Feed the world - with golden rice?

Around 250 million schoolchildren were deficient in Vitamin A in 2012 (Tang et al., 2009). A lack of vitamin A can cause impaired vision and growth, a weaker immune system, more common and severe respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses and many other health problems (Vijayaraghavan, 2000). It is particularly common amongst poor communities whose diet consists mainly of rice, which does not contain provitamin A. If we can develop a way to distribute Vitamin A more widely then it could be possible to make a difference to global ill health and malnutrition. This is especially important as we do not know what changes to the environment and therefore available food sources will occur as a result of climate change in the future.

Supplements have been produced before to combat this widespread Vitamin A deficiency, but they are expensive to produce and distribute. Staple foods have been genetically engineered to include the Vitamin A carotenoid, which is a way of distributing supplements in food which will be consumed as normal. Some argue, however, that this will not be enough to address all health issues associated with Vitamin A deficiency (Zimmermann et al., 2004).

Normal rices vs Golden Rice. Source. 

'Golden Rice' is rice which is enhanced with provitamin A, and there are mixed opinions concerning its efficiency.  A 2009 study found that around 50g of Golden Rice per day in developing countries which are reliant on rice would be enough to provide 90-100% of the daily Vitamin A that a child aged 4-8 would need, and could therefore help to combat this widespread Vitamin A deficiency in children (Tang et al., 2009). Other studies, such as Anderson et al., 2005, found that the welfare benefits and poverty reduction potential of this new strain of vitamin rich rice could even exceed the increased productivity benefits associated with genetically modified crops. Greenpeace published a document in 2013 highlighting their concerns over the potential contamination of regular rice, the unforeseen risks which may occur and the risks to food security and human health. They also commented on how some strains of Golden Rice are very inefficient, and therefore would require large amounts of rice to be consumed on a daily basis in order to receive the vitamin A benefits.

As with other genetically modified organisms, there are still concerns over the health impacts and the potential for wider unforeseen environmental impacts. Some say that the usefulness of 'Golden Rice' is being exaggerated as a way of increasing public acceptance of GMOs in general, rather than addressing the issue of malnutrition - that it is just 'a smokescreen to promote the biotech industry' (Scott, 2000:37). However, the study included a note on safety, stating that no adverse reactions to the product were observed. They did also note that participants only consumed one serving, and that longer exposure would be needed to make 'definitive assertions regarding the inherent safety of this food for human use' (Tang et al, 2009: 1782).

Research is still ongoing into the potential uses, benefits and issues associated with 'Golden Rice'. Extensive studies need to be done on the health impacts resulting from long term consumption, and further study is needed concerning the effectiveness of the product in providing the necessary provitamin A to help relieve widespread malnutrition and vitamin A deficiency.

News: GM salmon just approved for food by US

After 18 years of research and testing, the US has just approved the production and sale of GM salmon for food, following extensive studies on its safety for human consumption. This is a big step forward in terms of the wider perceptions of GM produce, but it will be interesting to see what the public response is as many are still against the idea of GM seafood. 

"It's the first genetically engineered animal for food that's been approved anywhere in the world" Professor Helen Sang, Roslin Institute at the University of Edinburgh.

What is GM salmon?

Scientists transplanted a growth hormone from a Pacific Chinook Salmon into an Atlantic Salmon to create the transgenic salmon known as the AquAdvantage Salmon.

This means that they reach marketable size in around 18 months, not 3 years, they can be produced all year and they consume feed more efficiently. This means they need less food which could help take pressure off wild stocks, as a large amount of wild fish is used to create food for farmed fish.

GM salmon pictured behind regular salmon. Source.

The fish will not be bred in the US, only Canada and Panama, will be grown in tanks to prevent escape and will be sterile to prevent cross-breeding with wild species. There are still some concerns over the wider impacts of GMOs in the environment. 

The Chief Executive of AquaBounty, the biotech company behind the AquAdvantage Salmon, stated that it is "a game-changer that brings healthy and nutritious food to consumers in an environmentally responsible manner without damaging the ocean and other marine habitats".

However, some remain opposed to the approval and marketing of GM salmon, highlighting how the consumer demand for such a product will not be there, and that we need more research into the wider health and ecological impacts. There is also currently no requirement for products which contain GM salmon to be labelled as such, therefore consumers will find it difficult to choose, however the FDA are working on draft guidance for the labelling of GM produce at the moment. 

