June 8, 2011
by Alexander G. Golikov, Doctor of Chemistry, Executive Secretary of the Black Sea Biotechnology Association
© “Nezavisimaya Gazeta” (“Independent Gazette”), published on 8th June, 2011
Original article
The General Parliamentary Assembly of countries of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) will take place in Kiev, Ukraine From June 30th to July 2nd, 2011. The stated theme of the meeting is "Legislative support to transition to a green economy". Among topics that are on the agenda - use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), legislative support to scientific and technological progress, and compliance with sanitary norms of the World Health Organization in member states of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation.
Funny situation - the Parliamentary Assembly of the vast region will be discussing prospects of the technology (genetic engineering) while just mentioning it brings complete chaos and confusion into people’s minds!
Disposition
World area planted with biotech (GM) crops has reached 148 million hectares in 2010, and and it grows in such a steady way that only few technologies could compete with agricultural biotechnology in advancing into practice that rapidly. In 2010 29 countries were GM crops growing. The main GM crops shares were (by area) soybeans (53%), maize (30%), cotton (12%) and canola (5%) (C.James, 2011). In the U.S. the share of genetically modified soybeans in total soya production has exceeded 90%, and more than three quarters of maize grown was genetically modified crop. Herbicide tolerant biotech wheat has been developed, passed through safety tests and became ready for commercialization. However, it is deliberately held from placing on the market because that this might lead to dramatic changes in the world wheat market with totally unpredictable socio-economic consequences.
The use of biotech crops brings tangible economic benefits to the growers which means - to their countries as well. Thus, for example, direct farmers’ income from four major crops only (soybean, maize, cotton and canola) rose by about US$ 5 billion, and into account the second soybean crop in Argentina – by US$ 5,6 billion. This added income was equal to 3,5-4% of the total world production value of these crops.
Growing GM crops helps to greatly intensify agricultural production. Thus, productivity due to GM plants has grown in the last decade by an average of 31%. Romanian experience shows that cultivation of genetically modified soybeans can increase productivity by 33% compared to conventional soybeans, as well as to almost three-fold reduction in the number of field treatments with chemical plant protection products. Since early 2007, a ban on the cultivation of biotech soybeans in Romania came into effect (due to entirely political reasons connected with the country's accession to the EU) and economic losses to the country after the ban are estimated at US$ 100 million annually.
Risks and Agriculture
Not only that agriculture makes up to 40% of world emission of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane), but it is one of the main sources of chemical pollution of the environment.
Agriculture is the largest consumer of fresh water - it requires at least half of all fresh water consumed in the world, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations forecasts that by 2030 it’s share will increase to 60%. Production of daily per capita dietary intake requires up to 5 thousand liters of fresh water (production of 1 kg of beef takes 15 thousand liters, 1 kg of basic grains - about 2 thousand liters of water on average).
Biotech crops contribute to the use of no-till practice, which allowed U.S. saving up to 3.5 billion dollars in cleaning of drainage and irrigation systems, sewage and drinking water in 2002 alone. Even France, represented by many as an active opponent of GM, has launched large-scale trials of GM grapes, and co-initiated the DROPS EU project (2010-2015) to develop technologies producing drought-resistant and water-efficient plants. The project was officially opened on August 27, 2010 in Montpellier (France). It will study the genes that encode tolerance to water shortages aiming at creating water-saving plant varieties. This international project includes 15 public-private partnerships from eight European countries, Australia, Turkey, and the United States.
Agriculture in general, arable land in particular, are a major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere. Use of GM crops has allowed within 10 years to lower fuel consumption, the depth of soil tillage, which reduced greenhouse gas emission into the atmosphere by 14.8 billion kilograms and this is equal to removal of 6.6 million family cars from the roads worldwide. Reduction of pesticide application during the first 15 years of commercial cultivation of GM crops (1996 - 2009) is estimated at 393 million kg of active ingredient. Overall reduction in pesticide use was 8.8%, equivalent to reducing environmental effects of pesticides by more than 17%. In 2009 alone 39,1 million kg of active ingredient less had been used than in the previous year (equivalent to reducing pesticide use by 10,2%) (G.Brookes, 2011).
