pledged to abandon all research using this suicide gene technology. India's government has not yet announced a policy on GM foods because no GM crops are grown in India and no products are commercially available in supermarkets yet. India is, however, very supportive of transgenic plant research. It is highly likely that India will decide that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the risks because Indian agriculture will need to adopt drastic new measures to counteract the country's endemic poverty and feed its exploding population. Finally, who is to be responsible for educating the public about GM food labels and how costly will that education be? Food labels must be designed to clearly convey accurate information about the product in simple language that everyone can understand. This may be the greatest challenge faced be a new food labeling policy: how to educate and inform the public without damaging the public trust and causing alarm or fear of GM food products. In January 2000, an international trade agreement for labeling GM foods was established. More than 130 countries, including the US, the world's largest producer of GM foods, signed the agreement. The policy states that exporters must be required to label all GM foods and

BE & CG Final Assignment

that importing countries have the right to judge for themselves the potential risks and reject GM foods, if they so choose. This new agreement may spur the U.S. government to resolve the domestic food labeling dilemma more rapidly. Due to all these gaps, and major Indian population lives in rural area these GMO crops producers will take advantage of corruption at every level in state policy makers, which will risk and adapt their livelihoods in the face of such risks. To take some right side, there state should take priority on below.
Traceability regulation should exist as a means for creating visibility for consumers on

ethical issues of food production practices. Regulation needs to exist alongside support for small businesses to achieve standards with minimum damage to their livelihoods. Ethical issues should be added in to existing traceability schemes within food companies. Labeling and the prosecution of any misdoing should be regulated in each level of producing these GMO Foods. More plausible threats are that modified crops could become insidious superweeds, or that they could accidentally breed with wild plants or other crops - genetically polluting the environment. This could be a potentially serious problem if "pharm" crops, engineered to produce pharmaceutical drugs, accidentally cross breed with food varieties (or seeds become mixed up). Companies such as Monsanto or Syngenta protect their GM seeds with patents. In one wellknown legal case a Canadian farmer was successfully prosecuted for growing GM canola, though he claimed seed had accidentally blown on to his land. Companies have also investigated technology protection systems. One type of TPS, dubbed the Terminator system by its critics, is a genetic trick that means GM crops fail to produce fertile seeds. This prevents the traditional practice of putting seeds aside from the crop to replant the following year, forcing farmers to buy new seed every year. However, some

10

BE & CG Final Assignment

biotech companies have pledged not to use this technology, despite the fact it could be a useful tool in preventing genetic pollution. The majority of GM crops being grown around the world at the moment are herbicide tolerant. These crops are designed for use in intensive farming systems, with single crops in large fields requiring heavy use of chemical inputs. Many farmers in developing countries are small scale, growing many different crops and they often cannot afford the chemicals needed. With these above discussion, it will be good to increase state sponsorship or subsidies to increase to production of Organic food to produce in mass production scale than going for GMO foods as we have seen the effects on environment, health and economy is main concern. Organic food cultivation will also benefit ecological to balance at great extent than GMO foods cultivation. 3. How can world bodies like UNO and FAO improve the food security in the world? Genetically-modified foods have the potential to solve many of the world's hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon chemical pesticides and herbicides. Yet there are many challenges ahead for governments, especially in the areas of safety testing, regulation, international policy and food labeling. Many people feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and that we cannot afford to ignore a technology that has such enormous potential benefits. However, we must proceed with caution to avoid causing unintended harm to human health and the environment as a result of our enthusiasm for this powerful technology. Governments around the world are hard at work to establish a regulatory process to monitor the effects of and approve new varieties of GM plants. Yet depending on the political, social and economic climate within a region or country, different governments are responding in different ways. UN and FAO has come up with several view-points for improving the food security
Defined at the 1996 World Food Summit, food security:

11

BE & CG Final Assignment

exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. At the individual and household level, the root cause of food insecurity - poverty - has to be tackled. Social protection, including introducing a living wage and supporting job security National food security is meaningless if the benefits are not distributed fairly within society. International efforts to tackle food insecurity must recognize that the world has sufficient food to feed the entire population, yet over a billion people go hungry. Climate change threatens to exacerbate food insecurity further for these people. Access to food is the primary problem, so increasing global agricultural productivity is not the silver bullet for food security.

