Thanks to GMOs, weak crops can become more resilient, and then less fertilizers and pesticides can be used.
You are standing in front of a bread shelf in a supermarket. In one hand, you hold a loaf of soft wholegrain rye bread with the classic red eco emblem on the package. In your other hand, you have a similar rye bread, but with a completely different emblem: this bread is "GMO".
"Fu!" - you certainly do not need this.
You grab the last loaf of eco-friendly soft rye bread and cautiously put the GMO bread back on the shelf that is filled to capacity.
This would be the line of thought, probably, for many of us if we found GMO bread on the shelf in the supermarket. We wouldn't want to buy it.
Finished bakery products
Gene manipulation is dangerous and unnatural. Here is a classic view of GMOs that is deeply ingrained in many of us.
Promotional video:
But many scientists say the fear of GMOs is unfounded, and our doubts about GMOs may in fact even hinder the development of more fertile agriculture:
“All leading GMO researchers are of the same opinion that genetic engineering itself is harmless. This is generally one of the most studied areas of science, and so far no evidence has been found that we should be afraid of GMOs,”says professor and head of the department of plant physiology Stefan Jansson from the Swedish University of Umeå.
If genetically modified plants are used correctly, it can really help save the world by making our crops more resilient so they can be less fertilized and watered with pesticides, scientists say - even those who were skeptical.
Scientists: GMOs are not dangerous
Stefan Jansson is one of the advocates of plant genetic engineering.
He is investigating the use of CRISPR as an element in plant genetic heritage. He conducts fundamental research that should primarily help understand the roles of individual genes in plants. By isolating individual genes and studying how they affect the development of plants, he understands what a particular gene is responsible for.
Stefan Jansson is critical of conservation organizations that oppose all forms of genetic engineering and pushed the EU to have very strict GMO laws that made it largely impossible to cultivate genetically modified crops for European consumption.
“There are no examples of GMOs spreading uncontrollably in nature. There is also no evidence that genetically modified crops are harmful or poisonous."
“If we look at food security and more productive crop production, genetic engineering, on the other hand, can play an important role in saving the world. We can create crops that need fewer fertilizers and less chemicals,”says Stefan Jansson.
Michael Palmgren, a professor in the Department of Plant and Environmental Studies at Copenhagen University, agrees.
“GMOs are just a tool. All tools can be used in a proper way or in a wrong way. You need to evaluate the result,”he says.
What does he really want to say by this ?! Either the plant is genetically modified, which means it is unnatural, or not modified, which means it appeared naturally.
Radioactive radiation and toxic chemicals
No, in fact, the formation of our crops has always been far from natural. Long gone are the days when the peasant went from plant to plant and chose the best seeds to use later for sowing.
Traditional breeding involves creating mutations in the plant's DNA so that they give the farmer the best result. For example, larger tomatoes or more potatoes on one bush.
Mutations occur naturally when DNA damage occurs in their cells. Thus, plant breeding involves inflicting the right trauma, causing the right mutations in the genetic material of crops.
Traditionally, a person does this with the help of radioactive radiation and chemicals that damage the DNA of cells, thereby causing mutations. And by the way, it is because of this that radioactive radiation and some chemicals can cause cancer.
“In traditional crop production, a person tries to increase genetic variation with the tools they have in the hope that soon they will get some mutations that will be useful for agriculture,” explains Mikael Palmgren.
In this way, we got large tomatoes, destroying that part of the DNA that slows down their growth. Initially, tomatoes were small berries the size of blueberries, which, by the way, was also cultivated and now grows much larger on farms than in nature.
“Plant breeding is basically about killing genes. This is nothing new,”emphasizes Mikael Palmgren.
Genes are destroyed blindly
When we induce mutations in a plant in this way in order to obtain the desired quality, other mutations occur simultaneously with it, which we do not always find.
“You only see that your potatoes have become larger and that the fruits appear and grow as they should, but you do not know if there are any unexpected mutations,” says Mikael Palmgren.
Due to the traditional method of breeding, our plants have lost their natural ability to absorb enough food on their own and resist attacks by fungi and bacteria.
“If we correctly intervene in plant genetic material with the latest gene technology, we can improve old varieties that were initially resistant and restore vitality to already cultivated varieties,” says Mikael Palmgren.
Targeted gene destruction
“CRISPR is the latest technique that scientists use to shape the DNA of crops. CRISPR is based on the use of an enzyme that can be guided to a specific place in the DNA chain, where it will cut it. When the DNA is cut, the plant will repair the damage and reconnect the ends. But the enzyme will cut the gene again. And this will continue until the mutation happens and the gene changes slightly,”explains Jeppe Thulin Østerberg, Ph. D. from the Department of Plant and Environmental Studies.
Then the enzyme will stop recognizing a piece of DNA and cutting it. And now you have a mutant.
This method can be used to remove unwanted genes from crops.
Take wheat as an example. Wheat is one of the most valuable herbal crops along with rice and maize (yes, sweet corn is actually a herb that has been cultivated to have giant trunks with ears).
Wheat is often attacked by fungal mildew, which can be very damaging in organic farming, as cereals wilt before they even have time to form grains.
Traditional agriculture uses chemicals to avoid mold.
Resistant to fungi
The researchers found that mold spores recognize wheat by a specific protein on its surface.
This means that the spores activate their germination energy only when they land on the wheat they choose to grow on.
“There are only three genes that provide wheat with this protein. If these genes are removed, the mold will simply not recognize the wheat, which means that the wheat will become resistant to this fungus,”explains Mikael Palmgren.