In Russia, in-field losses (before harvest), reach almost half of the total potential production on average - up to 20% of the crop is lost due to weeds, up to 14% - due to pests and up to 15% - due to pathogens. In 2004, the Government of Primorsky Kray (Far East region of Russia) refused to cultivate maize due to lack of resources and capacity to cope with the pressure of weeds and pests (in spite of the excellent climatic and soil conditions for growing the crop). Loss of vegetables reaches 55-58%.
The use of genetically modified plants that are resistant to pests, pathogens and tolerant to herbicides can with no doubt provide for radically improving agricultural productivity along with saving money and working hours.
Targeted manipulation
Plant breeding traditionally uses random recombination of genes of closely related or sexually compatible species, which is often accompanied by unpredictable consequences, and always - by unknown details of genetic changes.
In the mid-twentieth century a different method appeared - the so-called mutagenic breeding, when seeds or plants are treated with mutagenic chemicals or high irradiation dose with the aim to develop improved varieties. From these treated plants breeder selects samples with desired characteristics. Still this approach also leads to no less unpredictable and unexplored genetic changes.
In 1982 it was shown experimentally that there was possibility, and methods were developed for transport of specific genes (identified and characterized in detail) responsible for desired traits between remote and incompatible species. Thus accurate analysis and prediction genetic and phenotypic changes in transgenic (GM) plants became possible. These methods have been called "genetic engineering" or “modern biotechnology”. However, in essence, this term is applicable to any method of breeding.
How do the GM plants differ from traditionally bred plants?
In fact, there is no fundamental difference in molecular processes used in genetic engineering and occurring during natural mutations. Natural molecular evolution, that is spontaneous emergence of genetic variation, occurs through the same three strategic scenarios as those used in genetic engineering:
- Minor local changes in nucleotide sequences;
- Internal rearrangement of DNA segments of the genome;
- Incorporation of very small segments of DNA of an "alien" organism due to "horizontal" gene transfer.
The only difference is that in genetic engineering one uses molecular- biological methods which allow directed manipulation with nucleic acids. This, compared with natural evolution, or with traditional breeding techniques only accelerates the process, making it more targeted and controlled.
Nonetheless, for 15 years disputes over the application of genetic engineering in agriculture and food production do not subside, but only become bitter. How can the scientific community explain what happens to a lay consumer? Very often special scientific background is needed to understand, and opponents do not bother to bring really sound evidence.
Though it should be enough to ask yourself four simple questions and answer them:
1. Can genetic engineering lead to the product that is more "dangerous" than the source? The answer is Yes.
2. Can genetic engineering lead to the product that is less "dangerous" than the source? The answer is Yes.
3. Genetic engineering - is it always introduction of "alien" genes? The answer is No (in recently gene transfer between organisms of the same or closely related species has been increasingly used to produce the so-called cysgenics; molecular markers to monitor the process of selection, which can later be deleted, are also used)
4. Genetic engineering - is it, in general, bringing genes “in”? The answer is No (gene silencing, gene switches, deletion of genes is widely used).
More than that - the market of genetically engineered pharmaceuticals many times more than the agricultural one, but no such conflicts with the biotech drugs have been really reported. And if so, why genetic engineering, why there are so many attacks on it? The answer could be only one - there is nothing to do with genetic engineering itself ... It is pronounced battle for the consumer to hold specific technology and not let it onto the market.
Whom there is no faith in?
In very many respects the problem of confrontation over agricultural and food biotechnology persists in society due the inability of the latter to perceive scientific arguments. Equally science, by its very nature, cannot operate with the facts and conclusions, which are complete and are “ultimate truth”. What we call "public opinion" in relation to special technology is merely a reflection of the level of people's trust in one or another group, active in implementing their ideas. Consequently, consumer’s attitude towards GM products is determined mainly through the mechanism, "do you believe me? - do you not believe me?" Unfortunately (for the truth), this "believe - not believe” is much more determined not by facts but by personal impressions and sympathies.
So whom or what to trust? On the one hand, mass media is repeatedly circulating the same (year through year) "horrors" of genetic engineering, presented by a tiny group of scientists (many of them professionally stand quite apart from the problem) and community activists. Disputing with them in the accepted scientific framework is infinitely difficult, if not impossible - "results" are just thrown into the media and not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (with rare exceptions; when it happens inconsistency of the publication very quickly becomes apparent).
