• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • News Main Page
  • A&E
    • A&E Main Page
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Opinion Main Page
    • Blogs
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
    • Obituaries
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Living Main Page
    • Outdoors
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • Food & Drink Main Page
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Sports
  • Outdoors
    • Outdoors Main Page
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Obits
    Corn is one of many crops that has been genetically modified to be pest-resistant or herbicide-resistant.  It has become so successful that in the U.S. about 60% of corn grown is GM corn.

    Corn is one of many crops that has been genetically modified to be pest-resistant or herbicide-resistant. It has become so successful that in the U.S. about 60% of corn grown is GM corn.


    Genetically Modified World: Part I

    Performance-Enhanced Plants


    Friday, August 6, 2010
    By Teisha Rowland (Contact)
    Article Tools
    Print friendly
    E-mail story
    Tip Us Off
    iPod friendly
    Comments
    Share Article
    Facebook Facebook
    Twitter Twitter
    Google+1 Google+1
    del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
    Digg! Digg!
    Yahoo! Buzz Yahoo! Buzz
    diigo Diigo
    google google
    newsvine newsvine
    reddit reddit
    technorati technorati
    Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!
    Share on Myspace Myspace

    Advancing technologies are constantly changing every aspect of modern life, from how we treat our colds to helping us feel more energetic. Over the past two decades, this has extended to giving us the option of growing and purchasing foods that have been genetically modified (GM). As with all major advancements, GM crops have been met with resistance, although they offer a more efficient means of generating nutrient-rich produce and saving thousands of lives.

    While many opponents of GM crops argue that they are “unnatural,” this certainly isn’t a new or unnatural human approach; we’ve been molding the plants around us to make them more useful for our nutritional needs since prehistoric times, or for around 10,000 years. During this time, people have been selecting for certain desirable traits in plants, such as bigger fruits or pest tolerance, controlling what the generations of crops to come would look like.

    In the early 1900s, the agriculture business completely changed with the advent of mass-produced farming machinery, pesticides, herbicides (to kill weeds), fertilizers, and the creation of more vigorous, higher-yielding “hybrid” plants. While this so-called “Green Revolution” created crops with unprecedented yields, it was met with trepidation by the public, just as the GM agricultural revolution that began in the 1990s is being met today.

    The number of GM crops around the world has skyrocketed since the first creations in the early 1990s; in 1996, they took up about 6,500 square miles, but by 2009 they covered nearly 520,000 square miles, spread across 25 countries, 16 of which are developing. While the industry had a very successful start in the U.S., it slowed down globally as it encountered several hurdles, from showing that the industry is safe for people and the environment, to settling intellectual property disputes raised by the companies that made GM crops, to gaining public acceptance. Fear of “Franken-foods” has driven many policies in the world concerning GM crops, and is why they must be labeled on shelves in countries in the European Union and elsewhere. But are these fears justified?

    Genetically modified plants (also generically called genetically modified organisms, or GMOs) are plants that have had genes from other plants or organisms inserted into them. These “foreign” genes can make their new plant hosts have a range of desirable traits that make farming much more efficient, such as requiring less water, using less fertilizer, and/or making do with poorer soil. Two of the most widely used traits in GM crops are toxicity to insects, and resistance to herbicides. So it’s no surprise that GM crops have been repeatedly shown to outperform “normal” crops. But the researchers haven’t stopped there; other GM crops have been designed to produce high amounts of vitamins and potentially virus vaccines!

    The FLAVR SAVR Tomato Sets the Stage: The first GM crop found its way to grocery store shelves in 1994. It was a tomato genetically modified to stay hard even when ripe. Why would this be useful? For a long time, commercially sold tomatoes have been harvested when still firm and green, and then treated with ethylene gas to ripen them. This is so they’re not transported soft and damaged. So much for being “natural.”

    How did the GM tomato “FLAVR SAVR,” as it was called, keep its youthful firmness while still becoming red and ripe? It comes down to an enzyme called polygalacturonase (“PG” for short). Made by ripening tomatoes, PG breaks down the structural supports in plant cell walls (specifically pectin, a substance whose structural stability is what makes jellies and jams firm). Researchers thought that if they could just stop the unripe, green tomatoes from producing PG, they could prevent them from becoming soft. And they were right. To achieve this feat, scientists used antisense RNA technology; they knew the RNA sequence that the tomato used to create PG, and so they introduced an interfering RNA sequence (an antisense one) that bonded to the native sequence, preventing it from functioning.

