Biotechnology - Genetically Engineered Soybeans - Essay Example

Biotechnology - Genetically Engineered Soybeans Introduction Genetic engineering or genetic modification involves taking foreign genes and insertingthem to alter the genetic constitution of the recipient plant which is otherwise impossible through natural plant reproduction. Usually these are accomplished by injecting a DNA segment from a bacteria or any other foreign source which are manipulated to be incorporated into the genome of the target plant in order to alter its original genetic character to the phenotype is also altered favourably. These are usually done to increase the harvest phenomenally or to generate crops which can adapt to specific production conditions (Raymer and Grey, 2003). In genetic engineering technique, genes from one organism can be extracted and then recombined with any other organism through recombinant DNA technology. This alleviates the need for same species to induce the genetic changes which can be transmitted in the subsequent progenies. The other specific feature of this technology is possibility of ignoring reproductive compatibility within the species with an accelerated generation of new progenies with the induced phenotypic and genotypic characters. It is to be considered that genetic engineering enables scientists to introduce the DNA fragments of a foreign organism into a plan through an entirely artificial way, which could be naturally imprecise and has all probability of being unpredictable, despite being unique (Stacey et al., 2004). Use of GE Soybeans The soybean is considered a major source of protein in human and animal nutrition, and it is also a source of vegetable oil. Soybean is also considered to be an economically important legume, However, naturally there are many variations in the phenotype of the seed, and this is prominent in seed weight. The bean in soybean is unique since it accumulates high levels of protein and oil, and a typical soybean seed has been reported to contain 40% of protein and 20% of oil by weight. Therefore the propensity of a larger size of seed and weight would ensure that protein and oil per seed can be considerably increased if the weight of the seed could be increased by any means (Clemente and Cahoon, 2009). To start with genetic modification of soybean was accomplished to achieve herbicide tolerant soybeans since these led to improved yields and reduced use of pesticides. Specifically, the advantages of herbicide tolerant soybeans were improved weed control, significant reduction of soil erosion the crop fields, reduction in injury to the crop, and reduced cost on fuels. Therefore, the intention of this genetic modification was to lead to improved crops. Historically, crop varieties that resist diseases have been preferred by cultivators due mainly to their improved quality characteristics. One such example is genetically engineered soybeans that are tolerant to nonselective herbicides such as glyphosphate. Foliar administration of herbicide glyphosphate can kill soy plants, and as a result genetically engineered glyphosphate tolerant soybeans was a choice immediately since during growing season, glyphosphate may considerably reduce the yield (Qin and Lynne, 2007). This specific breed would allow the farmers to use glyphosphate to control weeds yet not lose on the crop yield. Specific Alteration The specific alteration involves introduction of a single gene in the commercial soybeans. This resulted in high level of glyphosphate tolerance to the soybean plants. A single gene encoding the glyphosphate tolerant 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase was introduced in the soybean genome. This was derived from Agrobacterium Sp. Strain CP4. 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase is known to be present in plants and bacteria as a component of shikimate pathway to synthesize aromatic amino acids. Glyphosphate tolerance locus could be identified in the glyphosphate tolerant locus in GTS 40-3-2, which had been studied to be a stable and simple dominant trait that can be transferred across generations through traditional breeding (Yum et al., 2005). In 1995, Monsanto Corporation, St. Louis produced genetically engineered soybean seeds, called Roundup Ready soybeans, which as indicated in the previous paragraph introduced the copy of the specific gene from Agrobacterium strain CP4. This transgenic strain of soybeans could survive spray of glyphosphate. However, this killed the conventional soybean plants even through wind-borne contamination, and ultimately the conventional cultivation was this genetically engineered Monsanto crops. Evidently the protection from the herbicide, Roundup was conferred through genetic modification of soybean plants through incorporation of the bacterial version of the enzyme into them (Clemente and Cahoon, 2009). Since the genetically modified soybeans were then protected, both the soybeans and the weeds could be sprayed with glyphosphate or Roundup, which would kill the weeds and save the soybeans. It was interesting to note that these modified soybeans were found to need more herbicide chemicals per hectare to control the growth of the weed that normal (Herman, 2003). Public health/food safety/consumer Issues Although this genetic alteration is