It may take some years before AquAdvantage salmon is  fully integrated into the seafood consumer supply chain, and it will be interesting to see whether other countries follow suit now that the US has taken this unprecedented step forward. Furthermore, if GM salmon is to be used to help feed a growing population, access to it and widespread distribution will be key to providing those who need it with a source of protein. 

If GM isn't the way forward, maybe vegetarianism is...

I read a really interesting article in Newsweek at the end of October which tackled the question of how we are going to feed more than 9 billion people in the future. The population is predicted to rise to 9.6 billion people by 2050, and this makes the problem even more time-sensitive. The article explored a few different ways which we might be able to increase crop yield to feed our expanding population, such as greenhouses, reducing excessive edible food wastage and improving  the efficiency of agricultural technology (Isaccson, 2015).

Source

The bit which jumped out at me was the section on GM organisms, and whether they could help fill this production gap. I found it interesting how much produce is dictated by consumer demand, and  how this has fluctuated between a demand for and against GMO products. 

Bourne, an agronomist and journalist who is interviewed in the article,  doesn't feel that GMOs will help feed 9.6 billion people as the increased yields using GMOs such as insect and herbicide resistant crops since 2000 have not been substantial enough.

He points out that there is an exception, C4 rice, a strain of rice which is engineered to have a 50% greater yield than normal, C3, rice.  However, it is not widely used, and experts think that it may actually take 20-25 years to come into practice. The question is whether we have that long to develop solutions, or whether we must start now. 

Bourne highlights an interesting alternative solution to the impending food crisis: vegetarianism. Statistics used in the article from the FAO show how we are actually using 1/3 of the available cropland to make food available for animals, and then another 26% of ice-free land mass to raise those animals. I wonder how much more food we could grow if we reduced our meat consumption and made this space available for crops, not to mention the benefits it would have in terms of reducing methane emissions?

The role of GM in mitigating the impacts of Climate Change

It is clear that the changing climate is already affecting food security, and will continue to do so as the population increases and agriculture continues to be affected by fluctuating temperatures, rainfall patterns and more extreme climatic events (FAO, 2008).

Public and scientific opinion is currently divided on the matter of whether genetic modification will have a role to play in mitigating these impacts and securing food supply for the future. A brief overview of a few viewpoints are detailed below.

GM organisms can help us out

Studies exist concerning the ability to enhance certain aspects of crops, such as making them resistant to drought and certain pests and diseases which means that higher and more reliable yields can be grown where they are required to support expanding populations (Finger et al., 2011). As a result GMOs are becoming increasingly important in securing access to food for the population(Borlaug, 2007). Pest resistant crops can also reduce the amount of weeding required which is often carried out by the women, thereby freeing up time for other income-generating activities which can lead to further economic development (Finger et al., 2011).

Some feel that 'excluding technological options that raise productivity will do more harm than good' (Juma et al., 2013:472). Juma further supports their argument by indicating that a GM crop does not have to be edible in order to help enhance food security, and that cash crops such as GM cotton can provide a more reliable yield in changing environmental conditions. This therefore means that the farmers have more income with which to purchase more nutritional food. However, I feel that this is clearly only a partial solution to the problem, as more food will still need to be grown overall to meet increasing demand, and extra income from GM cotton will only increase access to food which is currently able to be produced elsewhere. 

GM organisms pose a risk and should be avoided

The negative effects and concerns about GM are well documented, and some argue that evidence of the above benefits of GMOs is lacking (Shiva et al., n.d.)

The impact that genes which escape may have on the wider environment, leading to hybridisation of wild and genetically engineered species is relatively unknown. If such a hybrid species were to be discovered it would require very careful monitoring (Dale et al., 2002).

There are concerns that breeding disease or pest resistant crops has actually lead to the development of weeds which are resistant to the chemicals needed to control them, and outbreaks can be hugely damaging to yields and become very expensive to control (Vencill et al., 2012).

Uncertainty in the field

An important factor to bear in mind when considering the potential role of GM is the uncertainty behind some of the predictions. Von der Lippe and Kowarik, 2007 explore the idea of the uncertainty we have regarding the impact of GMOs on the wider environment, noting that there is potential for containment issues at various points along the supply chain, and that if GM individuals were to mix with wild individuals in an uncontrolled environment it may lead to an unforeseen 'feral' population. This uncertainty complicates decision-making concerning GM crops.

Due to this uncertainty, several studies call for further study of the health and environmental impacts of genetically modified organisms, and seek further validation of whether they really will help us meet the our growing targets for food security. Several authors who feel that GM crops have a role to play and should be utilised also warn of the dangers of over reliance on them, and point out that they will not be able to solve food security issues alone. If they are to be used they should form part of a wider toolkit to help solve the problem (Ryan, 2002; Juma et al., 2013; Qaim, 2013).