All Heads of State and Government,1 or our representatives, gathered at the World Food Summit at the invitation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, reaffirm the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. This discussion can be found at - http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm There is another discussion on world on hungry, there are around one billion people are on hungry - http://www.1billionhungry.org/ which is working on ending hungry on the earth. A National Programme for Food Security (NPFS) is a country-driven solution to eradicating hunger within the local population. FAO achieves this by:
1. Supporting national governments in identifying ways to remove barriers to food access; 2. Mobilizing donor resources for project funding; and 3. Assisting with the kick-off and implementation phases.

While no two National Programmes are alike, they are all characterized by:

Strong national commitment; and Supportive policies and regulations. Full engagement of civil society;

Sustainable food security requires;

Stable supply of adequate food;

12

BE & CG Final Assignment

Properly functioning markets; and That all households are able to generate a combination of home-produced food and cash income sufficient to cover all their basic needs.

Below countries are agreed on SSC Programmes. SSC Agreements

Host country Cooperating country Chad Viet Nam Gabon China Sierra Leone China Mali Viet Nam Togo Tunisia Yemen Jordan Guatemala Chile Pacific Islands Philippines Caribbean Islands China Caribbean Islands Cuba Djibouti Morocco Pacific Islands China Nigeria China Papua New Philippines Guinea Central African Morocco Republic Malawi Myanmar Guinea Bissau Cuba Congo Republic of Viet Nam Lao DPR Viet Nam Lesotho India Venezuela Cuba Mozambique India Haiti Cuba Swaziland Pakistan Cameroon Egypt Ghana China Cape Verde Cuba Equatorial Guinea Cuba Mali China Bangladesh China Madagascar Viet Nam Signed 2010 2007 2006 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2004 2004 2005 2004 2003 2002 2002 2002 2002 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 1999 1999

13

BE & CG Final Assignment

Gambia Tanzania Mauritania Benin Burkina Faso Niger Eritrea Ethiopia Senegal Bangladesh Egypt China Viet Nam Morocco Morocco India China Viet Nam 1999 1999 1999 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1996

Westernized view
Westernized countries thinking that maximizing farmers' profits is the surest way of maximizing agricultural production; the higher a farmers profit, the greater the effort that will be forthcoming, and the greater the risk the farmer is willing to take. Place into the hands of farmers the largest number and highest quality tools possible (tools is used here to refer to improved production techniques, improved seeds, secure land tenure, accurate weather forecasts, etc.) However, it is left to the individual farmer to pick and choose which tools to use, and how to use them, as farmers have intimate knowledge of their own land and local conditions. As with other businesses, a percentage of the profits are normally reinvested into the business in the hopes of increasing production, and hence increase future profits. Normally higher profits translate into higher spending on technologies designed to boost production, such as drip irrigation systems, agriculture education, and greenhouses. An increased profit also increases the farmers incentive to engage in double-cropping, soil improvement programs, and expanding usable area.

Food Justice
An alternative view takes a collective approach to achieve food security. It notes that globally enough food is produced to feed the entire world population at a level adequate to ensure that everyone can be free of hunger and fear of starvation. That no one should live without enough food because of economic constraints or social inequalities is the basic goal. This approach is often referred to as food justice and views food security as a basic human right. It advocates fairer distribution of food, particularly grain crops, as a means of ending chronic hunger and malnutrition. The core of the Food Justice movement is the belief that what is

14

BE & CG Final Assignment

lacking is not food, but the political will to fairly distribute food regardless of the recipients ability to pay.

Food sovereignty
A third approach is known as food sovereignty; though it overlaps with food justice on several points, the two are not identical. It views the business practices of multinational corporations as a form of neocolonialism. It contends that multinational corporations have the financial resources available to buy up the agricultural resources of impoverished nations, particularly in the tropics. They also have the political clout to convert these resources to the exclusive production of cash crops for sale to industrialized nations outside of the tropics, and in the process to squeeze the poor off of the more productive lands. Under this view subsistence farmers are left to cultivate only lands that are so marginal in terms of productivity as to be of no interest to the multinational corporations. Likewise, food sovereignty holds it to be true that communities should be able to define their own means of production and that food is a basic human right. With several multinational corporations now pushing agricultural technologies on developing countries, technologies that include improved seeds, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides, crop production has become an increasingly analyzed and debated issue. Many communities calling for food sovereignty are protesting the imposition of Western technologies on to their indigenous systems and agency. Who hold a "food sovereignty" position advocate banning the production of most cash crops in developing nations, thereby leaving the local farmers to concentrate on subsistence agriculture? In addition, they oppose allowing low-cost subsidized food from industrialized nations into developing countries, what is referred to as "import dumping". Import dumping also happens by way of food aid distribution through programs like the USA's "Food for Peace" initiative.

Thanking you sir.

15