Why haven’t genetically engineered crops made food better?

[Karlston]

Why haven’t genetically engineered crops made food better?

We've tried making GMO crops that provide better nutrition, but it's been a struggle.

Enlarge / Normal rice (bottom), the first version of golden rice (right), and the current strain (left).

Environmental Health Perspectives/NIH

One of the arguments that has been advanced to promote genetically engineered crops is that the techniques have the potential for improving the food we eat. Crops could be engineered so that they provide nutrients they currently don't or so that good nutrition is in reach of poor people in developing nations.

 

In fact, the technology does have that potential, and a couple of efforts have been made to do exactly this. Yet, decades into the GMO era, all of the engineered crops on the market provide enhanced productivity and other benefits to farmers but nothing for the people who ultimately end up eating the results. So why the huge gap between potential and reality? The huge number of problems involved is the subject of a review in Nature Plants.

Far from golden

The people behind the review come from the Rothamsted Research, a UK-based nonprofit agricultural science institution. The nonprofit aspect is rather critical. Rothamsted's work does include developing genetically modified crops, but it's not doing so to make money; instead, the organization is dedicated to improving farming in developing economies and sees GMO crops as a potential contributor there. But even with those things going for it, the organization has been caught up in the public's disapproval of GMOs, with protesters having threatened to destroy one of its test plantings in 2012.

 

The new paper, however, isn't especially focused on the work done at Rothamsted in particular (neither the protests nor the research effort that attracted them is mentioned in the piece). Instead, it uses two very different GMO crop experiences to illustrate the challenges of trying to improve nutrition. The first is a case that has reached a fair degree of public attention: golden rice.

 

Using genes from other plants, researchers engineered rice to produce a precursor to vitamin A, something that's lacking from rice-dominated diets; deficiencies in vitamin A can lead to a form of childhood blindness. The first version of rice engineered to carry the new trait dates back nearly two decades. But, since that version was announced, nearly everything has gone wrong with efforts to get it in the hands of farmers.

 

The initial version of the crop actually put very low amounts of the desired nutrient in the edible portions of rice. Switching to another form of the gene (one from corn) solved that, but the new version ended up with the added gene inserted in the middle of a gene essential for the activity of a plant growth-regulating hormone. Switching to a different version of the same plant solved that but delayed the process. Once field trials were finally ready to start in 2013, anti-GMO activists destroyed the plantings, setting everything back again.

 

Looming over all of this was the threat of intellectual property violations. Academic scientists can freely incorporate commercial material into their research, but these habits created potential problems in a project that was meant for a mass market. The effort also had to ensure that nobody else could later claim it as their own intellectual property, a fact that some researchers were slow to recognize. Complicating matters further, an agricultural biotech giant (Syngenta) joined the effort for a number of years before ultimately backing out.

 

As of 2017, the latest version of golden rice, one with all the biological issues seemingly solved, had been submitted for regulatory approval in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Philippines, and the US. If approved, golden rice will finally be ready to plant for food production.

Fish food and fish oil

Omega-3 fatty acids are an important part of normal metabolism, but mammals aren't able to produce them—they must be obtained through food. Unfortunately, they're not produced by any of our major food crops either. The primary source in most people's diets ends up being fish, and specifically fish oils. But the fish don't make them either; rather, they accumulate in the food chain thanks to their production by plankton and algae.

 

Making omega-3s involves a pathway that requires several distinct proteins to catalyze different steps. Identifying and cloning these proteins into experimental organisms like yeast was enough to produce some of the desired material, but the yields were low because the pathway wasn't well integrated into the organism's basic metabolism. Detailed study of these issues gradually resolved all the bottlenecks, allowing the production of fatty acids in a variety of organisms, including plants.

 

Ultimately, genetically modified plants were able to produce seed-based oils with levels of omega-3s that were similar to that found in fish oil. In this sense, it was the converse of golden rice: building a foundational understanding of how to get the pathway to work in plants took a while, but, once it was complete, things progressed pretty rapidly.

 

There was also a contrast in interests. While the golden rice project was driven largely by researchers in the public sector, omega-3s have drawn interest both from academics and commercial companies, as there was always a potential route to profits. Oil from GMO seeds has been tested in feed used for aquaculture and can substitute for the normal dietary input. In addition, it may be possible to use it in feed for land-based meat sources or be used directly in agricultural products meant for humans. All of those can work in the industrialized world, and there are enough potential routes that multiple companies can stake out IP there.

 

But perhaps the most critical feature is that two of those three options—the ones involving using the GMO crop product in animal feed—provide a layer of abstraction between the GMO crop and human consumption. Both examples ultimately show that, given enough time, researchers can push through and engineer a more nutritious crop. But if society is not ready to accept GMO foods, their efforts won't ultimately make much difference.

 

Nature Plants, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s41477-019-0430-z (About DOIs).

 

Source: Why haven’t genetically engineered crops made food better? (Ars Technica)

[luisam]

Genetically engineered crops are demonized by the so called "greens". Reasons sound scientific but the problem is that "pseudo-scientific" arguments about "ecological risks" also sound scientific! Openly political campaigns prevented, blocked or simply could ban commercial field trials so frequently all scientist have are some very restricted inconclusive laboratory results.

