Genetically modified plants, agriculture and society
The Battle with Biotech Myths
Alexander Grigoryevich Golikov, Doctor of Chemical Sciences, Executive Secretary of the Black Sea Biotechnology Association
Independent Newspaper
The General Assembly of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization (PABSEC) will be held in Kiev from June 30 to July 2. The stated theme is "Legislative support for the transition to a green economy". Among those that will be considered during the meeting are the issue of the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), legislative support for scientific and technological progress and compliance with sanitary standards of the World Health Organization in the member States of the Black Sea Economic Community.
An interesting situation is developing – the Parliamentary Assembly of a huge region is discussing the prospects of technology (genetic engineering) at the same time as its mere mention causes utter confusion in the minds of the population.
Disposition
In 2010, the total area of genetically modified crops in the world reached 148 million hectares, and the dynamics of area growth shows that few technologies were implemented so quickly.
GM crops were grown in 2010 in 29 countries. The main areas were occupied for biotechnological soybeans (53%), corn (30%), cotton (12%) and rapeseed (5%). At the same time, in the United States, the share of genetically modified soybeans in total soybean production exceeded 90%, and corn – more than three quarters. Biotechnological wheat that is resistant to herbicide and has successfully passed food safety tests has also been created and is ready for commercial release. However, it is deliberately not released to the market due to the fact that this would lead to a sharp and drastic redistribution of the world wheat market with completely unpredictable socio-economic shocks.
The use of biotechnological crops brings producers and, accordingly, their countries tangible economic benefits. Thus, the direct income of farmers in 2005 only on four main crops (soybeans, corn, cotton and rapeseed) increased by about $ 5 billion, and taking into account the second soybean harvest in Argentina – up to 5.6 billion. And this additional income was equal to 3.5–4% of the total cost of global production of these crops.
GM crops make it possible to significantly intensify production. Thus, productivity in the cultivation of GM plants has increased by an average of 31% over the past 10 years. Romanian experience shows that the cultivation of genetically modified soybeans can lead to a 33% increase in productivity compared to traditional soybeans and reduces the number of treatments of fields with chemical plant protection products by almost three times. Since the beginning of 2007, a ban on the cultivation of biotechnological soybeans in Romania has come into force (caused solely by political reasons related to the country's accession to the EU), and the country's economic losses after the ban are estimated at $ 100 million annually.
Risks of agriculture
Not only does agriculture produce up to 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane), but it is also one of the main sources of chemical pollution of the environment.
Agriculture is the largest consumer of fresh water – it requires at least half of all fresh water consumed in the world, and according to forecasts of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, this share will increase to 60% by 2030. For the production of a daily food ration per person, up to 5 thousand liters of water are consumed (the production of 1 kg of beef requires 15 thousand liters; 1 kg of basic cereals, on average about 2 thousand liters of water).
The use of biotechnological crops contributes to the use of waste-free land cultivation, which allowed the United States to save up to $3.5 billion in 2002 alone on cleaning drainage and irrigation systems, wastewater, and drinking water. Even France, represented by many as an active opponent of GM, has begun large-scale trials of GM grapes and initiated the EU DROPS project (2010-2015) to create drought-resistant plants. The project was officially opened on August 27, 2010 in Montpellier (France). He will study the genes that affect tolerance to water scarcity by creating water-saving plant varieties. The international project brings together 15 public and private partners from eight European countries, Australia, Turkey and the USA.
Agriculture in general and arable land in particular are one of the main sources of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere as a result of human activity. The use of GM crops has allowed for 10 years to reduce the amount of fuel consumed, the depth of tillage and greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere by 14.8 billion. kg, and this is equivalent to the fact that 6.6 million cars have disappeared from the roads of the world.
During the first 15 years of commercial cultivation of GM crops, the cumulative reduction of pesticides (from 1996 to 2009) is estimated at 393 million kg of the active ingredient. The overall decrease in the use of pesticides was 8.8%, which is equivalent to a decrease in the environmental effect of pesticides by more than 17%. In 2009 alone, 39.1 million kg of the active ingredient was used less than in the previous year (which is equivalent to a 10.2% reduction in the use of pesticides).
