i

INFLUENCE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY ON FOOD SUFFICIENCY

SUMMARY

Food security is a necessity for every individual, home, community and

nation. In developing countries, food security could be substantially
improved by increased investment and policy reforms. Biotechnology’s
ability to eliminate malnutrition and hunger through production of crops
resistant to pests and diseases, having longer shelf-lives, refined
textures and flavours, higher yields per units of land and time, tolerant to
adverse weather and soil conditions, and generate employment, cannot
be over-emphasized. This technology can be applied to improve
agriculture in order to improve food production for the human population
in an environmentally sustainable manner. However, there is need for
government and public-private collaborations to invest in agricultural
biotechnology-based companies, researches, or initiatives, in order to
make the gene revolution beneficial to developing countries. Genetically
Modified (GM) plants are rapidly entering the food system in the world.
These modifications, which are intended to enhance plant productivity
and product quality, make use of genetic engineering.
 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication - - - - - - - - i

Certification - - - - - - - - ii

Acknowledgement - - - - - - - iii

Summary - - - - - - - - iv

Table of contents - - - - - - - v

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Introductions - - - - - - - 1

CHAPTER TWO

2.1 Historical background - - - - - 5

2.2 Biotechnology and food production- - - - 7

2.2.1 The gene revolution - - - - - - 8

2.2.2.Genetically modified (GM) crops - - - - 11

2.3 Advantages and potential benefits of genetic modification 14

2.4. Potential risks and concerns regarding

genetic engineering - - - - - - 16

2.4.1.Human health concern - - - - - 16

2.4.2. Environmental issues - - - - - 18

2.4.3.Herbicide resistance - - - - - 18

2.4.4.Insect resistance - - - - - - 19

2.4.5.Safety and regulation of GM foods - - - 21

 iii

2.4.6.Substantial equivalence - - - - - 21

2.4.7.The precautionary principle - - - - - 22

CHAPTER THREE

3.1 Causes of food insecurity - - - - - 24

3.1.1 Population growth and Urbanization - - 24

3.1.2 Poverty - - - - - - - - 25

3.1.3 Health - - - - - - - - 26

3.1.4.Outdated farming system - - - - - 28

3.1.5.Politics - - - - - - - - 28

3.2. Combating food insecurity - - - - - 29

3.3. Adapting biotechnology for increased crop production 32

3.4. Prespectives - -- - - - - - 35

CHAPTER FOUR

4.1 Conclusion - - - - - - - 40

REFERENCE
 1

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Introduction

Food biotechnology is defined as the application of technology

perspective. Biological techniques to food crops, animals and

microorganisms with the aim of improving the attributes, quantity, safety,

ease of processing and production. Both yield and food or feed since

agriculture was first practiced [Mohammad and Habibi, 2006]. The

quality have been improved since the transition from most recent

application of biotechnology to food is hunter-gatherer societies to

farming societies where Genetic Modification (GM), also known as

genetic farmers selected and collected seed from the best

engineering, genetic manipulation and gene technology plants in their

fields.. Agricultural GMOs have population over the same time period. To

create such increasingly been the subject of controversy in scientific

plant varieties, plant breeders have until recently crossed and public

discussion. International consensus has plants with interesting

characteristics (yield, quality...) been reached on the principles regarding

evaluation of the and examined the progeny for plants which combined

food safety of genetically modified organisms. Unbiased as many

favorable characteristics as possible from the information will be given in

this review considering the benefits and risks of GMOs from food

Science and technology perspective.

 2

The increasing world population has led to increased demand for

food and reduced per capita availability of arable land and irrigation

water. Compounding this problem is the fact that most farmers in the

developing world own only small plots of land that have the potential to

feed one family and generate income. Low soil fertility and crop losses

from pests and droughts have reduced harvests to below subsistence

levels (Vasil, 1998; Conway and Toenniessen, 2003). This situation has,

undeniably, led to serious food insecurity. Availability of food, access to

food, and risks related to either availability or access are the essential

determinants of food security (von Braun et al., 1992). National food

security implies that within a country the amount of food available, if

evenly distributed, is enough to meet people's food needs. At the

household level, “a household is food secure when it has access to the

food needed for a healthy life for all its members (adequate in terms of

quality, quantity, safety, and culturally acceptable), and when it is not at

undue risk of losing such access” (UN ACC/SCN, 1991). Both rural and

urban poor people suffer from food insecurity and poor nutrition, caused

in large measure by poverty and lack of nutritional balance in the diet

they can afford. About 1.2 billion people, or one of every five humans,

live in a state of absolute poverty, on the equivalent of US$1/day or less

(World Bank, 1999). About 800 million people are food insecure (FAO,

1999), and 160 million preschool children suffer from energy protein
 3

malnutrition, which results in the death of over 5 million children under

the age of five each year (ACC/SCN and IFPRI, 1999). A much larger

number of people suffer from deficiencies of micronutrients such as iron

and vitamin A. For example, 2 billion people (one of every three) are

anaemic, basically as a result of iron deficiency. Food insecurity and

malnutrition result in serious public health problems and loss of human

potential in developing countries (Pinstrup-Andersen and Cohen, 2000).

Because land and water for agriculture are diminishing resources, there

is no option but to produce more food and other agricultural commodities

from less arable land and irrigation water. Thus, the need for more food

has to be met through higher yields per units of land, water, energy and

time. There is need, therefore, to examine how science can be mobilized

to raise further the biological productivity ceiling without associated

ecological harm (Swaminathan, 2000).

Biotechnology may help achieve the productivity gains needed to

feed a growing global population, introduce resistance to pests and

diseases without costly purchased inputs, heighten crops’ tolerance to

adverse weather and soil conditions, improve the nutritional value of

some foods, and enhance the durability of products during harvesting or

shipping. New crop varieties and biocontrol agents may reduce reliance

on pesticides, thereby reducing farmers’ crop protection costs and

 4

benefiting both the environment and public health (Pinstrup-Andersen

and Cohen, 2000).

