Genetically Modifying Plants for Efficient Food Production

Agricultural scientists at the University of Illinois have modified plant genes by allowing them to use sunlight more efficiently. Dr. Stephen P. Long, the lead author of the study, is a professor of crop sciences at the University of Illinois, and is a leading figure in crop science/photosynthesis research. Dr. Long and his team of scientists used genetic engineering techniques to alter photosynthesis in tobacco plants. Their study, published by the journal Science, found a 20% increase in biomass compared to wild-type plants grown in the same field environment. They used tobacco because it is easy to manipulate when trying new genetic alterations, and they hope food crops will also be as successful.

Check out the Science Magazine video on Youtube!

The point of the study was to improve a plant’s recovery time from photoprotection after light stress.  It allows for a plant to release some of that absorbed energy as heat so that they can efficiently use the carbon dioxide available from their environment. Think of it as photosynthesis on steroids, and photosynthesis is how plants convert sunlight, carbon dioxide and water into new, energy-rich carbohydrates, also known as a majority of our food sources. Dr. Long has long argued that the process is inefficient because it uses less than one percent of the energy that’s available to them. His team of scientists were able to increase leaf growth between 14 and 20 percent by genetically modifying part of a plant's protective system that is activated when in the presence of excessive sunlight. Generally, plants don’t take the optimal amount of energy available to them, and it takes ten minutes to an hour for a plant to adjust its protective system.  Dr. Long and his team have genetically modified the plant to turn that protection system off and on faster.

"Now that we know it works, it won't be too difficult to do it with other crops," said Dr. Long, a professor of crop sciences at the University of Illinois. "If you look at crops around the world, it would (increase yield) many million tons of food.” 

“A plant's protective system is like a pressure relief valve in a steam engine. When there's too much sunlight, it turns on and gets rid of excess energy safely. When the plant is in the shade, the protective system turns off, but not quickly, said study co-author Krishna Niyogi, a plant scientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the University of California, Berkeley.

This is the first time scientists have been able to do something like this, and it is an amazing step towards solving world hunger.  Hopefully the public's collective fear of GMO’s won't keep this breakthrough from being utilized. All the awesome science in the world can be crippled by the rejection of consumers.  The breakthrough could eventually dramatically increase the amount of food that can be grown in the world. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are in support of this technology and they hope it might help alleviate global poverty.

It can also be argued that plants don’t have a “glitch” that needs fixing, and that people shouldn't fix what’s not broken. Speeding up a naturally occurring process can be considered to be detrimental towards progress.  When you haste, you waste. The conservative approach may indeed be best for a plant’s offspring, but what is best for the plant is not the same as is what is best for the farmer.

GMO Crops and the Atmosphere

Many individuals favor to eat organic products, ones that are not genetically altered, over the GMO products. There is a great push for the decrease in GMO crops around the world. Individuals feel that GMO crops are unhealthy and have negative long term effects. The decrease in GMO crops would result in more land needed to plant crops to produce a sufficient amount of organic crops. This is needed to support the high demand of crops, such as corn, soybeans, and cotton. However, the issue will arise when more trees will be needed to be cut down in order to plant the new crops. Decreasing the amount of GMO crops will be healthier for individuals eating the crops. However, the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere will increase. This poses another issue with decreasing the amount of GMO crops. Furthermore, the price of the non GMO goods will increase. The farmers will not be able to keep up with the demand with the same amount of land currently used. GMO crops allow for the crops to grow quicker than organic crops. I feel that more organic crop production will be the optimal option for this situation, but we will be sacrificing the atmosphere with this decision. There should be a compromise where the increase in the organic crop production is initiated, but with less trees being cut down. We should not stop producing GMO crops entirely.  

Acreage for Genetically Modified Crops Declined in 2015

Ever since 1996, the market for genetically modified crops has steadily increased. But, with the increase in the publics knowledge on the effects of GMO's, in 2015, the acreage of crops used declined 1 percent.

When GMO's first became commercially grown, their numbers in global acreage grew by double digits in each year. But, within the past 3 years the numbers only slowly grew. Eventually in the last year the numbers actually decreased. To increase the numbers again, the report says that China and Africa would have to adopt GMO corn.

