Genetically Modified Foods

Genetically modified (GM) foods are food items that have had their DNA changed through genetic engineering. Unlike conventional genetic modification that is carried out through conventional breeding and that have been consumed for thousands of years, GM foods ere first !ut on the market in the early "##$s. %he most common modified foods are derived from !lants& soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. 'or e(am!le, a ty!ical GM 'ood could be a stra berry that has to survive in cold climates. %herefore, the farmer ould get its DNA altered so it could survive in the frost. %hey ould take DNA from a frost resistant cell, and transfer it into the stra berry cells genes. %herefore, the cells of the stra berry are no frost resistant and ill survive the frost, so the farmer does not lose money. Many ma)or controversies surround genetically engineered cro!s and foods. %hese commonly focus on the long*term health effects for anyone eating them, environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual !ro!erty rights, ethics, food security, !overty reduction, environmental conservation, and !otential disru!tion or even !ossible destruction of the food chain. %he multi*national cor!orations and governments engaged in the genetic engineering of food claim the technology to be a boon for the human race, hile many health*conscious !eo!le believe it to be a !otential and+or actual disaster.

Develo!ment

%he first commercially gro n genetically modified hole food cro! as the tomato (called 'lavr ,avr), hich as made more resistant to rotting by -alifornian com!any -algene. -algene as allo ed to release the tomatoes into the market in "##. ithout any s!ecial labeling. /t as elcomed by consumers ho !urchased the fruit at t o to five times the !rice of regular tomatoes. 0o ever, !roduction !roblems and com!etition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf* life variety !revented the !roduct from becoming !rofitable. A variant of the 'lavr ,avr as used by 1eneca to !roduce tomato !aste hich as sold in 2uro!e during the summer of "##3. %he labeling and !ricing ere designed as a marketing e(!eriment, hich !roved, at the time, that 2uro!ean consumers ould acce!t genetically engineered foods. 0o ever ith ne s that Dr. Ar!ad 4us5tai a leading U6 scientist ho had been hired by the 7o ett /nstitute to develo! the ne safety !rotocol for genetically modified foods in 2uro!e. 0e found that the rats in his study had develo!ed !otentially !recancerous cell gro th in the digestive tract, inhibited develo!ment of their brains, livers, and testicles, !artial atro!hy of the liver, enlarged !ancreases and intestine, and immune system damage. 0e concluded that it as not the insecticide gene that as inserted, but as the !rocess of genetic engineering itself. U!on a!!earing on television here he said he e(!ressed his concerns that the government and com!anies ere using the !o!ulation as Guinea !igs. 2uro!eans ere outraged, and ithin a eek every ma)or food com!any on the continent including McDonalds, Nestle and 8urger 6ing, all committed to not !urchase GM foods. %o date this remains one of the best designed and carefully controlled feeding studies of genetically engineered foods on mammals. %he attitude to ards GM foods only got orse after outbreaks of Mad -o Disease eakened consumer trust in government regulators, and !rotesters rallied against the introduction of Monsanto9s :7oundu! 7eady: soybeans. %he ne(t GM cro!s included insect*resistant cotton and herbicide*tolerant soybeans both of hich ere commercially released in "##3. GM cro!s have been idely ado!ted in the United ,tates. %hey have also been e(tensively !lanted in several other countries (Argentina, 8ra5il, ,outh Africa, /ndia, and -hina) here the agriculture is a ma)or !art of the total economy. ;ther GM cro!s include insect*resistant mai5e and herbicide* tolerant mai5e, cotton, and ra!eseed varieties.