In Russia, losses in the fields (even before harvest) on average account for almost half of all potentially produced products – up to 20% of the crop is lost due to weeds, up to 14% due to pests and up to 15% due to pathogens. In 2004, the government of Primorsky Krai refused to grow corn due to a lack of funds and opportunities to cope with the pressure of weeds and insect pests (despite the excellent climatic conditions for growing this crop). Losses of vegetable crops reach 55-58%.
The use of genetically modified plants resistant to insect pests, pathogens and herbicides, without any doubt, can dramatically improve agricultural productivity while saving money and working time.
Directed manipulations
Plant breeding traditionally uses random recombination of genes of closely related or compatible species, often accompanied by unpredictable consequences and always unknown details of genetic changes.
In the middle of the twentieth century, another method appeared – the so-called mutagenic selection, when seeds or plants are treated with mutagenic chemicals or a high dose of radiation in the hope of obtaining an improved variety. From the plants obtained, the breeder selects specimens with the necessary characteristics. But it also leads to equally unpredictable and unexplored genetic changes.
In 1982, for the first time, the possibility was experimentally demonstrated and methods were developed for transferring specific identified and characterized in detail any genes responsible for certain traits. Moreover, in the future, an accurate analysis of the genetic and external changes of transgenic (GM) plants is possible. These methods are called "genetic engineering". However, in essence, this term is applicable to any selection method.
How do GM plants differ from plants bred by traditional methods?
In fact, there is no fundamental difference in the molecular processes occurring in genetic engineering and in natural mutations. Natural molecular evolution, that is, the spontaneous occurrence of genetic variations, proceeds according to the same three strategic scenarios that are used in genetic engineering:
- small local changes in nucleotide sequences;
- internal rearrangement of DNA segments of the genome;
- incorporation of extremely small DNA segments of an "alien" organism due to "horizontal" transfer.
There is only one difference, and it lies in the fact that molecular biological methods are used to carry out directed manipulations with nucleic acids. This, in comparison with natural evolution or with traditional breeding methods, only accelerates the process, making it more directional.
Nevertheless, the disputes over the use of genetic engineering in agriculture and food production have not subsided for 15 years, but only become fiercer. How can the scientific community explain the truth to the average consumer? After all, special knowledge is often required, and opponents do not bother to bring really substantiated evidence.
And it's just enough to ask yourself four simple questions and answer them:
- Is it possible, using genetic engineering, to make a product more "dangerous" than the original one? The Answer Is Yes.
- Is it possible, using genetic engineering, to make a product less "dangerous" than the original one? The Answer Is Yes.
- Is genetic engineering always the introduction of "foreign" genes? The answer Is No
(recently, genes of organisms of the same or closely related species have been increasingly used, obtaining so-called cisgenics;
molecular markers are used to control the selection process, which can be removed in the future). - Is genetic engineering the introduction of genes "in general"? The answer is No (the use of shutdown, deletion of genes is widespread).
In addition, the pharmaceutical market of genetically engineered drugs is several times (if not dozens of times) larger than the agricultural market, but no such collisions with biotechnological drugs have been noted. And if so, what does genetic engineering have to do with it, why are there so many attacks on it? There is only one answer – nothing to do with it… This is an explicit struggle for the consumer in order to prevent a specific technology from being implemented.
Who has no faith?
In many ways, the problem of confrontation over agricultural and food biotechnology in society persists due to the inability of the latter to perceive a purely scientific argument. Similarly, science, by its very nature, cannot operate with facts and conclusions that were complete, absolute truth. What we call "public opinion" in relation to special technology is only a reflection of the degree of people's trust in a particular group that is active in implementing their ideas. Therefore, the consumer's attitude to GM products is determined mainly within the framework of the "believe it or not" mechanism. Unfortunately (for the truth), this "believe it or not" is much more determined not by facts, but by personal impressions and sympathies.
So who or what to believe? On the one hand, the media replicate the same (year after year) "horrors" of genetic engineering, described by a very small group of scientists (many of whom are extremely far from the problem in their specialty) and public activists. It is infinitely difficult to challenge them within the accepted scientific framework, if at all possible – the "results" are simply thrown into the media and are not published in peer-reviewed scientific publications (with rare exceptions, when this happens, but each time the inconsistency of the publication very quickly becomes obvious).