10 simple arguments against GM food :

Genetic manipulation breaks through natural barriers, it combines characteristics of organisms in a way that could never be possible in nature.
Genetic engineering is not sufficiently developed and tested to be used in the food chain and is based on outdated notions about the workings of DNA. Moreover, the development of only one GM plant variety costs millions, money that can be spent on more sustainable alternatives.
The long-term effects on health and nature are largely unknown and insufficiently researched. Not all research findings that indicate problems with GMOs are made public.
Genetic engineering is a threat to biodiversity. It promotes the expansion of monocultures in agriculture. Many plants and animals in the vicinity of the fields can not survive this kind of treatment. Also, the diversity of agricultural crops declines, causing susceptibility to diseases or pests to increase.

 

Because the vast majority of GM crop cultivation is pesticide-resistant, this type of agriculture means simply more use of agricultural pesticides. Weeds, pests and diseases develop resistance to the common pesticides, and so more aggressive pesticides are used.
There is no question of higher yields in the longer term. GM seed is more expensive. Moreover (GM) monocultures depleat the soil, leading to smaller harvests. In the meanwhile local varieties that give a better harvest, because they are well adapted to local growing conditions, vanish.
Through the cultivation of GMOs, contamination of conventional crops is inevitable. This means that there is no guarantee that GMO-free produce will remain possible. Consumers and farmers will have no choice any more.
With patents on genetically engineered plants, the hold of biotech multinationals such as Syngenta, Pioneer and Monsanto on the orrigen of our food becomes even greater. They may force farmers to pay commission as their conventional crops get contaminated by patented genes from GM crops. Furthermore, farmers are no longer allowed to save seeds for their own use, while 90% of farmers worldwide is dependent on this ancient practice.
Nobody wants GMOs: they are of no use to consumers and farmers. They do not increase the income of farmers and they do not make food healthier. GMO cultivation is mainly serving the interests of international agro business.
There are alternatives to GMOs that ARE sustainable: that don’t deplete the soil nor pollute the environment because they need less pesticides and fertilizers. So certainly in the long term GM free is more sustainable.

And here how GM Watch formulates it:

 

http://www.gmwatch.eu/10-reasons-why-we-dont-need-gm-foods

https://aseed.net/arguments-against-gm/

 

SOME Argument for GM food:

1. FEED THE WORLD By 2050, the world’s population is expected to expand from today’s 7 billion to way beyond 9 billion. To keep pace, the United Nations say global food production will have to double over the next 35 years. Yet the amount of farm land is shrinking. Biotechnology is the only way to feed that growing population, by increasing yields to get more food from less land. GMOs mean cheaper, more plentiful food to fight hunger in the Third World. It also cuts costs for consumers and raises livelihoods for farmers in developed countries.   2. STRONGER CROPS = LESS PESTICIDES Through genetic modification, scientists can give crops built-in resistance to pests. That means less need for pesticides that are potentially harmful to the environment. Studies show the introduction of GMO soybean and corn in the United States led to a 13 million kilo reduction in pesticide use in the 12 years up to 2009. By reducing the need to spray, GMOs also cut farmers’ fuel emissions, helping to fight global warming.   3. TAMPERING FOR TASTE Foods can be genetically modified to improve flavour and texture – peppers made spicier, corn given enhanced sweetness. In blind tastings, testers regularly rate GM foods higher than naturally grown alternatives. One, in 2007, found 60 percent preferred GM tomatoes. Genetic modification can also give food a longer shelf-life – meaning consumers get fresher taste and the environment benefits from less waste.   4. ENHANCED HEALTH Biotech can make food healthier, giving lettuce a greater concentration of nutrients, reducing starch in potatoes or lowering the saturated-fat content of cooking oils. Studies suggest genes introduced into GMO tomatoes can increase their natural production of antioxidants that might help prevent cancer or heart disease. Improving the nutritional values of foods can be particularly significant in boosting diets for developing countries.   https://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-gmos/   Now, this is a simple introductuion to the theme. There are not books but complete libraries dedicated to this theme so I don't mean to extend more than this... Feel free to investigate!

 

[mp68terr]

[utopianism mode ON]

 

If the use of GMO is for Mankind's good then it should not mainly serve the interests of international agro business.

 

[utopianism mode OFF]

[Jogs]

Humans started modifying the nature right from the moment when they started cultivation. GM crops  just add another step to that.

[xpkRAKE]

I`m OK with gm plant based foods, the guinea pigs are ultimately us....and nobody actually cares about us.

 

Don`t test on animals though - those that do, need to be dealt with "appropriately".

[mp68terr]

1 hour ago, Jogs said:

Humans started modifying the nature right from the moment when they started cultivation. GM crops  just add another step to that.

AFAIK cultivation experiments are about selecting the crops, by crossing what can be crossed, according to Nature's rules. In the case of GMO, one speaks about gene manipulation, like introducing a gene from another specie, something that is not supposed to happen in Nature.

[Jogs]

10 hours ago, mp68terr said:

AFAIK cultivation experiments are about selecting the crops, by crossing what can be crossed, according to Nature's rules. In the case of GMO, one speaks about gene manipulation, like introducing a gene from another specie, something that is not supposed to happen in Nature.

Nature itself has been doing genetic manipulations for ages and that's the reason we are here.

[mp68terr]

1 hour ago, Jogs said:

Nature itself has been doing genetic manipulations for ages and that's the reason we are here.

Got your point, but maybe we are not understanding/using 'manipulation' the same way.

Mutation-selection-evolution is one natural thing, genetic manipulation is different.

AFAIK the first happens, and it's likely why we are here. Humans are mixing their genes with other humans, not with fishes or chickens.

Genetic manipulation is happening when one organism sees its genome artificially modified (targeted alteration of a gene to stop its expression, insertion of a gene from another specie to bring some new feature).

Regards.