Text and Photos by Henrylito D. Tacio
This is good news for scientists but bad news to people who are against bio-engineered foods.
Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States approved two varieties of apples and six varieties of potatoes for commercialization. In approving the genetically engineered foods, the federal agency said in an announcement that, after a thorough evaluation, they are “as safe and nutritious as their conventional counterparts.”
The only change made to potatoes is that they won’t bruise. Scientists had lowered enzymes in the apples so they do not brown. These were possible through biotechnology, which encompasses an array of tools and applications that allow scientists to manipulate the genetic material of plants and also of animals and microbes. The methods used can modify the characteristics passed from one generation to the next.
The Boise, Idaho-based J. R. Simplot Company, which conducted the studies on potatoes, calls the produce as Innate. “It could be years before the average customer is able to buy one of the potatoes,” said a news report released by Associated Press.
“The company has about 160 hectares of Innate potatoes in storage from the 2014 harvest that it plans to deliver to growers, packers and shippers to be sent to a tightly-controlled network for use in small-scale test markets,” the report added.
One good thing about the Innate potatoes is that they will have 70 percent less acrylamide, a chemical that can be created when potatoes are cooked at high temperatures.
In a new research conducted by economist Wallace Hoffman from Iowa State University (ISU), he found that consumers are willing to spend more for bioengineered potato products with reduced levels of the chemical acrylamide, which has been to be carcinogenic in rodents.
The Canadian company Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc., based in British Columbia, is trying to make apples a more convenient snack with its non-browning version. According to the company, the bagged Arctic apples — as they are called — wouldn’t have to be washed in antioxidants like they are now, a process that can affect taste, the AP report said.
“Biotechnology represents one of the most exciting advances in the biological sciences in this century,” said an official of the United Nations Environment Program. “It will become a driving economic force in the coming years, helping to provide practical solutions to global problems of food supply, health care, energy waste treatment, and industrial regeneration.”
Biotechnology has existed since ancient times. Spirulina, one of the oldest forms of life on earth, is believed to be what the ancient Israelites of the Old Testament called “manna from heaven.”
Biotechnology also includes biological processes used in the food industry. Some of these have been used for centuries, like yeasts to help bread rise and convert sugar into alcohol in brewing, and bacteria to digest sugars and add flavour in cheese making. All these techniques use naturally-occurring organisms.
In 1973, geneticist Stanley Cohen and biochemist Herbert Boyer, both Americans, removed a specific gene (a piece of the genetic material that determine the inheritance of a particular characteristics, or group of characteristics) from one bacterium and inserted it into another using restriction enzymes.
This event marked the beginning of recombinant DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) technology, commonly known as genetic engineering. Also known as genetic modification or bioengineering, it is the alteration of an organism’s genetic, or hereditary, material to eliminate undesirable characteristics or to produce desirable new ones.
Dr. Antonio Alfonso, a plant breeder at the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) and the Crops Biotechnology Center director, said genetic engineering is employed because of the following reasons: the trait is not present in the germplasm of the plant; the trait is very difficult to incorporate using conventional breeding methods; and it would take a very long time to introduce and/or improve such trait in the crop through conventional breeding.
In time, functional foods came into existence. Actually, they are “foods or dietary components that claim to provide health benefits aside from basic nutrition,” notes the briefing paper published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). “These foods contain biologically active substances such as antioxidants that may lower the risks from certain diseases associated with aging.”
Apples and potatoes are just two examples of functional foods. Other functional foods include fruits (banana, grapes, and citrus, among others), vegetables (broccoli, tomato, and garlic, to name some), whole grains, soy, milk, enhanced foods and beverages, and some dietary supplements.
“Of course, all foods are functional because they provide varying amounts of nutrients and energy to sustain growth or support vital processes,” notes Dr. Jennifer K. Nelson, of the Mayo Clinic. “However, functional foods are generally considered to offer additional benefits that may reduce the risk of disease or promote optimal health.”
But like other technologies, biotechnology has some pitfalls. “There is much euphoria about developments in biotechnology and about the benefits they promise to bring to society,” UNEP warned. “But there are also risks and dangers associated with this technology.”
“I believe that this kind of genetic modification takes mankind into realms that belong to God, and to God alone,” deplored Philip Arthur George Charles – more popularly known as Prince Charles – in 1998.
In the Philippines, seven of 10 farmers are landless, renting fields from landlords or working for large corporations. Some groups argue genetically modified crops will give the companies that sell seeds and farm chemicals even greater power.
“Big landlords and transnational corporations will call all the shots,” said a consultant for the Peasant Movement of Philippines. “In the case of small farmers, it means going deeper and deeper into debt.”
There is also the issue of health. Critics said some of the most adverse effects of eating genetically modified crops are seen in the rise of allergic reactions, resistance to antibiotics, and susceptibility to cancer and other diseases.
But the big question is: Are bioengineered foods safe for human consumption? “Foods produced using genetic modification is as safe as foods produced using conventional breeding techniques,” assures FDA. “Genetically modified foods are as safe as other foods available on the market.”
The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) declared that different genetically-modified (GM) foods go through the global food safety process called Codex Alimentarius Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology under which these foods are not found to be risky to human health.
“GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health,” said the UN health agency in a statement.
0 Comments
Oldest