 5

CHATER TWO

2.1. Historical background

There are virtually no foods on supermarket shelves that have not

been economics of our food. It thus includes the traditional improved by

plant breeders. Most wild forms of the plants we consume daily are

significantly different from what is currently commercialized. Both yield

and food quality has been improved since the transition from hunter-

gatherer societies to farming societies where farmers selected and

collected seed from the best plants in their fields. Wild lettuce is bitter

and unpalatable, wild tomatoes are not nearly as sweet as current

varieties and most consumers would reject them. The yield of corn

frequently in regulatory documents and in the scientific has almost

doubled in the last 40 years and almost tripled in the last 100 years.

World food production has doubled since 1960 while productivity

(amount of food per hectare) has tripled [3]. This somewhat parallels the

growth in population over the same time period. To create such plant

varieties, plant breeders have until recently crossed plants with

interesting characteristics ( yield, quality...) and examined the progeny

for plants which combined as many favorable characteristics as

possible from the parents. Several such individuals were then tested for

performance under field conditions. Genes transferred by the pollen from

one plant to the other control these favorable characteristics. This

 6

approach relied on chance to generate the right combination of

characteristics and required several years of effort to create a new

variety. Plant breeding has significantly contributed to our current

standard of living. Food products are generally available year-round and

food prices and quality generally meet consumer demands.

Approximately 30 years ago, several research groups discovered that

soil bacteria could transfer genes from bacteria to plant cells. The

bacteria (several species of Agrobacterium) have all the “machinery” for

naturally transferring segments of DNA to a plant. Genetic engineers

take advantage of this capacity of bacteria to transfer genes to introduce

new genes into plant cells. In this way, genetic engineering makes it

possible to introduce foreign genes into plants, eliminating the fertility

barrier that separated most plants from each other and from animals and

microbes. In theory, any segment of DNA from any living cell can be

inserted and the trait for which it codes can be expressed in plant cells

[4]. The first plant product derived from biotechnology to be put on

supermarke shelves was the FlavrSavr tomato (in 1995, developed by

Calgene Co.). This tomato variety was created to satisfy consumer

demand for a flavorful product year round.

 7

2.2. Biotechnology and food production

Scientific innovation and its derivative benefits have had profound

implications to humanity within the last century. The exciting discipline of

biotechnology has drawn the interests of traditional biologists,

biochemists, microbiologists, medical and agricultural scientists into

applying mathematical and engineering models to understanding

biology. Furthermore, several scientists in the exact sciences of

mathematics, physics, and chemistry have begun to use system

approaches to unravel the mystery and complexity of biology. And from

the side, diagnostic, biopharmaceutical, biochemical and agricultural

industries are rapidly drawing from and applying the research results of

biotechnology. Biotechnology is experiencing a revolution like none

before in the life sciences and is affecting every facet of our lives,

fromncrop improvement to commerce, and drugs to sustainable

development (Tonukari et al., 2003; Soetan and Abatan, 2008). This

technology has the potential to address problems not solved by

conventional research. At the same time, biotechnology may speed up

research process and increase research precision. GM crops have been

developed and rapidly disseminated since the early 1990s (Huang et al.,

2002).
 8

At present, there is very little commercial utilization of results from

modern biotechnology research in developing countries. As a result, the

potential contributions of biotechnology to poverty alleviation, enhanced

food security and nutrition in developing countries have received little

attention, beyond blanket statements of support or opposition (Pinstrup-

Andersen and Cohen, 2000).

Biotechnology research could aid the development of drought

tolerance and insect resistant crops, to the benefit of small farmers and

poor consumers. Research on genetic modification to achieve

appropriate weed control can increase farm income and reduce the time

women farmers spend weeding, allowing more time for the child care

that is essential for good nutrition. This technology may also offer cost

effective solution to micronutrient malnutrition such as vitamin A and iron

rich crops (Tonukan, 2010)

2.2.1. The gene revolution

Mendel’s laws of genetics were rediscovered in 1900. Mendel had

published his work on inheritance patterns in pea in 1865, but it took 35

years for others to grasp their significance. Since 1900, there has been

steady progress in our understanding of the genetic makeup of all living

organisms ranging from microbes to man. A major step in human control

over genetic traits was taken in the 1920s when Muller and Stadler
 9

discovered that radiation can induce mutations in animals and plants. In

the 1930s and 1940s, several new methods of chromosome and gene

manipulation were discovered, such as the use of colchicine to achieve a

doubling in chromosome number, commercial exploitation of hybrid

vigour in maize and other crops, use of chemicals such as nitrogen

mustard and ethyl methane sulphonate to induce mutations and

techniques like tissue culture and embryo rescue to get viable hybrids

from distantly related species. The double helix structure of DNA

(deoxyribonucleic acid), the chemical substance of heredity, was

discovered in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick. This triggered

