The Pros and Cons of Nutritional genetic engineering - Research Paper Example

The Pros and Cons of Nutritional Genetic Engineering Food has always played a big part of human culture for as long at the human race existed. However, due to the number of people that needs to be fed, ways of improving crops to give better yield were undertaken. Simple breeding of cereals such as wheat by means of cross-pollination in a repeated fashion created the high-yielding crops known today (Hartl 292). By the process of genetics, the improvement of different varieties of plants and animals are possible. An even more highly-advanced technology of improving genetic qualities of agriculture called genetic engineering is as widely-used as simple-cross breeding of plants in order to bring together desirable traits. But what exactly are genetics and genetic engineering? Genetics is defined as the study of biologically inherited traits (Hartl 1). These would also include traits that are influenced by the environment. The fundamental concept of genetics is that the traits of the offspring are inherited in combination from the parents, and by means of reproduction, such characteristics are passed down from generation to generation. The elements that carry the traits are called genes (ibid.). Genes govern most of the physiological and morphological traits that are inherited by the offspring, thus having a control on what the offspring would look like (Valpuesta 1). On the other hand, genetic engineering is the brainchild of recombinant DNA or rDNA technology. This technology allows the transfer of genes from other species without the use of traditional methods of breeding, which requires the two species to mate and reproduce (Debusk 46). Conventional breeding needs two different species that are somewhat related in order for them to create offspring. By using genetic engineering, genes that are needed or added do not have to come from sexually-compatible organisms, also the possibility of adding genes to a crop one at a time saves the time and effort for creating the hybrid or transgenic organism (Valpuesta 1). By combining the desired genes and inserting them into the genome or the gene library of the organism that needs to express the trait, there is no need to wait for so many generations. This made rDNA technology a fast-paced technology (Debusk 47). Tissue-culturing of transgenic plants are also being done in line with genetic engineering of plants, however such a practice oftentimes cause undesirable traits to surface, causing some plants to be discarded (Valpuesta, 10). Thus, using genetic engineering for crop improvement reduces such hassles. One of the practical applications of genetic engineering is the production of food with improved quality. Aside from being resistant to diseases, as well as giving a higher yield than previous generations, these foods are also enriched with additional nutrients that are not normally found in such crops (Herring 63). The process of adding nutrients originally not included in a particular crop is called biofortification (Shattuck and Bradford 1). It is a potentially cost-effective and sustainable way to increase the nutritional value of agricultural commodities. There is significant capital input in creating super-crops but once the genome of the plant is established, continued investment is no longer required and large numbers of the human population would greatly benefit, especially those that suffer from malnutrition (ibid.). One of the best examples for biofortification is golden rice, an enriched rice variety that contains vitamin A, through ?-carotene as the precursor molecule (Hartl 472). The rice plant is inserted with ?-carotene-producing genes from both daffodil, a flowering plant and Erwinia uredovora, a bacterium which is genetically engineered to have the enzyme-producing genes (Baisakh and Datta 530). A rice plant containing the gene from daffodil and another rice plant containing genes from E. uredovora were crossed, producing progeny that contained the two sets of genes needed for the synthesis of vitamin A in the endosperm of the plant (Hartl 472). The golden transgenic rice are also able to help in the absorption of iron into the blood, since additional enzymes were added: genes that produce a fungal enzyme from Aspergillus ficuum which break down phytate; another enzyme from the bean Phaseolus vulgaris, which produces iron-storage protein called ferritin; and a gene from another rice variety called basmati rice which has a gene that facilitates the absorption of iron into the digestive tract (ibid.). Eating rice with biofortification improvements are important especially in countries where malnutrition is a major problem, and this additional vitamin-enriched rice would be able to bridge the nutritional gap in such regions (Miller 3). Other examples of genetically engineered crops with added nutritional content (Baisakh and Datta 531): rice which contain legumin from peas (Pisum sativum) lupin containing albumin from sunflower seeds potatoes which also express albumin and thus additional amino acids from Amaranthus hypochondriachus, and tomato that contains ?