apparently simple and predictable as reported by the scientists, the actual situation is contrary to the claims. There are many public health, food safety, and consumer issues of concern in this genetically engineered variant of soybeans. It has been claimed by the scientists that they inserted only a single foreign bacterial gene along with its CaMV promoter region. Due to the technique of DNA blasting through the gene gun, it was found that there were accidental inoculations of two other gene fragments into the soy DNA. Thus contrary to claims, the process of genetic engineering is a clumsy and unregulated process with no or very limited control over the number of genes inserted. Moreover it has been suggested that after prolonged consumption of these genetically altered materials as food, there is a considerable risk of horizontal gene transfer, which may have many adverse effects (Byrne, 2005). Although there is an increasing trend of cultivating genetically engineered crops such as soybeans, the consumer concerns include questions about possibility of inadvertent introduction of toxins, introduction of allergens, change or alteration in the nutrient levels, and possibility of conferring resistance to antibiotics. It has been frequently complained that there is intentional regulatory oversight about the food safety requirements on the part of the appropriate authority (Kapuscinski et al., 2003). Many a times approval as a food supplement and requisite certificates have been available before allowing enough time to study the adverse effects of these genetically modified foods. In other countries, studies have shown that consumption of these genetically modified soybeans conferred allergenic potentials due to proteins made by the altered gene being allergenic. It has been criticised that due to inefficiency in the process of genetic engineering, a very small percentage of cells gunned with DNA delivery systems have chance to integrate leading to expression of new transgenes, which may impart antibiotic resistance (Brown and Ping, 2003). Conclusion It appears that scientists have no control over the soybean plants' entire DNA structure while creating transgenic soybean plants, since there is no insurance about the process of gene insertion and CaMV hot spot would not disrupt any other genetic sequence inadvertently. Despite these concerns highlighted above, the consumers continue to use transgenic foods mainly due to the reason that their awareness about these safety issues is low. However, despite these concerns, recent analysis of safety of genetically engineered food had failed to reveal any negative health effects, although this report indicated that unintended effects may result, indicating a need for awareness about these issues of concern (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004). While providing consumer education, the descriptions of genetic modification and their applications may be used to help consumers assess these products. Knowledge and awareness generation would be most pertinent from that point of view. The labeling terms may be explained, and designing educational materials in this context would be most useful. It is highly probable that for the consumers perceived benefits may alter the perception of risks on health, and an educational brochure specially designed for that would be necessary to generate consumer awareness which may force the policy makers to change their standpoint of stoic indifference. Reference List Brown, JL. and Ping, Y., (2003). Consumer perception of risk associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans is less in the presence of a perceived consumer benefit. Journal of Amerocal Dietetic Association; 103(2): 208-14. Byrne, PF., (2005). Safety and Public Acceptance of Transgenic Products. Crop Sciences; 46: 113 - 117. Clemente, TE. and Cahoon, EB., (2009). Soybean Oil: Genetic Approaches for Modification of Functionality and Total Content. Plant Physiology; 10.1104/pp.109.146282. Herman, EM., (2003). Genetically modified soybeans and food allergies. Journal of Experimental Botany; 54: 1317 - 1319. Kapuscinski, A.R., Goodman, R.M., Hann, S.D., Jacobs, L.R., Pullins, EE., Johnson, CS., Kinsey, JD., Krall, RL., la Vina, AGM., Mellon, MG., and Ruttan, VW., (2003). Making 'safety first' a reality for biotechnology products. Nat. Biotechnol. 21:599-601. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2004). Safety of genetically engineered foods: Approaches to assessing unintended health effects. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Qin, W. and Lynne, J., (2007). Brown Public reactions to information about genetically engineered foods: effects of information formats and male/female differences. Public Understanding of Science; 16: 471 - 488. Raymer, PL. and Grey, TL., (2003). Challenges in Comparing Transgenic and Nontransgenic Soybean Cultivars. Crop Sciences; 43: 1584 - 1589. Stacey, G., Vodkin, L., Parrott, WA., and Shoemaker, RC., (2004). MEETING REPORTS: National Science Foundation-Sponsored Workshop Report. Draft Plan for Soybean Genomics. Plant Physiology; 135: 59 - 70. Yum, HY., Lee, SY., Lee, KE., Sohn, MH., and Kim, KE., (2005). Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologic comparison. Allergy Asthma Proceedings; 26(3): 210-6. Read More