To me, there are many pros and cons when it comes to GMO's. A positive thing is that it can provide cheap, easy to grow, pesticide resistant food for developing countries. On the other hand, even though the food survives being heavily treated with pesticides, consuming that food is harmful to our bodies. This decline in global acreage of crops to me, is not surprising. Everyone talks about going organic and pesticide and antibiotic free. This may be the beginning of the end of genetically modified crops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/business/acreage-for-genetically-modified-crops-declined-in-2015.html?_r=0

https://www.healthwaysfit.com/article/are-genetically-modified-foods-safe

Changes in Genetically Modified Agriculture

Up until 1996, farmers were steadily increasing their production of genetically modified crops.  However, genetically modified crops have been a highly controversial part of the agricultural industry.  For the first time, in 2015, the amount of land used for genetically modified crops has declined.  Farmers reported low prices on the genetically modified crops, and in turn planted less corn, soybeans, and canola.  These three crops, along with cotton, account for the majority of genetically modified agriculture.  Consumers and environmental groups, however, have taken a strong stand against genetically modified crops.  This has hurt the biotechnology industry that takes care of genetically modified crops.  In 2015, genetically modified seeds were planted across 444 million acres - a 1% decrease from the 448.5 million acres in 2014.  While the decrease is small, it could be the start of a movement for organic crops.  

Genetically modified plants offer a variety or pros and cons.  They are cheaper to produce, and more genetically modified crops can be harvested at a single time.  One type of genetic modification, known as selective breeding, has been employed for ages.  Humans actively selected favorable traits in organisms and bred them together for more "perfect" organisms.  However, gene transfer is a more controversial method.  It involves the cutting of the plant's gene and the insertion of another gene into the plant's genomic sequence.  The modification has caused individuals to have allergic reactions, and it is thought that some of the proteins could be toxic.  

I think moving away from genetically modified foods comes with benefits and downfalls.  Quality organic foods are more expensive, and it would be difficult to move over to organic altogether.  There would be less accessibility to quality food, which would hurt the entire population.  However, without genetic modification, food may actually be safer.  Either way, the 1% decrease in genetically modified acreage is not devastating to the biotechnology industry.  Genetically modified foods look to be here to stay for quite some time.  

Consumers willing to spend more for biotech potato products

                Acrylamide is a chemical compound that studies have linked to the formation of cancer in animals. It naturally accumulates in starchy foods cooked at high temperatures like coffee beans, roasted nuts and the crusts of breads. The largest sources of acrylamide consumption in the United States are potato products such as french fries and chips. Potato growers have attempted conventional plant breeding techniques to cut down on the formation of acrylamide, but biotechnology and genetic modification have yielded more promising results.

                Genetically modified food has sparked controversy among some, but with a healthier option to potato products that may potentially cause cancers it’s interesting to see how consumers would react. At Iowa State University, researchers have attempted to gauge consumer attitudes toward genetically modified potato products. The results show that consumers that received information on the dangers associated with acrylamide exposure and potato products were willing to spend more on the genetically modified potato products. It’s worth noting that social and demographic concerns did not seem to matter regarding willingness to pay for genetically modified products. The findings underscore the importance of educating the public on the use of biotechnology in the production of healthful food. Although there seems to be a stigma towards genetically modified food this research shows the potential benefits it could bring.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150316160339.htm    

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes-prevention/risk/diet/acrylamide-fact-sheet

An Apple a Day Gets Approved Any Day

The government has approved the commercial planting of genetically engineered apples that don't brown when sliced or bruised. The developer Okanagan Specialty Fruits, says the non-browning feature will make apples more appealing to consumers and food service companies. However executives in the apple industry worry the biotech apples will face controversy from some consumers along with them loosing exports in countries that do not like genetically modified foods. The Department of Agriculture has considered these issues, however under the law, approval is based on whether a genetically modified crop poses a treat to other plants. The apples do not pose any risk. The apples are genetically engineered to suppress the production of an enzyme that causes browning when the cells in the apple are injured, for example by slicing. But over time they will still rot a turn brown. 

