Biotechnology, in its broadest sense, is the use of biological systems to carry out technical processes. Food biotechnology uses genetic methods to enhance food properties and to improve production, and in particular uses direct (rather than random) strategies to modify genes that are responsible for traits such as a vegetable's nutritional content. Using modern biotechnology, scientists can move genes for valuable traits from one plant into another plant. This way, they can make a plant taste or look better, be more nutritious, protect itself from insects, produce more food, or survive and prosper in inhospitable environments, for example, by incorporating tolerance to increased soil salinity. Simply put, food biotechnology is the practice of directing genetic changes in organisms that produce food in order to make a better product.
In nature, plants produce their own chemical defenses to ward off disease and insects thereby reducing the need for insecticide sprays. Biotechnology is often used to enhance these defenses. Some improvements are crop specific. For example, potatoes with a higher starch content will absorb less oil when frying, and tomatoes with delayed ripening qualities will have improved taste and freshness.
Paving the Way to Modern Biotechnology
Advances in science over many years account for what we know and are able to accomplish with modern biotechnology and food production. A brief review of genetics and biochemistry is useful in evaluating the role of biotechnology in our food supply.
Proteins are composed of various combinations of amino acids. They are essential for life—both for an organism's structure, and for the metabolic reactions necessary for the organism to function. The number, kind, and order of amino acids in a specific protein determine its properties. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which is present in all the cells of all organisms, contains the information needed for cells to put amino acids in the correct order. In other words, DNA contains the genetic blueprint determining how cells in all living organisms store, duplicate, and pass information about protein structure from generation to generation.
In 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick published their discovery that the molecular structure of DNA is a double helix, for which they, along with Maurice H. F. Wilkins, won a Nobel Prize in 1962. Two strands of DNA are composed of pairs of chemicals—adenine (A) and thymine (T); and guanine (G) and cytosine (C). A segment of DNA that encodes enough information to make one protein is called a gene. It is the order of DNA's base pairs that determines specific genes that code for specific proteins, which determines individual traits.
By 1973 scientists had found ways to isolate individual genes, and by the 1980s, scientists could transfer single genes from one organism to another. This process, much like traditional crossbreeding, allows transferred traits to pass to future generations of the recipient organism.
One Goal, Two Approaches
The objective of plant biotechnology and traditional crop breeding is the same: to improve the characteristics of seed so that the resulting plants have new, desirable traits. The primary difference between the two techniques is how the objective is achieved. Plant breeders have used traditional tools such as hybridization and crossbreeding to improve the quality and yield of their crops with a resulting wide variability in our foods. These traditional techniques resulted in several benefits, such as greatly increased crop production and improved quality of food and feed crops, which has proven beneficial to growers and producers as well as consumers through a reduction of the cost of food for consumers. However, traditional plant breeding techniques do have some limits; only plants from the same or similar species can be interbred. Because of this, the sources for potential desirable traits are finite. In addition, the process of crossbreeding is very time-consuming, at times taking ten to twelve years to achieve the desired goal—and complications can arise because all genes of the two "parent" plants are combined together. This means that both the desirable and undesirable traits may be expressed in the new plant. It takes a significant amount of time to remove the unwanted traits by "back crossing" the new plant over many generations to achieve the desired traits. These biotech methods can preserve the unique genetic composition of some crops while allowing the addition or incorporation of specific genetic traits, such as resistance to disease. However, development of transgenic crop varieties still requires a significant investment of time and resources.
The Many Applications of Biotechnology
Since the earliest times, people have been using simple forms of biotechnology to improve their food supply, long before the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. For example, grapes and grains were modified through fermentation with microorganisms and used to make wine, beer, and leavened bread. Modern biotechnology, which uses the latest molecular biology technology, allows us to more directly modify our foods. Whereas traditional plant breeding mixes tens of thousands of genes, biotechnology allows for the transfer of a single gene, or a few select genes or traits. The most common uses thus far have been the introduction of traits that help farmers simplify crop production, reduce pesticide use in some crops, and increase profitability by reduction of crop losses to weeds, insect damage, or disease.
In general, the early applications of crop biotechnology have been at points in our food supply chain where economic benefit can be gained. The following are examples of modern biotechnology where success has been achieved or is in progress.
Insect resistance. Crop losses from insect pests can cause devastating financial loss for growers and starvation in developing countries. In the United States and Europe, thousands of tons of pesticides are used to control insects. Using modern biotechnology, scientists and farmers have removed the need for the use of some of these chemicals. Insect-protected plants are developed by introducing a gene into a plant that produces a specific protein from a naturally occurring soil organism. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is one of many bacteria naturally present in soil. This bacterium is known to be lethal to certain classes of insects, and only those organisms. The Bt protein produced by the bacterium is the natural insecticide. Growing foods, such as Bt corn, can help eliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market. The introduction of insect-protected crops such as Bt cotton has allowed reduced use of chemical pesticides. This suggests that genetically engineered food crops can also be grown with reduced use of pesticides, a development that would be welcomed by the general public.
