tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/genetically-modified-19351/articlesGenetically modified – The Conversation2023-05-07T20:17:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2042752023-05-07T20:17:48Z2023-05-07T20:17:48ZWhat’s the latest on GMOs and gene-edited foods – and what are the concerns? An expert explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524539/original/file-20230505-15-jsa8bc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C0%2C2679%2C1802&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Advances in genetic engineering have given rise to an era of foods – including genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and gene-edited foods – that promise to revolutionise the way we eat.</p>
<p>Critics argue these foods could pose risks to human health and the environment. Proponents point to their potential for enhancing yields, reducing food waste, and even combating climate change.</p>
<p>What are GMOs and gene-edited foods? And how are they shaping the future of our food systems?</p>
<h2>GMOs and gene-edited foods aren’t the same</h2>
<p>GMOs are organisms whose genetic material has been artificially altered by inserting a piece of foreign DNA. This DNA may be synthetic in origin or sourced from other organisms. </p>
<p>Gene editing involves making precise changes to an organism’s genome without the integration of foreign DNA elements. Using techniques such as CRISPR/Cas, scientists make precise “cuts” in the DNA to create new genetic variation. Unlike with GMOs, this introduces only minor modifications, which are indistinguishable from natural mutations.</p>
<p>Although GMOs and gene-edited foods have been in circulation for almost three decades, research in this space continues to deliver breakthroughs. These technologies <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/cc3579en/cc3579en.pdf">are being applied</a> to provide a range of benefits, from improved nutrition in food, to reduced food waste and increased crop tolerance against climate stresses.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-the-gene-editing-technology-that-won-the-chemistry-nobel-prize-147695">What is CRISPR, the gene editing technology that won the Chemistry Nobel prize?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What are the concerns?</h2>
<p>The major criticisms of GMOs are related to the overuse of specific herbicides.</p>
<p>GMOs are mainly used to produce crops that are herbicide-resistant or produce pesticides. Farmers can then use herbicides on those crops to control weeds more effectively, without the plants themselves dying. This leads to higher yields on less land, and often with less chemicals used overall.</p>
<p>However, these crops rely on the use of said lab-made <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/pages/herbicides-in-gm-foods.aspx">chemicals</a>. And although the government <a href="https://apvma.gov.au/node/15931">regulates</a> them, ethical and safety debates continue. People raise concerns over potential long-term health impacts, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, and the <a href="https://www.ogtr.gov.au/news/announcement/release-genetically-modified-organism-herbicide-tolerance-trait-review">increased corporate control</a> over agriculture. </p>
<p>Concerns generally aren’t related to the actual manipulation of the plants’ DNA.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kZIYkYNpnP0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Is genetic modification itself unsafe?</h2>
<p>When it comes to the food we eat, how much do we really know about its DNA? Even among experts with genome-sequencing information, most have only one or a few sequenced “reference” varieties, and these often aren’t the same as the plants we eat.</p>
<p>The fact is, we don’t really understand the genomes of many plants and animals we eat. So there’s no reason to suggest tweaking their gene sequences will make consumption harmful. Moreover, there’s currently <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/135280/download">no</a> <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/is-it-safe-to-eat-gm-crops">evidence</a> regulator-approved GMOs or gene-edited foods aren’t safe for human consumption. </p>
<p>In regards to food safety, one valid concern would be the potential creation of new allergens: proteins within the crop the body recognises and creates an immune response to. </p>
<p>But it’s important to remember many foods we eat are already allergenic. Common examples include wheat, peanuts, soy, milk and eggs. Some <a href="https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/ss/slideshow-toxic-foods">common foods</a> are even toxic if consumed in large quantities or without appropriate preparation, such as rhubarb leaves, raw cassava, raw kidney beans and raw cashews. </p>
<p>Ironically, researchers are using gene editing to work towards eliminating proteins that cause allergies and intolerances. <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.00051/full">Gluten-free wheat</a> is one example.</p>
<h2>GMOs and gene-edited foods are widespread</h2>
<p>Due to inconsistent rules about labelling GMOs and gene-edited foods around the world, many consumers may not realise they’re already eating them. </p>
<p>For example, the most <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562892/#">widely used enzyme</a> in cheese-making, <a href="https://thecheesewanker.com/cheese-science/microbial-rennet">rennet</a>, is produced from a GMO bacterium. GMO microbial rennet produces a specific enzyme called chymosin, which helps coagulate milk and form curds. Historically, chymosin was extracted from young cow stomachs, but in the 1990s scientists managed to genetically engineer a bacterium to synthesise it. </p>
<p>GMOs and gene-edited cereal and oilseed products are also widely used in stockfeeds. There is ongoing research to improve feed through enhanced <a href="https://www.bestfoodfacts.org/what-benefits-can-gene-editing-bring-to-food-quality-and-sustainability/">nutrition</a>, and produce crops that will decrease methane <a href="https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/gene-editing-breakthrough-could-cut-ruminant-methane">emissions from cattle</a>. </p>
<p>When it comes to modifying animals themselves, ethical considerations must be balanced alongside <a href="https://cabiagbio.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43170-022-00091-w">potential</a> benefits.</p>
<p>In Australia, about 70% of <a href="https://www.mla.com.au/news-and-events/industry-news/polled-gene-testing-for-a-more-sustainable-herd/">cattle</a> are genetically polled (hornless). Having polled cows improves meat quality through less injury to meat, and is considered better for animal welfare. In the US, fast-growing <a href="https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/aquadvantage-salmon/qa-fdas-approval-aquadvantage-salmon">genetically modified salmon</a> has been approved for consumption.</p>
<p>In a horticultural context, the genetically modified rainbow papaya stands out. It was developed in the late 1990s in response to a ringspot virus outbreak that nearly wiped out the global papaya industry. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1071/APP9930002">Researchers created</a> the virus-resistant “transgenic” papaya, which now makes up a significant proportion of papayas consumed. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists in the US developed the rainbow papaya to be resistant to the papaya ringspot virus. It was commercialised in 1998.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In terms of boosting nutritional content, “<a href="https://www.world-grain.com/articles/17357-cgiar-initiative-plants-golden-rice-in-philippines">golden rice</a>” biofortified with Vitamin A (GMO) is being cultivated in the Philippines, as are tomatoes <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2321469-gene-edited-tomato-offers-new-plant-based-source-of-vitamin-d/">biofortified with Vitamin D</a> (GE) in the United Kingdom, and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513311/#">GABA-enriched</a> tomatoes (GE) in Japan.</p>
<p>Research is also being done to create <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.19754">non-browning mushrooms</a>, apples and potatoes. A simple gene edit can help inhibit the browning oxidation reaction, leading to a longer shelf-life and less food waste.</p>
<h2>Regulation in Australia and New Zealand</h2>
<p>So why don’t you see non-browning mushrooms at your local supermarket? </p>
<p>In Australia, the <a href="https://www.ogtr.gov.au/">Office of the Gene Technology Regulator</a> regulates GMOs. It has <a href="https://www.ogtr.gov.au/resources/publications/genetically-modified-gm-crops-australia">approved</a> four GMO crops for cultivation: cotton, canola, safflower and Indian mustard. However, many more are imported for food ingredients (including modified soy, cottonseed oil, corn and sugar beet) and stockfeed (canola, maize and soy).</p>
<p>Gene-edited food crops can be cultivated without any regulatory restrictions or labelling in Australia. The Gene Technology Act 2000 <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00573">deregulated these products</a> in 2019.</p>
<p>On the other hand, New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority has maintained regulatory restrictions on both gene-edited foods and GMOs. Divergent definitions have led the bi-national agency Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to adopt a cautious approach, regulating gene-edited foods and feeds as GMOs. </p>
<p>The lack of alignment in definitions in Australian has confused producers and consumers alike. FSANZ has said it will continue to monitor developments in gene-editing technology, and will consider reviewing its regulatory approach.</p>
<h2>Responsible research</h2>
<p>Both GMOs and gene-edited foods offer great promise. Of course there are valid concerns, such as the potential to create new allergens, unintended consequences for ecosystems, and growing corporate control over food. But these can be addressed through responsible research and regulatory frameworks.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the development of future foods must be guided by a commitment to sustainability, social justice and scientific rigour.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Correction: This article previously said the transgenic rainbow papaya made up the majority of papayas consumed worldwide. This was incorrect and the wording has been amended.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204275/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Massel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Debates about GMOs and gene-edited foods are multifaceted. There’s no evidence they’re not safe to eat, but no room for complacency either.Karen Massel, Research Fellow, Centre for Crop Science, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1295312020-05-26T12:20:24Z2020-05-26T12:20:24ZEthicists: We need more flexible tools for evaluating gene-edited food<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336220/original/file-20200519-152284-1xe74ay.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C29%2C4947%2C3532&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What determines whether a genetically modified vegetable or fruit is natural?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/strawberry-and-dna-illustration-royalty-free-illustration/1178748888?adppopup=true">VICTOR HABBICK VISIONS/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Is there now a way to genetically engineer crops to create food that people can confidently consider natural? </p>
<p>Gene-editing technology sounds like <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/future-of-food/food-technology-gene-editing/">it might offer this possibility</a>. By altering an organism’s genetic material, or genome, without introducing genes from other species, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3566">advocates of genome editing argue</a> the technique can <a href="https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/6518982">sidestep most of the difficult ethical and regulatory challenges</a> plaguing organisms with added “transgenes,” which are genes from other species. Some even argue these “cisgenic” products are natural enough to <a href="https://theconversation.com/organic-farming-with-gene-editing-an-oxymoron-or-a-tool-for-sustainable-agriculture-101585">count as organic</a>.</p>
<p>As ethicists specializing in how technology alters human-nature relations, we can understand why advocates see the ethics this way. If “crossing species lines” is the measure of whether a technique counts as “natural” or not, then genome editing appears to have the potential to pass a naturalness test. </p>
<p>Genome editing, its boosters say, can make changes that look almost evolutionary. Arguably, these changes could have happened by themselves <a href="https://www.synthego.com/blog/crispr-agriculture-foods">through the natural course of events</a>, if anyone had the patience to wait for them. Conventional breeding for potatoes resistant to late blight is theoretically possible, for example, but it would take a lot of time. </p>
<p>Although we understand the potential advantages of speed, we don’t think an ethics hinging on the idea of “cisgenesis” is adequate. We propose a better ethical lens to use in its place. </p>
<h2>Naturalness and species lines</h2>
<p>Our work is part of a <a href="https://www.rewriteproject.net">four-year project</a>
funded by the Norwegian Research Council scrutinizing how gene editing could change how we think about food. The work brings together researchers from universities and scientific institutes in Norway, the U.K. and the U.S. to compare a range of techniques for producing useful new crops. </p>
<p>Our project is not focused on the safety of the crops under development, something that obviously requires concerted scientific investigation of its own. Although the safety of humans and the health of the environment is ethically crucial when developing new foods, other ethical issues must also be considered. </p>
<p>To see this, consider how objections against genetically modified organisms go far beyond safety. Ethical issues around food sovereignty range broadly across <a href="http://oro.open.ac.uk/22520/1/Genetic_engineering_and_food_sovereignty_reader.pdf">farmer choice, excess corporate power, economic security</a> and other concerns. Ethical acceptability requires a much higher bar than safety alone. </p>
<p>Although we believe gene editing may have promise for addressing the agricultural challenges caused by rising global populations, climate change and the overuse of chemical pesticides, we don’t think an ethical analysis based entirely on “crossing species lines” and “naturalness” is adequate. </p>
<p>It is already clear that arguing gene-edited food is ethical based on species lines has not satisfied all of gene editing’s critics. As Ricarda Steinbrecher, a <a href="https://www.econexus.info/publication/new-breeding-techniques">molecular biologist cautious about gene editing</a>, has said, “Whether or not the DNA sequences come from closely related species is irrelevant, the process of genetic engineering is the same, involving the same risks and unpredictabilities, as with transgenesis.” </p>
<p>Comments of this kind suggest talking about species lines is an unreliable guide. Species and subspecies boundaries are notoriously infirm. Charles Darwin himself conceded in “Origin of Species,” “I look at the term species, as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other.” </p>