explosive progress in every field of genetics. Just as it took 35 years for

biologists to understand the significance of Mendel’s work, it may take a

couple of decades more to understand fully the benefits and risks

associated with genetically improved foods. It would be prudent to apply

scientific and precautionary principles in areas of human health and

environmental safety. The 1990s have seen dramatic advances in our

understanding of how biological organisms function at the molecular

level, as well as in our ability to analyze, understand, and manipulate

DNA molecules, the biological material from which the genes in all

organisms are made. The entire process has been accelerated by the

Human Genome Project, which has poured substantial resources into

the development of new technologies to work with human genes. The

 10

same technologies are directly applicable to all other organisms,

including plants. Thus, the new scientific discipline of genomics has

arisen, which has contributed to powerful new approaches in agriculture

and medicine, and has helped to promote the biotechnology industry

(Swaminathan, 2000). The quality of food and food plants can be

modified and optimized to meet the nutritional and health needs of at risk

and compromised populations prevalent in most of the developing

countries. High rates of malnutrition, infectious disease as well as diet-

related diseases such as diabetes and hypertension are prevalent in

many developing countries. These are as a result of compromised

immune function, inadequate sources of nutritious and quality foods and

limited access to healthy and suitable foods. Biotechnology and genetic

modification techniques have been proposed and applied for the

improvement of the quality of various food crops. These have typically

been geared towards increasing yields and pest resistance of cash

crops. Furthermore, the application of biotechnology techniques for the

development of functional food plants with higher levels of bioactive

components or increased availability of nutrients would greatly benefit

most populations in developing countries and improve the health and

nutritional status overall (Niba, 2003). In certain areas, biotechnology

and genetic modification techniques are being optimized for the

production and development of healthy foods, and improvement in the

 11

levels and activity of biologically active components in food plants

(phytochemicals). Biotechnology techniques in developing countries

however have mostly been targeted at increasing yields of cash crops.

Food crops or the improvement of food quality and functional foods have

garnered much less attention. Techniques applied in genetic

modification include mutation breeding, improved conventional breeding,

transgenic modifications, DNA insertion, gene transfer and somatic

hybridization (Tonukan, 2010).

2.2.2.Genetically modified (GM) crops

Modern agricultural biotechnology is still in an early phase, and

the focus is overwhelmingly on production in industrial country farms and

for industrial country markets. In 1998, 85% of the land planted with

genetically improved (GI) crops was in just five developed countries

(Australia, Canada, France, Spain, and the United States), with the

United States alone accounting for about 75% of the area. Argentina,

China, Mexico, and South Africa cultivated the remaining 15%, and the

countries other than China include a substantial number of large-scale,

capital-intensive farms that produce primarily for industrial country

markets. Among the crops produced in these four developing countries

are insectresistant cotton and maize, herbicide-resistant soybean, and

tomatoes with a long shelf life. Globally, herbicideresistant soybean,

 12

insect-resistant maize, and genetically improved cotton (containing

insect resistance and/or herbicide tolerance genes) account for 85

percent of all plantings. The unprecedented rapid adoption of transgenic

crops during the initial five-year period (1996 - 2000) when genetically

modified (GM) crops were first adopted, reflects the significant multiple

benefits realized by large and small farmers in industrial and developing

countries that have grown transgenic crops commercially. Between 1996

and 2000, a total of fifteen countries - 10 industrial and 5 developing -

contributed to more than a twenty five fold increase in the global area of

transgenic crops from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 44.2 million

hectares in 2000. The accumulated area of transgenic crops planted in

the five-year period 1996 - 2000 total 125 million hectares, equivalent to

more than 300 million acres. Adoption rates for transgenic crops are

unprecedented and are the highest for any new technology by

agricultural industry standards. High adoption rates reflect growing

satisfaction with products that offer significant benefits ranging from

more convenient and flexible crop management, higher productivity

and/or net returns per hectare, health benefits and a safer environment

through decreased use of conventional pesticides, which collectively

contribute not only to improved weed and insect pest control (attainable

with transgenic herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant Bt crops) but also

benefits of lower input and production costs; genetically modified crops

 13

offer significant economic advantages to farmers compared with

corresponding conventional crops. The severity of weed and insect pests

varies from year to year and hence this will have a direct impact on pest

control costs and the consequent economic advantage (James, 2003).

Despite the on-going debate on GM crops, particularly in countries of the

European Union, millions of large and small farmers in both industrial

and developing countries continue to increase their plantings of GM

crops because of the significant multiple benefits they offer. This high

adoption rate is a strong vote of confidence in GM crops, reflecting

grower’s satisfaction. Many recent studies have confirmed that farmers

planting herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant Bt crops (Bacillus

thuringiens is toxin- or Bt toxin-producing crops) are more efficient in

managing their weed and insect pests. An estimated 3.5 million farmers

grew transgenic crops to health and economic advantages. In coming

years, the number of farmers planting GM crops is expected to grow

substantially and the global area of GM crops is expected to continue to

grow. Global population would exceed 6 billion by 2050, when

approximately 90% of the global population will reside in Asia, Africa and

Latin America. Today, 815 million people in the developing countries

suffer from malnutrition and 1.3 billion are afflicted by poverty.

Transgenic crops, often referred to as GM crops, represent promising

 14

technologies that can make a vital contribution to global food, feed and

fibre security (Tonukan, 2010).

2.3. Advantages and potential benefits of genetic modification

 For the development of improved food materials, GM has the

following advantages over traditional selective breeding

 Allows a much wider selection of traits for improvement: e.g. not

only pest, disease and herbicide resistance achieved to date in

plants but l also potentially drought resistance, improved nutritional

content and improved sensory properties.

 It is faster and lower in cost.

 Desired change can be achieved in very few generations.

 Allows greater precision in selecting characteristics.

 These advantages could, in turn, lead to a number of benefits,

especially in the longer term, for the consumer, industry,

agriculture and the environment.

 Improved agricultural performance (yields) with reduced use of

pesticides.

 Ability to grow crops in previously inhospitable environments (e.g.

via increased ability of plants to grow in conditions of drought,

salinity, extremes of temperature, consequences of global

 15

warming, etc.) leading to improved ability to feed an increasing

world population at a reduced environmental cost.

 Improved sensory attributes of food (e.g. flavor, texture, etc.)

 Improved nutritional attributes, e.g. combating antinutritive and

allergenic factors and increased vitamin A content in rice helping to

prevent blindness in Southeast Asia.

 Improved processing characteristics leading to reduced waste and

lower food costs to the consumer.