On the other hand, the UN General Assembly unanimously encourages countries to use and promote promoting the achievements of biotechnology (December 2003), World Health Organization (WHO) releases an official report (2004) with the conclusion that all GM crops in the market are not more dangerous to human health than their original traditional counterparts. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) advocates likewise. The Convention on Biological Diversity of the UN and its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety begin with the statement underlining the potential of biotechnology for the benefit of humankind. (Very strange, but the opponents of biotechnology constantly refer to the Protocol as a tool directed against the use of GM organisms!)
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences expresses support to the use of GM technology of plants and animals, while remaining strictly against genetic engineering on humans (Vatican City, May 15-19, 2009).
In the conclusion of the Islamic Council on Jurisprudence, products derived from GM plants are halal (Conference of Islamic Scholars, Malaysia, December 2010).
In accordance with the conclusion of Jewish Orthodox Union genetic modification does not affect kashrut.
Three Russian Academies - Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences – at their joint meeting unanimously agree not only to the harmlessness of GM food, but also that use of modern biotechnology is the only way to increase food production in terms of population growth, reduction of arable land used, global warming and the increasing scarcity of water.
Do not forget that admission onto the market of any product in any country is taken by specially authorized authority of state power. Decision is based on scientific facts, and people who make decisions, bear the responsibility.
It is interesting that during the use of GM plants for food production in North America more than 3 trillion portions of GM food were eaten (H.Miller, 2011), and no one suffered (although there were multiple attempts to sue producers in the court), and no ecosystem has been destroyed. This is the answer to the question that we have not accumulated much experience to assess possible consequences.
By the way, the EU annually imports ~35 million tons of soybeans, most of which is genetically modified. The main use of it - feed for animals and poultry. For 15 years, many generations of animals fed with GM feed had changed, and no effects were observed. As for scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed literature, the latest study, published in the journal “Issues of Nutrition” in February 2011 ("Assessing the impact of GMOs of plant origin on the development of the progeny of rats in three generations" by N.V. Tyshko, et. al - Volume 80, № 1, 2011. S. 14-28 ), convincingly demonstrates absence of effects of GM feed on generation of animals.
“Signor Pomodoro”
Very funny is the situation with GM vegetables! Only two vegetable crops have ever been genetically modified and placed on the market. In the vast majority of countries, including EU and CIS countries, genetically modified vegetables and fruits are totally missing from the market. Moreover, they have never been approved for use, and the process of authorization is very far from being completed.
At the same time, intensive research on fruits and vegetables is going on, primarily to improve consumer characteristics, and resistance to diseases and stresses. But these studies are exclusively at the laboratory, "closed" stage.
Many consumers quite frankly think that genetically modified tomatoes are literally overflowing from supermarkets’ shelves. In fact GM tomatoes are not approved for use anywhere other than USA, Canada (only for food, not for cultivation or animal feed), Mexico and Japan. And what is especially interesting, even in these countries they had disappeared from the market many years ago and one can hardly find them in the stores.
In 1994, GM tomatoes bursted onto the U.S. market, becoming the first genetically modified organism, officially approved for growing. Since then GM tomato has become a symbol of genetically modified food for years. And, interestingly, still remains a symbol for many, despite the fact that GM tomatoes are not grown anymore (for a couple of years), and completely disappeared from the market. Applications for approval submitted in the EU, were withdrawn by applicants several years ago and are no longer under consideration.
In total there were six approved lines of GM tomatoes, five of which had the property of "delayed ripening" to improve technological properties during transportation, and one - resistance to insects (with the gene of the ubiquitous soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis). All other "tomatoes with fish, scorpio genes” and so on are just bad anecdotes ... All tomatoes, which can be found in the field or in the store - whether fresh or canned, are not genetically modified. Even those, which remain fresh, red and firm after three weeks in the fringe, are not GMOs.
Another (and final) vegetable crop left on the market is squash. There were only two lines of squash approved that are resistant to viral diseases, and in only two countries - the United States and Canada (only food).
It appears to be correct and logical to think on how not to get deceived with “fairy tales” having distinct commercial and political flavor but rather how to maximally employ the potential of modern technologies.
© “Nezavisimaya Gazeta” (“Independent Gazette”), published on 8th June, 2011
Original article: http://www.ng.ru/science/2011-06-08/12_biotech.html
Topics
Species