<p>The 2005 edition of the Mammal Species of the World demonstrated this arbitrariness by collapsing all 12 subspecies of American cougars down to one Puma concolor cougar overnight. In 2017, the Cat Classification Task Force <a href="https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/32616/A_revised_Felidae_Taxonomy_CatNews.pdf">revised the Felidae family again</a>. </p>
<p>If species lines are not clear, claiming “naturalness” based on not crossing species lines is, in our view, a shaky guide. The lack of clarity matters because a premature ethical green light could mean a premature regulatory green light, with <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/the-first-gene-edited-food-is-now-being-served/">broad implications for both agricultural producers and consumers</a>.</p>
<h2>The integrity lens</h2>
<p>We think a more reliable ethical measure is to ask about how a technique for crop breeding interferes with the integrity of the organism being altered. </p>
<p>The term integrity already has application in <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/">environmental ethics</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw037">ecology</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/yea.1785">cell biology</a>, <a href="https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/integrity">interhuman ethics</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-0903-0">organic agriculture</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400659">genetics</a>. </p>
<p>A unifying theme in all these domains is that integrity points toward some kind of functional wholeness of an organism, a cell, a genome or an ecological system. The idea of maintaining integrity tracks a central intuition about being cautious before interfering too much with living systems and their components.</p>
<p>The integrity lens makes it clear why the ethics of gene editing may not be radically different from the ethics of genetic modification using transgenes. The cell wall is still penetrated by the gene-editing components. The genome of the organism is cut at a site chosen by the scientist, and a repair is initiated which (it is hoped) will result in a desired change to the organism. When it comes to the techniques involved with gene editing a crop or other food for a desired trait, integrity is compromised at several levels and none has anything to do with crossing species lines. The integrity lens makes it clear the ethics is not resolved by debating naturalness or species boundaries. </p>
<p>Negotiation of each other’s integrity is a necessary part of human-to-human relations. Adopted as an ethical practice in the field of biotechnology, it might provide a better guide in attempts to accommodate <a href="https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/GLEP_a_00142">different ethical, ecological and cultural priorities in policymaking</a>. An ethic with a central place for discussion of integrity promises a framework that is both more flexible and discerning. </p>
<p>As new breeding techniques create new ethical debates over food, we think the ethical toolbox needs updating. Talking about crossing species lines simply isn’t enough. If Darwin had known about gene editing, we think he would have agreed. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129531/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher J. Preston receives funding from The Research Council of Norway's SAMKUL Programme on the Cultural Conditions Underlying Social Change. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Trine Antonsen receives funding from The Research Council of Norway's SAMKUL Programme on the Cultural Conditions Underlying Social Change.</span></em></p>What criteria should be used to determine whether a food is natural? What if gene-editing techniques produce changes indistinguishable from those that evolve naturally? Is the food still natural?Christopher J. Preston, Professor of Philosophy, University of MontanaTrine Antonsen, Research Scientist at NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, University of TromsøLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1133382019-03-21T10:46:21Z2019-03-21T10:46:21ZWill more genetically engineered foods be approved under the FDA’s new leadership?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264654/original/file-20190319-60964-tkeko6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will food laws change as more GM foods are created?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/law-book-gavel-food-393936415">Zerbor/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The world of food and drug regulation was rocked earlier this month by the news of a change in leadership at the Food and Drug Administration. Commissioner Scott Gottlieb <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/05/700482545/fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-announces-he-will-resign">resigned</a> and will step down in early April. His <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/health/fda-ned-sharpless.html">temporary replacement</a> is <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/leadership/director">Dr. Ned Sharpless</a>, director of the National Cancer Institute. </p>
<p>As the news filtered out, stocks went <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/scott-gottlieb-s-exit-has-tobacco-stocks-rising-tuesday-14887017">up</a> and <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tobacco-stocks-drop-after-new-acting-fda-commissioner-is-named-14894403">down</a>, consumer advocacy groups <a href="https://www.nclnet.org/scott_gottlieb_resigns">looked back</a> on Gottlieb’s legacy and commentators <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/5/18252139/scott-gottlieb-resigns-fda-opioid-epidemic">worried</a> about the future of the agency.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb will leave the post in early April.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/washington-dc-november-3-2017-fda-751933783">Albert H. Teich/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most of the attention surrounding Gottlieb’s departure has focused on the consequences of the resignation for the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/10/fda-chiefs-departure-might-not-be-a-good-thing-for-vaping-industry.html">vaping and tobacco</a> industries. But the impact of changes in FDA leadership extends well beyond that. FDA-regulated products make up <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm553038.htm">20 percent of consumer spending</a> in the U.S. In the realm of food alone, FDA regulates <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm553038.htm">75 percent of our food supply</a>. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2667484">professor</a> who studies FDA and health law at Saint Louis University, I have been working with the <a href="https://www.slu.edu/law/health/index.php">Center for Health Law Studies</a> to monitor changes in FDA regulations and policies. Most recently I’ve been tracking progress on the FDA’s regulation of genetically modified food and think I can explain what consumers can expect from the agency after Gottlieb departs.</p>
<h2>How the FDA deals with GM plants and animals</h2>
<p>Genetically modified plants <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/geplants/ucm346030.htm">entered the U.S. market</a> in the 1990s. Since then, the official FDA position has been that food derived from genetically modified plants and animals is <a href="https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm346858.htm">not different</a> “from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” This includes considerations regarding safety and long-time effects associated with its consumption. </p>
<p>Many people regard genetically modified food as a means to feed more people at a lower cost. However, recent studies suggest that these promises remain <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/522596/why-we-will-need-genetically-modified-foods/">unfulfilled</a> since genetically engineered food first became available in the 1990s.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Chinook salmon during spawning.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-chinook-salmon-during-spawning-1212401593">Kevin Cass/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ocean pout from Newfoundland, Canada.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dkeats/5532424100/">Derek Keats</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even though scientists have been able to alter the genome of animals for decades, it was not until 2008 that the FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm113605.htm">issued guidance</a> on genetically modified animals. Since then, the agency has become much more active in this area. In 2017, months before Gottlieb became commissioner, the FDA issued <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm113605.htm">further guidance</a> on the use of emerging technologies, like <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/crispr-animals/">CRISPR</a>, that allow scientists to alter animal genomes.</p>
<p>As with plants, the FDA considers genetically engineered animals safe for human consumption. The agency <a href="https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/developmentapprovalprocess/newanimaldrugapplications/default.htm">reviews</a> these types of products as new animal drug applications. </p>
<p>In 2015, two years before Gottlieb began his tenure, the FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/UCM466218.pdf">favorably reviewed</a> an application involving <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm473238.htm">AquAdvantage salmon.</a> Although AquAdvantage salmon was being produced in Canada in 2016, Congress directed FDA to restrict importation of AquAdvantage salmon into the United States. This genetically modified fish incorporates a growth hormone <a href="https://newfoodeconomy.org/fda-aquabounty-gmo-salmon-seafood-restriction-market/">gene</a> from Chinook salmon and links it to a genetic switch, or promoter. The promoter taken from an eel-like fish called ocean pout keeps the growth hormone gene in the “on” position, allowing it to grow significantly faster than comparable Atlantic salmon. </p>
<h2>Gottlieb’s FDA and regulation of GE food</h2>
<p>Also in 2016, Congress made the U.S. Department of Agriculture the <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/12/20/establishing-national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">leading player</a> in the labeling of genetically engineered food. The USDA issued final <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">regulations</a> on this topic in late 2018. </p>
<p>As a response, on March 8, 2019, Gottlieb’s FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm632952.htm">reversed</a> the regulation prohibiting the importation of AquAdvantage salmon. With this decision, FDA underscored the agency’s belief that the product is safe for humans.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Both the U.S. FDA and the World Health Organization have declared genetically modified crops and engineered food safe.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/genetically-modified-crops-engineered-food-agriculture-295120262">Lightspring/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In addition to endorsing the general safety of genetically engineered foods, Gottlieb’s official statement highlights the FDA’s goal of explicitly <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm632952.htm">assuring consumers</a> that genetically engineered foods available in the United States market “meet the FDA’s high safety standards.”</p>
<p>In many ways, the response of the agency can be seen as purely mechanical and deferential to USDA and Congress. But I think it also signals continuity of a permissive policy when it comes to genetically engineered food. By treating it the same way it treats traditional food, the FDA will intervene if genetically engineered food is contaminated or prepared under unsanitary conditions, as it normally does under its general mandate as an agency tasked with protecting the public health. </p>
<p>But we should not expect FDA to challenge the <a href="https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/">prevailing wisdom</a> among <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/how-are-gm-crops-regulated/">regulatory agencies</a> when it comes to genetically modified food.</p>
<p>The FDA’s behavior in this field is in line with the current scientific consensus in the <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/">United States</a> and <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/">abroad</a>. Numerous reputable institutions have upheld the safety of genetically engineered food. These include the <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-panel-says-genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-eat">National Academy of Sciences</a> and the <a href="https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/">World Health Organization</a>. Nevertheless, there are some critics of this consensus who call for <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/">more research</a> into the long-term effects of eating genetically modified food. According to recent data, consumers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html">continue to distrust</a> genetically engineered food as well.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Social justice activists staged a rally in Lafayette Park across from the White House and then marched to Monsanto’s Washington offices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenmelkisethian/14238580036/in/photolist-nGdrMf-dnoFgn-gvETVj-gr7dUZ-gvExKt-gvDXqK-26unk3Q-gvCYW3-gAtxC4-gvEQFy-gvDTwW-gAk9DK-gr7ega-gADipA-nJdjQB-etV6fy-8Fh1KR-8FjXfQ-nrPTPX-9XXYqx-gArj2b-gDY6Fa-nHXVNi-gBgbPk-gBgceE-nGypqS-gDXngj-gAtq9M-nrWUEU-gBSEdu-nJAToD-gBTcPT-gDXMBz-nJ69dW-gDWUxm-fzCmt6-gArPWH-gBThfr-gBTbxK-gBgaYH-gAjSoP-bkHahh-ngQvxa-gjKT9c-gAjgvp-gAjW3A-gAk3VR-gBTixr-3oABp-65sLVL">Stephen Melkisethian/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>GM food under Sharpless and beyond</h2>
<p>I believe that in the near future, FDA will address this distrust while continuing to guide the industry as different types of genetically engineered food enter the market.</p>
<p>Right now, we know virtually nothing about the views of the incoming acting commissioner on genetically engineered food, or food regulation in general. I think the most likely scenario is that Sharpless’ FDA will not stray from its current path regarding genetically engineered food. In 2018, Gottlieb launched a <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/CVMUpdates/ucm624490.htm">Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan</a>, describing a public communication strategy to engage stakeholders. The plan includes public webinars on animal genome editing, as well as guidance on plant and animal biotechnology. Given the current scientific consensus, it would be surprising if Sharpless chose to move the agency in a different direction. </p>
<p>On the labeling front, now that FDA has relinquished most of its authority in this matter to the USDA, the debate is likely to shift elsewhere. Already under Gottlieb, much energy was spent on <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm621824.htm">labeling issues</a> involving almond milk and vegan cheese. The agency worried that using dairy names to described plant-based products might be confusing to consumers.</p>
