1. Great Zimbabwe University Agriculture Research Council
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO): Are our fears justified?
Public Lecture
Great Zimbabwe University
18 October 2011
Evelyn Garwe
Agriculture Research Council

2. Questions addressed
What are GMOs?
What are their benefits
What are their negative effects to mankind and the environment?
What should we believe?

3. Initial analysis
In general, public opinion concerning GMOs is extremely negative and blown out of proportion from the actual effects.
Further, public opinion towards GMOs differs across geographical and cultural boundaries

4. Some facts
GMOs have been widely cultivated since 1997, currently over 60 million Ha are grown worldwide.
No adverse effects on human health have been scientifically recorded in commercialised GM foods, although there have been unconfirmed reports from various sources.

5. BACKGROUND
Food and feed are derived from plants and animals grown and bred for several thousand years
Over time these plants and animals have undergone genetic changes, those with the most desirable xristics were selected for breeding the next generation
Scientific advancement has now made it possible to modify genetic material using modern gene transfer technologies

6. BACKGROUND CONT’D
Genes which cause expression of desirable traits are selected from one org (bacteria, plant or animal) & transferred into another, to alter its genetic material (DNA) & produce desirable Xristics
All orgs modified in such a way are called GMOs
The food/feed which contains/consists such GMOs or are produced from GMOs is called GM food/feed
Orgs to which foreign genes are introduced by genetic methods are referred to as transgenic

7. RECAP What are GMOs & GM foods?
GMOs are orgs in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called “modern biotech” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species.
GM foods originate from GMOs (transgenic orgs)

8. GM vs. Selective breeding
Traditional methods GM
slow
very fast
imprecise
precise
modification of genes that naturally occur in the organism
can introduce genes into an organism that would not occur naturally!

9. Categories of GM food
Transgenic plant food product e.g. GMO tomato which has strong preservability
Transgenic animal food product e.g. transgenic pork from fast growing pigs – high quality
Transgenic MO food product e.g. cheese -renin produced outside calf body thus avoiding mass killing of calves and reducing cost
Special transgenic food product e.g. greens & fruits containing edible vaccines against diseases e.g. cholera. Enjoy fruit/veg & prevent disease

10. Social/Environmental Impact Benefits
Easing of World Hunger
Devpt of crops that can be grown in marginal soil
Fast growing animals
Reduced strain on non renewable resources
Devpt of drought resistant crops
Salt tolerant crops
Crops that make more efficient use of nitrogen & other nutrients
Reduced use of pesticides and herbicides
Devpt of pest resistant crops
Reduced herbicide use is better for the environment & reduces costs for farmers
Results in significant increase in crop yields

11. Benefits Improved crop quality Improved nutritional quality
Frost resistant crops
Disease resistant crops
Flood resistant crops
Improved nutritional quality
Foods designed to meet specific nutritional goals e.g. leaner meat, added vitamins/minerals e.g. reduce # of children at risk for Vitamin-A-deficiency-induced blindness (i.e. Golden Rice)
In the face of global warming and climate change, only the more robust crops will manage to survive and thrive.

12. Benefits Crops Animals Enhanced taste and quality
Reduced maturation time
Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
New products and growing techniques
Animals
Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
Improved animal health and diagnostic methods

13. Benefits Environment Society
"Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
Conservation of soil, water, and energy
Bioprocessing for forestry products
Better natural waste management
More efficient processing
Society
Increased food security for growing populations

14. Potential Risks Environmental harm
Effects on non-target spp (e.g. Monarch butterfly)
Inevitable out-crossing of transgenic plants with naturally occurring ones leading to creation of super-weeds creating potential future need for even greater pesticide use
Irreversible disruption of the Earth’s biosphere
Monoculture problem - loss of flora and fauna biodiversity

15. Potential Risks Economic/Political
Consolidation of control over food production (Monsanto’s “terminator seed”)
Threat to organic farmers
What does the lax regulation process imply for future technologies?

16. Potential Risks Health Safety Negative change in Nutritional Content
Allergenic potential: the splicing of different types of plants could cause allergies (ex: peanut) to spread among many food types
Possible Illness
antibiotic resistance: the genes that are added to the crops to resist insects can cause resistance to common antibiotics, including penicillin and ampicillin
Creation of biological weapons.

17. Potential Risks Personal/Axiological Impacts
Personal appreciation/understanding (Will this change the way we think about food?)
Religious/Moral Issues
Lack of authority in our lives/individual choice
Access and Intellectual Property/Society
Domination of world food production by a few companies and developing countries.

18. Potential Risks Ethics Labeling
“Playing God” - Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Labeling
Not mandatory in some countries
Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts

19. Undefined Risks?
GM foods are for profit According to its opponents, GM foods were created for profit and nothing else. They believe that these multinational giants e.g. Monsanto, a pioneer in GM research are unlikely in the GM business for purely noble reasons. 
DNA is actually not well understood. 97% of human DNA is called ‘junk’ because scientists do not know its function. The workings of a single cell are so complex, no one knows the whole of it.
Other unknown effects

20. Analysis of fears versus real facts
Consumer fears
Real impact
Chemical interaction with living things
Very small, but targeting a pest with any method, biological or chemical, without side effect is possible cause of problem. (Dale et al. 2002)
Change in persistence or invasiveness of the crop
Small with current case-by-case assessment of GM crops, with relevant underpinning research. (Dale et al. 2002)
Gene flow by pollination to weeds and feral plants
Some possible modifications in GM crops, such as salt tolerance or cold tolerance, actually produce novel crop types whose impact on the environment will need to be assessed with particular care. (Dale et al. 2002)

21. Analysis of fears versus real facts
Consumer fears
Real impact
Reduced efficiency of pest, disease, & weed control
Smaller risk than with the use chemical control. (Dale et al. 2002)
Effect on wildlife biodiversity
Risk not higher than with conventional agric. (Dale et al. 2002)
Effect on soil & water by the increased use of herbicides due to GM herbicide tolerant crops
Decrease in herbicide use in the US after the introduction of GM soybean. (Dale et al. 2002)
Introduction of allergenes
Negligible with current methods

22. Which way do we go?
The risks vs benefits of GM food are not an easy issue to settle.
There is definitely an urgent need for increasing food production & GM foods seem to be in the best position to address this need. In the short-term, GM foods are probably the solution to food shortage.
Currently, there is not enough scientific evidence to support the possible risks of GM foods. However, like in most things new and innovative, the long-term benefits and adverse effects can only be speculated upon. Even the best computer models can only make guesses. Does that mean we should adapt a “wait-and-see” stance? This, however, is also a dangerous position to take because some effects are only seen and detected when irreversible damage has already been done.
Responsibility should be on the scientists, the health authorities, and the industries to act responsibly and to be as transparent as possible.