In my opinion, although the browning of apples is not appealing to me in anyway, I'm not a fan of it being genetically altered to prevent it. There are other ways to prevent the browning for a bit more time, for instance, Lemon juice, which is natural. That's just my opinion though, I'm not going to be the guinea pig for an apple. 

Non-browning genetically modified apples

         The developer Okanagan Specialty Fruits recently developed a genetically modified apple  that is resistant to turning brown when it is bruised or even sliced. The U.S. government just recently approved this apple to be sold in the country and they believe it will reduce the amount of apples that are discarded due to browning significantly over the course of the next few years. A large amount of farming companies are already lining up to purchase trees to begin manufacturing these genetically modified apples in large amounts. Unlike most genetically modified  fruits or vegetables which have the genes of another species inserted into them, these 'Arctic' apples, as they are called, instead have the genes inside them modified as so to suppress the enzyme that causes the apple to brown.
        Many consumer and environmentalist groups however are opposed to these apples and believe they are unnecessary and will tarnish the name of an everyday fruit many people have come to enjoy. They also attempt to argue that these modified apples will not carry the same nutritional value of a regular apple and will make them less that suitable to attribute to a persons daily dietary needs. Specialists form the Okanagan Specialty Fruits  developing company have however proven that they do indeed carry the same nutritional value, and are optimistic that Arctic apples will be seen in supermarkets across the country by 2016.
         I believe these apples will become widespread in the near future and we will begin to see Arctic apples in American homes everywhere. The non-browning capabilities of the apple will make sliced apples more appealing to people, and allow it to become a more common snack that will be seen in restaurants, supermarkets, and even public schools.

Genetically Modified Crops

European Parliament agreed on draft rules allowing individual governments to refuse growing genetically modified crops (GM) on their territory although the genetically modified crops have been authorized on the European levels. Although the Parliament believes many countries will take the opportunity to restrict GM crops, this plan will help reconcile anti- and pro-GM countries, unlock stalled approval processes, and lead to more GM crops in European fields.

Some issues that have arisen from GM crops were European consumers spurn GM foods and some national governments have tried outlawing GM foods. Also in the past decade, the disagreement among states has crippled regulatory decisions and some countries have seen their bans challenged in court by seed producers. This plan gives power to national governments which will avoid these issues.

Due to different views from European Parliament and GM opponents crucial amendments have been made to the draft rules. Parliamentarians proposed letting member states ban a given crop for a broader range of reasons, including environmental grounds, without putting in question EFSA’s science-based risk assessment.

Some significant changes are the committee in charge of environmental, public health, and food safety (ENVI) scrapped the member states’ proposal to involve seed companies directly in the banning process, which has outraged the environmental groups, and suggested letting member states ban groups of crops at once, instead of one by one. The Parliament also requires member states to take “appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products on their territory and in border areas of neighboring Member states”. An example of this is creating buffer zones between GM and non-GM fields.

Before the year ends, The Parliament, the European Commission, and the Council of Ministers have now entered negotiations to settle on a joint version of the draft to agree on.

Not only should every individual have their own say on if they want to eat GM vs non-GM foods but this could potentially impact the export with America. This is really interesting but I believe every person should have the right to choose, I wouldn’t want to have to get up and move or try my hardest to get GM foods if more people in my individual government want non-GM crops/food.



Article: http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2014/11/e-u-moves-closer-enabling-national-bans-gm-crops

                                          'GMO'  'OMG'

           In the world of genetics there has been a growing controversy over Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). Recently there has been a documentary released by the director Jeremy Seifert. The documentary follows the director on his quest to find food in America that is not genetically modified. Throughout the documentary he is constantly throwing statistics about our food that I and most people don’t seem to know about. Facts such as 85% of all corn grown in America is genetically modified, there are 420 million acres of GMO’s worldwide, and how the world’s demand for pesticides is reaching up to 52 billion dollars. 

           

            The documentary also targets Monsanto and how they refuse to disclose what chemicals they put in the food and other details on how it’s harvested and stored. Interestingly enough the government through a budget provision gave Monsanto its own Protection act for their genetically modified seeds and allows them to get by without any lawsuits in regard to the food they are creating. So instead of enforcing judicial scrutiny on company who doesn’t have the decency to let the American people know what they are putting in their bodies the government protects them so they can keep making GMO’s and making money off the health of the American people.