<p>It is of course possible that Sharpless will not be at the helm of FDA for very long. After all, he is an interim figure of <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/trump-names-sharpless-lead-us-cancer-institute?r3f_986=https://www.google.com/">Democratic leanings</a>. However, given FDA’s <a href="https://endpts.com/how-do-you-replace-a-rock-star-like-scott-gottlieb-at-the-fda-maybe-you-dont/">improbable</a> recent history, there is reason to expect some institutional continuity in the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>Consumers should therefore count on increasing numbers of genetically modified plants and animals entering our food supply. Absent a change in scientific consensus, FDA will smooth the pathway for companies to bring these products to market.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113338/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ana Santos Rutschman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With Gottlieb’s departure from the FDA imminent, what should we expect from the FDA? How is it likely to regulate the still controversial genetically engineered foods?Ana Santos Rutschman, Assistant Professor of Law, Saint Louis UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1006752018-07-27T15:48:57Z2018-07-27T15:48:57ZGM crop ruling shows why the EU’s laws are wholly inadequate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229610/original/file-20180727-106514-1ifkybv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/seeds-shoots-genetically-modified-cereals-petri-600890039?src=DRRMLzrC4E0ZUGNquNVlJQ-1-4">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The European Court of Justice has made an important ruling on genetically modified crops. <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32003R1829">Since 2003</a>, new crop varieties produced by genetic modification have had to be assessed for their risks to the environment and human and animal health before they can be farmed in the European Union. The court <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-528/16#">has now decided</a> that genetic modification includes any technique that induces genetic changes “in a way that does not occur naturally”. This includes new genome editing techniques such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-gene-editing-and-how-does-it-work-84591">CRISPR/Cas9</a>, but also approaches that have been used in plant breeding since the 1960s.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44953100">Some scientists have criticised</a> the court for “shutting the door” on new technologies that could benefit human health and the environment. This is certainly a concern. The ruling will discourage the use of genome editing that could bring significant environmental benefits by making it more expensive for such such crops to clear the necessary regulatory processes. </p>
<p>But the main problem illustrated by this ruling is the deep logical flaw in the whole regulatory approach. Plants that have been bred in more traditional ways, which could have just as serious health or environmental impacts, will continue to be exempt from regulation. Focusing on how a new crop is produced – rather than the new characteristics or agricultural practices it brings – will inevitably result in wholly inadequate protection for the environment and consumers.</p>
<p>Every new crop variety is genetically different from its predecessors. A lot of genetic variation can arise naturally from errors in DNA copying, mutations caused by environmental factors, cross breeding with wild relatives, viruses and many other sources. All this variation is excluded from the EU definition of GM.</p>
<p>To increase genetic diversity and generally speed things up, scientists can <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2016.1270489">induce mutations deliberately</a>. Random mutagenesis – purposefully encouraging genetic mutations, for example with radiation – has been used on crops since the 1960s. It has since become possible to add specific new genes, sourced from the same or different species. And, even more recently, genome editing techniques have been developed that allow scientists to alter selected existing genes. These more recent approaches are becoming ever more useful as we build up our understanding of which genes do what. </p>
<p>All these techniques can be used to introduce new traits into a crop variety, for example to make a plant resistant to herbicides. The new court ruling came about because a group of farming organisations who were worried about the impact of herbicide resistant crops argued they should be regulated regardless of how they were developed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gene-edited crops can have the same properties as traditionally bred ones.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/biotechnology-woman-engineer-examining-plant-leaf-552990736?src=DRRMLzrC4E0ZUGNquNVlJQ-1-16">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This seems to me entirely reasonable. There are of plenty of <a href="https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-11/herbicide-resistant-crops">arguments and counterarguments</a>
about the risks and benefits of this approach to weed control – and it is important to assess these before introducing a new herbicide resistant crop. None of these arguments have anything to do with how the crop was produced.</p>
<p>Yet the court ruling means that herbicide resistant crops produced through conventional breeding can be used freely, while crops produced using newer approaches must be subjected to intense scrutiny. So the farming groups might be happy that a new generation of herbicide resistant crops will have to be extensively assessed for their environmental and health impacts. But herbicide resistant crops produced by traditional methods, which raise identical concerns, will remain exempt from these regulations.</p>
<h2>Natural’s not in it</h2>
<p>This highlights the central problem with the EU regulations on new crop varieties. Anything that could occur naturally is exempt from scrutiny. Yet drawing a line between the natural and artificial is difficult to say the least. After thousands of years of careful human intervention, most “natural” crops <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-our-food-is-genetically-modified-in-some-way-where-do-you-draw-the-line-56256">look nothing like</a> their wild ancestor. They have many characteristics that mean they would not last more than a few generations if they had to compete in the wild.</p>
<p>One of the reasons we have spent so long breeding them is that many natural plants carry serious risks. Very few people would say to their children: “Go into the woods and eat anything you can find. It’s all natural so it must be good for you.” The distinction between natural and artificial is both contrived and not relevant when it comes to environmental and health impact assessment.</p>
<p>We should assess new crop varieties on the traits they are supposed to deliver, not on how those traits were introduced. The system needs to be proportional and risk-based. This should of course include consideration of the unintended effects of whatever genetic improvement process was used. Instead we spend years debating whether or not a new technique counts as genetic modification or not. That this is even a relevant question lays bare the flaws in our current approach.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100675/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ottoline Leyser receives funding from The Gatsby Charitable Foundation, the European Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. She works/volunteers/consults for the following organisations: Clare College Cambridge, The Royal Society, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, European Molecular Biology Organisation, Royal Society of Biology, National Academy of Science, Leopoldina, Umea Plant Science Centre, John Innes Centre, Genetics Society, International Plant Molecular Biology, British Society for Developmental Biology, International Plant Growth Substances Association, Sense About Science, Science and Plants for Schools, Numerous academic Journals, Science Media Centre, Research England, UKRI-BBSRC, Wellcome Trust, The Crick Institute, The Council for Science and Technology, Netherlands Organisation For Scientific Research, The Gatsby Charitable Foundation, The European Research Council.</span></em></p>Genetic modification rules now cover gene edited crops but exclude plants bred traditionally with the same properties.Ottoline Leyser, Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/989152018-06-28T10:38:13Z2018-06-28T10:38:13ZMandatory labels with simple disclosures reduced fears of GE foods in Vermont<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224796/original/file-20180625-19390-14lj6ja.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vermont has had food labels that indicate food has been 'partially produced with genetic engineering.'</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sally McCay, UVM Photo</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been substantial debate over whether mandated labels for genetically engineered foods might increase or decrease consumer aversion toward genetic engineering. </p>
<p>This question is particularly relevant now since <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/04/2018-09389/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">comments on proposed rules</a> for implementing a national labeling law are being accepted until July 3, 2018. Two years ago, a mandatory Vermont law went in effect. </p>
<p>Mandatory labeling of GE food has been opposed by many scientific organizations, including the <a href="https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf">American Association for the Advancement of Science.</a> But, a majority of consumers have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html">consistently</a> <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/poll-finds-americans-support-gmo-food-labeling">expressed</a> <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1">desires for labeling GE foods</a>. </p>
<p>A primary concern expressed with mandatory labels is that they will signal that GE food is unsafe or <a href="http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/why-labeling-of-gmos-is-actually-bad-for-people-and-the-environment/">harmful to the environment</a>. The opposing view is that labels give consumers a sense of control or <a href="http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/new-evidence-finds-gmo-labels-will-reassure-consumers-more-than-scare-them-away">improve trust</a>, lowering perceived risk of GE food. Empirical support for these arguments, both for and against labeling, has been mixed. Importantly, they are based on hypothetical studies. That is, people are asked what they think or how they will behave, or they react to mock labels. Until the Vermont law, there were no actual GE labels to use in research on the topic.</p>
<p>Our study, <a href="http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaaq1413">published in Science Advances</a>, aimed to help resolve the debate about the impact of simple disclosure GE labels on consumer support of and opposition to GE food. </p>
<p>The dataset we used measured levels of opposition to GE foods in a national control group compared to levels in Vermont, the only U.S. state to have implemented mandatory labeling of GE foods. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_bMtEckAAAAJ&hl=en">Jayson Lusk</a> from Purdue University provided the national data and I provided the Vermont data. In total, 7,800 consumers from 2014 to 2017 were asked to rank their opposition to GE food. </p>
<p>By comparing the responses of Vermonters to what other states’ residents reported, we could estimate the impact of the labeling policy on consumer attitudes after Vermont consumers experienced labels in the marketplace. </p>
<p>Our analysis of opposition to GE food before and after mandatory labeling shows that the policy of providing simple disclosure labels led to a 19 percent reduction in opposition to GE food. Our estimates were obtained from a <a href="http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/linmult.htm">multiple regression framework</a> – a statistic method for comparing different variables, which in our <a href="http://www.nber.org/WNE/lect_10_diffindiffs.pdf">model</a> included location (Vermont versus the rest of the U.S.) and presence of mandatory labels (time periods before versus after mandatory labels appeared in Vermont). </p>
<p>Regardless of how we controlled for different variables, such as demographics, the impact of the mandatory labeling policy on consumer opposition to GE technologies in Vermont relative to the rest of the U.S. is significant and negative. That is, opposition to the use of GM technology in food production fell in Vermont, post labeling.</p>
<p>We know of no other U.S. study that determined the impact on consumer attitudes toward the use of GE technologies in food production using U.S. national data from states not requiring GE labels and data from a state where consumers were exposed to mandatory GE labels. </p>
<p>Our study provides evidence that a simple disclosure, one of the suggestions for the standards being developed at the federal level, is not likely to signal to consumers that GE foods are more risky, unsafe or otherwise harmful. In fact, it does the opposite. This national study cannot identify why this change occurred. But, the findings are consistent with some prior research that suggests labels give consumers a <a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/DIEAVA">sense of control</a> or autonomy. </p>
<p>Previous research in food risk communication lays out <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10551-010-0724-6.pdf">seven “practical” principles</a>. These seem applicable to GE labeling for policymakers and food producers:</p>
<ol>
<li> Be honest and open</li>
<li> Disclose incentives and conflicts of interest</li>
<li> Take all available relevant knowledge into consideration</li>
<li> When possible, quantify risk</li>
<li> Describe and explain uncertainties</li>
<li> Take all the public’s concerns into account, and </li>
<li> Take the rights of individuals and groups seriously.</li>
</ol>
<p>Whether simple disclosures on GE labels improve a sense of control, improve trust, or operate by some other psychological mechanism is a question we leave to future research. </p>
<p>The proposed national labeling rules put forward simple disclosures as just one of several ways to communicate that foods are produced using GE. The proposed rules also change the wording from genetically engineered (GM, GE, GMO) to bio-engineered (BE). </p>
<p>Our results are based on actual labels seen in the marketplace, which stated “produced or partially produced using genetic engineering.” More research is needed to assess how a change in the vocabulary – from GE or GMO to BE, for instance – to describe genetic engineering, or how alternative ways for communicating GE information on labels will affect consumer attitudes and purchase decisions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98915/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Kolodinsky receives funding from the United States Department of Agriculture and the Vermont Experiment Station.