    But how did this antisense RNA find its way into the tomato plant? With a little help from nature. The researchers used a species of bacteria that normally attacks a variety of plants (specifically the bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens) but replaced part of the bacteria’s infectious genome with the desired antisense sequence. When the tomatoes were exposed to this modified bacteria, the sequence found its way to the plant’s genome. While “FLAVR SAVR” only lasted a few years on the market due to its not being profitable, this same strategy (and same bacteria) has been used again and again to create GM crops.

    Soybeans: Herbicide Resistors: The second GM crops to arrive in supermarkets were GM soybeans. They were much more successful than the tomatoes, and today, GM soybeans are the most commonly used GM crop in the world. In 2005 in the U.S., nearly 90 percent of the soybeans grown were GM soybeans.

    And how exactly have these crops been modified? Many have been made resistant to an herbicide called glyphosate (for you chemists out there, it’s [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine]), which is more commonly known as Monsanto’s weed-killer “Roundup.” Most commercially sold herbicides are nonselective plant-killers, functioning by disrupting the plant’s ability to carry out photosynthesis (vital to its survival). Some herbicides, like glyphosate, go so far as to destroy the plant’s ability to make amino acids. So you can imagine how making a crop resistant to a toxic herbicide like glyphosate can make things more convenient; spray the entire field with herbicides and the only thing left standing are the soybeans, or “Roundup Ready Soybeans.”

    But how do you make a plant resistant to glyphosate? Bacteria again come to the rescue. A mutant bacteria strain (Salmonella typhimurium) was found to resist the killing power of glyphosate, and researchers were able to isolate the gene responsible for this resistance and put it into the genome of soybeans, as well as several other crops. (Specifically, the gene encodes for a mutant version of the protein normally targeted by glyphosate; this mutant functions, but isn’t recognized by the glyphosate.)

    So what are the problems with spraying a field with general plant-killing herbicides? Possible herbicide-resistant weeds, for one. Just as bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics over time, plants can also have mutations which may cause a few herbicide-resistant weeds to become a “super-weed” epidemic. There is also some evidence that the glyphosate-resistant genes may jump from GM crops to weeds and other plants, but weeds don’t need GM crops to become herbicide-resistant. While there’s some question over whether using GM soybeans is actually more profitable, it’s thought that the general simplicity of using Roundup Ready Soybeans has made many farming converts.

    Bt Corn: Next to soybeans, corn is the most commonly used GM crop worldwide. In 2005 in the U.S., about 60 percent of corn grown was GM. While some GM corn has been made to be herbicide-resistant, like GM soybeans, many have also been made to be pest-resistant or more nutritional. The manner in which GM corn has become pest-resistant is by borrowing a gene from, you guessed it, bacteria, specifically Bacillus thuringiensis, commonly known as “Bt.” In the wild, the bacteria creates a small toxic protein, which is released when Bt is eaten by an insect.

    In the digestive track of the insect, the digested protein binds to the cells lining the gut and ruptures them, killing the insect. The toxin works well against many different kinds of insects, including the orders Lepidoptera (which includes the European corn borer, the cotton bollworm, the tomato fruitworm, and other moths and butterflies), Diptera (flies and mosquitos), and Coleoptera (beetles, including corn rootworms).

    Researchers isolated the gene from Bt that creates this toxic protein and put it into the genomes of many GM crops, including corn, tobacco, cotton, and tomatoes. While this successfully kills many very harmful crop pests, it has been criticized for also killing nontargeted insects and beneficial insects. However, proponents of Bt GM crops argue that using these crops is more environmentally sound than spraying massive amounts of pesticides.

    Cotton: A Success in Developing Countries: Cotton is the next most widely used GM crop globally after Bt corn. After being approved early on in the U.S., in 1995, it quickly made its way around the world. As of last year, it covered nearly 62,000 square miles of fields (comprising 45 percent of all cotton acreage). It is mostly grown in India, China, and the U.S., and has been touted by some as a standard-bearer for the success of GM crops in reducing poverty in developing countries. Like Bt corn, the Bt cotton also has the Bt insecticide gene, allowing farmers to spend much less money on large amounts of expensive pesticides. Bt cotton also has significantly higher yields (about 30 to 40 percent) than normal cotton, resulting in higher incomes than with normal cotton, which has helped to reduce poverty levels in developing countries that grow it, with particular success in India.

    “Golden Rice”: While the much-publicized “Golden Rice” is not available on grocery shelves yet, it is quite justified in receiving the attention it has. About 140 million people suffer from vitamin A deficiency, a serious malnutrition problem in poverty conditions, where diets consist of low-nutritional staple foods. Every year, nearly 3 million children die from vitamin A deficiency. This is why researchers created Golden Rice. Golden Rice is a GM rice that contains beta-carotene, the same chemical that gives carrots their orange color and which is a precursor our bodies can turn into vitamin A. (And it gives Golden Rice its distinctive yellow hue.) To create Golden Rice, researchers basically borrowed multiple enzymes necessary to make beta-carotene, from daffodils and a soil bacterium. Although Golden Rice is not sold commercially yet (but may be as early as 2012), it is estimated that it could save the lives of 40,000 children in India alone, every year.