-carotene from E. uredovora and Arabidopsis as well as lycopene from the tomato itself However, if there is too much expression of lycopene in the fruits, there is the decreased expression of ?-carotene. Such an effect would have an impact in the nutritional content not just of tomatoes but on other transgenic crops as well (Kirakosyan and Kaufman 316). However, even though these are among the claims of creators of transgenic crops, there are not much studies with regards to their impact on the countries that need them, and that there is no nutritional content analysis among them (GM Freeze 1). The following are the claims of genetically-engineered crops (GM Freeze 2): Enhanced vitamin levels (e.g. vitamin A) Enhanced minerals (e.g. iron) Enhanced health fatty acid content (e.g. omega 3) Enhanced amino acids (e.g. tryptophan) Enhanced protein (e.g. in potatoes) Enhanced levels of antioxidants to help in fighting cancer Reduced allergic reaction (e.g. silencing genes that create allergenic by-products such as in wheat and peanuts) Also, since there are no records or studies as to how much vitamins and minerals (for this example, vitamin A) are actually available and digested, and how much of the fortified product (in this case, golden rice) is needed to be consumed in order to obtain the daily recommended intake of the nutrient (vitamin A), and ultimately how many servings are to be consumed in compared to food without any fortification (Bai et al. 12). There is also the additional issue regarding the rates of decay of ?-carotene in rice when cooking, as well as when the rice is being stored. There is also the other issue with regards to the toxicity levels of excess vitamin A in the body, which is not easily metabolized and destroyed by humans, as well as the possible teratogenic effects of it in excess (GM Freeze 3). Lastly, the cultural acceptability in rice-consuming nations do not have yet any records, thus additional studies are needed to be undertaken (ibid.). It is inevitable therefore to make an analysis on most, if not all transgenic crops for their nutritional content as well as their bioavailability to human consumers (13). This is to ensure that the nutritional content per serving of the crop would be thoroughly evaluated, since this would differ from crop to crop (ibid.). In line with cultural acceptability of transgenic crops, the acceptability of such food sources also need to be studied further (Onyango and Nayga 581). In order for the efforts of creating genetically-engineered food to become justified, the consumers must be willing to eat such products. Although some people would be willing to eat the biofortified food with any hesitation, some people would choose not to, if the gene-transfer would be from animals to plants, or even if it was plant-to-plant for that matter (ibid.). This would be a reminder to researchers and sponsors of genetically-modified foods that no matter how much nutrient is fortified into the food, there would be some people who wouldn’t buy it, no matter how good the propaganda is (ibid.). Thus there is the need to identify the target populations that would generally accept the biofortified products and conduct experiments with regards to market acceptability (Toennlessen 1). To supplement the influx of genetically-engineered foods, the consumption of natural foods is also advocated. The simple yet practical solution of balancing a diet in order to get all the nutrients and minerals that the body needs is still the best option for a healthy diet (GM Freeze 4). Another long-standing issue with regards to genetically-engineered crops is the fear of producing undesired destructive plants, or “super-weeds”, which may be highly-resistant to herbicides and could transfer these genetic traits to other weeds, making them impossible to eliminate (Miller 6). Also, farmers that are organically-faming their produce would be greatly affected, since genetically-modified organisms (GMO) do not count as organic crops, and they may get cross-pollinated with GMO’s, making their produce unfit to be labeled as organic (ibid.). Still another issue is the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering. Many people believe that creating genetically-modified food is very wrong, and is like playing God. There is also the process of “genetic pollution”, wherein GMO’s would eventually replace naturally-existing plant varieties and overcrowding them, thus destroying the delicate balance of nature in an unforeseen and uncontrollable way (Greenpeace). At present, protocols are being made with regards to the handling and labeling of genetically-engineered food stuffs. However, some countries still would need to follow suit in order to prevent genetic pollution in the future (ibid.). There will always be the challenges with regards to creating community awareness of nutritionally-modified foods, thus public health is also encouraged to disseminate the information in order to prevent malnutrition as well as the pay-off for the consumers, which include enhanced consumer health, prevention of disease and thus the saving of