</span></em></p>Vermonters’ views on labels for genetically engineered foods shed light on consumers’ views, as the federal government considers mandatory labels.Jane Kolodinsky, Professor and Chair Community Development and Applied Economics, University of VermontLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/665082016-11-09T19:07:09Z2016-11-09T19:07:09ZShould genetically modified organisms be part of our conservation efforts?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144341/original/image-20161103-25322-15p8m1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Genetically modified crops.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/science photo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Biotechnology is rapidly evolving through developments in <a href="http://feldan.com/news/a-beginners-guide-to-genome-editing/">genome editing</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD5uNAMbDaQ">synthetic biology</a>, giving birth to new forms of life. </p>
<p>This technology has already given us genetically modified (GM) plants that produce bacterial pesticides, GM mosquitos that are sterile and GM mice that develop human cancers.</p>
<p>Now, new biotechnological techniques are promising to deliver <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/welcome-to-the-crispr-zoo-1.19537">a whole host of new lifeforms</a> designed to serve our purposes – pigs with human organs, chickens that lay eggs containing cholesterol controlling drugs, and monkeys that develop autism. The possibilities seem endless. </p>
<p>But do these genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have conservation value? </p>
<p>The biodiversity of life on earth is <a href="https://www.cbd.int">globally recognised as valuable</a> and in need of protection. This includes not just wild biodiversity but also the biodiversity of agricultural crop plants that humans have developed over thousands of years. </p>
<p>But what about the synthetic forms of biodiversity we are now developing through biotechnologies? Does anyone care about this synbiodiversity?</p>
<p>It’s a question I was compelled to ask while conducting research into the Svalbard Global Seed Vault (<a href="http://biodiverseedy.com">SGSV</a>).</p>
<h2>A frozen ‘Noah’s Ark’ for seeds</h2>
<p>The SGSV is the global apex of agricultural biodiversity conservation, an approach to conservation where collections of diverse seed samples are kept in frozen storage in genebanks for future use by plant breeders.</p>
<p>The SGSV is a frozen cavern in a mountain on the arctic island of Svalbard, halfway between mainland Norway and the North Pole. It has been called a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3323301/Noahs-Ark-for-plants-to-store-worlds-seeds.html">Noah’s Ark for crop plants</a> (also the “<a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/conservation/frozen-doomsday-vault-containing-almost-every-seed-on-earth-has-been-opened/news-story/9c38a4ae6e481315b05d6ddfe8648f6c">doomsday vault</a>”) because it is the place where genebanks from all around the world send backup copies of their seed collections for safe-keeping. </p>
<p>Here the seeds are sealed inside bags sealed inside boxes locked in a freezer locked in a mountain. They are sent there to be kept safe from the threats genebanks can face, such as energy shortages, natural disasters and war.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Svalbard Global Seed Vault.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/landbruks-_og_matdepartementet/4186766563/">Flickr/Landbruks og matdepartementet</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Seeds in the SGSV can only be accessed by the genebank that deposited them and only one withdrawal has been made so far, <a href="http://www.icarda.org/update/icarda%E2%80%99s-seed-retrieval-mission-svalbard-seed-vault#sthash.NDlVJRLR.dpbs">by researchers from the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas</a> (<a href="http://www.icarda.org">ICARDA </a>) seeking to restore their collections after the destruction of Aleppo in war-torn Syria.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.croptrust.org/what-we-do/svalbard-global-seed-vault/">SGSV</a> is managed through a collaborative agreement between the Norwegian government, the <a href="https://www.croptrust.org">Crop Trust</a> and the Nordic Genetic Resource Center (<a href="http://www.nordgen.org/index.php/en/content/view/full/2/">NordGen</a>).</p>
<p>It opened in 2008 and <a href="http://www.nordgen.org/sgsv/">currently houses</a> 870,971 different samples of 5,340 species from 233 countries, deposited by 69 institutes.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Inside the frozen Svalbard Global Seed Vault.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/landbruks-_og_matdepartementet/25957064790/">Flickr/Landbruks og matdepartementet</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Are there any GMOs frozen in the vault?</h2>
<p>During my research into the SGSV I asked if it held any GM seeds.</p>
<p>Despite initially receiving conflicting responses, the formal answer was ultimately “no”. But different reasons were given for this and all are open to change. </p>
<h3>The vault is not a certified facility for GMO storage</h3>
<p>Facilities working with GMOs require certification to do so. </p>
<p>While the SGSV is not currently certified, it could be since requirements typically relate to ensuring strict containment and the SGSV is already oriented towards this goal.</p>
<p>Also, since no analysis of seeds is performed at the SGSV or required for deposits, the collections may actually be unintentionally (and unwittingly) contaminated. This is because a mixing with GM crops could have happened via seed or pollen flow before the material was sent to the vault. </p>
<h3>There is no political will to include GM crops</h3>
<p>Currently, no one in the SGSV management wants to become (any further) entangled in the controversy surrounding GM crops.</p>
<p>They already face what they see as false conjectures about the role of the biotechnology industry (fuelled no doubt by the fact that organisations involved in the biotechnology industry have <a href="https://www.croptrust.org/about-crop-trust/donors/">donated funds to the Crop Trust</a>).</p>
<p>Several of the depositing genebanks also <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/abdc/documents/cgiar.pdf">actively support biotechnology research</a>. Therefore, if they wanted to store GMOs in the future, the will to seek certification may certainly change. </p>
<p>Norway has a <a href="https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/gene-technology-act/id173031/">strict GMO policy</a> that requires not just evidence of safety but also of social utility and contribution to sustainable development. This means no GM crop has yet been approved for either cultivation or import.</p>
<p>But this is currently being challenged by a government committed to speeding up assessments and advocating for weakened interpretations of the law. This further indicates the potential for political will to change.</p>
<h3>GM crops do not meet the requirements for multilateral access</h3>
<p>The <a href="http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/en/">International Plant Treaty</a> is a crucial foundation for the SGSV. As such, depositing genebanks are required to agree to multilateral access to their collections if they wish to deposit backup copies in the SGSV.</p>
<p>But GM crops are not freely accessible to all as part of the common heritage of humanity. They are patented inventions owned by those claiming to have created them. The SGSV requirement that deposits be available for multilateral access <a href="http://www.nordgen.org/sgsv/scope/sgsv/files/SGSV_Deposit_Agreement_until150101.pdf">can be waived</a> though. </p>
<p>But if GM crops are not in the SGSV, should they be? </p>
<h2>Do GMOs have conservation value?</h2>
<p>Very little work has examined the moral status and conservation value of GM crops. </p>
<p>As the fields of genome editing and synthetic biology are now undergoing rapid development though, we have an important opportunity to consider how we relate to biotechnological forms of biodiversity. We can also think about whether it might be possible to <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-016-9634-7">navigate through syn- to symbiodiversity</a>. </p>
<p>That is, instead of focusing on these life forms as synthetic human inventions, we could begin to think about them as co-creations of human-nature interactions. In doing so, we may then shift the focus away from how to make synthetic organisms to satisfy our needs and place more emphasis on how to interact with other life forms to establish symbiotic relations of mutual benefit. </p>
<p>The French sociologist of science and anthropologist Bruno Latour has urged us to <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/love-your-monsters">love our monsters</a>, to take responsibility for our technologies and care for them as our children. </p>
<p>Certainly it seems fair to argue that if we don’t care for our biotechnological co-creations with a sense of (parental) responsibility, perhaps we shouldn’t be bringing them to life. </p>
<h2>How do we care for GM crops?</h2>
<p>The model of freezing seeds in genebanks and backing up those collections at the SGSV is one way to conserve biodiversity. Another, however, is the approach of continuing to cultivate them in our agricultural landscapes. </p>
<p>While this model of conservation has generated and maintained the biodiversity of traditional crop varieties for thousands of years, there is now a significant shift taking place. <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5609e/y5609e02.htm">More than 90% of traditional crop varieties</a> have now disappeared from our fields and been replaced by genetically uniform modern varieties cultivated in large-scale monocultures. Meaning, there may be no GM crops frozen in the SGSV, but there are plenty in the ground. </p>
<p>So this leaves me questioning what it is we really cherish? Are we using our precious agricultural resources to expand the diversity of humanity’s common heritage?</p>
<p>Or are we rather placing our common heritage on ice while we expand the ecological space occupied by privately owned inventions? And who cares about synbiodiversity anyway?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66508/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fern Wickson receives funding from the Research Council of Norway and the European Commission. </span></em></p>Genome editing and synthetic biology are giving rise to new forms of life. But do these organisms have conservation value as part of earth’s biodiversity?Fern Wickson, Senior Scientist & Program Coordinator, GenØk - Centre for BiosafetyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/606742016-07-27T21:20:13Z2016-07-27T21:20:13ZGMOs lead the fight against Zika, Ebola and the next unknown pandemic<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132228/original/image-20160727-21595-158l7x3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C646%2C5748%2C4122&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">GMOs may very well have filled up that syringe.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-336640973/stock-photo-hand-with-a-syringe-injection-vaccination-medicine-pop-art-retro-style.html?src=pp-same_artist-346093292-5N0wHCvzYAJ7L24IKgcP_g-2&ws=1">Syringe image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The shadow of the Zika virus hangs over the Rio Olympic Games, with visitors and even <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/0/rio-olympics-which-athletes-have-withdrawn-over-zika-fears/">high-profile athletes citing worries</a> about Zika as a reason to stay away (even if the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-olympics-wont-spread-zika-around-the-world-62822">risk is probably quite low</a>). The public’s concerns are a striking example of the need to rapidly combat emerging infectious diseases.</p>
<p>In the fight against <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/zika/">Zika</a>, public health experts have turned to what may sound like an unlikely ally: genetically modified organisms, or <a href="http://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/what-are-gmos/">GMOs</a>.</p>
<p>Consumers are used to hearing about GMOs in food crops, but may be unaware of the vital role GMOs play in medicine. Most modern biomedical advances, especially the vaccines used to eradicate disease and protect against pandemics such as Zika, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/">Ebola</a> and the <a href="http://www.flu.gov">flu</a>, rely on the same molecular biology tools that are used to create genetically modified organisms. To protect the public, scientists have embraced GMO technology to quickly study new health threats, manufacture enough protective vaccines, and monitor and even predict new outbreaks. </p>
<h2>Vaccines, meet molecular biology</h2>
<p>Vaccines work with the immune system to strengthen the body’s own natural defenses. A vaccine offers a preview of a potential infection, so the immune system is ready to pounce if the real threat shows up. </p>
<p>The earliest vaccines were primitive – think Edward Jenner in the 1790s <a href="http://www.jennermuseum.com/vaccination.html">inoculating against smallpox</a> by rubbing together the open wounds of uninfected patients and those with cowpox. But over the years, advances in medical technology led to improved vaccines. The modern age of vaccines was ushered in by the introduction of <a href="http://www.jove.com/science-education-database/2/basic-methods-in-cellular-and-molecular-biology">molecular biology tools</a> in the 1970s, which vastly improved our ability to study and manipulate viruses.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132067/original/image-20160726-7058-1k9brj6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132067/original/image-20160726-7058-1k9brj6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132067/original/image-20160726-7058-1k9brj6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132067/original/image-20160726-7058-1k9brj6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132067/original/image-20160726-7058-1k9brj6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132067/original/image-20160726-7058-1k9brj6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132067/original/image-20160726-7058-1k9brj6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132067/original/image-20160726-7058-1k9brj6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Viruses have spikes for attaching to host cells and a cargo bay to hold its genes (red).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=387259318">Virus illustration via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Under the microscope, viruses look like spiky balls, with an internal cargo bay that houses their genetic material. “Dissecting” a virus means using molecular biology tools to study its genes (whether encoded via DNA or RNA) up close. For example, researchers can “cut and paste” genes to study them in isolation and figure out what they do. Or researchers can cause genetic mutations and watch how an organism responds.</p>
<p>When DNA is modified or studied inside different cells than those from which it originated, it is called “<a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/recombinant-DNA-technology">recombinant DNA</a>.” An organism with recombinant DNA is considered a GMO.</p>
<p>GMO developers use molecular biology, manipulating genes to study and alter plant DNA, for instance, to create new varieties that can thrive with <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Biotechnology-infographic_7.29.13-clean.pdf">less water or fewer pesticides</a>.</p>
<p>For vaccine researchers, molecular biology is a jack-of-all-trades. These tools allow scientists to figure out the keys to a virus’ survival by dissecting its DNA, devise new vaccines, manufacture those vaccines cheaply and quickly, and monitor which viruses in the wild might become public health headaches. According to <a href="http://medschool.umaryland.edu/FACULTYRESEARCHPROFILE/viewprofile.aspx?id=25096">Dr. José Esparza</a>, president of the <a href="http://gvn.org/">Global Virus Network</a> and professor at University of Maryland Medical School, “It is impossible to do research in biomedicine without doing molecular biology.”</p>
<h2>GMOs advance science of vaccines</h2>
<p>One disease currently being addressed with the help of molecular biology is <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs204/en/">hepatitis B</a>, which kills one person every minute worldwide – even though we do have an effective vaccine.</p>