GM has huge potential for mankind in medicine, agriculture and

food [2]. In food, the real benefits are not the early instances that have

been appearing so far, but its longer term benefit to the world -and

especially the third world-its potential for contributing to elimination of

hunger and malnutrition. Even today, there are 800 million people in the

third world who regularly do not receive enough food to alleviate hunger,

still less provide adequate nutrition; and this will be greatly worsened as

a result of the world's escalating population over the coming decades. It

is frequently argued by some that there is more than enough food to

feed the world and all that is needed is "fairer distribution" (which so far

mankind has signally failed to achieve)-or a variant of that, "the real

problem is not shortage of food, it is poverty". Whatever may be done by

way of improved yields through conventional methods, attempted

population control and fairer distribution would however, be inadequate

 16

for the future. The important point is not only how to feed the world now

but also addressing and trying to solve the problem of "How mankind

shall feed the world in a few decades when the world's population has

doubled, with most of the increase in the poorest parts of the world?”

Food science cannot by itself solve a problem that has such huge

political and economic dimensions.

2.4. Potential risks and concerns regarding genetic engineering

2.4.1. Human health concern

One question, which remains largely unanswered in the opinion of

many, is whether the new food products pose any threat to human

health.

The ingestion of foreign DNA is an unlikely source of risk, as

we ingest DNA daily as part of our regular diet of plant, animal and

microbial products. In addition to inserting genes, most genetic

manipulations also introduce an antibiotic resistance gene as a “marker,”

to discriminate transformed from un-transformed plants in the course of

experimentation. The ability of transformed plants to resist antibiotics is

useful as un-transformed plants die in the presence of the antibiotic,

thereby simplifying the task of identifying transformed plants The

presence of the proteins conferring antibiotic resistance in the foodstuff

is considered unlikely to affect human therapeutic treatments that use

 17

the corresponding antibiotic since the protein will be inactivated and

digested in the digestive tract. However, more experimentation is

required on a broader range of antibiotics. Although generally regarded

as possible, the transfer of the antibiotic resistance genes from plant

material to gut or soil bacteria is probably inconsequential. Antibiotic

resistance genes occur naturally and are transferred naturally between.

GM plants will not contribute much to the spread of antibiotic resistance

in nature. Proponents of GM food suggest that a canola plant that is

resistant to herbicides should produce the same oil as a non-GM canola

plant. Others state that this cannot be assumed to be the case since it

has not been established scientifically. This is perhaps the crux of the

battle behind whether the “precautionary principle” should be used by

regulatory equivalence”. Most regulatory agencies have so far operated

using the principle of substantial equivalence.The possibility that GM

foods could induce allergic reactions has been widely mentioned. This

issue should normally be addressed during the safety assessment of a

food produced from GM. Protocols exist for testing some allergic

reactions, but more research is needed to standardize and implement

them. One of the most widely criticized GM plants is the result which has

been found from project attempts to produce high

 18

2.4.2. Environmental issues

The large majority (>92 %) of GM crops [planted in 2000 were

modified for only two characteristics either herbicide resistance. Despite

research efforts, relatively few genes are available for genetic

engineering. Genetic engineers still do not know which DNA sequence

code for the vast majority of traits of economic importance (such as yield

and quality) and modification of those traits has so far largely been out of

the reach.

2.4.3. Herbicide resistance

Herbicide resistance, which is conferred by introducing a gene

encoding an enzyme metabolizing and thus detoxifying the herbicide or

by introducing a gene coding for the target enzyme insensitive to the

herbicide, is an indispensable part of modern agriculture. Proponents of

GM crops show field data, which suggest that use of herbicide-resistant

GM plants can lead to reduced herbicide use in the field and

ultimately increased yields and reduced costs. Tolerant to glyphosate

(Roundup Ready) and glufosinate (BASTA), respectively, are the

commercially most relevant applications [3]. It also reduces the need

for farmers to till the soil, thus reducing erosion. It is now possible to sow

herbicide-tolerant soybean directly into undisturbed soil and apply a

post-emergence herbicide, thus conserving soil moisture, improving crop

 19

performance and reducing water and wind erosion. On the other hand,

others believe that GM soybean allows farmers to substitute Roundup

for more hazardous and long-lasting herbicides such as acetochlor.

However, herbicide-resistant plants are grown on 75% of the global area

of transgenic crops particularly soybean.

2.4.4. Insect resistance

The natural insecticidal protein ( -endotoxin) produced by a soil

bacterium (Bacillus thurigiensis; Bt) has been used for decades by

organic food producers as well as by conventional producers to

control crop-damaging insects. In cotton for instance, the use of GM

plants (made resistant to insects by transferring to them the gene that

produces the Bt insecticide) on close to one million hectares in 1998 has

lead to reduced chemical pesticide used by over 12 percent. Cotton

farmers who used the technology increased their income (after the fees

paid to biotechnology companies) by nine percent. Major benefits

exhibited by Bt-resistant plants comprise improved crop yields, reduced

use of chemical insecticides, reduced level of fungal toxins and

preservation or enhancement of populations of beneficial insects. Some

fear that deployment of insect-resistant plants on large surfaces will

accelerate the appearance of insects capable to resisting the insecticide.

All pest control methods, whether from biotechnology or the traditional

 20

chemical industry, will increase the incidence of pests able to resist the

control method. Strategies have been devised to slow the spread of

insecticide-resistant insects and new Bt protein versions are being

designed to replace the versions that have become obsolete because of

widespread resistance (the same strategy to combat resistance was

used by the chemical insecticide industry). However, pest control will be

necessary as long as high yields of insect-free and cheap crops are

expected from agricultural producers. A report by Losey et al., raised

fears about potential environmental damage to non-pest insects. The

pollen of Bt corn was suspected to adversely affect the monarch

butterfly.

Gene escape or genetic pollution does raise some concerns.

Transgenic plants could transfer their transgene to wild relatives through

pollen. The thus modified wild relatives could become “super weeds.”