Gro ing GM -ro!s 8et een "##< and =$$<, the total surface area of land cultivated ith GM;s had increased by a factor of <$. Although most GM cro!s are gro n in North America, in recent years there has been ra!id gro th in the area so n in develo!ing countries. 'or

instance in =$$< the largest increase in cro! area !lanted to GM cro!s (soybeans) as in 8ra5il. %here has also been ra!id and continuing e(!ansion of GM cotton varieties in /ndia since =$$=. (-otton is a ma)or source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) /t is !redicted that in =$$>+# ?=,$$$ km= of GM cotton ill be harvested in /ndia (u! more than "$$ !ercent from the !revious season). /ndian national average cotton yields of GM cotton ere seven times lo er in =$$=, because the !arental cotton !lant used in the genetic engineered as not ell suited to the climate of /ndia and failed. %he !ublicity given to transgenic trait 8t insect resistance has encouraged the ado!tion of better !erforming hybrid cotton varieties, and the 8t trait has substantially reduced losses to insect !redation. %hough controversial and often dis!uted, economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in /ndia to the individual farmer have been documented. /n =$$?, countries that gre ##@ of the global transgenic cro!s ere the United ,tates (3?@), Argentina (="@), -anada (3@), 8ra5il (.@), -hina (.@), and ,outh Africa ("@). %he Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that A<@ of all !rocessed foods in the U.,. contain a GM ingredient. /n !articular, 8t corn, hich !roduces the !esticide ithin the !lant itself is idely gro n, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate gly!hosate herbicides. %hese constitute :in!ut*traits: are aimed to financially benefit the !roducers, have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers. /n the U,, by =$$3 >#@ of the !lanted area of soybeans, >?@ of cotton, and 3"@ mai5e ere genetically modified varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide tolerant traits only, but mai5e and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect !rotection traits (the latter largely the 8acillus thuringiensis 8t insecticidal !rotein). /n the !eriod =$$= to =$$3, there ere significant increases in the area !lanted to 8t !rotected cotton and mai5e, and herbicide tolerant mai5e also increased in so n area. 0o ever, several studies have found that genetically modified varieties of !lants do not !roduce higher yields than normal !lants.

-oe(istence and %raceability /n many !arts of the orld such as the 2uro!ean Union, Ba!an, Malaysia and Australia consumers demand labelling so they can e(ercise choice bet een foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins. %his reCuires a labelling system as ell as the reliable se!aration of GM and non*GM organisms at !roduction level and throughout the hole !rocessing chain.7esearch suggests that this may !rove im!ossible, reason hy GM o!!onents use the 9genie out of a bottle9 analogy.

'or traceability, the ;2-D has introduced a :uniCue identifier: hich is given to any GM; hen it is a!!roved. %his uniCue identifier must be for arded at every stage of !rocessing. Many countries have established labelling regulations and guidelines on coe(istence and traceability. 7esearch !ro)ects such as -o*2(tra, ,/GM2A and %ranscontainer are aimed at investigating im!roved methods for ensuring coe(istence and !roviding stakeholders the tools reCuired for the im!lementation of coe(istence and traceability. %he GM food controversy is a dis!ute over the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food cro!s.

Debate Around the Dorld Many scientists argue that there is more than enough food in the orld and that the hunger crisis is caused by !roblems in food distribution and !olitics, not !roduction, so !eo!le should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk. Genetic modifications often have significant unforeseen conseCuences, both in the initially modified organisms and their environments. 'or e(am!le, certain strains of mai5e have been develo!ed that are to(ic to !lant eating insects (see 8t corn). /t has been alleged those strains cross*!ollinated ith other varieties of ild and domestic mai5e and !assed on these genes ith a !utative im!act on Mai5e biodiversity. ,ubseCuent to the !ublication of these results, several scientists !ointed out that the conclusions ere based on e(!eriments ith design fla s. /t is ell kno n that the results from !olymerase chain reaction (4-7) methods of analysing DNA can often be confounded by sam!le contamination and e(!erimental artifacts. A!!ro!riate controls can be included in e(!eriments to eliminate these as a !ossible e(!lanation of the results * ho ever these controls ere not included in the methods used by Euist and -ha!ela. After this criticism Nature, the scientific )ournal here this data as originally !ublished concluded that :the evidence available is not sufficient to )ustify the !ublication of the original !a!er:. More recent attem!ts to re!licate the original studies have concluded that genetically modified corn is absent from southern Me(ico in =$$? and =$$.. Also in dis!ute is the im!act on biodiversity of the introgression of transgenes into ild !o!ulations. Unless a transgene offers a massive selective advantage in a ild !o!ulation, a transgene that enters such a !o!ulation ill be maintained at a lo gene freCuency. /n such situations it can be argued that such an introgression actually increases biodiversity rather than lo ers it. Activists and many scientists o!!osed to genetic engineering say that ith current recombinant technology there is no ay to ensure that genetically modified organisms