<p>In the 1960s, virologists realized that the hepatitis B antigen – a protein from the virus’ outer shell that triggers an immune response in an infected person – showed up in the blood of hepatitis B patients. To their surprise, injecting a healthy person with the purified antigen protected against future infections. The first hepatitis B vaccine (<a href="http://www.nasonline.org/publications/beyond-discovery/hepatitis-b-story.pdf">HBV</a>), approved in 1981, was made by harvesting the antigen from the blood of hepatitis B carriers, including intravenous drug users.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132201/original/image-20160727-21591-273uhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132201/original/image-20160727-21591-273uhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132201/original/image-20160727-21591-273uhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132201/original/image-20160727-21591-273uhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132201/original/image-20160727-21591-273uhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132201/original/image-20160727-21591-273uhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132201/original/image-20160727-21591-273uhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132201/original/image-20160727-21591-273uhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Administering the hepatitis B vaccine to a child at a rural health center in India.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/unitednationsdevelopmentprogramme/4968223306">United Nations Development Programme</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Once recombinant DNA technology was developed, researchers could isolate the gene for the virus’ antigen protein, allowing for HBV to be manufactured in laboratories via those genetic instructions instead of from infected blood. Currently, both FDA-approved <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/appdx-full-b.pdf">vaccines for hepatitis B</a> include the recombinant version of the antigen. </p>
<p>And molecular biology can be used to accelerate the development of new vaccines. For example, in late June, a “<a href="https://www.statnews.com/2016/06/20/zika-vaccine-inovio/">DNA vaccine</a>” was the first to be approved for human trials against the Zika virus. Rather than containing the Zika antigen itself, the vaccine contains a gene for the Zika antigen which the patient’s body then produces.</p>
<p>The announcement of this breakthrough came less than five months after the World Health Organization declared Zika a “<a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2016/emergency-committee-zika-microcephaly/en/">public health emergency of international concern</a>.” Without the tools to modify and isolate sections of DNA, Dr. Esparza of the Global Virus Network notes, “we would not be able to do this with the necessary speed and efficiency.”</p>
<h2>GMOs as pharma factories</h2>
<p>Consumers who scrupulously avoid genetically modified foods might be surprised to know that lots of <a href="https://gmoanswers.com/studies/gmos-food-and-medicine-overview">drugs and vaccines</a> they rely on are the product of GMOs.</p>
<p>Many vaccines and top-grossing pharmaceuticals contain proteins as the main ingredient. Proteins are <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00172">too costly</a> and delicate to manufacture from scratch. But living cells must make proteins to survive, and they can be coaxed to produce medical proteins in bulk, requiring little more than the DNA instructions and sugary broth as fuel. Since these genetic blueprints must be inserted into the cells, many vaccines and drugs are technically the product of GMOs. </p>
<p>Modified bacteria, yeast and even <a href="https://biotechhistory.org/magazine-article/vital-tools-brief-history-cho-cells/">Chinese hamster cells</a> are the unheralded molecular factories of the drug and vaccine industry. In 2014, 10 of the <a href="http://cellculturedish.com/2015/03/10-biologics-on-best-selling-drugs-list-for-2014/">top 25 best-selling drugs</a> were “<a href="http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CBER/ucm133077.htm">biologics</a>” – drugs made up of recombinantly produced proteins – including blockbuster treatments for arthritis, cancer and diabetes. Of the 10 vaccines that the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends</a> for newborns, three are available in recombinant form; HBV, for example, is produced by modified yeast. The earliest recombinant vaccines and drugs have been in use for <a href="http://www.biotechnology.amgen.com/timeline.html">three decades</a>. </p>
<p>Perhaps the most dramatic example of GMO use in medicine came during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. When American doctor Kent Brantly and other Western volunteers contracted Ebola, several were cured by a “<a href="http://wgntv.com/2014/08/04/secret-serum-likely-saved-ebola-patients/">secret serum</a>” called <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nature13777">Zmapp</a>. Manufactured by <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/3045741/most-creative-people-2015/meet-ebolas-soft-spoken-plant-loving-arch-nemesis">genetically modified tobacco plants</a>, it’s a mixture of several proteins that attack the Ebola virus.</p>
<p>The technology for producing drugs in genetically modified plants, dubbed “pharming,” was developed by <a href="https://sols.asu.edu/people/charles-arntzen">Charles Arntzen</a> in the early 1990s. In the case of Zmapp, the antibodies are made in the tobacco plant’s leaves. When they’re harvested, rather than being made into cigarettes, their cells are popped open and the drug is collected. Researchers call pharming “<a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/3045741/most-creative-people-2015/meet-ebolas-soft-spoken-plant-loving-arch-nemesis">a revolution for the field</a>” of manufacturing pharmaceuticals.</p>
<p>The biotech company <a href="http://www.appliedbiotech.org">Applied Biotechnology Institute</a> has embraced the technique to make a next-generation pharmed vaccine. They’re developing a genetically modified corn plant that produces the hepatitis B antigen. The plant could be harvested and turned into an oral vaccine tablet, which looks like a small wafer, as opposed to a liquid which must be refrigerated and injected. The hope is that an oral vaccine can lower the rates of hepatitis B in the developing world, where the cold supply chain, sanitary needles and trained medical personnel the current vaccine depends on are either lacking or prohibitively expensive.</p>
<h2>Future of diagnostics</h2>
<p>Beyond improved vaccines, equally pressing for the future of public health will be addressing pandemics that have not yet even begun. Virologist Esparza counts 11 pandemics that have occurred in the last 14 years, including Ebola, the <a href="http://www.flu.gov/about_the_flu/h1n1/">H1N1 (swine) flu</a> and <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/mers/">MERS</a> – all but one of which were viruses. “It is totally predictable there will be other pandemics. What is not easy to predict is which one. Two years ago, no one could have predicted Zika,” he told me.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132267/original/image-20160727-21578-1cb427x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132267/original/image-20160727-21578-1cb427x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132267/original/image-20160727-21578-1cb427x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132267/original/image-20160727-21578-1cb427x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132267/original/image-20160727-21578-1cb427x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132267/original/image-20160727-21578-1cb427x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132267/original/image-20160727-21578-1cb427x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132267/original/image-20160727-21578-1cb427x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Molecular biology technology has made possible simple diagnostic tools, like this paper-based test for Zika. Areas that have turned purple indicate samples infected with the virus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wyss Institute at Harvard University</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Molecular biology is often found on the front lines of pandemics, appearing in on-the-spot diagnostic tools that are cheap and do not require extensive equipment or training. For example, a Harvard-led team <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.04.059">recently unveiled</a> a <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferhicks/2016/05/09/researchers-develop-low-cost-paper-diagnostic-test-for-zika-virus/#24ee99f53fb4">paper-based test</a> – similar to a pregnancy test – that uses the <a href="https://theconversation.com/crispr-cas-gene-editing-technique-holds-great-promise-but-research-moratorium-makes-sense-pending-further-study-43371">CRISPR/Cas</a> gene editing tool to distinguish the Zika virus from the closely related <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2016/02/17/zika-dengue-infections/">Dengue virus</a>. If the Cas9 protein encounters the specific DNA sequence of Zika virus in a drop of blood, it starts a chain reaction that results in a colored readout.</p>
<p>Beyond diagnosing single patients, molecular biology tools will be used to get ahead of the as-yet-unknown pandemic threats that lie in the future. Public health officials are <a href="http://www.who.int/csr/alertresponse/en/">calling for monitoring infections</a> in the places where new diseases frequently emerge. Quick and accurate diagnostic tests are key to determining which viruses are already circulating and would allow researchers to anticipate new pandemics and develop and stockpile vaccines. </p>
<p>“Until now, we have had a very reactive response” to threats like Zika and Ebola, says Dr. Esparza. With the help of GMOs, infectious disease experts have the tools to get ahead of the next outbreak, moving beyond reaction to quick detection, containment and even prevention.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60674/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeff Bessen works in a molecular biology lab that has received funding on various projects from the NIH, HHMI, and DARPA. The lab has received funding from Monsanto for a project unrelated to vaccines and medicines.
</span></em></p>Public health experts enlist the molecular biology tools that create genetically modified organisms – as well as the GMOs themselves – in the fight against emerging infectious diseases.Jeff Bessen, Ph.D. Candidate in Chemical Biology, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/544422016-02-11T10:01:21Z2016-02-11T10:01:21ZWhy we won’t be able to feed the world without GM<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110854/original/image-20160209-12606-13ekzgp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We're talking about a lot of seeds</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=feed%20the%20world&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=44069140">Great Divide Photography</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One thing I remember vividly from my childhood is The Day of the Triffids. In John Wyndham’s apocalyptic novel, the triffids were carnivorous plants that didn’t need roots and had developed three legs to allow them to find prey (whose nitrogen they fed on instead). They were originally bred by humans to provide high-quality vegetable oil, since the growing population’s demand for food was outstripping supply. Initially contained on farms, the triffids escaped following an “extreme celestial event” and began to terrorise the human population. </p>
<p>Replace “breeding” with “genetic modification” and you have the contemporary cautionary tale about the threat of “Frankenfoods” to human health and the environment. But this raises another question – if we ignore their potential, what does it mean for human food requirements in the future?</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Leaf grief.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Day of the Triffids was first published in 1951, right at the start of the “<a href="http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/greenrevolution.htm">green revolution</a>”. The latest thing was breeding new varieties of cereal which were high-yielding. Together with other newly developed technologies including machinery – tractors and irrigation pumps – and synthetic inputs like pesticides and fertilisers, this <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11584298">helped double</a> major commodity crop production between 1960 and 2000 to 2 billion tonnes worldwide, rebutting <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/11374623">Malthusian</a> fears about the world failing to feed its growing population. </p>
<p>In the last decade, the rosy glow has worn off a little. Growth in world crop yields <a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2296">has declined</a> and is even stagnating, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/616">perhaps due to</a> climate change – especially stress from heat and drought. Yields <a href="http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ncomms3918">are no longer</a> increasing fast enough to keep pace with projected demand. If current trends continue, <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066428">we’ll need to</a> expand our crop land by 42% by 2050. As a consequence, forests will be lost. Along with associated costs from requiring more water, plus the effects on biodiversity, this <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">will increase</a> agriculture’s greenhouse-gas emissions significantly. In total, agri-food <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">is set to</a> emit enough greenhouse gases to surpass the entirety of the 1.5°C temperature-rise target <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/finale-cop21/">called for in Paris</a> for 2050. </p>
<h2>Supply …</h2>
<p>There are basically two options: we can increase yields to meet demand without expanding area, and/or we can reduce demand enough to allow supply to catch up. Increasing supply in a sustainable way is perfectly possible. Some of this is about increasing efficiency through better farming, such as using <a href="https://soilsmatter.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/what-is-precision-agriculture-and-why-is-it-important/">precision agriculture</a> to target the right amounts of fertilisers and pesticides to the right places. </p>
<p>Some of it is about changing land management to get the most out of agricultural land while maintaining ecosystem services, for example by managing the edges of fields as buffer strips to prevent chemicals being washed away by heavy rains; and as <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00004.x/full">places with lots of wild flowers</a> where bees can thrive to improve crop pollination. And some of it is about developing new animal and plant varieties that are more efficient, more productive or better able to cope with the changing environment.</p>
<p>New varieties can come about from various means. Conventional breeding continues to be important. But modern laboratories have given us more strings to our bow. Not all biotechnological approaches are genetic modification in the legal sense. Using chemicals or X-rays to create genetic variation has <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/05/pasta-ruby-grapefruits-why-organic-devotees-love-foods-mutated-by-radiation-and-chemicals/">long been</a> a mainstay of “conventional breeding”, for example. Other techniques – such as <a href="http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/crispr-a-game-changing-genetic-engineering-technique/">CRISPR</a> – are arguably post-GM, in that they can involve the clinical editing of single genes without leaving a signature of foreign DNA. CRISPR <a href="https://www.jic.ac.uk/news/2015/11/crispr-crop-genes-no-transgenes/#">can produce</a> identical plants to those produced conventionally, but much faster. Yet for some people, biotechnological crop or livestock modification conjures up “triffidophobia”. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chop chop.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=Pn9wL9qjtP2ie2RbShav7A&searchterm=CRISPR&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=353873630">Mopic</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Just how wary should we be about new technologies? Conventional breeding has served us well, but can’t keep up with demand or the speed with which the weather is changing. Any change in farming practice has associated risks that need to be assessed and managed, but these also need to be weighed against the risks of doing nothing. To increase food supply to meet projected demand, farming in the same way as we do now, the emissions from deforestation and other changes will <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">lock us into</a> a world of 4-5°C of climate change. Together with other significant costs to the environment and human health and well-being, that’s probably a greater risk than the alternative. </p>
<p>It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though. We still need to develop precision agriculture and smarter land use. And even if the gaps between current and required yields are halved – a big ask across the world – we’ll still need more land to meet demand. This would still impact on the likes of our water supply <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">and create</a> enough warming to challenge the Paris targets. </p>
<h2>… or demand?</h2>
<p>This is where the second option comes in – decreasing demand. <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1104-5">Globally</a>, we feed livestock about a third of all the calories we grow – enough to feed all the people in Asia. About a third of the food we grow is also lost or wasted. And across the world, many people overeat enough to make themselves ill through obesity, diabetes and so on. If we made wiser purchasing and consumption decisions, potentially we could halve current global demand for food. That would create space for sustainably feeding the growing population as well as growing biofuels and carbon storage in new forests.</p>