lives (Shattuck and Bradford 3). In order to show the pros and cons of nutritional genetic engineering, this table is presented: Table 1. Pros and cons of nutritional genetic engineering Pros Cons Fortification of food to obtain nutrition Risks on consumption not recorded Makes nutrient-rich food more available No studies regarding nutritional values are available, when consumed Sustainable with regards to food stability Possibility of creating unwanted plants Can combat malnutrition in some countries Destroying biodiversity on the planet Improved shelf-life May be carcinogenic in the long run For the public to be fully aware about the pros and cons of genetically-engineered crops, aside from proper labeling and classifications, an awareness of all pros and cons should also disseminated (Onyango and Nagya 581). There is a strong possibility of creating negative or biased propaganda with regards to such sensitive issues, and thus it is important to fully evaluate and present all aspects of the problem, wherein this case is genetic engineering. To summarize, by utilizing the science of genetics, improvements in the creation of agricultural crops are possible. Through the process of genetic engineering, wherein genes that normally do not come together through the natural process of reproduction are inserted into the genes of target organisms, which, in the case of this report, is in rice. The creation of golden rice was done by inserting the genes of daffodil and a bacterium, E. uredovora in order to create a variety of rice that has additional ?-carotene, which is a precursor for vitamin A. Also, not only is the addition of vitamin A in rice a boon for countries suffering from malnutrition, but there is also the additional prospect of increased iron intake, due to the insertion of genes from another rice variety, as well as from beans and a fungus. This creates value for the commodity since the food is fortified with additional nutrients that are usually not available in rice, and would be very beneficial to those who cannot afford to increase the diversity of their diet. However, with the increased use of genetically-modified produce comes the problem of uncertain effects of the consumption of such foodstuffs. There is not much information regarding the actual nutritional content absorbed by the body when consumed the biofortified food. Also, there can be causes for over-consumption of nutrients such as vitamin A, which can be toxic in large amounts. There is also the debate with regards to the degradation of the vitamins when the food is stored. Also, the ethical and social problems associated with genetic engineering are also undeniable. The possibility of polluting the natural biodiversity of the planet by the possible introduction of the genes from transgenic plants through a natural process like cross-pollination into non-transgenic crops is also an unseen burden, as is the creation of herbicide-resistant weeds that could affect agriculture around the world. In conclusion, the use of genetically-engineered foods and their propagation is met with both criticism and anticipation. However, information with regards to such products is still not plentiful to make a full assessment of the whole situation. Thus, there is the need for the full assessment with regards to the nutritional content of genetically-engineered food and the possible effects that they might have to people and the environment. Works Cited Bai, Chao, Twyman, Richard M., Farre, Gemma, Sanahuja, Georgina, Christou, Paul, Capell, Teresa and Zhu Changfu. A golden era- pro-vitamin A enhancement in diverse crops. The Society for In Vitro Biology, 47(2011): 205-211. Print DeBusk, Ruth M. Genetics: the Nutrition Connection. American Dietetic Association, 2003. Print. GM Freeze. GM Nutritionally Enhanced and Altered Crops. Barnsley: GM Freeze, 2009. Print Greenpeace. “What is Wrong with Genetic Engineering?”. 2012. Web, 30 March 2012. Hartl, Daniel L. Genetics: Analysis of Genes and Genomes. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC, 2012. Print. Herring, Mark Y. Genetic Engineering. Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press, 2006. Print. Kirakosya, Ara and Kaufman, Peter B. Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, 2009. Print. Miller, Dennis D. Genetically Engineered Foods: Biofortification of Staple Food Crops-A Sustainable Solution to Micronutrient Malnutrition? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 2005. Print. Onyango, Benjamin M. and Nayga, Rodolfo Jr. Consumer Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Food: Relevance of Gene Transfer Technology. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 29.3 (2004), Print. Shattuck, Jamie and Bradford, Kent. Enhancing Nutrition in Agricultural Crops. California: UC Davis, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 2010. Print. Toennlessen, Gary H. Crop Genetic Improvement for Enhanced Human Nutrition. The Journal of Nutrition, 132 (2002): 2493s-2946s. Print. Valpuesta, Victoriano. Fruit and Vegetable Biotechnology. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2002. Print. Read More