    What Does the GM Future Hold?: The future of GM crops is exciting, if tumultuous. As just one example, already some GM bananas are being developed that may vaccinate against cholera or hepatitis B. However, GM crops still have many hurdles in front of them, which they must overcome to be widely grown and accepted. These range from biotechnology companies with intellectual property rights, to concerns about herbicide-resistant plants’ possible effects on the environment, and consumers’ health. To date, there are many conflicting results on whether GM crops cause health problems; it is still unresolved. The reality is that GM crops are here and it is our responsibility to make sure they are being carefully evaluated and used, while also ensuring that such hurdles do not unnecessarily stall them from saving thousands of lives.

    Check “Biology Bytes” next week for Part II of this series on the “Genetically Modified World,” where we will explore organisms that have been genetically engineered to be quite different from their normal brethren.

    For more on genetically modified crops see Dominic W. S. Wong’s The ABCs of Gene Cloning, Felicia Wu and William P. Butz’s The Future of Genetically Modified Crops, the National Research Council’s workshop summary on “Genetically Engineered Organisms, Wildlife, and Habitat,” C. Neal Stewart, Jr.’s Genetically Modified Planet, Wikipedia’s article on “Genetically Modified Crops,” or Matin Qaim’s Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition, and health

    Biology Bytes author Teisha Rowland is a science writer, blogger at All Things Stem Cell, and graduate student in molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at UCSB, where she studies stem cells. Send any ideas for future columns to her at science@independent.com.

    Related Links

    • More Biology Bytes columns

    Comments

    Independent Discussion Guidelines

    Scientists who work in GMO are probably too very narrowly attuned to their work to realize that they are unwittingly unleashing upon the world things that are beginning to prove harmful. Evolution is a slow process, that allows various species to have the time to adapt to different environments, and adapt very well via selection.

    There are two factors that are not helping in these modern times - climate change and GMO. GMO is man's limited view attempt to engineer evolution without allowing the best path to be "selected" but rather to be forced. Additionally, GMO crops pollute other varieties. But most harmful of all, are GMO corporations that FORCE others to stay with their seeds, and unleash lawsuits upon those who transgress, unwittingly or not.

    GMO, Monsanto and all of their ilk are sheer hell. Are you aware of how many Indian farmers have committed suicide because of the anything but free (as in market) tactics of Monsanto? The European countries are wise to avoid using GMO seeds.

    http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gm...

    Please google "GMO harm" and learn about this travesty. And talking about "cold" treatment - the waters off India are so polluted from antibiotics from factory runoff, that sea creatures are being permanently harmed. No, what people should do is learn how to avoid modern processed foods so that they do not catch colds as I have not done for 10 years now. Btw, obviously, I avoid GMO products.

    tabatha (anonymous profile)
    August 6, 2010 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Google "Jeffrey Smith's Seeds of Deception" and learn the truth about the Monster Monsanto. The data is in and it is conclusive. Rats that are fed GMO's, 1st Generation experience a massive die off, 2nd Generation also major die of of offspring, but most telling of all? 3rd Generation STERILE! In the slaughter houses where the cows have been eating GMO Corn rather than having yellow colored tissues it is now white and the thickness of the cell walls in the intestines and the reproductive area thinning to the point that they can no longer make sausage. This is obviously a underground shot at population control and if you don't believe it do the research. Don't just sit back and say "This can't happen because it is!" The NO GMO shopping guide on Jeffery smith's website may save the life of your children but it will definitely prevent your bloodline from becoming sterile!

    contactjohn (anonymous profile)
    August 7, 2010 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    And another thing! Monsanto bought G.D. Searle, the makers of Aspartame, they also brought you Bovine Growth Hormone in milk, which is finally being pulled off the market. This company is pure evil and if you do not believe it google any one of those names and harm and read for yourself! It is amazing to me how anyone in a university cannot know the truth behind these demonic corporations who lead you believe it is done in the name of profit but Aspartame was listed as a Bio Weapon by the Department of Defense until Donald Rumsfeld brought it through the FDA. It was the most hotly contested substance approved in the history of the FDA and Sloan Kettering of New York was horrified by the increase in brain tumors world wide after its release. Wake up America! Quit eating the garbage!

    contactjohn (anonymous profile)
    August 7, 2010 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    I knew this thread would bring out the fruitcakes.

    http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/...