This concern only applies to plants that have wild relatives around the

field where they are cultivated and which flower at the same time and

rely on cross-pollination. Corn, for example, does not have any wild

relatives to which it could hybridize in Canada. Canola, on the other

hand, can hybridize to wild relatives of the mustard family. Gene transfer

to wild relatives has been observed and we must study the

environmental risks more thoroughly. The two genetic modifications

used (so far) on large surface areas in agriculture herbicide and insect
 21

resistance are the result of research work performed in the late 1980s

and early 1990s. Use of less persistent and less toxic pesticides

(decreased health concerns) and improved agricultural practices

(improved sustainability) are benefits that can be substantial but are not

passed on directly to the consumer.

2.4.5. Safety and regulation of GM foods

In recent years, two contrasting approaches to evaluating the

safety of GM foods have been developed. They are respectively called

the method of substantial equivalence and the precautionary principle.

2.4.6. Substantial equivalence

The essence of the substantial equivalence approach to evaluating

the safety of a new food product is to compare the new product to a

familiar or traditional product. If it can be demonstrated that the new

product will not affect human health or the environment differently from

its traditional counterpart, then the new product is considered

"substantially equivalent" to the existing product. Historically, the

substantial equivalence approach was originally developed in the

context of medical device evaluation in the USA and was later adapted

to the evaluation of new foods. The selection of which specific

characteristics to include in the comparison and exactly how to

compare them can be important topics of discussion and perhaps

 22

generate disagreement. Even so, the substantial equivalence approach

has been generally accepted by several national and international

organizations. Differing interpretations of the purpose and basis of the

substantial equivalence approach have resulted in an ongoing debate

about its adequacy. Critics have attacked the motivation and procedures

of the substantial equivalence approach as inherently suspect. A

possible future dilemma is whether reliance on the substantial

equivalence approach for purposes of safety determination will

undermine marketing goals of product differentiation and identity

preservation.

2.4.7. The precautionary principle

Another approach to the safety evaluation of GM foods is the

precautionary principle. Historically, it originated in Germ, any in the

1970’s in the context of environmental and sustainability issues. The

precautionary principle can be stated in non-technical language as

follows: "When a product or activity raises threats of harm to human

health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken

even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established

scientifically." The precautionary principle has stimulated a great deal of

discussion and debate. Critics argue that the precautionary principle

challenges scientific reliance on experiment, theory falsification,

 23

verification, consistency and predictability. Proponents argue that the

precautionary principle represents an attempt to take science seriously,

not to discard or revise it. Others charge that decisions based on the

precautionary principle are veiled forms of trade precautionary principle

are veiled forms of trade Canadian beef because of the use of growth

hormones and delays in the approval of GM crops in European markets.

It will probably take some time for the scientific and legal arguments

engendered by the precautionary principle to be resolved.

 24

CHAPTER THREE

3.1. Causes of food insecurity

Food is the most basic of human needs. Despite the "green

revolution" between 1970 and 1990 almost half of the world's less

developed countries suffer a decline in aggregate food supply, and more

than a quarter suffer an increase in hunger. Malnutrition is a major

barrier to economic and social development, leaving populations unable

to maintain normal lives and to be economically and socially less

productive (Jenkins and Scanlan, 2001; Conway, 1999).

3.1.1. Population growth and urbanization

Within the next 20 years, more poor and under-nourished people

in developing countries will live in the cities than in rural areas. High

rates of urbanization mean that urban food insecurity and malnutrition

are concerns even for regions like Africa and Asia, where current levels

of urbanization are relatively low (Ruel et al., 1998). By the year 2030,

the rural population would have grown by more than 235 million, but the

urban population would have grown by 2.4 billion (United Nations, 1998).

The number of people living in cities in Africa will be more than triple,

from 251 million to 864 million.

 25

3.1.2. Poverty

Food availability means that the overall supply should potentially

cover overall nutritional needs in terms of quantity (energy) and quality

(providing all essential nutrients); furthermore, it should be safe (free of

toxic factors and contaminants) and of good food quality (taste, texture,

and so on). Also, the types of foodstuffs commonly available (nationally,

in local markets, and eventually at the household level) should be

culturally acceptable (Oshaug, 1994). Food expenditures can make up

as much as 60 to 80 percent of total income among low-income urban

households (Tabatabai, 1993; Maxwell et al., 1998). The importance of

being able to earn cash income also means that the ability to stay

healthy, to get a good job (and therefore the ability to acquire good

education and training), and to have access credit to smooth

consumption, or expand, or start up businesses, are all critical to urban

food and nutrition security. With enough income, prices can rise and

families can still buy enough to eat. Millions of urban poor, however, are

vulnerable to price rises or sharp declines in income, say due to illness

or loss of job by the principal income-earner. The majority of the urban

labour force works in sectors like petty trade and services where wages

are low and job tenure uncertain. In urban Nigeria and most of sub-

Saharan Africa, employment in sectors that pay regular wages, such as

manufacturing and industry, accounts for less than 10 percent of total

 26

employment (Rondinelli and Kasarda, 1993). Urban poverty thus is not

primarily the result of lack of work but the lack of well-paying, steady jobs

(Ruel et al., 1998).

3.1.3. Health

Health is determined by a series of factors that act at three levels.

At the community level, factors such as the quality of the overall

environment (biological pathogens and chemical pollutants in air, food,

and water), and the availability, cost, and quality of services such as

water, electricity, sewage, refuse disposal, and health services are

important health determinants. At the household level, the most

important factors include the general conditions of the household,

including the type of housing, the availability and cost of water and

hygienic facilities, and the number of rooms per household member (an

indicator of crowding); the availability of food; and household caring

behaviours related to the use of preventive and curative health services,

the use of water and hygienic facilities to provide a healthy, hygienic

and safe environment, and food-related behaviours such as the

acquisition of food, the intra-household allocation of resources, feeding

practices (including breast-feeding), and food preparation methods.