<p>For me, the message is clear. We are unsustainably using the planet’s resources to produce the food we demand, and there will be very negative results if we continue on the same trajectory. New technology can help, but needs assessed as it is developed. Old technology still has a role; as does reducing waste, over-consumption and meat-heavy diets. There is no simple answer but there is a toolbox, and we’ll need every tool at our disposal to address the challenge we created. Our technology won’t produce The Day of the Triffids, but without it, we may create a future Apocalypse Now.</p>
<p><em>For more coverage of the debate around GM crops, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gm-food">click here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Benton receives funding from NERC, BBSRC, ESPA and the EU. He is also the Champion of the UK's Global Food Security programme. </span></em></p>The concerns about genetically modified foods are well known. But when we look at population and climate projections, what happens if we don’t use them to increase our food supply?Tim Benton, Professor of Population Ecology, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/539062016-02-05T04:26:47Z2016-02-05T04:26:47ZLessons to be learnt from Burkina Faso’s decision to drop GM cotton<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110288/original/image-20160204-3024-1lqxxqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bt cotton is the most widely grown GM crop by poor farmers in Africa.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The thorny topic of genetically modified (GM) crops was recently thrust into the global spotlight again. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/video/bill-gates-gmos-will-end-starvation-in-africa/3085A8D1-BB58-4CAA-9394-E567033434A4.html">Bill Gates</a> said that GM crops are a necessary tool to fight hunger and poverty in Africa.</p>
<p>But something Gates did not discuss was the news that the largest and most significant African adopter of GM crops – Burkina Faso – recently began a <a href="http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/01/04/afraf.adv063.extract">phase out</a> of Bt cotton. Bt cotton is the most <a href="http://isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/executivesummary/default.asp">widely grown GM crop</a> by poor farmers in Africa.</p>
<p>Why would Burkina Faso, a nation that struggles with hunger and poverty, turn its back on the very tools Gates and others so ardently support?</p>
<h2>How Burkina Faso came to be an early adopter</h2>
<p>In 2003 Burkina Faso became one of the first African countries to begin field trials of Bt cotton. This was done in partnership with the agriculture company <a href="https://www.google.co.za/search?q=Monsanto&oq=Monsanto&aqs=chrome..69i57.218j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8">Monsanto</a>. Bt refers to a toxin – <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em> – that kills one of the world’s most common and pernicious cotton pests, the <a href="http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r114300511.html">bollworm</a>. Monsanto agreed to backcross the Bt gene onto local Burkinabè varieties, which were subsequently released to farmers in 2008. </p>
<p>Burkina Faso’s adoption of Bt cotton made big news. Not only is Burkina Faso consistently one of Africa’s <a href="http://en.starafrica.com/news/burkina-faso-is-africas-leading-cotton-producer.html">largest cotton producers</a>, but cotton is also seen as the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03066150.2013.824425?journalCode=fjps20#.VrI-GTYrI6g">engine driving rural development</a> throughout large parts of the country. </p>
<p>The introduction of Bt cotton has reportedly <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/burkina-cotton-production-idUSL5N0B0G2W20130131">boosted total cotton production</a>. In 2014, Burkina Faso had the largest number of total GM crop producers on the African continent. It has <a href="https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Burkina%20Faso.pdf">more than 140,000</a> smallholder farmers cultivating Bt cotton.</p>
<p>Burkina Faso’s success story has been <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/foresight-africa-2014/06-foresight-african-agriculture-juma-gordon.pdf?la=en">celebrated</a> as an example of how GM crops can help poor farmers. Many farmers have enthusiastically adopted the technology, and for good reason. <a href="http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-55262-5_11">Studies</a> show that Bt cotton has increased yields and profits. The average Bt cotton farming family gained 50% more profit than from conventional cotton. This is despite the <a href="http://pdj.sagepub.com/content/11/1/63.short">very high cost</a> of Bt cotton seed.</p>
<p>Bt cotton growers also use <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718513000456">significantly less pesticide</a>. The total number of sprayings has gone down from six to two, reducing exposure of damaging chemicals and saving valuable labour time.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cotton companies in Burkina Faso are not impressed with the quality of cotton produced from GM cotton crops.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why the reversal</h2>
<p>But Bt cotton hasn’t been a blessing for everyone. </p>
<p>The inferior lint <a href="http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/content/115/458/161.short">quality</a> of Bt cotton has caused severe economic losses for Burkinabè cotton companies. This has prompted a complete phase out of all Bt cotton production over the next two years. Company officials and Monsanto representatives cite two problems with lint quality. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Bt varietals produce shorter, less desirable lint. The shorter length means poorer quality, which in turn means a lower price on the international market. </p></li>
<li><p>Even though cotton yields are up, the amount machines are able to extract from the picked cotton has diminished. In other words, Bt cotton produces both less cotton lint, and lint of an inferior quality.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Inferior lint quality is not a big deterrent for farmers, who sell their cotton at a guaranteed price to the cotton companies. But it is a critical issue for the companies themselves. The combination of shorter staples and lower lint quantities substantially undermines profits. </p>
<p>These cotton companies also control the provision of seeds and inputs to farmers and were able to unilaterally phase out Bt cotton. This is much to the dismay of many Bt cotton farmers.</p>
<h2>Complex debates</h2>
<p>The story of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso underlines the complex nature of debates around the potential for GM crops to help poor farmers. In this case the technology does what it is supposed to do: confers pest resistance, reduces pesticide use and increases yield. Many farmers like it, and want more of it. </p>
<p>But an unexplained impact on staple length means the cotton companies are shifting away from this technology. This technical hurdle will need to be overcome for Bt cotton to continue as a success story in Burkina Faso.</p>
<p>Burkina Faso’s reversal on GM cotton also raises some worrying questions for the future of GM crops on the continent. Will different GM crops also have unintended and detrimental consequences? Can the institutions and companies in charge of their development be trusted to transparently show both the pros and cons to their adoption?</p>
<p>This case also calls into question the philosophy behind GM crop introductions – that genetically engineered scientific breeding programmes can address farmer needs. </p>
<p>The Burkina Faso case demonstrates the perils of such a narrow, trait specific approach to addressing agricultural development. Sometimes focusing on a single trait – in this case pest resistance – can have unintended and harmful consequences for other important traits – in this case, cotton quality.</p>
<p>At Davos, Gates said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Africans I think will choose to let their people have enough to eat.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This suggested that the inevitable advance of GM crops across the continent. Meanwhile, after several years of producing GM crops, Burkina Faso looks ready to abandon this technology.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53906/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Schnurr receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Dowd-Uribe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Burkina Faso, one of the largest GM cotton producers in the world, has begun a phase out of all Bt cotton production.Brian Dowd-Uribe, Assistant Professor, International Studies Department, University of San FranciscoMatthew Schnurr, Associate Professor Department of International Development Studies, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/521912016-01-19T08:46:55Z2016-01-19T08:46:55ZNew genetically engineered American chestnut will help restore the decimated, iconic tree<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108328/original/image-20160115-7357-62ahtl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Transgenic American chestnuts could soon take root.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claire Dunn</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>American chestnut trees were once among the most majestic hardwood trees in the eastern deciduous forests, many reaching 80 to 120 feet in height and eight feet or more in diameter.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107550/original/image-20160107-13988-1hmnccu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107550/original/image-20160107-13988-1hmnccu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107550/original/image-20160107-13988-1hmnccu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=873&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107550/original/image-20160107-13988-1hmnccu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=873&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107550/original/image-20160107-13988-1hmnccu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=873&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107550/original/image-20160107-13988-1hmnccu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1097&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107550/original/image-20160107-13988-1hmnccu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1097&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107550/original/image-20160107-13988-1hmnccu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1097&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Historic picture of a large American chestnut tree (Ten Eyck Dewitt barns, Paul Farm, NY).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Provided by Gail Whistance</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The “then boundless chestnut woods” Thoreau wrote about in Walden once grew throughout the Appalachian mountains. They provided habitat and a mast crop for wildlife, a nutritious nut crop for humans and a source of valuable timber. Because of their rapid growth rate and rot-resistant wood, they also have significant <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.04.014">potential for carbon sequestration</a>, important in these days of climate change.</p>
<p>The species has a sad story to tell. Of the estimated four billion American chestnut trees that once grew from Maine to Georgia, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f7010004">only a remnant survive today</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108326/original/image-20160115-7383-3kuywn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108326/original/image-20160115-7383-3kuywn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108326/original/image-20160115-7383-3kuywn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108326/original/image-20160115-7383-3kuywn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108326/original/image-20160115-7383-3kuywn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108326/original/image-20160115-7383-3kuywn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108326/original/image-20160115-7383-3kuywn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108326/original/image-20160115-7383-3kuywn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A ghost forest of blighted American chestnuts in Virginia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/va1798.photos.192521p/">Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The species was nearly wiped out by chestnut blight, a devastating disease caused by the exotic fungal pathogen <em>Cryphonectria parasitica</em>. This <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/APSnetFeature-2000-1200">fungus was accidentally introduced</a> into the United States over a century ago as people began to import Asian species of chestnut. It reduced the American chestnut from the dominant canopy species in the eastern forests to little more than a rare shrub.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107551/original/image-20160107-13986-1emirfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107551/original/image-20160107-13986-1emirfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107551/original/image-20160107-13986-1emirfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107551/original/image-20160107-13986-1emirfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107551/original/image-20160107-13986-1emirfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107551/original/image-20160107-13986-1emirfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1012&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107551/original/image-20160107-13986-1emirfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1012&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107551/original/image-20160107-13986-1emirfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1012&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chestnut blight canker.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">William Powell</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After battling the blight for more than a century, researchers are using the modern tools of breeding, <a href="http://www.ct.gov/caes/cwp/view.asp?a=2815&q=376826">bio-control</a> methods that rely on a virus that inhibits the growth of the infecting fungus, and direct genetic modification to return the American chestnut to its keystone position in our forests. </p>
<p>To restore this beloved tree, we will need every tool available. It’s taken 26 years of research involving a team of more than 100 university scientists and students here at the not-for-profit <a href="http://www.esf.edu/chestnut/">American Chestnut Research and Restoration Project</a>, but we’ve finally developed a nonpatented, blight-resistant American chestnut tree.</p>
<h2>One genetic tweak</h2>
<p>My research partner, Dr. Chuck Maynard, and I work with a team at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (<a href="http://www.esf.edu/welcome/">ESF</a>) that includes high school students, undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, colleagues from other institutions and volunteers. Our efforts focus on direct genetic modification, or genetic engineering, as a way to bring back the American chestnut.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107548/original/image-20160107-13999-hqe3n8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107548/original/image-20160107-13999-hqe3n8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107548/original/image-20160107-13999-hqe3n8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=696&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107548/original/image-20160107-13999-hqe3n8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=696&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107548/original/image-20160107-13999-hqe3n8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=696&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107548/original/image-20160107-13999-hqe3n8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=874&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107548/original/image-20160107-13999-hqe3n8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=874&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107548/original/image-20160107-13999-hqe3n8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=874&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Thirty days after infection with chestnut blight, the wild-type American chestnuts on the left are wilted, while the ‘Darling 54’ transgenic trees are doing well.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andy Newhouse</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We’ve tested more than 30 genes from different plant species that could potentially enhance blight resistance. To date, a gene from bread wheat has proven <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-013-9708-5">most effective</a> at <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2014.04.004">protecting the tree</a> from the fungus-caused blight.</p>
<p>This wheat gene produces an enzyme called oxalate oxidase (OxO), which detoxifies the oxalate that the fungus uses to form deadly cankers on the stems. This common defense enzyme is found in all grain crops as well as in bananas, strawberries, peanuts and other familiar foods consumed daily by billions of humans and animals, and it’s unrelated to gluten proteins. </p>
