1. I. I.Genetic Engineering D. D.Drawbacks Opponents emphasize failures of technology, potential environmental harm “Frankenfood” “Farmageddon” 1. 1.Harm to native species through competition Transgenic organisms could be superior competitors Potential route to extinction for native species 2. 2.Damage to beneficial insects Ex – Evidence that ladybugs and lacewings suffer (shorter lifespan, reduced reproduction) when fed aphids and caterpillars that had fed on GM potatoes and corn, respectively 3. 3.Damage to soil community Certain GM crops could reduce activity of soil fungi and microbes Negative impact on nutrient cycling in the soil 4. 4.Release of resistance genes Could potentially lead to “super weeds” if resistance genes get transferred to weedy species Could harm non-GM agriculture, including organic farming through pollen drift 5. 5.Upset natural balance of ecosystems Could result from release of GMOs or hybridization between GMOs and native species Ex – GM rape can crossbreed with wild turnips, passing herbicide tolerance to offspring Potential solution = “Terminator technology”

3. I. I.Genetic Engineering E. E.Trends 125 GM agricultural plants approved for growth in the U.S. (ISAAA) Most designed to 1) 1)Reduce pest damage 2) 2)Confer resistance to herbicides, pesticides, viruses, other pathogens 3) 3)Reduce crop spoilage

4. Genetically modified crop traits tested in developed countries, 1987–2000

5. I. I.Genetic Engineering E. E.Trends US grows ~48% of GM crops worldwide (acreage basis) 2012: corn 88%, cotton 94%, soy 93% GM Other major growers of GM crops 1) 1)Brazil 2) 2)Argentina 3) 3)India 4) 4)Canada 5) 5)China www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx

11. I. I.Genetic Engineering F. F.Examples 1. 1.Bollgard ® and Bollgard II ® Cotton Both strains express insecticidal protein isolated from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Safe – Farmers can spray with Bt toxin and still label produce as organic Low toxicity to most non-target organism types Low persistence – breaks down readily Bollgard II ® has stacked traits to enhance effectiveness Controls bollworms, budworm Year 2000 – United States averages Cotton fields planted with Bollgard ® sprayed 3.9 times less often vs. conventional fields Reduced total pesticide use by 2.7 million pounds Pest control cost less - $15.43/acre Higher production - 37 pounds/acre Higher profit - $39.86/acre Concern – Development of resistance by insect pests

12. I. I.Genetic Engineering F. F.Examples 2. 2.Golden Rice GM rice containing genes that produce beta-carotene Can be converted to vitamin A Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) may cause weakened immune systems, partial to total blindness, and increased chance of death VAD causes 350,000 cases of blindness and has been linked to 1 million+ deaths each year Highly controversial a. a.Proponents Reduce incidence of blindness and other VAD related health disorders 1/2 lb of rice/day will keep VAD symptoms away b. b.Opponents Nutritional deficiencies will prevent people from absorbing beta-carotene from rice Concentrations of beta-carotene in rice are low, and an average woman would need to eat 16 lbs of golden rice a day to get 100% of daily requirement Alternatives like leafy green vegetables or unpolished rice are better, cheaper sources of vitamin A Western corporations are trying to control rice production

13. I. I.Genetic Engineering F. F.Examples 3. 3.Future GM crops SmartStax TM corn Pest resistant, herbicide tolerant Bt rice Pest resistant High omega-3 soybeans Enhanced nutrition RR Sugarbeets* Herbicide tolerant 2007: <10% of US 2009: 95% of US Blue roses Ornamental

14. I. I.Genetic Engineering G. G.Benefits and Risks 1. 1.Benefits Accelerated improvement of crop strains a. a.Elevated yields, either per plant or per acre Usually involves inserting growth factor Plants grow larger, faster or both Con – Accelerated growth may alter chemical composition  Allergies, digestive problems, etc. b. b.Accelerated maturation process Increased yield per acre, more crops per year Con – Plants produce different compounds at different life stages Young plants tend to produce more irritants and toxins (self defense) Potential to cause digestive or allergic problems

15. I. I.Genetic Engineering G. G.Benefits and Risks 1. 1.Benefits c. c.Increased resistance to disease, pests, toxins Reduced losses  Greater yield Reduced application of chemicals Con – Potential transfer of resistance genes to weedy plant species through pollination Less problematic in areas where crop plants don’t have wild relatives Con – Development of resistance in pests d. d.Increased longevity of harvested produce Resistance to spoilage Ex – Potato engineered with bacterial gene for antifungal properties Helps potatoes to stay in storage without rotting Con – Chemicals that resist decomposition likely to be more difficult to digest

16. I. I.Genetic Engineering G. G.Benefits and Risks 1. 1.Benefits e. e.Increased resistance to cultural extremes Ex – Insertion of Arctic flounder antifreeze protein genes into strawberry Confers greater frost resistance and better fruit storage properties Con – Potential transfer of antifreeze genes to weedy plant species f. f.Increased nutritional value Ex – High starch potato that absorbs less oil when cooking (low fat potato chips) Ex – Canola oil (Laurical ® ) with healthier composition Con – Unknown effects of eating modified foods Ex – Insertion of Brazil nut gene into soybeans to increase protein content Many people allergic to Brazil nuts

17. I. I.Genetic Engineering G. G.Benefits and Risks 1. 1.Benefits g. g.Reduced dependence on chemical fertilizers More efficient growth  lower use of fertilizer American farmers spend >$12 billion a year on chemical fertilizers 50% or more of fertilizer applied to crops is not absorbed and enters runoff  water pollution Con – Transfer of genes for greater growth efficiency to weeds could be disastrous Con – Substitution of dependence on big western agribusiness

18. I. I.Genetic Engineering G. G.Benefits and Risks 2. 2.Risks a. a.Unexpected effects May or may not be beneficial Ex – Klebsiella planticola (soil bacterium) engineered to transform plant residue into ethyl alcohol (fuel) GM strain in soils produced EtOH, leading to poisoning of grasses and decrease in populations of beneficial mycorrhizal fungi Ex – Pseudomonas putida (bacterium) engineered to degrade 2,4-D (herbicide) Breakdown products highly toxic to fungi, including mycorrhizae Ex – Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin may bind to soil particles, slowing degradation and maintaining toxicity for longer than expected