High rates of malnutrition and escalating rates of diet related diseases

such as diabetes and hypertension in developing countries are

 27

attributable to various concerns: inadequate sources of dietary protein,

foods with high levels of anti-nutritional components and toxicants, a

disproportionate amount of highly digestible, high glycaemic index

carbohydrates which constitute the staple foods such as yams, maize

and rice, and limited alternatives. In addition, socio-economic factors

such as urbanization and migration to urban areas have led to changes

in lifestyles to include imported highly processed foods and modification

in eating patterns and food habits. In many rural areas, there are

challenges of protein malnutrition as well as inadequate vitamin and

mineral intake. Furthermore, these problems are compounded by

inadequate prenatal nutrition which leads to deficiencies in both mothers

and children. Nutritional needs of postpartum nursing mothers are often

not met, subsequently leading to inadequate nutrition in children. In

developing countries where mechanization is still limited, human labour

provides much of the power for productive economic work. For the poor,

labour is their most important asset. Work capacity, performance, and

productivity of workers are therefore generally important for income.

Furthermore, the poor sanitary conditions of many developing-countries

are notorious, and this combined with poor hygiene practices, create a

situation in which food safety is severely compromised (Ruel et al.,

1998).
 28

3.1.4. Outdated farming system

Small-scale farmers in developing countries are faced with many

problems and constraints. Pre- and post- harvest crop losses due to

insects, diseases, weeds, and droughts result in low and fluctuating

yields, as well as risks and fluctuations in incomes and food availability.

Low soil fertility and lack of access to reasonably priced plant nutrients,

along with acid, salinated, and waterlogged soils and other abiotic

factors, contribute to low yields, production risks, and degradation of

natural resources as poor farmers try to eke out a living. They are often

forced to clear forest or farm ever more marginal land to cultivate crops.

Poor infrastructure and poorly functioning markets for inputs and outputs

together with lack of access to credit and technical assistance add to the

impediments facing these farmers.

3.1.5. Politics

Eight hundred million people on earth are poor and malnourished.

They live on less than a dollar a day and cannot be sure that their fields

will yield enough food or that they will earn enough money to buy food.

Forty thousand people die each day of malnutrition, one-half of them

children. The increase in food production enabled by the Green

Revolution unfortunately did not solve the problems of malnutrition and

hunger. There were about a billion hungry people some 40 years ago,
 29

and population projections show that there may still be 600 million poor

people by 2025, when the earth's population would have grown to 8

billion. The Green Revolution did many things, but it did not wipe out

poverty. Not enough jobs were created in either the rural areas or the

cities to generate the purchasing power that provides farmers with the

incentive to grow more food. It is ironic that hunger persists while the

prices for agricultural commodities are at an all-time low (Chrispeels,

2000). Several countries that have millions of hungry people are

exporting food and other agricultural products to countries where people

are already well fed. Yet, most of these countries that are poor, with so

many hungry people, seem to be able to grow food quite abundantly

(Tonukan, 2010).

3.2. Combating food insecurity

To eliminate malnutrition and hunger, food production and

purchasing power both need to increase in developing countries. In

addition, food production needs to increase in developed countries as

well so that grain can be exported at a price the poor can afford.

Agricultural biotechnology as the solution to the problem of global food

insecurity has been reviewed by Soetan (2008). Since land and water

are the most limiting resources for food production, there is only one

option: to increase yields on the available land. Indeed, there is very little
 30

extra land that can be put to the plow. By 2020, the world's farmers will

have to produce 40% more grain (200 million extra tons in the developed

countries and 500 million extra tons in the developing countries).

According to the forecasts of the International Food Policy Research

Institute in Washington, DC (Pinstrup-Anderson et al., 1999), the

less-developed countries will double their grain imports (mostly maize

and wheat) by 2020. The reason is that the projected production

increase of 500 million tons in those less developed countries will still not

satisfy demand. The imported grains will come from North America,

Australia, the European Union, and the former Soviet Union. Thus trade

will increase (assuming that prices remain stable and low), but

redistribution is not the answer to the problem of hunger because there

is not enough production capacity in the developed countries to satisfy

the expected world demand. The answer to the problems of the poor,

according to a number of organizations that oppose genetically modified

(GM) crops, is more organic, regenerative agriculture. There is certainly

the need for more sustainable regenerative agricultural practices (Pretty,

1995), but "organic" farming is the type of agriculture already practiced

by the poor, primarily because they do not have the means to buy

fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation equipment. According to Dyson

(1999), sub-Saharan Africa, where most food crop production is

"organic," is unlikely to see much improvement in its already dismal food

 31

situation. Exhaustion of the soil caused by the lack of fertilizers is

depressing yields and pushing agriculture onto more erodable soils.

Organic agriculture is nearly always nitrogen starved unless land is set

aside for the sole purpose of producing green manures, a luxury the

poor can ill afford. Agriculture as it is practiced now in much of sub-

Saharan Africa is environmentally unsustainable and a new approach

that will require considerable investment in agricultural research is

needed. This new approach must be research-driven and will most

certainly include GM crops (Chrispeels, 2000). Agriculture must figure

prominently in poverty alleviation strategies of developing countries.

Accelerated public investments are needed to facilitate agricultural and

rural growth through:

- Yield-increasing crop varieties, including those that are drought

and salt tolerant and pest resistant, and producing improved

livestock.

- Yield-increasing and environmentally friendly production

technology. - Reliable, timely, and reasonably priced access to

appropriate inputs such as tools, fertilizer, and, when needed,

pesticides, as well as the credit often needed to purchase them.

- Strong extension services and technical assistance to

communicate timely information and developments in technology

and sustainable resource management to farmers and to relay

 32

farmer concerns to researchers. - Improved rural infrastructure and

effective markets. - Particular attention to the needs of women

farmers, who grow much of the locally produced food in many

developing countries. - Primary education and healthcare, clean

water, safe sanitation, and good nutrition for all.