<p>We’ve added the OxO gene (and a marker gene to help us ensure the resistance-enhancing gene is present) to the chestnut genome, which contains around 40,000 other genes. This is a minuscule alteration compared to the products of many traditional breeding methods. Consider the techniques of species hybridization, in which tens of thousands of genes are added, and mutational breeding, in which unknown mutations are induced. Genetic engineering allows us to produce a blight-resistant American chestnut that’s genetically over 99.999 percent identical to wild-type American chestnuts.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ty9b1vml5IQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Time release video of seedling exposed to chestnut blight.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Gene transfers happen all the time</h2>
<p>For some, this raises a question: isn’t moving genes between species unnatural? In short: no. Such movement has been essential to the evolution of all species. Researchers are discovering that horizontal (between-species) gene transfer happens in nature and <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms">even in our own bodies</a>. In fact, the same organism (<em>Agrobacterium</em>) that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.67.1.16-37.2003">we use to move blight-resistance genes</a> into chestnuts has also permanently modified other plants in the wild. For example, all the sweet potato varieties on the market today were <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419685112">genetically engineered by this bacterium around 8,000 years ago</a>.</p>
<p>There is another logical question: what about unintended consequences? Of course undefined questions are impossible to answer, but logically the method producing the smallest changes to the plant should have the fewest unintended consequences. We have not observed nontarget transgene effects – that is, changes that we didn’t intend – on our trees or on other organisms that interact with our trees, for example <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02169-14">with beneficial fungi</a>.</p>
<p>And at any rate, unintended consequences aren’t constrained to the genetics lab. Chestnut growers have seen unintended consequences resulting from their hybrid breeding of chestnuts. One example is the internal kernel breakdown (<a href="http://msue.anr.msu.edu/topic/chestnuts/horticultural_care/internal_kernal_breakdown">IKB</a>) seen in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2014.1019.14">chestnut hybridization</a>, caused by crossing a male sterile European/Japanese hybrid (“Colossal”) with Chinese chestnut. By mixing tens of thousands of genes with unknown interactions through traditional breeding, occasionally you get incompatible combinations or induced mutations that can lead to unintended outcomes like IKB or male sterility.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108324/original/image-20160115-7341-bqsijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108324/original/image-20160115-7341-bqsijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108324/original/image-20160115-7341-bqsijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=650&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108324/original/image-20160115-7341-bqsijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=650&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108324/original/image-20160115-7341-bqsijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=650&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108324/original/image-20160115-7341-bqsijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108324/original/image-20160115-7341-bqsijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108324/original/image-20160115-7341-bqsijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Butterfly on male flowers of an American chestnut.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andy Newhouse</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the key advantages of genetic engineering is that it’s far less disruptive to the original chestnut genome – and thus to its ecologically important characteristics. The trees remain more true to form with less chance of unforeseen and unwanted side effects. Once these genes are inserted, they become a normal part of the tree’s genome and are inherited just like any other gene. They have no more chance of moving to other species than do any of the approximately 40,000 genes already in chestnut.</p>
<h2>Next steps for the blight-resistant American chestnut</h2>
<p>One of the challenges of genetic engineering that is not faced by any other methods of genetic modification also serves as a safeguard. We must shepherd these trees through federal regulatory review by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. Our plan is to submit these applications as we finish collecting the necessary data; we expect the process to take three to five years. Once we receive (anticipated) approval, we will quickly make the trees available to the public.</p>
<p>This project is unique because it is the first to seek approval of a transgenic plant to help save a species and restore a forest’s ecology. Our forests face many challenges today from exotic pests and pathogens such as Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, Sudden Oak Death, Dutch Elm Disease, and many more. The American chestnut can serve as a model system for protecting our forest’s health.</p>
<p>Direct genetic modification will likely not be used in isolation. Integration might improve the outcomes of both the conventional hybrid/backcross breeding program of the <a href="http://www.acf.org">American Chestnut Foundation</a> and our genetic engineering program. Allowing crosses between the best trees from both programs will allow gene stacking – having multiple and diverse resistance genes in a single tree – with each working in a different way to stop the blight. This would significantly decrease the chances that the blight could ever overcome the resistance. The two programs working together would also allow the addition of resistance genes for other important pests, such as <em>Phytophthora</em>, which causes a serious root rot in the southern part of the chestnut range. And combining methods increases the chances that the resistance will be long-lasting and reliable, which is very important for a tree that in good health can live for centuries.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108325/original/image-20160115-7365-wr7kge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108325/original/image-20160115-7365-wr7kge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108325/original/image-20160115-7365-wr7kge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108325/original/image-20160115-7365-wr7kge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108325/original/image-20160115-7365-wr7kge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108325/original/image-20160115-7365-wr7kge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108325/original/image-20160115-7365-wr7kge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108325/original/image-20160115-7365-wr7kge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Transgenic American chestnut ‘Darling 54.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Linda McGuigan</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A unique aspect of the genetically engineered American chestnut trees is their ability to rescue the genetic diversity in the small surviving population of American chestnut trees. When we cross our blight-resistant transgenic trees to these surviving <a href="https://nysufctakingroot.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/participate-in-the-reintroduction-of-the-american-chestnut-by-simply-planting-a-few-nuts/">“mother” trees</a>, directly in the wild or from nuts gathered from them and grown in orchards, we’re helping preserve the remaining wild genes.</p>
<p>Half the resulting offspring will be fully blight-resistant, while also containing half the genes from the mother tree. By making these crosses, the restoration trees will be ecologically adapted to the diverse environments in which they’ll grow. These trees could also be used to boost the genetic diversity of the hybrid/backcross breeding program, or used directly for restoration and left to fend for themselves, allowing natural selection to make the final determination of the effectiveness of our efforts.</p>
<p>The American chestnut was one of the most important hardwood tree species in the eastern forests of North America, and it can be again. This tiny change in the genome will hopefully be a huge step toward putting the American chestnut on a path to recovery.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52191/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Powell is a non-paid consultant to The American Chestnut Foundation. Current external funding includes The American Chestnut Foundation (National and NY Chapter), USDA NIFA Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grant (BRAG), 10,000 Chestnut Challenge Crowd Funding Campaign, New York State Legislature Grant, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Camp Fire Club of America and public donations. Additional past funders are listed on our chestnut website pages: <a href="http://www.esf.edu/chestnut/">http://www.esf.edu/chestnut/</a> Dr. Powell is also a member of The American Chestnut Foundation, the Arbor Day Foundation, the American Phytopathological Society, the American Society for Microbiology, and the International Society for Horticultural Science.</span></em></p>Adding a single wheat gene helps the American chestnut withstand a fungal pathogen that nearly wiped these hardwood trees out of the eastern forests they once dominated.William Powell, Professor in the Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/519412015-12-08T12:37:03Z2015-12-08T12:37:03Z‘Kill switches’ could make genetically modified food more palatable<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104868/original/image-20151208-32368-whnhjw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/evilpics/12214290974/in/photolist-jBkraG-emqKsV-6a3Toz-fghGJ-5ziMj8-7eKXWM-dVjuop-aF3vFP-dHnPMt-pWg9Pm-ogX8oc-6ZMjcL-5w5xM2-6ZKhWe-35483D-dVq5WW-nqxTYN-9NBBMn-6enjRC-8w5ywj-9NGKrb-2hYsBf-9NFVNX-mgn3y-b8oLA6-tEW8fC-dVq5uy-dxoALp-95YWPY-bBmd4y-9NKJWL-7YTECo-9NDZCz-5vDSaf-d6Yph3-6ayiWo-9NGabs-65AwKS-9NJKMw-9NEwpU-9NH11D-4vMh8G-7LfjKr-9VPR5A-7frJet-cxDWXE-znA9GW-9m3DNK-9NC5eF-8myfDR">Scott Hart/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the US you can buy and eat genetically modified apples that <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/16/health/apples-genetically-modified-usda/">don’t go brown</a>, potatoes that are less likely to <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-oks-genetically-modified-potato-with-lower-cancer-risk/">cause cancer</a>, and – as of recently – salmon that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34869556">grow faster</a>. But in Europe, <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/">19 out of 28</a> member states have banned the growing of genetically modified crops altogether due to public concerns.</p>
<p>Selective breeding to produce crops and animals with desirable characteristics has been around for centuries. But in each case we don’t know which parts of the organism’s genetic code are responsible for the improvements. <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/Environment/15159/definition">Genetic modification</a>, on the other hand, allows us to breed organisms with specific characteristics by precisely inserting sections of DNA into their genetic code.</p>
<p>Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) offer a <a href="https://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/benefits.htm">number of advantages</a> to farmers and crop growers. But there are also public concerns about GMOs, ranging from their potential effects on human health to their dominance by large corporations. When <a href="https://tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/gm-bacteria-could-save-your-life">I debated</a> the use of <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-well-all-learn-to-love-genetically-modified-salmonella-in-the-end-45850">genetically modified bacteria</a> this summer at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, for example, I found the audience’s main concern was the potential for GMOs to escape and contaminate the environment.</p>
<p>So what if science could fix this? Recent progress in GM technology has seen scientists engineer “kill switches” that are designed to act as an emergency stop mechanism for GMOs. These are pieces of inserted genetic code that create characteristics intended to prevent a GMO from surviving and reproducing if they “escape” from a contained site, such as a field of GM crops, into the wild.</p>
<h2>No survival in the wild</h2>
<p>One type of kill switch involves making GMOs dependent on nutrients not found in nature. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4422498/pdf/nihms684575.pdf">Two independent</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4590768/pdf/nihms643350.pdf">pieces of research</a> published in early 2015 essentially redesigned <em>Escherichia coli</em> bacteria to require synthetic versions of nutrients essential for survival and growth. If these genetically recoded organisms (GROs) were to escape into the “non-contained” environment, they would be unable to get the nutrients they needed, effectively activating the kill switch causing them to die.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Deadly trap in the genetic code.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/home_of_chaos/3808496018/in/photolist-6Nxxbs-e5grRc-bhhmCr-zjwDKs-C7G5s-ckViqS-ceHMo5-nkmZoh-87ZJkY-9H1YHE-4ySHZE-4imES3-5SMzkY-atptQC-6DvXp6-8r7QPe-8JuAQ5-Ae5X4-jbEnK-8raXUj-8JuCp9-6DvXx8-p6NDsT-cSJ8Bm-7zdpRZ-8JrTcF-87ZtSh-889NjN-6iuJrn-33XD5k-46Kn8v-65qHH4-rn32Bi-8DEbx6-jbZx6-63gk9t-xbGMnm-knsWc-8wJam2-7AP557-7JMe3g-7zdFrt-4i3QFK-5SJnWV-81FAAs-nnpZe2-bmmxWa-f9GFy-5SMcvH-87Wwyv">thierry ehrmann/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In another <a href="http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nchembio.1979">elegant approach</a>, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have developed two new kill switches known as “Deadman” and “Passcode”. The system uses both switches to control the organism. Passcode allows the organism to detect specific changes in the environment. This then activates Deadman, which causes the organism to start producing a potent toxin that kills its cells. </p>
<p>The authors have demonstrated that different environmental signals, such as the gain or loss of a particular sugar nutrient source, can act as the control mechanism. This gives scientists some design flexibility when creating new kill switch systems for GMOs. The current research is based on bacteria, but in practical terms this technology could allow us to programme any GMO to “self-destruct”. For example, it might be possible to design GM crops that were programmed to die if they escaped from the growing area. </p>
<h2>Wiping out the DNA</h2>
<p>One issue still to be addressed though is that when some organisms die, their DNA can <a href="http://www.ebr-journal.org/articles/ebr/abs/2007/01/ebr0608/ebr0608.html">persist in the environment</a>. In bacteria this can be a problem because certain bacteria can take up DNA from the environment by a process called <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC372978/">natural genetic transformation</a>. If the DNA led to beneficial characteristics, it could be assimilated into the bacteria’s genome to create a natural GMO. The answer to this particular issue may lie in other recent work that described a kill switch based on <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-crispr-technology-brings-precise-genetic-editing-and-raises-ethical-questions-39219">CRISPR technology</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://gizmodo.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-crispr-the-new-tool-1702114381">CRISPRs are</a> short sequences of DNA found in bacteria that are the remnants of a previous viral infection used to help the immune system. If a bacterium encounters the same infection again, the CRISPR system can recognise the virus and recruit a DNA-degrading enzyme that cuts up and destroys the invading viral DNA.</p>
<p>Researchers from MIT have used the CRISPR concept to create a kill switch that effectively <a href="http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms7989/full/ncomms7989.html">erases DNA</a> from GM bacteria. In this case, the code inserted into the GMO included the short sequences recognised by the CRISPR system. When the input signal for the kill switch was activated, CRISPR targeted and destroyed the inserted DNA, essentially returning the organism to its former non-GM state. Combining this system with other kill switches could allow scientists to be confident that neither a GMO nor its DNA could persist outside of a contained environment.</p>
<p>These developments demonstrate that scientists designing GMOs have taken on board public feedback. The question remains whether kill switch technology will address the concerns about the “escape” of GMOs and “contamination of the wild”. It is certainly a step in the right direction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51941/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clare Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New research suggests how we could prevent genetically modified organisms from surviving - and potentially spreading - in the wild.Clare Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Medical Microbiology, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/511532015-11-26T15:42:23Z2015-11-26T15:42:23ZWhatever happened to ‘bans’ on GM produce in British supermarkets?<p>Once upon a time, UK retailers welcomed genetically modified (GM) foods. In the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/5/newsid_4647000/4647390.stm">late 1990s</a>, Sainsbury’s and Safeway (since <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3542291.stm">purchased by</a> Morrisons) both offered GM tomato purée, which so far as I recall was the first such product made available in the UK. GM and non-GM cans of purée stood side by side on their shelves, the former <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/gmcr.18041#.VlWJHryoKu4">some 18% cheaper</a> per unit weight. The cans were conspicuously labelled and pamphlets explaining what GM was all about were to hand nearby. But when the stock ran out and it was time to re-order, the anti-GM food balloon had gone up and the product was discontinued.</p>
