For example, a GM crop can contain a gene s that has been artificially inserted instead of the plant acquiring it through pollination. The area planted to GM crops shot up from 1. In the developed world, there is clear evidence that the use of GM crops has resulted in significant benefits. These include:. These crops have more direct benefits to consumers. GM crops are made through a process known as genetic engineering. Genes of commercial interest are transferred from one organism to another.
Two primary methods currently exist for introducing transgenes into plant genomes. The DNA to be introduced into the plant cells is coated onto tiny particles of gold or tungsten. These particles are then physically shot onto plant cells and incorporated into the genomic DNA of the recipient plant. The second method uses a bacterium to introduce the gene s of interest into the plant DNA.
While most of the debate over transgenic crops has taken place mainly in the developed nations in the North, the South stands to benefit from any technology that can increase food production, lower food prices, and improve food quality.
In countries where there is often not enough food to go around and where food prices directly affect the incomes of majority of the population, the potential benefits of GM crops cannot be ignored. It is true that nutritionally enhanced foods may not be a necessity in developed countries but they could play a key role in helping to alleviate malnutrition in developing countries.
Although the potential benefits of GM crops are large in developing countries, they would require some investments. Over millennia, various traits such as size, hair length, color and body shape were artificially selected for, altering the genetics of these domesticated descendants of wolves so much that we now have breeds such as Chihuahuas and corgis that barely resemble wolves at all!
Since this time, artificial selection has been applied to many different species and has helped us develop all sorts of animals from prize-winning racehorses to muscular beef cattle. Artificial selection has also been utilized with a variety of plants.
The earliest evidence of artificial selection of plants dates back to BCE in archaeological sites found in southwest Asia, where scientists have found domestic varieties of wheat [3].
However, one of the most dramatic and prevalent alterations in plant genetics has occurred through artificial selection of corn. Corn, or maize, began as a wild grass called teosinte that had tiny ears with very few kernels [4]. Over the hundreds of years, teosinte was selectively bred to have larger and larger ears with more and more kernels, resulting in what we now know as corn. A similar process has given us large heads of broccoli, bananas with nearly unnoticeable seeds, and apples that are sweet and juicy.
Although artificial selection is an ancient process that is still used today, most current conversations regarding GMOs refer to a much more modern process of altering the genetics of organisms. An enormous breakthrough in GMO technology came in , when Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen worked together to engineer the first successful genetically engineered GE organism [5]. The two scientists developed a method to very specifically cut out a gene from one organism and paste it into another.
Using this method, they transferred a gene that encodes antibiotic resistance from one strain of bacteria into another, bestowing antibiotic resistance upon the recipient. One year later, Rudolf Jaenisch and Beatrice Mintz utilized a similar procedure in animals, introducing foreign DNA into mouse embryos [6]. By the middle of , a moratorium on GE projects was universally observed, allowing time for experts to come together and consider the next steps during what has come to be known as the Asilomar Conference of [8].
At the conference, scientists, lawyers, and government officials debated the safety of GE experiments for three days. The attendees eventually concluded that the GE projects should be allowed to continue with certain guidelines in place [9]. For instance, the conference defined safety and containment regulations to mitigate the risks of each experiment. Additionally, they charged the principal investigator of each lab with ensuring adequate safety for their researchers, as well as with educating the scientific community about important developments.
Finally, the established guidelines were expected to be fluid, influenced by further knowledge as the scientific community advanced. Due to the unprecedented transparency and cooperation at the Asilomar Conference, government bodies around the world supported the move to continue with GE research, thus launching a new era of modern genetic modification. In , the U.
Supreme Court of the ruled that scientists from General Electric could patent bacteria that were genetically engineered to break down crude oil to help with oil spill mitigation [10]. This ruling legally permitted ownership rights over GMOs, giving large companies the incentive to rapidly develop GMO tools that could both be useful and profitable.
Two years later, in , the United States Food and Drug Administration approved the first human medication produced by a genetically modified organism. Bacteria had been genetically engineered to synthesize human insulin, allowing them to produce enough of the hormone to purify, package, and prescribe it to diabetes patients as the drug Humulin [11]. While uses for genetic engineering range from oil spills to medication, perhaps the most controversial application is for food production.
The first field experiments of food crops that had been genetically modified using recombinant DNA technology began in Department of Agriculture. These tomatoes were modified to include a DNA sequence that inhibited production of a natural tomato protein, increasing the firmness and extending the shelf life of the Flavr Savr variety. In addition to making food more aesthetically pleasing, scientists have developed crops that are easier to for farmers to cultivate.
In the first pesticide-producing crop was approved by the U. Environmental Protection Agency after rigorous testing [12]. A year later, Bt corn was approved, and now the majority of corn in the U. Additionally, crops have also been genetically engineered to resist herbicides, making it easier for farmers to control unwanted plants in their fields. Perhaps the most famous herbicide resistant crops are the Roundup Ready or glyphosate-resistant plants see this article.
The first of these glyphosate-resistant crops was a variety of soybean, engineered by Monsanto in Now glyphosate-resistant technology has been applied to many other crops, including corn and sugar beets. Scientists have also genetically engineered crops to increase nutrition value. For instance, Golden Rice was developed in with the goal to combat vitamin A deficiency, which is estimated to kill over , people every year see this article [13]. Although many species of animals have been genetically engineered, the vast majority of this technology is used for research purposes, and to date, there have been no GE animals approved by the FDA for use in food production [14].
However, in , the U. FDA approved the first biological product produced by a GE animal, ATryn, a drug used to treat a rare blood clotting disorder [15]. There have been many controversies regarding GE technology, with the majority relating to GE food. While some critics object to the use of this technology based on religious or philosophical bases, most critics object on the basis of environmental or health concerns.