Nice to know our government cares more about the economy behind the food and the business instead of the people who are putting genetically, biologically, and chemically modified foods in their body. And we wonder why the cancer rate is so high. Watch what you eat!!!! Monsanto is everywhere.

This is a link will take you to the documentary:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/gmo-omg-jeremy-seifert_n_3942545.html

More on Monsanto Protection Act

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-protection-extended-house-741/

Section 735 of HR 933 AKA “Monsanto Protection Act”

An article in the NY Times, states that over the last week President Obama signed an agriculture bill, Section 735 of HR 933 that is being called “Monsanto Protection Act.” Although there was 250,000 signatures protesting the provision. The author of the article implies that Congress is once again protecting corporations. There is a provision of the bill that will prohibit the Department of Agriculture from stopping production of a genetically modified crop once it is planted in the ground, and federal court would be powerless to stop selling the crop, even if it is found harmful. Genetic seed engineering is a seed that has been genetically altered but transgenic engineering which is a gene, most likely from another species of plant, bacterium or animal in added to the plant for positive changes have not worked as well as they hoped, but they do generate more income than normal seeds. Monsanto has worked on genetically engineering crops for twenty years and have had some success along with more failure. One of their successes is the roundup ready seed, these seeds allows farms to spend less time weeding.  90% of soybeans and 70% of corn is a roundup ready seed and mostly Monsanto owned. The other genetic success was seeds developed to contain insect resistance, and they are now finally seeing a resistance.

Critics say, Section 735 could be the “most dangerous food act ever” and a “terrifying piece of policy.”  Stonyfield Farm posted a blog post claiming that this provision benefits the biotech companies and could be potentially harmful to consumers. “Even if the courts find that a (genetically engineered) crop shouldn’t be planted until more research is done about its safety, no one could stop that crop from being planted, even temporarily. This provision clearly tells us that Congress thinks public health and safety should take a back seat to the expansion of GE crops.”

 

The Pros to Genetically Modifying Foods

The thought of genetically altering foods we eat is quite a controversial topic.  Many are against the idea of genetically enhancing animals or plants we eat.  According to the CNN article, "The good, the bad and the genetically engineered", genetic modification could be beneficial to human health contrary to the common belief.  The article explains that it is possible to make healthy foods even more healthy with genetic enhancement.  For instance an orange could be programed to have nutrient levels equivalent to a multivitamin or tomatoes and broccoli could be injected with cancer fighting substances.  The article also explains that the "good" in certain plants and animals could be crossed with another plant or animal to create new foods that were never seen before.  The article also suggests the idea of altering genes in certain foods to enable anyone allergic to be able to consume the food.  An article on Wired Science discusses the idea of  "clipping genes" in peanuts to reduce the risk of food accidents.  Wired Science explains that it will be difficult to create a perfectly safe peanut; however, researchers have been trying to discover a way.  Personally I never really liked the idea of genetically altering foods; however, my view point has been changed after reading the articles on CNN and Wired Science.  The articles clearly presented positive usage of genetic modification in foods, proving genetic enhancement is not always a bad thing.

BASF To Stop Selling Genetically Modified Products in Europe

This article, written in the New York Times by James Kanter, exemplifies the global skepticism of genetically modified foods.  The German chemical company BASF has decided not to sell genetically modified foods in Europe mainly because of the popular distrust among people and the unknown longterm health effects of the products.  BASF's withdraw includes the disease resistant variety of Fortuna potatoes and the disease resistant variety of wheat.   Both products are not currently marketed anywhere else in the world.  This popular decision for BASF to terminate their marketing plans will cause 140 research jobs in Europe to be lost.  Many of those jobs will now be relocated to their North Carolina plant.  Even though BASF has decided not to market genetically modified products in Europe, these products are being imported into Europe by other companies based in other countries such as the United States.  Genetically modified foods are not supported by environmentalists and are still very unpopular to the majority of people due to the unknown health effects.

[caption id="attachment_3429" align="alignright" width="190" caption="Genetically Modified Fortuna Potatoes"][/caption]

Genetically modified products can be a positive for our world's fast growing population.  More research and tests need to be done in order for the majority of the population to give genetically modified foods a try.