On the other hand, the UN General Assembly unanimously calls on countries to promote the achievements of biotechnology (December 2003), the World Health Organization (WHO) issues an official report (2004) with the conclusion that all GM crops on the market are not more dangerous to human health than their original traditional counterparts. Similarly, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) speaks out. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity and its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety begin by emphasizing the potential of biotechnology for the benefit of humanity. (Very strange, but at the same time, opponents of biotechnology constantly refer to the protocol as a tool against the use of GM organisms!)
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences expresses support for the use of GM technology of plants and animals, remaining a tough opponent of the use of genetic engineering "on humans" (Vatican, May 15-19, 2009).
According to the conclusion of the Islamic Council of Jurisprudence, products derived from GM plants are halal (Conference of Islamic Scientists, Malaysia, December 2010).
According to the conclusion of the Jewish Orthodox Union, genetic modification does not affect the kosher quality of the product.
Three Russian academies – the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and the Russian Academy of Sciences – at a joint meeting unanimously recognized not only the harmlessness of GM products, but also that the use of modern biotechnology is the only way to increase food production in conditions of population growth, reduction of arable land, global warming and increasing water scarcity.
Do not forget that the decision on admission to the market of a product in each country is made by a specially authorized state authority. The decision is made on the basis of scientifically based facts, and the people making the decision are responsible for it.
Interestingly, during the use of GM plants for food production in North America alone, more than 3 trillion portions of GM food were eaten (Forbes, February 23, 2011), and not a single person was harmed (although there were multiple attempts to go to court about this), and not a single ecosystem was destroyed. This is to the question that we do not have enough experience accumulated in order to assess the possible consequences.
By the way, the European Union annually imports up to 35 million tons of soybeans, most of which are genetically modified. Its main use is animal and poultry feed. For 15 years, many generations of animals fed on GM feeds have changed, and no effects have been noted. And as for the scientific data published in the peer-reviewed publication, the latest study published in the journal "Nutrition Issues" in February 2011 ("Assessment of the effect of plant-derived GMOs on the development of rat offspring in three generations", author N.V.Tyshko, V.M.Zhminchenko, V.A.Pashorina, K.E.Selyaskin, V.P.Saprykin, N.T.Utembayeva, V.A.Tutelyan. – Volume 80, No. 1, 2011. pp. 14-28), quite convincingly shows the absence of the influence of GM feed on animal generations.
Signor Tomato
The situation with GM vegetables is extremely funny! Only two vegetable crops have ever been genetically modified and put into circulation. In the vast majority of countries, including the EU and the CIS, genetically modified vegetables and fruits are completely absent from the market. Moreover, they do not have permission to use, and the process of their authorization is extremely far from completion.
At the same time, scientific research is being conducted on the production of GM vegetables and fruits mainly with the aim of improving consumer properties and resistance to diseases and stress. But these studies are exclusively in the laboratory, "closed" stage.
Many consumers sincerely think that store shelves are literally bursting with genetically modified tomatoes. But in fact, GM tomatoes have not received permission to be used anywhere except the USA, Canada (only for food, not for growing or for animal feed), Mexico and Japan. And, what is especially interesting, even in these countries they disappeared from the market many years ago and it does not seem likely to find them.
In 1994, GM tomatoes broke into the US market, becoming the first GM organism officially allowed to grow. Since that moment, the GM tomato has become a symbol of genetically modified food for many years. And, interestingly, it remains a symbol for many, despite the fact that GM tomatoes have not been grown for several years and have completely disappeared from the market. Applications for registration of tomatoes submitted to the EU were withdrawn by the applicants several years ago and are no longer being considered.
In total, there were six registered lines of GM tomatoes, five of which had the property of "delayed ripening" to improve technological properties during transportation, and one - insect resistance (with a gene from the ubiquitous soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis). All the other "tomatoes with the genes of fish, scorpions" and so on are just bad jokes… Therefore, all tomatoes that can be found in the field or in the store – whether fresh or canned, are not genetically modified. Even those that remain red and dense after three weeks of storage in the refrigerator are not GMO.
Another (and last) vegetable crop that has left a mark on the market are zucchini. In total, only two lines of zucchini resistant to viral diseases have been registered, and only in two countries – the USA and Canada (for food only).
It would be more correct and logical to take care of how not to be deceived by fairy tales that have a pronounced commercial and political interest, and especially how to make the most of the potential of modern technologies.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru08.06.2011