Herbicide tolerance. Every year, farmers must battle weeds that compete with their crops for water, nutrients, sunlight, and space. Weeds can also harbor insects and disease. Farmers routinely use two or more different chemicals on a crop to remove both grass and broadleaf weeds. In recent years new "broad-spectrum" chemicals have been discovered that control all these weeds and therefore require only one application of one chemical to the crop. To provide crops with a defense against these nonselective herbicides, genes have been added to plants that render the chemicals inactive—but only in the new, herbicide-resistant crop. Many benefits come from these crops, including better and more flexible weed control for farmers, increased use of conservation tillage (involving less working of the soil and thereby decreasing erosion), and promoting the use of herbicides that have a better environmental profile (that is, that are less toxic to nontarget organisms).
Disease resistance. Many viruses, fungi, and bacteria can cause plant diseases, resulting in crop damage and loss. Researchers have had great success in developing crops that are protected from certain types of plant viruses by introducing DNA from the virus into the plant. In essence, the plants are "vaccinated" against specific diseases. Because most plant viruses are spread by insects, farmers can use fewer insecticides and still have healthy crops and high yields.
Drought tolerance and salinity tolerance. As the world population grows and industrial demand for water supplies increases, the amount of water used to irrigate crops will become more expensive or unavailable. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help overcome these limitations. Although genetically engineered crops with enhanced drought tolerance are not yet commercially available, significant research advances are pointing the way to creating these in the future.
Food applications. Research into applications of biotechnology to food production covers a broad range of possibilities. Examples of food applications also include increasing the nutrient content of foods where deficiencies are widespread in the population. For example, researchers have successfully increased the amount of iron and beta-carotene (the precursor to vitamin A in humans) in carrots and "golden rice"—a biotech rice developed by the Rockefeller Foundation that may help provide children in developing nations with the vitamin A they need to reduce the risk of vision problems or blindness.
Another example of food biotechnology is crops modified for higher monounsaturated fatty acid levels in the vegetable to make them more "heart-healthy." Efforts are also under way to slow the ripening of some crops, such as bananas, tomatoes, peppers, and tropical fruits, to allow time to ship them from farms to large cities while preserving taste and freshness.
Other possible food applications for which pioneering research is under way include grains and nuts where naturally occurring allergens have been reduced or eliminated. Potatoes with higher starch content also promise to have the added potential to reduce the fat content in fried potato products, such as french fries and potato chips. This is because the starch replaces water in the potatoes, causing less fat to be absorbed into the potato when it is fried.
Edible vaccines. Vaccines that are commonly used today are often costly to produce and require cold storage conditions when shipped from their point of manufacture in the developed world to points of use in the developing world. Research has shown that protein-based vaccines can be designed into edible plants so that simple eating of the material leads to oral immunization. This technology will allow local production of vaccines in developing countries, reduction of vaccine costs, and promotion of global immunization programs to prevent infectious diseases.
Global food needs. The world population has topped six billion people and is predicted to double by 2050. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. Biotechnology can play a critical role in helping to meet the growing need for high-quality food produced in more sustainable ways.
What Are Consumers Saying?
Crops modified by biotechnology (also known as genetically modified or GM crops) have been the subjects of public discussion in recent years. Considerable public discussion may be attributed to the public's interest in the safety and usefulness of new products. Although biotechnology has a strongly supported safety record, some groups and organizations abroad and in the United States have expressed a desire for stronger regulation of biotechnology-derived products than of similar foods derived from older technology. The assessment of the need for new regulation is related to an understanding of the science itself, as was detailed in the sections above; this is a continual process of development.
Consumer acceptance is critical to the success of biotechnology around the world. Attitudes toward biotechnology vary from country to country because of cultural and political differences, in addition to many other influences.
In the United States, the majority of consumers are supportive about the potential benefits biotechnology can bring. Generally, U.S. consumers feel they would like to learn more about the topic, and respond favorably when they are given accurate, science-based information on the subject of food biotechnology.
Regulatory Oversight
Three government agencies monitor the development and testing of biotechnology crops: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies work together to ensure that biotechnology foods are safe to eat, safe to grow, and safe for the environment.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Lead agency in assessing safety for human consumption of plants or foods that have been altered using biotechnology, including foods that have improved nutritional profiles, food quality, or food processing advantages.
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Provides regulatory oversight to ensure that new plant varieties pose no harm to production agriculture or to the environment. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) governs the field testing of biotechnology crops to determine how transgenic varieties perform relative to conventional varieties, and the balance between risk and reward.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): EPA provides regulatory and safety oversight for new plant varieties, such as insect-protected biotechnology crops. EPA regulates any pesticide that may be present in food to provide a high margin of safety for consumers.
Genetically Modified Organisms: Health and Environmental Concerns
There is really little doubt that, at least in principle, the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can offer many advantages. Genetically modified organisms have included crops that are largely of benefit to farmers and not clearly of broad public value. Plans for development of GMOs include foods that have far greater nutritional and even pharmaceutical benefit; crops that can grow in regions that currently cannot provide enough food for subsistence; and foods that are more desirable in terms of traits that the public wants. The market forces that largely determine which products are developed are complicated, and there are important trade-offs: the traits that may be needed to feed a starving world are different from the traits farmers in the United States want, and both may differ from the characteristics the paying public supports.