For instance, a publication showed Bt toxin had negative effects on butterfly populations in laboratory tests, leading to strong objections of Bt use, but follow-up studies in actual farming fields confirmed the safety of this technology [16]. In a different example, the economic stress of the poor yield of GE cotton crops in India over the late s and early s was associated by many organizations with a presumed increase in farmer suicides [17]. However, it was later concluded that suicide rates were actually unchanged after introduction of GE cotton, and that there were economic benefits of GE cotton for most Indian farmers [18].
During the same time frame, public awareness of the existence of GE foods increased, and calls for regulation of GE food grew louder, resulting in labeling requirements for GE food in many countries. Today, 64 countries have mandatory labeling laws for GE food [19]. However, the United States still does not have a mandatory, nationwide labeling law, although many advocacy groups are lobbying to enact one.
These groups argue that labeling GE food is important for consumer choice and for monitoring unforeseen problems associated with the technology [20]. In contrast, groups opposing labels claim a law would unnecessarily eliminate consumer demand for current GE crops, causing steep increases in food price and resource utilization [20]. Although the debate about GE food is active, and there is no shortage of opponents to the technology, the scientific community has largely come together and concluded consumption of GE food is no more dangerous and eating traditionally selected crops [21].
This conclusion has not stopped businesses from capitalizing on the current fear of GE food. With cases such as this, it is safe to say the debate on GE food will continue for some time. There are countless potential uses of GE technology in development. These include plants with superior disease and drought resistance, animals with enhanced growth properties, and strategies for more efficient pharmaceutical production [23]. Likewise, GE technology itself is quickly advancing.
Recently, researchers have developed a new technology called CRISPR, which takes advantage of bacterial systems to simplify genetic editing, allowing for easier development of GE organisms [24].
This technology could be used to expedite development of useful GE crops, facilitate disease elimination, or even alter entire ecosystems.
Interestingly, recent advances in plant breeding techniques may increase the utility and rebound the popularity of the more traditional GMO method of selective breeding.
Indeed, new drought resistant strains of various crops have been recently developed using traditional breeding methods [25]. Indeed, innovative approaches will be required to solve this problem, and genetically engineering our food is a potentially useful tool. As scientists look forward at ways to create better crop survival, yield, and nutrition, it is important that we remember where all of this work began, and give credit to the pioneers who have made our advancements possible.
Our ancestors that selectively bred wolves to eventually develop Corgis could not foresee that today we would be able to genetically engineer corn to withstand pests, herbicides, and drought. Gabriel Rangel is a Ph. You seem to only tell about the goodness of the plant and the farmer growing the crop, but not about the damage it does to the person eating these freak crops. The diseases it promotes and one being cancer.
The lies continue. On the other hand, you are much more likely to potentially develop health problems from excessive pesticide use. That is unless you decide it would be a good idea to swallow something absolutely loaded with carcinogens. Bt crops are engineered to produce proteins that naturally exist in certain bacteria. Those proteins kill certain bugs that eat the bt plant.
I doubt you did prior research to this. Please get your facts right. Selective breeding is not GMO process. Selective breeding does not involve inter-species DNA modification. Any article or paper that tries to draw similarities between selective breeding and genetic engineering is designed to misinform the reader, scientifically speaking.
But these authors KNOW that there are technological differences, and the two classes of methodologies present different benefits and risks. Clifford Lee, I concur percent. The author clearly receives some form of support from the GMO cartel. It is not irresponsible that Harvard let this paper be published because its there right to publish whatever they wish. If you kindly take your self absorbed feeling and look at the bigger picture of this great achievement, this paper is not to mislead the public of sticking an idea in their head but to inform them.
This insulin is create synthetically in labs, but without this people would have to get this insulin from pancreas of pigs or cows.
This would kill countless amount of pigs and cows, this is one of many way GMO can save lives and create a better future. So, i ask you again to take your self absorbed felling out of the picture and think of other and how this practice is still young. Which that love one or you needed, what would you think then. So, think carefully and think out of the box. In a technical matter, some may argue the validity of assertion but highly inappropriate.
Not sure I am entirely understanding your point here, but the motivation of this article is to look at the many ways in which humans have altered the genetics of our food or other organisms to our advantage—through selective breeding or genetic engineering. I doubt if you seriously do not understand why people are opposing GMO. I think you simply want to deny it. Of course if you choose to not to believe it, I hope you are at least getting paid scholarship, research grants, or simple money doing this.
Just coincident? To a certain extent, I understand why people oppose GMOs. I personally used to be somewhat skeptical of GMOs. However, as I mentioned before, we grad student volunteers took some time to really look into the peer reviewed literature about GMOs to put together a series of articles of which this article is a part.
And by science I mean peer-reviewed, government-funded science. Please stop accusing me and others of being paid by Monsanto just because my educated opinion differs from yours. No one involved in the publication of this article was paid in any way by anyone.
We are also not speaking for Harvard University as an institution. Got your email reply. Climate change — Monsanto argues that use of pesticides will decrease and crop yield will increase to provide more food for people. One can argue we have more corn. The GMO in question is a bacterium with an appetite for crude oil, ready to gobble up spills. Food and Drug Administration approves the Flavr Savr tomato for sale on grocery store shelves.
The delayed-ripening tomato has a longer shelf life than conventional tomatoes. Research shows that the super weeds are seven to 11 times more resistant to glyphosate than the standard susceptible population. The marketplace begins embracing GMO technology at an alarming rate. In less than a decade, the bugs have adapted to the genetically engineered toxin produced by the modified plants.
Francois wins and sets a new precedent for future cases. In , Monsanto introduced Roundup 2 with a new patent set to make the first-generation seed obsolete.
0コメント