<p>The late 1990s and early 2000s in Britain was a period of intense back-and forth argument about GM. In 1999 Marks & Spencer <a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/M%26S+BANS+GM+FOODS.-a060402770">announced that</a> it was removing all GM foods from its shelves. (In a House of Lords inquiry at that time, M&S said their customers demanded it. When asked by their lordships how many customers that meant, it turned out to have been rather a small percentage. But those who positively wanted GM were, it seems, even fewer in number). </p>
<p>Sainsbury’s, then the second-largest chain in the UK after Tesco, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/298229.stm">responded</a> only weeks later by saying it would guarantee that all of its own-brand products were GM-free. All the other retailers followed suit: the UK’s retail industry was to be GM-free – or was it?</p>
<p>In fact some GM products, though not many, were always to be found. Until 2004, when GM labelling became mandatory under <a href="http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/labelling/93.new_labelling_laws_gm_products_eu.html">EU regulations</a>, it was difficult to identify them. With a label prescribed by law it obviously became easier, and every now and again, a variety of minor products turned up in this or that supermarket chain but did not last very long. </p>
<p>Yet one product which was always on sale, unlabelled before 2004 but properly indicating its GM source thereafter, was soya cooking oil. It can still be found – I spotted it in one of my local Sainsbury’s stores just a few weeks ago. The distributors told me some years ago that the advent of labelling had had no effect on sales. When I questioned a small shopkeeper selling the product, he had no idea that what he was selling was GM (“What’s that?”). Nor, it seems, had his customers.</p>
<h2>Feed fad</h2>
<p>Then there is the question of GM fodder for animals. Around the time of their own-brand GM-free commitments, retailers said that they would not sell any products from pigs or poultry that had been exposed to GM feeds. </p>
<p>This ban became a distinct red line that remained in place for a decade or so. Until, that is, when Asda became the first of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/7852762/Supermarkets-selling-meat-from-animals-fed-GM-crops.html">the leading</a> UK supermarkets <a href="http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Science/article329472.ece">to abandon</a> its commitment to eggs and poultry fed with GM in 2010. This greatly upset anti-GM campaigning groups, <a href="http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/33/">who demanded</a> that Asda and other supermarkets “respond to public opinion” (as the anti-GM brigade saw it) by pledging to keep GM out of the nation’s meat and dairy. </p>
<p>But by then public opinion on the issue had become almost completely mute so far as I could see. So in 2012, Morrison’s <a href="http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/channels/supermarkets/morrisons/morrisons-gambles-on-gm-chicken-feed-shift/227510.article">did the same</a>: in neither case, as far as I am aware, was there any perceptible consumer reaction. By 2013, all the remaining UK supermarket chains, except Waitrose, <a href="http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/buying-and-supplying/categories/fresh/sainsburys-ms-and-the-co-op-follow-tescos-lead-on-gm-feed/238400.article">had followed suit</a>: GM-feed for pigs and poultry was no longer to be excluded. One or two newspapers noted this at the time but, once more, there appears to have been no noticeable consumer rejection of products from animals fed GM.</p>
<h2>Where we go from here</h2>
<p>And that is (almost) it. In 2014 it was <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826108/Frankenstein-foods-slip-M-S-Anger-store-puts-GM-food-shelves-despite-opposed-engineered-products.html">reported that</a>, while Marks & Spencer still doesn’t use GM ingredients in its own-label products, it sold products from other brands which did contain GM soya or corn – these included teriyaki, ginger and hibachi sauces from the US brand TonTon and three flavours of Moravian Cookie. I checked at the time and found all of them were indeed on sale. Apart from own-brand, of course, GM ingredients can be found across the board in food products and should indeed be labelled as such. </p>
<p>That just leaves cotton – in clothing not in food. Some people have estimated that more than half the world’s cotton <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5A1ygCQjxeY">is GM</a>, so this is likely to be the case with products on sale in the UK. There is no obligation to label GM cotton so one cannot be sure, but nobody seems to ask and few seem to care. Every now and again, up pops an ad for some cotton product or other which is said to be made with organic cotton (and so <em>ipso facto</em> non-GM) but such examples are rare.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spot the difference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=cotton%20clothing&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=263492549">Eyes Wide</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Though a few stalwarts keep up their anti-GM rhetoric, public interest in this subject has largely waned in my view. UK government policy is now <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/13/gm-crops-to-be-fast-tracked-in-uk-following-eu-vote">openly pro-GM</a>. The devolved governments in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34316778">Northern Ireland</a>, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/scotland-to-issue-formal-ban-on-genetically-modified-crops">Scotland</a> and <a href="http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/10/02/wales-joins-total-ban-on-gm-crops/">Wales</a> take a different view (as does <a href="https://theconversation.com/gm-crops-an-uneasy-truce-hangs-over-europe-48835">much of Europe</a>), but England has 87% of the UK’s total population. </p>
<p>Though one can never be quite sure, it does begin to look as though the GM issue will fade away in the fullness of time, in England at least, even if it takes a while. I suspect GM food and crops will become commonplace and the protesting community will veer off in another direction, chasing new demons. </p>
<p><em>Postscript</em>:</p>
<p>Having read this article, a colleague told me that he had in May 2015 undertaken a web search for GM-labelled products on sale in UK supermarkets. His list has been rechecked and updated to find that the five major UK supermarket chains are currently describing on their websites about 60 products labelled as containing GM-ingredients. Nine of them are pet foods manufactured in the UK. All the others are human food products apparently imported from North America or Israel. Several are to be found on the websites of more than one supermarket chain.</p>
<p><em>For more coverage of the debate around GM crops, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gm-food">click here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51153/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prof Moses is Chairman of CropGen, a public information organisation in the UK originally supported by the agricultural biotechnology industry. He consults to the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, and has received funding from the EU as coordinator of three projects to explore the public understanding of and consumer attitudes to agricultural biotechnology in a number of countries in the EU and elsewhere.</span></em></p>Since the heyday of retail bans on products containing genetically modified ingredients 15 years ago, the tide has been heading in the other direction.Vivian Moses, Visiting Professor of Biotechnology, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/458502015-08-10T15:04:11Z2015-08-10T15:04:11ZWhy we’ll all learn to love genetically modified Salmonella in the end<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91190/original/image-20150807-27622-dk3q2a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">These little-loved microbes may be coming in from the cold</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286263017/stock-photo-microscopic-illustration-of-rod-shaped-bacteria-model-of-bacteria-realistic-illustration-of.html?src=dt_last_search-8">Katerina Kon</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We are well on the way to an <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/">Ebola</a> vaccine after a trial in Guinea <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2961117-5/abstract">recently reported</a> 100% efficacy. Clearly this medical breakthrough is great news. The virus has <a href="http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.ebola-sitrep.ebola-summary-20150803?lang=en">has been responsible</a> for at least 27,680 infections and 11,281 deaths throughout west Africa to date. </p>
<p>The vaccine is based on modifying a <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vesicular+stomatitis">vesicular stomatitis</a> virus, which is similar to foot and mouth disease and affects various animals including cattle and horses. To make the vaccine, one of its genes is removed and replaced by a gene from the Ebola virus. Though this latter gene cannot cause Ebola as such, those who receive the vaccination produce antibodies that protect them from the virus. </p>
<p>Many, including Wellcome Trust director Jeremy Farrar, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/03/ebola-vaccine-trials-diseases">agree that</a> this is a positive outcome. Yet The Mirror has been far more downbeat. Classing the new drug as part of a new range of so-called imperfect vaccines, many of which are genetically modified, it <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-vaccines-malaria-hiv-ebola-6149338">reported</a>, “New vaccines for malaria, HIV and Ebola can spread diseases say shocking stats”. </p>
<h2>GM anxiety</h2>
<p>It is not difficult to see why the public may be wary of new approaches that involve genetically modified microorganisms. Genetic modification is a subject that can polarise views, and it is not uncommon for opponent organisations and activists to whip up hysteria with <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/news/blog/24-children-used-as-guinea-pigs-in-geneticall/blog/41956/">sensational stories</a>. </p>
<p>Much of this publicity is about GM foods, however – witness the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/scotland-to-issue-formal-ban-on-genetically-modified-crops">decision by</a> the Scottish government to ban all GM crops, for example. Though there is <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm">no evidence</a> that such foods lead to adverse outcomes, genetic modification actually has many wider applications. One important research area is to explore ways in which we can use such genetically modified organisms for medical therapies – including the Ebola vaccine. Indeed this is not a new concept. Synthesised insulin, <a href="http://www.chemistrylearning.com/humulin-synthetic-insulin/">humulin</a>, has been in use since it was first licensed in 1982. It is synthesised from a genetically modified strain of the <em>E.coli</em> bacterium. </p>
<p>Bacteria often get a bad press, of course. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982202005201">Remember</a> “Killer Bug Ate My Face” or <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3056610/How-beloved-dog-killer-disease-Superbugs-Parasites-TB-Read-never-let-pet-lick-face-again.html">more recently</a>, “How your beloved dog could give you a killer disease”. Put bacteria and genetic modification together and you can imagine the potential headlines – yet if medicine is to advance, it is vital that the media reports this area responsibly. </p>
<p>Researchers are currently exploring using GM strains of bacteria for a number of therapeutic reasons, including <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056088/">cancer</a>, <a href="https://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3195:bacterial-vectors-for-deliviering-gene-and-anticancer-therapies&catid=719&Itemid=953">gene therapy</a> and <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/news/536376/microbes-engineered-to-prevent-obesity/">obesity</a>. In my laboratory, our bacteria research is focused on <a href="http://www.who.int/topics/salmonella/en/"><em>Salmonella</em></a> and <a href="https://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/listeria"><em>Listeria</em></a>. Commonly associated with food poisoning, <em>Listeria</em> is particularly important due to its high mortality rate. </p>
<p>We are interested in studying how these bacteria interact with host cells and cellular processes, so that we can understand better how they cause infection. Armed with this knowledge we are trying to develop novel methods to prevent infection, particularly in the face of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/antimicrobial-resistance-amr-information-and-resources">increasing antibiotic resistance</a>. At the same time, we are trying to exploit bacterial mechanisms to find new ways to deliver medical therapies through genetic modification. </p>
<p>Our work aims to complement <a href="http://cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org/content/2/7/588.long">existing findings</a> that <em>Salmonella</em> (and other bacteria) can thrive in tumour cells. These bacteria have evolved complex mechanisms so that they can invade cells and grow in the oxygen-poor environments which typically characterise tumours. </p>
<p>Imagine being able to deliver therapies specifically targeted to tumours that could help overcome the side effects of chemotherapy, which we know can also affect non-cancerous cells such as bone marrow, hair, skin and gut cells. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3457.full.pdf">Recent research</a> has examined the use of a mechanism called <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11544353">quorum sensing</a> to try and ensure that anti-tumour effects occur only in the tumour. Quorum sensing is used by bacteria to detect when there are enough of them present in an environment to achieve their <a href="http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004279">desired ends</a> such as switching on genes that help them to establish a community in a suitable environment. This is an elegant example of exploiting the natural capabilities of the bacterium. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>Salmonella</em> and <em>Listeria</em> live in tumour cells remarkably well.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?autocomplete_id=&language=en&lang=en&search_source=&safesearch=1&version=llv1&searchterm=tumour&media_type=images&media_type2=images&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=202719583">www.royaltystockphoto.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Teething troubles</h2>
<p>One problem with using bacteria in this way is infections, which can be more serious in people whose immune systems are weak through illness and/or medical treatment. Therefore the bacteria need to be disabled to the point that they can’t cause infection but can still survive in the host. So far, attempts to construct such strains have had <a href="http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00254-15.full">limited success</a>. There are also risks of the bacteria reverting back to an infectious type, which <a href="http://vaccine-safety-training.org/live-attenuated-vaccines.html">has happened</a> with the live attenuated viral vaccine for polio, for instance. So while much of the research shows early promise in the laboratory and in experimental models, there is still much to be done before this type of therapy becomes a reality. I can see it taking ten to 15 years. </p>
<p>Once we do overcome these hurdles, like the Ebola vaccine developers, we may have to contend with the anti-GM lobby. Will they thwart such projects? Ultimately I doubt it. However much we dislike bacteria, for instance, we have learned to love probiotics. That global industry, which produces supplements containing live bacteria, is <a href="http://www.biomedtrends.com/GetDetails.asp?CatName=Probiotics">expected to be</a> worth $28.8bn (£18.6bn) this year. If their lives depended on it, would most people probably drink a GM <em>Salmonella</em> cocktail as quickly as a probiotic drink? For most of us at least, I think we know the answer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45850/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clare is General Secretary of the Society for Applied Microbiology</span></em></p>We don’t trust bacteria and we don’t trust GM, so putting them together might be controversial. That’s exactly what we’re doing, though.Clare Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Medical Microbiology, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.