Most criticisms of genetic engineering focus on food safety and environmental impacts. What impact will GMOs have on the health of those who eat them? Will some individuals develop allergic reactions? The new technology makes it possible to cross species barriers with impunity. A scare over StarLink corn is instructive of this kind of problem. "Bt corn," a common GMO, includes a gene from Bacillus thuringienis, which produces a pesticide that kills the European corn borer. StarLink is a variety of Bt corn that includes a protein (Cry9C) that does not break down as easily in the body, which increases the risk of allergic reactions in some people (though there are no verified cases of this). StarLink corn was approved for animal feed but not for human consumption. Unfortunately it is difficult if not impossible to keep the food supply for animals and humans separate. The result has been the discovery of small amounts of StarLink corn throughout the food supply. (Of course, there is also the question whether a small trace of Cry9C in a fast-food taco is the greatest health problem involved in such a meal.)
A second set of concerns arises over the environmental impact of GMOs. There are several different concerns. First, there are worries about gene flow. The same genes that may one day make it possible for plants to grow in poor, salty soil or in relatively arid regions could create an ecological nightmare by allowing these crops to spread beyond their normal range as a result of the gene(s) that have been transferred into the crop itself, or if those same genes should be introduced to other plants. This can happen through outcrossing between the GMOs and closely related plants. For example, GM wheat could cross with native grasses in South America to alter the makeup of the ecosystem and potentially create "super weeds," a possibility that has raised concerns in the "Wheat Belt" of the United States and elsewhere. Even in the absence of gene flow, the GMOs themselves could become super weeds (or the animal equivalent) as a result of the traits that make them better suited to new habitats. The environmental trade-off for technology that makes it possible to produce sustainable agriculture or aquaculture in regions where it cannot "naturally" flourish is the significant risk of loss of biodiversity and the unchecked spread of plants or animals into unintended regions. (The argument is made, however, that biotechnology can be used to increase yields on the land that is currently used for agricultural production, allowing nonfarm land to be retained as forests and reserves and thereby conserve biodiversity.)
In addition to these concerns over the ecosystem and the creation of superweeds, there is a worry over the potential impact of some GMOs on nontarget organisms. Cornell University researchers found that pollen from Bt corn could kill the larvae of monarch butterflies that ingested it. This raised the fear that these engineered crops could kill butterflies and other nontarget organisms in addition to the corn borer. The consensus from subsequent field research is that Bt corn does not pose a major threat to monarch butterfly populations—loss of habitat in Mexico, where the butterflies overwinter, is a more serious threat. Nevertheless, the Bt corn–butterfly issue showed that it is not always possible to predict the consequences that may arise from the introduction of these crops.
Genetically engineered microorganisms present even greater environmental and health concerns. It will soon be possible to engineer bacteria and viruses to produce deadly pathogens. This could well open a new era in biological weapons in addition to the environmental problems that could result from the release of organisms into the environment. The environmental assessment of the widespread introduction of engineered microorganisms has only barely begun to receive attention (Cho et al., 1999).
These concerns are exacerbated by some inadequacies in the regulatory framework for GMOs. There is a growing sense that the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency are not sufficiently rigorous or consistent in how they regulate GMOs and that there should be a single set of standards, including a mandatory environmental assessment. The opposition to GMOs in Europe is much more widespread than in the United States, and the single most important factor for the differences between European and American attitudes is the level of confidence in the regulatory institutions that protect the food supply. After "mad cow disease," Europeans do not trust their governments to provide safe food. A similar loss in confidence among U.S. consumers could have a similar effect. In spite of these concerns, however, there have so far been no documented food safety problems resulting from the introduction of GM crops in the mid-1990s and their large-scale consumption by the American public. There have also been no ecological disasters, although the time since their introduction has been too brief for the absence of disaster to be very meaningful. In some crops, notably in Bt cotton, there have been significant reductions in the use of pesticides.
David Magnus with contributions by Peter Goldsbrough
Bibliography
Arntzen, Charles J. "Agricultural Biotechnology." In Nutrition and Agriculture. United Nations Administrative Committee on Coordination, Subcommittee on Nutrition, World Health Organization. September 2000
Borlaug, Norman E. "Feeding a World of 10 Billion People: The Miracle Ahead." Lecture given at De Moutfort University, Leicester, England, May 1997. http://agriculture.tusk.edu/biotech/monfort2html International Food Information Council (IFIC). "Food Biotechnology Overview." Washington, D.C.: February 1998. Available at http://ific.org.
Cho, Mildred, David Magnus, Art Caplan, and Daniel McGee. "Ethical Considerations in Synthesizing a Minimal Genome." Science 286 (10 December 1999): 2087–2090.
—Charles J. Arntzen; Susan Pitman; Katherine Thrasher