These investments need to be supported by good governance and

an enabling policy environment, including trade, macroeconomic, and

sectoral policies that do not discriminate against agriculture, and policies

that provide appropriate incentives for the sustainable management of

natural resources, such as secure property rights for small farmers.

3.3. Adapting biotechnology for increased crop production

What is needed in developing countries is an understanding that

goes beyond conventional, orthodox wisdom to work more strategically

in developing and implementing effective, international, national and

regional policies (Clover, 2003). Funding for agricultural research has

declined 50% on a worldwide basis. Funding for research in general is at

a dismal low in developing countries. The intrusion of intellectual

property rights into the arena of crop improvement, while beneficial to

the economies of the developed world is making the lives of many

researchers even more difficult. Private industry has dominated research

in biotechnology (there are a few exceptions: for example, Rockefeller

 33

Foundation support for research on rice, USDA’s role in developing the

terminator technology, and modest programs at IARCs. Consolidation of

the industry has proceeded rapidly since 1996, with more than 25 major

acquisitions and alliances worth US$15 billion. Little private-sector

agricultural biotechnology research so far has focused on developing

country food crops other than maize (Pinstrup-Andersen and Cohen,

2000). Production of genetically modified crops is not a complex

technology and is clearly within the capabilities of national research

institutes in many developing countries. Genetic modification of crops

using recombinant DNA technology is also within reach of the institutes

of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

(CGIAR), including Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo

(CIMMYT) in Mexico, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in The

Philippines, and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA)

in Nigeria. Furthermore, these institutes have already assumed

responsibility for biotechnological research and a number of crop

improvement projects are under way. These institutes see biotechnology

as a tool and not as an end in itself. Crop improvement through

biotechnology need not be equated with transgenic plants. For example,

marker-assisted breeding is a powerful biotechnology that can find

widespread application with the crops of the poor. Detailed linkage maps

of these crops will be tremendously useful. As these CGIAR institutes

 34

focus on their needs, they will want and need to reach out to public

institutions in developed countries. Alliances such as the Cassava

Biotechnology Network that bring together researchers from many

countries are an effective way to create synergy toward a common goal.

The private sector leads in every aspect of the agricultural biotechnology

revolution and activities in the public sector will have to marshal the

strength of the private sector through public-private partnerships. Such

partnerships must be based upon mutual trust and common goals. The

private sector can work with the CGIAR institutes and with national

research institutions (the foreign equivalents of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture) of developing countries to transfer technologies, train

scientists, provide hands-on experience in intellectual property

management, and facilitate the no cost or low-cost licensing of

inventions. Since the cost of these inventions is being charged to the

consumers in developed countries, such approaches amount to a

transfer of wealth by large corporations from the developed world to the

developing world. The application of biotechnology to the problems of

the poor will not be straightforward and the models we have from

developed countries will probably not be applicable. Agricultural

research for the crops and problems of the poor has to proceed from the

bottom up, not from the top down. Crops have to be created that fit not

only in the agro-ecology of the poorest regions often characterized by

 35

marginal and heterogeneous environments, but the crops must also fit

into the social and economic systems. Agricultural research has to start

with studying farming practices (so called "on-farm research"), asking

the farmers - men and women - what they want, allowing the farmers to

make choices between often conflicting objectives such as higher yield

versus yield stability, and examining the possibility of marketing the

excess production.

3.4. Prespectives

Inadequate nutrition, sub-par quality foods and limited food

processing capabilities have led to compromised, sub-par health status

and a prevalence of diet-related diseases in many developing countries,

most especially among children, prenatal and post-partum women.

There is clear potential for the application of biotechnology and genetic

modification as tools to combat these challenges and improve the

situation of at-risk populations. While there is concerted and dedicated

focus on combating more apparent challenges such as infectious

disease and producing enough food to feed the growing populations, the

quality of the foods produced ought to be an important consideration.

The feasibility and cost of applying modern and emerging genetic

modification technologies in these areas is certainly a daunting task, as

sometimes the primary need is often just survival. However, as scientists

 36

and policy makers make progress towards alleviating these debilitating

conditions, consideration should also be given to the possibility and

potential for augmenting food quality and developing functional foods for

improved nutritional and health status (Niba, 2003). In spite of an

impressive stockpile of scientific discoveries and technological

innovations, poverty and social and gender inequities are increasing.

According to the World Bank, 1.3 billion people lived on less than US$1

per day and another 3 billion lived on less than US$2 per day in 1993.

Illiteracy, particularly among women, is still high in many developing

countries. It is not only in opportunities for education that children of

many developing countries remain handicapped, but even more

alarming, in opportunities for the full expression of their innate genetic

potential for physical and mental development. There are now

uncommon opportunities to harness the power of such synergy to

address contemporary development issues such as the growing rich-

poor divide, feminization of poverty, famine of jobs, human numbers

exceeding the population-supporting capacity of ecosystems, climate

change, and loss of forests and biodiversity. Whether in economics or in

ecology, experience has shown that a trickle-down approach does not

work. Fortunately, modern information technology provides opportunities

to reach the unreached. Virtual colleges (computer-aided and internet-

connected) linking scientists and women and men living in poverty can
 37

be established at local, national, and global levels to launch a knowledge

and skill revolution. This will help to create better awareness of the

benefits and risks associated with genetically improved organisms, so

that both farmers and consumers will get better insights into the

processes leading to the creation of novel genetic combinations. The

future of small scale farm families will depend on precision agriculture,

which involves the use of the right inputs at the right time and in the right

way. Biotechnology will play an important role in the major components

of precision farming: integrated gene management, soil health care,

efficient water management, integrated pest management, integrated

nutrient supply, and efficient post-harvest management. Ecotechnology-

based precision farming can help to cut costs, enhance marketable

surplus, and eliminate ecological risks. This is the pathway to an ever-

green revolution in small-farm agriculture (Swaminathan, 2000). The

ethical considerations of genetic engineering of crops pale in

comparisons to the ethical considerations of not improving the lives of

the poor (Chrispeels, 2000). Those who oppose GM crops are also quick

to point out that this technology primarily benefits the multinational

corporations that sell the seeds, and that these corporations are more

interested in their own bottom line (always referred to as "corporate

greed") than in "feeding the poor." True enough, the big corporations are

not working on the crops of the poor, such as cassava, millets, sorghum,
 38

sweet potatoes, yams, and legumes (other than soybeans).

