Genetically Modified Organisms Lecture 6 PDF

Biosecurity and Research Bioethics [APBI304]  Lecture 6 Genetically Modified Organisms By Prof. Dr. Ahmed Gabr  02 What is a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)? APBI304 ...

Biosecurity and Research Bioethics [APBI304]  Lecture 6 Genetically Modified Organisms By Prof. Dr. Ahmed Gabr  02 What is a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)? APBI304  02 What is a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)? - Ethics - Marketing APBI304  02 Why are foods genetically modified? Genetic engineering offers a rapid and precise method of altering organisms as compared to traditional methods that are slow and inaccurate. APBI304  02 Plant Genetic Engineering Plant Transformation APBI304  02 Aims of Plant Genetic Engineering ✓ Increased crop yields ✓ Reduced costs for food or drug production ✓ Reduced need for pesticides ✓ Enhanced nutrient composition and food quality ✓ Resistance to pests and disease ✓ Greater food security, and medical benefits to the world's growing population ✓ Developing crops that mature faster and tolerate environmental stressors ✓ Allowing plants to grow in conditions where they might not otherwise flourish ✓ Other applications include the production of nonprotein (bioplastic) or nonindustrial (ornamental plant) products APBI304  02 Methods of Plant Genetic Engineering ✓ Agrobacterium tumefaciens ✓ Gene Gun ✓ Genome Editing APBI304  02 Agrobacterium- mediated gene transfer APBI304  02 Gene Gun APBI304  02 Genome Editing APBI304  02 Safety assessment of genetically modified foods Research has been conducted to study the impact of genetically modified foods on human health on 3 points: ✓ Product safety or the ability of genetically modified foods to cause allergies, cancer, or negative effects on body organs such as the kidneys, liver, and heart. ✓ The ability of these foods to modify human genes or cause unintended mutations or increase mutation rates by performing the Ames test, named after the scientist Bruce Ames, University of California, Berkeley, who invented this method. ✓ The ability of modified DNA to transfer to the consumer's DNA, and the effect of foods on fertility, embryos, and offspring. APBI304  02 For most crop plants there are breeders' organizations and seed certifying agencies, some of which are state, regional or national in scope. Compliance with the guidelines proposed by these organizations is necessary if a breeder wants to sell seed as being officially certified. Their oversight, however, is voluntary in the sense that it is not necessary to obtain their certification in order to produce or sell seed. Companies buying crops for processing into foodstuffs may mandate in their contracts that only certified or foundation seed of a variety be planted for their use; however, these are not covered by any statute or regulation. Additionally, very little certified maize seed is grown in the U.S. for processing. Most of what is grown as 'certified' is meant for export. In no instance is the scrutiny accorded GE (genetically engineered) crops approached by non-GE voluntary oversight in terms of safety assessment (i.e., toxicity or environmental impact). All crop varieties, regardless of the genetic techniques used to produce them, receive a great deal of review and analysis to meet the demands of producers and consumers. APBI304  02 Safety assessment of genetically modified foods Food Standard Australia New Zealand has established a rigorous and transparent process for assessing the safety of GM foods. The safety assessment is undertaken in accordance with internationally established scientific principles and guidelines developed through the work of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, World Health Organization (WHO) and the codex Alimentarius Commission. APBI304  02 Safety assessment of genetically modified foods How does ensure GM foods are safe? The safety assessment of a GM food is conducted within the established risk assessment framework used by FSANZ. In the case of GM food, the primary purpose is: (i) to identify new or altered hazards associated with the food as a result of the genetic modification (ii) to assess whether there is any risk associated with any identified hazards under the intended conditions of use (iii) to determine if any new conditions of use are needed to enable safe use of the food. APBI304  02 Safety assessment of genetically modified foods The safety assessment is characterized by: Case-by-case consideration of GM foods Case-by-case assessment is necessary because the key issues requiring consideration in a safety assessment will often depend on the type of food being evaluated and the nature of the genetic modification. Consideration of both the intended and unintended effects of the genetic modification In addition to the intended effect (e.g., a new trait, such as insect protection), there may also be other effects associated with the genetic modification that were unintended (e.g., compositional changes to the food) and which may impact on the health and safety of the population. Therefore, it is important that both the intended and any unintended effects are evaluated. Comparisons with conventional foods having an acceptable standard of safety. Such a comparative approach focuses on: (i) the identification of similarities and differences between the GM food and an appropriate comparator; and (ii) a characterisation of any of the identified differences in order to determine if they may raise potential safety and nutritional issues. APBI304  02 Safety assessment of genetically modified foods The goal of the safety assessment is not to establish the absolute safety of the GM food but rather to consider whether the GM food is comparable to the conventional counterpart food, i.e., that the GM food has all the benefits and risks normally associated with the conventional food. APBI304  02 Case Study Bt maize has revolutionized pest control, and many farmers have benefited, but some people remain skeptical of this new technology. APBI304 Hellmich, R. L. & Hellmich, K. A. (2012) Use and Impact of Bt Maize. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):4  02 Maize, Zea mays (corn), are challenged with a number of pests, but the most important are lepidopteran larvae (i.e., caterpillars) that are stalk borers, ear or leaf feeders, and coleopteran larvae (i.e., beetle grubs) that feed on roots. maize that was genetically engineered to produce a protein that is toxic to certain insects. A gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which produces the toxin, was modified and added to the corn. Bayer Agriculture BV produced insect protected genetically modified maize MON 810, for food and feed uses (including pollen). The Bt-maize considered in this case study is referred to as MON810. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8489 APBI304  02 MON810 was subject to regulation primarily by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide Bt Corn and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, (FFDCA). Naturally-occurring pesticide gene occurring in and by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) under the Federal Plant Pest Act (FPPA) issued an Experimental Use Permit for field testing MON810; and it later registered MON810 for commercial sale and use subject to a time limit and specified conditions (which subsequently have been strengthened) and exempted the pesticidal portion from the requirement of having a Non-Bt Corn Bt Cornresidue limit (tolerance) in food. APBI304  02 The Monsanto Company has developed a genetically modified line of field corn (also referred to as "maize") that produces a protein throughout the corn plant that is toxic to certain insect species. The resulting plant line is identified commercially as "MON810," and the crop is one of several transgenic corn varieties generally referred to as Bt-corn or Bt-maize. The substance produced through the genetic alteration is identified as dendotoxin or the Cry lAb protein. MON810 Bt-maize was developed for control of various insect pest species that cause serious pest problems in corn: corn earworm (CEW), European corn borer (ECB) and Southwestern corn borer (SWCB). Monsanto’s petition to APHIS only claimed that MON810 was developed for control of ECB. These insect species feed on corn causing plant damage that ultimately results in decreased quality and quantity of yields. During field testing of plants of corn line MONS10, ECB infestations were significantly reduced as compared to non- transgenic control plants. Hellmich, R. L. & Hellmich, K. A. (2012) Use and Impact of Bt Maize. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):4 APBI304  02 The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, an evaluation of the literature retrieved by a scoping review, additional studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant and updated bioinformatics analyses. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize MON 810 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in dossier GMFF-2022-9450 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 810. APBI304  02 Why is Bt Maize Not Accepted by Some People? Detractors of Bt maize suggest several challenges, including: ✓ The potential for effects on non-target organisms and ✓ gene flow between Bt maize and non-Bt maize, ✓ insect resistance to Bt ✓ Compatibility with Other Control Methods APBI304  02 Marketing APBI304  Main Questions 02 1. Does the labeling policy (absence-focused vs. presence-focused) affect a consumer’s choice of GM products? 2. Does the labeling policy (absence-focused vs. presence-focused) affect other aspects of the consumer’s choice process, such as their price sensitivity and willingness to shop in a category? 3. Is the consumer’s choice impacted according to whether the GMO related information disclosure is complete (presence-focused and absence-focused) or partial (presence focused or absence-focused)? Complete GMO information disclosure occurs when policy makers mandate presence-focused labeling and firms that produce non-GM products display an absence focused label. Partial disclosure occurs when either presence or absence labels are present. 4. Do consumers behave differently depending on the GM label’s presentation format (e.g., color, theme)? Which consumers are most likely to alter choices because of the label format? APBI304  02 GMO labels create vertical differentiation for many consumers by signaling that non-GM products are better than GM products. They draw attention away from factors such as price—making it less important—and allow rms to charge a premium for non-GM products. Even a voluntary GMO labeling policy deserves regulatory scrutiny because it causes a decrease in demand for GM products. In comparison, a mandatory GMO labeling policy shrinks the demand for GM products even more, and the signal contained in the GMO logo (e.g., color) plays a critical role in consumers’ perceptions of GM products. Both voluntary and mandatory policy regimes create incentives for rms to expand their offerings to include more non-GM products for the market segment that prefers such products and is willing to pay more for them. The critical question for policy makers here is whether they wish to promote such consumer and firm behaviors. APBI304 THANK YOU  Case Study 02 APBI304 https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/