    Pinatubo (anonymous profile)
    August 8, 2010 at 5:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Very interesting article, as well as the comments:

    http://www.grist.org/article/food-can...

    tabatha (anonymous profile)
    August 8, 2010 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    An author's oft-used non-sequitur in support of GMO needs highlight. Paragraph 2: GMO crops are 'not new' because 'farmers have been molding ...plants... to make them more useful for ...10,000 years.' The latter is true, but the former (GMO is not new) is false. Farmers have long found traits (expressions of genes) in plants that are useful. Then a process of selective breeding is used (like natural selection, but human-directed) to increase the frequency of individual plants with that particular trait, to get a population of "pure-bred" organisms with the desired trait.

    The big difference, and non-sequitur, is that these farmers did not insert a gene from one species into a completely different species, i.e., the modern practice of genetic modification of organisms. Thus, GMO is, indeed, 'new' in the sense used by the author. Arguments pro or con GMO are fine, but not when such sloppy thinking underlies the arguments.

    Commenters, please feel free to call folk whose opinions differ from yours epithets that make you feel better, but as soon as you do that, you've lost the argument, since you fail to address the facts, but instead attack the people. It's called 'ad hominem;' try snopes, or better, Wikipedia, on that one.

    And trivializing the fact that Monsanto has actually sued farmers for "receiving" the largesse of their GMO corn without paying for it (or wanting it), merely because their farms were downwind of farmers who bought Monsanto's GMO corn seed, probably wouldn't sit well with those downwind farmers who did no harm to their neighbors. The sociology of GMO has a long way to mature.

    GMO will likely prove similar to two other cases in which the idea might be promising but human error just can't seem to stay out of the mix.
    1. Farmed atlantic salmon in the Pac. NW: Atlantic salmon have now escaped farm pens to a) space-compete with wild pacific salmon for breeding grounds, and b) now interbreed less fit genetic material with pacific salmon, thus decreasing fitness of the natural population to PNW rivers. Farming salmon's not a bad idea, per se, but humans seem to **** it up in practice.
    2. The oil industry says drilling for oil is safe, and that there's a good safety record. Engineers can design excellent fail-safe systems, but once again, good ol' H. sapiens finds a way to stay asleep at the switch, let batteries go dead, cut corners for quarterly profit statement boosts, or whatever.

    So, bottom line: if we could just keep human error out of the GMO equation, maybe it would be the boon the author reports. Then again, there's Jeff Goldblum's prophetic statement in Jurassic Park: 'nature finds a way.' We just don't know (and have no way to predict with any certainty whatsoever) what that 'way' will be with GMO's. But the genie's already out of the bottle.

    Me? I'll drink my milk straight, no chaser. Keep the recombinant bovine somatotrophic hormone to yourself, thanks.

    oblio (anonymous profile)
    August 9, 2010 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    tl;dr

    Pinatubo (anonymous profile)
    August 9, 2010 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Too bad, Pinatubo --- oblio hit the nail squarely on the head several times, and if length is a barrier to well-considered opinion, then the loss is all yours.

    Thanks, oblio, whoever you may be, I hope your comment is read by all - its length only leads to more clarity on a valid point of view.

    tabatha (anonymous profile)
    August 9, 2010 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    That comment burned out my scroll wheel.

    Pinatubo (anonymous profile)
    August 11, 2010 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Log in to comment

    Forgotten your password?

    Sign up

    EVENT CALENDAR

    Previous Month | Next Month

    Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

    Local Weather

    Click here for current conditions

    Surf Report
    • Specials
    • InPrint
    • Top Emails
    • Summer Adventure Guide 2011
    • Wedding Guide 2011
    • Best Of 2011
    • 2010 Election Coverage
    • Blue Green Guide 2011
    • Local Heroes 2011
    • 2011 Calendar of Fundraisers
    • Local Bands
    • 2011 Foodie Awards
    • Stupid, Inept, or Corrupt?
    • It's My Life
    • Helicopters United
    • What Was Bacara’s Dworman Thinking?
    • White Denim Hits the Road with Wilco
    • Summit for a Cure
    1. Stupid, Inept, or Corrupt?
    2. S.B. Filmmaker Mike DeGruy Killed in Helicopter Crash
    3. New Hospital Helipad Sees Heavy Action
    4. Bye Bye, Redevelopment Agency
    5. S.B. Symphony to Perform Tribute to Ansel Adams
    6. Santa Maria Police Standards' Slippery Slope
    • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
    • LOG.IN
    • CONTENTS
    • CLASSIFIEDS
    • ARCHIVE
    • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
    Google
     
    Independent.com Web
    Copyright ©2012 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
    This is our Privacy Policy.