ill remain under control, and the use of this technology outside secure laboratory environments re!resents multi!le unacce!table risks to both farmed and ild ecosystems. 4otential im!act on biodiversity may occur if herbicide*tolerant cro!s are s!rayed ith herbicide to the e(tent that no ild !lants (9 eeds9) are able to survive. 4lants to(ic to insects may mean insect*free cro!s. %his could result in declines in other ildlife (e.g. birds) hich feed on eed seeds and+or insects for food resources. %he recent (=$$?) farm scale studies in the U6 found this to be the case ith GM sugar beet and GM ra!eseed, but not ith GM mai5e (though in the last instance, the non*GM com!arison mai5e cro! had also been treated ith environmentally*damaging !esticides subseCuently (=$$.) ithdra n from use in the 2U). Although some scientists have claimed that selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering, (e.g., mai5e as modified from teosinte, dogs have evolved ith human intervention over the course of tens of thousands of years from olves), others assert that modern transgenesis*based genetic engineering is ca!able of delivering changes faster than, and sometimes of different ty!es from, traditional breeding methods. 4ro!onents of current genetic techniCues as a!!lied to food !lants cite hy!othetical benefits that the technology may have, for e(am!le, in the harsh agricultural conditions of Africa. %hey say that ith modifications, e(isting cro!s could !ossibly be able to thrive under the relatively hostile conditions !roviding much needed food to their !eo!le. 4ro!onents also cite golden rice and golden rice =, genetically engineered rice varieties (still under develo!ment) that contain genetically*modified elevated vitamin A levels. ,ome ho!e that this rice may alleviate vitamin A deficiency that contributes to the death of millions and !ermanent blindness of <$$,$$$ annually. 4ro!onents claim that genetically*engineered cro!s, although !atented for economic benefit, are not significantly different from those modified by nature or humans in the !ast. %hey also argue that modified cro!s are as safe, or even safer, than those created through such time*tested methods. %here is gene transfer bet een unicellular eukaryotes and !rokaryotes. %hey argue that animal husbandry, 'ood /rradiation and cro! breeding are also forms of genetic engineering that use artificial selection instead of modern genetic modification techniCues. /t is !olitics, they argue, not economics or science, that causes their ork to be closely investigated, and for different standards to a!!ly to it than those a!!lied to other forms of agricultural technology. 4ro!onents also believe the technology could !ossibly !rove harmless because s!ecies or genetic barriers have been crossed in nature in the !ast, sometimes utili5ing other better time*tested and natural methods. An oft*cited e(am!le is today9s modern red heat variety, hich is the result of t o natural crossings made long ago. /t is made u! of three grou!s of seven chromosomes. 2ach of those three grou!s came from a different ild heat grass. 'irst, a cross bet een t o of the grasses occurred, creating the durum heats, hich ere the commercial grains of the first civili5ations u! through the 7oman 7e!ublic. %hen a cross occurred bet een that ".*chromosome durum heat and another ild grass to create hat became modern red heat at the time of the 7oman 2m!ire.