Source

Climate Change and food security - what's the link?

"All aspects of food security are potentially affected by Climate Change including food access, utilisation and price stability" (IPCC, 2014:488)

Here's a list of what the FAO considered to be the impacts of Climate Change on agriculture. 

1. "The Carbon Dioxide fertilisation effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
2. Increasing mean, maximum and minimum temperatures.
3. Gradual changes in precipitation - increase in frequency, duration and intensity of dry spells and droughts. Also changes in the timing, duration, intensity and geographic location of rain and snowfall.
4. Increase in the frequency and intensity of storms and floods.
5. Greater seasonal weather variability and changes in start/end of growing seasons."(FAO, 2008:12).

Here's what the IPCC think.

1. Increased average temperatures
2. Changes to rainfall pattern
3. Climate extremes (heatwaves)
4. Changes in pests/diseases
5. Changes in atmospheric CO2
6. Changes in sea level.

Some reports have more positive attitudes than others. The FAO Climate Change and Food Security Framework Document notes that climate change could cause increased production in temperate climates which could potentially offset lower yields occurring in tropical climates.

Gregory et al. discuss why the impacts of Climate Change on food security will vary on a global scale. The diagram below best explains this, but it indicates that food systems are affected by "different socio-economic and bio-physical factors" (p2139). This means that factors such as economic status, level of dependence on a resource and how often a country is exposed to environmental changes will influence its ability to recover from more severe climate changes, and this will exacerbate or mitigate the impact of the event on food security.

Factors affecting food security - from Ingram et al., 2005 in Gregory et al., 2005

My main interest is fisheries resource management and it is interesting to consider what impact the changing climate is going to have on marine resources. Fish stocks are already heavily exploited as humans have decimated the stocks through over harvesting. Climate Change is another challenge that the already weakened ocean now has to face, on top of ocean acidification, plastic pollution,invasive species and destruction of habitats, to name just a few.  The population size and distribution of fish stocks is already changing, as well as their resilience to the other issues mentioned before. This will also further affect the livelihoods and wellbeing of those in areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa where people depend on fish as their primary source of income and/or protein, as it will become increasingly difficult to predict the temporal and spatial distribution of the fish stocks that they rely on. 

The population prediction table below, from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs indicates that world population growth shows no signs of slowing down. It is therefore crucial that we find a way to mitigate against the impacts of Climate Change on food security, so that we are able to provide for this vast global population in the future.

What is Genetic Modification?

It seems a good idea to quickly define what GM is and how it came about, before going on to talk about how it fits into the Climate Change debate in future posts.

So.

What is GM?

My go-to dictionary is the Oxford Dictionary of Environment and Conservation (Park, 2010). Here GM is described under 'Genetic Engineering' as:

"The selective, deliberate alteration of the genetic makeup (DNA) of an organism by removing, modifying, or adding genes to a chromosome in order to change the information it contains, which enables cells or organisms to make new or different substances (proteins) or perform new functions." (Park, 2010).

As definitions sometimes vary amongst authors in a field, I also went to the World Health Organisation (WHO) for another definition:

"Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” 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" (WHO,www).

Key people and dates

Gregor Mendel - 1865 - "the father of modern genetics" - developed the concept of selective cross-breeding to produce hybrids

Watson and Crick - 1953 - put forward the Double Helix structure of DNA

Cohen and Boyer - 1973 - DNA cloning technique developed

Cohen, Chang and Boyer - 1974 - creation of first GMO (Genetically Modified Organism)

1980+ - introduction of transgenics (DNA from more a foreign animal)

Late 1980s - first GM crop (tomatoes) on sale in China

1995 - first GM potato crop approved safe for commercial use in America (Bt potato, approved by EPA)

1995 - birth of Dolly the Sheep,  first cloned animal born

1997 - GMO-related food safety regulations enforced. Produce must pass before going on sale.

1998 - first GM labelling obligation rules enforced to make it clear and give consumers a choice

Source

Wider impacts of GM?

Source: Robert Ariail

I found this to be an amusing representation of the potential wider environmental fears associated with Genetic Modification. From the cartoon, it seems that the bear has eaten the genetically modified salmon, resulting in unforeseen changes in the bear's genetic makeup by giving it the ability to jump streams like a fish. Clearly the cartoonist is being humorous, but it indicates that some consider GM to be dangerous on the grounds that we cannot be sure of its wider impacts across ecosystems in the future.