Agricultural biotechnology to develop genetically-engineered plants

By Dhaneshi YATAWARA

Genetically modified mosquitoes are the newest ammunition against the worldwide fear of dengue fever. Brazilian scientists are ready to release these genetically modified mosquitoes into the world to stop spreading dengue fever in the world. Four million male mosquitoes will be churned out per week, according to an article published in 'The Telegraph' a few days ago.

Does all answers to our problems lie in biotechnology's 'genetically modified' products? Can biotechnology bring safe answers to our problems in health, wealth and happiness? Though still no one knows exactly what is the effect of genetically modified foods, products the world continues to advance in bio technology. How far have we made checks and balances to ensure that we consume 'safe' genetically modified products?

"It is essentially using to the use of more modern biogenetic techniques to create useful biological tools. And in the United States we have a long history, over thirty years of using biotechnology to create organisms that can produce pharmaceuticals, one of the first was a bacterium that made human insulin," said Robert Frederick, Project Manager of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a discussion with the Sunday Observer. Robert Frederick was visiting Sri Lanka to exchange knowledge and experience of the United States in biotechnology through several workshops held at the National Science Foundation. In biotechnology we are talking about a very modern biotechnology that is all about gene transfer and genetic engineering, creating genetically modified organisms," Frederick said.

These workshops were looking at agricultural biotechnology to develop genetically engineered plants that can be developed for various reasons. "The most used is herbicide tolerant plants that are resistant to commonly used herbicides. The benefit to the farmers is that they can plant these materials and the plants can start growing in the field with herbicides that are applied to knock down all weeds. That allow farmers to reduce the number of times that they have to spray and they are not harming the plants they want to grow," Frederick said. And as he further explained it can also make them change some of their tilling practices. Because they can use 'no till' or 'low till' - meaning they can avoid deep tilling practices.

Using genetically engineered plants with these benefits are very popular with the farmers of USA, he added. "In United States over 90 p.c. of the soybean grown are herbicide tolerant. The second popular use is the one that has bacterial genes that's inserted in the plants to protect the plant against insects. These are commonly called BT varieties in USA because of the particular bacterium used which is 'Bacillus thuringiensis'. A gene of the bacterium is taken that has toxic properties for certain insects. When put in to plants they produce a protein from the gene and when the insects come to eat these plants the protein which is toxic to the animal kills the insect. The chemicals produced in the plants do not kill all insects but specific ones only, he explained. Yet according to him, this does not mean farmers don't have to spray pesticides but the farmers can significantly reduce the amount they spray.

"In US, plants modified in such a manner are mostly used in cotton and maize (i.e. commonly called as BT cotton). These plants made a big difference in cotton production," said Frederick.

The BTs are used a lot in corn and maize as well. In USA 80 p.c. of the maize varieties are genetically modified types and a good portion of those are modified to produce the BT toxin against selected insects. Some varieties of corn too. The US corn and maize are actually against the European corn borer, a pest of grain. The stem borer affects the stem of the corn and the corn root worm affects the roots. So the plants have three different toxins for three different insects and are quite effective. US have been growing these varieties since 1996 - 1997. Large portions of those tree crops are genetically modified too, according to Frederick.

Has the modifications done to plants through biotechnology given a significant improvement for the harvest? Cutting down cost of the farmer? "Cost is a big deal for the farmer. Reducing the amount of pesticides cuts down the cost significantly. In developing countries I have seen major advantages in terms of the yield of the crops like cotton and in some crops grown in South Africa," he explained. Particularly in small farms where there is substantial farming whose farmers cannot bear the expenses of those chemical inputs like pesticides, they pay a small premium to the bio technology products and don't have to spend so much on spraying chemicals and can increase the production by 70 - 80 p.c. It does make a big difference, said Frederick.

Worldwide statistics have been quite substantial during the past five years and they have evaluated the environment footprint left behind by BT products. Coupled with other research that has looked at the economical advantages, specially by the International Food Policy Research Institute have done research on country by country analysis they determine that if the farmers did not use the BT cotton that they would lose a tremendous amount of income. A significant loss in the income to the country and a disadvantage to the farmer. I think the world is finding generally there is an economic advantage to the farmers, he added.

Farmers may not like paying lot of money to buy seeds of these BT varieties from the manufacturing companies but the companies also need to run the manufacturing too.

Can BT products establish food security in the world as per Goals set up in the Rio+20 summit? It is highly possible to make those connections, said Frederick. As he further said, BT is quite prevalent in the medical field but agriculture successfully picked it up. US food and drug administration has approved many products genetically derived diagnostic and medical kits and drug materials.

Reduction of energy use is the main benefit, said Frederick further explaining benefits of the Biotechnology and genetically modified plants. When we consider agriculture practices in large cultivations the fuel used to mobilise tractors used to disperse fertiliser, pesticides etc can be reduced if such vehicle usage can be minimised. Considering the demand for pesticides and fertiliser in large cultivations the amount of fuel that is saved by using BT plants is significant. "Certain BT crops produce harvest with a longer shelf life and transportation of such products can be done very efficiently," he added. With the use of such plants the farmers get the possibility to transfer from highly toxic chemicals to less toxic ones. "This is one of the environmental advantages using BT plants is that ability to reduce variety of chemicals used in cultivations in the form of pesticides, herbicides or fertiliser. These chemicals mostly tend to deposit in the soil and later may drift to other areas by water or wind and this is pollution. Less amount of chemicals means less pollution.

So what is the harm? Is it only a prejudice against gene modification? As Frederick explained, there is no scientific evidence to verify the possible concerns that products made through bio technology has a bad effect on human health. "But US took steps to control certain issues related to biotechnology innovations that had the possibility of giving ill effect to humans and the environment, Frederick explained. "In one incident a BT cotton variety was in the market and farmers were growing too which was categorised not to be grown. The company manufacturing seeds spotting the ill practice pointed out to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the mistake made by their seed distributors.

The company took the responsibility of the mistake and had to pay a fine and retrieved all the seeds from the area. In another incident, a corn variety was produced with a particular bacterial toxin protein that was more stable than seen in other BT plants. Because it was more stable, there was a longer lifespan for the corn in human digestive system was identified to have a possibility of affecting the immunity system and potentially an allergen.

The manufacturing company said that they will grow it for animal feed. On that agreement the product was licensed as an animal feed, but later an independent group investigating on the contents of BT food in the market for human consumption detected the particular protein in human food. The EPA and the US Food and Drug Control Authority confirmed the presence of the toxin of the particular corn variety in human food and required the company to pay a substantial fine and remove their crops from the market and registration was rescinded. "That was a very expensive process," Frederick added.

In addition to rules and regulations there is a lot of research going on in US to detect the environment conditions that results from BT products. "Considering agricultural BT products the EPA conducts many research in agricultural fields to observe the chemistry of the soil and changes taking place in water, air and the entire environment. Academic institutions are also incorporated in this effort," he said.

All details related to BT products, its rules and regulations are made available to the public to make them aware as eventually it is the consumer who needs to know what he or she is using, according to Frederick.

There are competing demands between the businesses in BT and consumers. US government's primary interest is to see that these products are developed safely, he added. "We play a serious and potential role in ensuring the safety of these products that go to the consumers.

The companies are obviously trying to earn a profit and they are well versed in economics of all this. And when companies are in the development phase they are going to look into profit in potential markets. And looking their profits are regularised depending on the rules the businesses going to face. It is the company that needs to decide whether to continue developing there business on these rules and regulations. That's beyond the federal Government's purview. It is the commercial market that has to make that decision," Frederick said.