Furthermore, they are not giving away their technology to poor countries

because they want to recover the costs of their investments in

biotechnology. The poor will not have the resources to purchase

transgenic seeds from multinationals. Research on these crops in the

public sector is also unfortunately quite limited. Rice, an important crop

of the poor, is an exception, with some research in the corporate sector

and considerable research in the public sector taking place, primarily as

a result of the Rockefeller Foundation's initiatives (Chrispeels, 2000). An

important feature of the Green Revolution is that the research was

carried out in the public domain, and that the genetically improved crop

varieties were given away free to the farmers without concerns for the

intellectual property rights of those who produced them. Food production

was raised substantially in large areas of the developing world, but other

areas, especially Africa, were bypassed. It is unfortunate that "public-

sector support for agricultural development has collapsed across the

board" according to Robert Paarlberg, with a 57% drop in foreign aid to

agriculture in poor countries between 1988 and 1996 and a 47%

decrease in lending by the World Bank for agriculture and rural

development between 1986 and 1998 (Paarlberg, 2000). Research

focused on how to reduce the need for inputs and increase the efficiency

of input could lead to the development of crops that use water more
 39

efficiently and extract phosphate from the soil more effectively. The

development of cereal plants capable of capturing nitrogen from the air

could contribute greatly to plant nutrition, helping poor farmers who often

cannot afford fertilizers.

 40

CHAPTER FOUR

4.1. Conclusion

Genetic engineering and biotechnology will undoubtedly have a

profound effect on agricultural and food production in coming years.

There is enough potential synergism in the application of biotechnology

and GM to food and agricultural production to ensure that farmers,

consumers and companies have meaningful choices and a chance to

realize true benefits. At the same time, as with most new Technologies,

there is a remote but real possibility of unintended effects of GM in food

and agricultural production on health and the environment if the

technology is not managed properly. These unintended effects have the

potential to be perceived as negative for the future of the technology if

they are not offset by benefits elsewhere in the social system. With

adequate patience and foresight, scientists should be able to develop

adequate public policies to monitor, control and minimize potential risks

of biotechnology and any possible adverse impacts on public health, the

environment and society at large.

The role of crop biotechnology for food security and poverty

reduction should not be overrated. Many problems in low and middle

income countries are not amenable to technological solutions. Yet

biotechnology could contribute to sustainable development in two

 41

important respects. First, integrated into existing crop improvement

programs biotechnology could increase agricultural productivity beyond

what is possible with conventional breeding techniques alone. This

would enhance the global food availability at affordable prices, while

promoting environmentally sound production patterns. Second,

appropriate biotechnologies could raise the revenues in agricultural

production, which is still the dominant source of income and employment

for the rural poor in large parts of the world. The case studies from

Kenya and Mexico underscore that biotechnology can bring about

sizeable welfare gains for agricultural producers and consumers in

developing countries. Although the development of modern

biotechnologies can be quite demanding at the laboratory stage, this

does not hold for the resulting end technologies, Viz. transgenic crops,

especially those with resistance to biotic and abiotic stress factors, fit

well into small scale farming system and can be easily integrated without

adjusting traditional cropping practices. Widespread market failures

narrow the interest of private commercial technology suppliers.

Fortunately, other technologies show promise, both for increasing

yield in yield-limited agro ecosystems and for promoting what the

present system has not been able to achieve, namely sustainable

societies in poor countries (Rivera Ferre, 2009; UNEP and UNCTAD,

2008).
 42

REFERENCES

Uzogara, S.G., 2000. The impact of genetic modification of human foods

in the 21 century: A review. Biotechnol. Adv., 18: 179-206.
EngelA.K., Th. Frenzel and A. Miller, 2002. Current and future benefits of
GM technology in food production. Toxicol. Lett., 137: 329-336.
James, C., 2000. Global review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops.
ISAAA Brief No. 21 (Ithaca, seNY. USA).
Vollenhofer, S., K. Burg, J. Schmidt and H. Kroath, 1999. Genetically
Modified Organisms in Food Screening and Specific Detection by
Polymerase Chain Reaction. Journal of Agricultural Food and
Chem., 47: 5038-5043.
Taylor, S.L., 1997. Food from genetically modified organisms and
potential for food allergy. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 4: 121-126.
FAO., 1996. Biotechnology and food safety, Report of a joint
FAO/WHO consultation. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 61, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Losey, J.E., L.S. Rayor and M.E. Carter, 1999. Transgenic Pollen Harms
Monarch Larvae, Nature, 399: 214.
AgBios, Inc., 2000. "Substantial equivalence and its application in GM
food safety assessment", available at:
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safe-food/gmo/se- response.htm
WHO., 1995. Application of the principle of substantial equivalence to
the safety evaluation of foods or food components from plants
derived by modern biotechnology, Report of a WHO Workshop.
World Health Organization, Geneva.
Foster, K.R., P. Vecchia and M.H. Repacholi, 2000. Science and the
Precautionary Principle, Sci., 288: 979.
Mohammad B. Habibi-Najafi, (2006). Food Biotechnology and Its Impact
on our food supply. Global Journal of Biotechnology and
Biochemistry 1 (1): 22-27. ISSN 199-9241
Nyerhovwo J. Tonukan and Douglas G. Omotor, (2010). Biotechnology
and Molecular Biology Reviews Vol. 5(1), pp 013-023, February,
2010.Vilable online at
http://www.academicjournals.org/BMBR,ISSN 1558-2273 © 2010
Academic Journals.