2conomic and 4olitical 2ffects ,ome o!!onents of current genetic engineering reali5e that increasing use of GM in ma)or cro!s has caused a ma)or !o er shift in agriculture to ards 8iotechnology com!anies, hich are gaining more control over the !roduction chain of cro!s and food, and over the farmers that use their !roducts, as ell. Many !ro!onents of some current genetic engineering techniCues claim that it ill lo er !esticide usage and has brought higher yields and !rofitability to many farmers, including those in develo!ing nations. A fe genetic engineering licenses allo farmers in less economically develo!ed countries to save seeds for ne(t year9s !lanting. /n August =$$?, 1ambia cut off the flo of Genetically Modified 'ood (mostly mai5e) from UN9s Dorld 'ood 4rogramme. %his left a famine*stricken !o!ulation ithout food aid. /n December =$$< the 1ambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allo ed the im!ortation of GM mai5e. 0o ever, the 1ambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia ,ikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified mai5e remains, saying :De do not ant GM (genetically modified) foods and our ho!e is that all of us can continue to !roduce non*GM foods.: /n A!ril =$$. 0ugo -have5 announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in Fene5uela. /n Banuary =$$<, the 0ungarian government announced a ban on im!orting and !lanting of genetic modified mai5e seeds, although these ere agreed authori5ed by the 2U. ;n August ">, =$$3, American e(!orts of rice to 2uro!e ere interru!ted hen much of the U.,. cro! as confirmed to be contaminated ith una!!roved engineered genes, !ossibly due to accidental cross*!ollination ith conventional cro!s.%he U.,. government has since declared the rice safe for human consum!tion, and e(!orts to some countries have since resumed, but in the !ast years more cro!s have started to cross* !ollinate hich leaves a !roblem that is yet to be solved.

'uture Develo!ments 'uture envisaged a!!lications of GM;s are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that !roduce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as 0e!atitis 8, metabolically engineered fish that mature more Cuickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and !lants that !roduce ne !lastics ith uniCue !ro!erties. Dhile their !racticality or efficacy in commercial !roduction has yet to be fully tested, the ne(t

decade may see e(!onential increases in GM !roduct develo!ment as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are a!!licable to organisms beyond the sco!e of individual !ro)ects. ,afety testing of these !roducts ill also at the same time be necessary to ensure that the !erceived benefits ill indeed out eigh the !erceived and hidden costs of develo!ment. 4lant scientists, backed by results of modern com!rehensive !rofiling of cro! com!osition, !oint out that cro!s modified using GM techniCues are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred cro!s.

PRIORITIES IN FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION %he a!!lication of biotechnological !rocesses (food biotechnology) in the !roduction and modification of foods and food ingredients by the local food industry is not ides!read. %he ma)or advantage in using such !rocessesis that they utilise living organisms or their !roducts such as en5ymes to accelerate the rates of reactions that occur during the !roduction or modification of food materials. /n general, food biotechnology is still a relatively ne area of research in Malaysia although foods and food ingredients !roduced by traditional biotechnology !rocesses are already familiar ith the consumers. 2(am!les of such !roducts are tem!eh, ta!ai, soysauce and budu. 7esearch in food biotechnology should be em!hasised and enhanced because Malaysia is a !roducer of many !rimary agricultural !roducts such as oils and starch. %he diversification of the end uses of these materials ill naturally add to their value and com!etitiveness in the global market!lace. %a( incentives currently endorsed by the Government to food industries ado!ting biotechnology in their !rocessing methods should o!en u! the ay for e(isting and ne industries to !artici!ate in the !roduction of foods and food ingredients that are !roduce using biological agents as the catalysts. %he benefits of biotechnology are numerous. ,urveys done in several 2uro!ean countries on future a!!lications of modern biotechnology in the food industry indicated increasing use of genetically modified organisms and+or their !roducts in foods and food !rocessing systems. /n addition, food ill also be sources of !harmaceuticals and industrial chemicals. 'or e(am!le, transgenic banana ith !olio vaccine is being develo!ed to facilitate vaccination of children through oral feeding. /n the !i!eline is the develo!ment of gene chi!s that can be used to screen for all kno n genetic modifications in food materials. 0o ever, recent global outcry and local concern on genetically modified food materials sho s the need to have in !lace in Malaysia an analytical set u! ca!able of detecting these materials. Methods must be develo!ed that ill allo detection to be made in foods !articularly !eculiar to local cultures. %he '8-- has an im!ortant role in coordinating and consolidation biotechnology research done in foods in the country, in !romoting the a!!lication of biotechnology !rocesses hich ill assist in the u!grading of the local food industry. '8-- has identified the follo ing strength and eaknesses of the -entre, o!!ortunities to be taken advantage of, and threats faced. %hese are outlined belo .