And this was really done by scientists from China. They have created wheat in their laboratories that does not need to be treated with anti-mold agents.
An article about their achievements was published in 2014 in the journal Nature Biotechnology.
However, this wheat cannot be grown in the EU, because it is subject to GMO control laws that prohibit the use of genetically modified crops in the food industry.
Scientists from Italy have carried out successful experiments by doing the same with vines.
Wine grapes are almost impossible to grow without pesticides, as they also suffer from mold. Therefore, in many countries, even in the production of ecological wines, it is allowed to spray copper with a heavy metal on grapes, which removes mold. Copper is poisonous to microorganisms, so it also kills fungi.
By removing the genes that allow mold to recognize the vine, both fungal diseases and the use of chemicals against them can be avoided.
Thus, deleting genes can provide crops with new beneficial properties, as well as increase their vitality.
Repairing damaged genes
Putting the gene into the chain is a little more difficult: for example, returning the gene of its wild ancestor to cultivated potatoes, which protected them from fungal attacks.
“Typically, the damaged gene still exists, but it is not competitive due to the mutation,” explains Mikael Palmgren.
Domesticated potatoes could lose their genetic function either spontaneously, through natural mutations that occur constantly, or when a person blindly provoked mutations with chemicals and radiation.
If you want to breathe life back into a dead gene, you first need to cut the DNA strand where the old trauma needs to be healed.
When the DNA grows back together, you help the cell by giving it a sample that fits both ends, but in the middle has the original sequence to replace the failed mutation.
“The plant cell receives a template that contains the mutation you want to graft. So, in fact, a person does not add anything from himself - it is the plant itself that creates a copy of the template,”explains Jeppe Thulin Esterberg.
Both Mikael Palmgren, Stefan Jansson and Jeppe Thulin Österberg believe that expanding genetic engineering research to make plants more resilient is an essential part of making agriculture more efficient.
GMO legislation inhibits development
According to Mikael Palmgren, CRISPR's potential for agricultural efficiency will be limited or even diminished if CRISPR is subject to EU GMO regulations.
Today, to obtain permission to grow genetically modified crops for animal feed, you need extensive research to prove that modified crops will not spread spontaneously and that they are not dangerous to humans and animals.
According to Mikael Palmgren, this means that we must count on spending more than 1 billion kroons (approximately 9 billion rubles) just to obtain permission to grow and sell these crops in the EU.
“This is a very high fee for the so-called market entry. The only ones who can afford it are international agrochemical companies. For all smaller players, entry into this market is closed,”he says.
Therefore, the agrochemical industry has an interest in ensuring that new CRISPR technologies are covered by GMO legislation.
“Well-meaning conservation organizations have the same goals and in this sense paradoxically go hand in hand with the industry they otherwise fight,” says Mikael Palmgren.
CRISPR needs to be exempted from GMO legislation
Both Mikael Palmgren and Stefan Jansson believe that GMO legislation should not cover CRISPR.
There are three main reasons for this.
1. With the help of CRISPR, mutations are created, which, in principle, could occur naturally or using traditional methods of causing mutations in crop production - using radioactive radiation and chemicals.
2. Research has not found any risks associated with CRISPR genetic engineering. Why waste so much energy regulating what is not dangerous?
3. Genetic engineering, if more widely adopted, can help to make agriculture more efficient with less use of chemicals.
True, other scientists still believe that it is very important to assess risks and regulate this process.
Stop talking about GMOs
Many of us have probably got the idea that going away from GMOs means that you prefer the natural. Something that hasn't mutated in an unnatural way.
But this is not the case. All of our crops have been bred by more or less deliberate mutations.
So bioethics lecturer Mickey Gjerris at the University of Copenhagen thinks it's time to discuss ways to control and label crops.
“Perhaps we should stop this discussion of GMOs altogether and instead educate consumers more that there are a number of ways to cultivate plants for a long time, all of which involve changing genetic material,” he says.
From his point of view, it is important that users know exactly how many genes in the genetic material of a particular plant are changed.
The problem with this approach is that with traditional cultivation, you don't know exactly how much you're changing genes.
However, Gierris points out that even with CRISPR, side effects can occur if the enzyme cuts the DNA strand and causes mutations in an unplanned place.
What are GMOs?
GMO stands for genetically modified organism. However, according to scientists, this definition is misleading, since absolutely all organisms, unless they are clones of each other, are genetically modified.
Genetic modifications happen all the time in a completely natural way.
But when it comes to GMOs, most of us think of organisms that have been genetically modified by humans.
These modifications can be done in three ways.
Transgenesis: A gene of a distantly related organism is introduced into the crop. For example, this method was used by Monsanto to inoculate soybeans with a Roundup resistance gene from a bacterium.
The gene allowed the soybeans to survive after being doused with the Roundup herbicide. If not for humans, this form of transgenesis would never have happened by itself in nature.
If a gene gives a plant a new trait, it will be inherited as the dominant gene. This means that when crossed with the original type of plant, the offspring will also have a new property.
Cisgenesis: A gene from a close relative is inserted into a plant. This method can be used, for example, to provide valuable crops with the properties of their wild relatives.
Cisgenesis can occur naturally when two closely related plants are crossed with each other through pollination. A gene that gives a plant a new property is inherited as a dominant gene.
Guided mutagenesis: with the help of new technologies, a person changes genetic material and creates mutations. In this way, undesirable properties can be removed from plants.
If a gene is destroyed, it is inherited as a recessive gene. This means that the unwanted trait will return if the new plant is crossed again with its original variant.
This technique can also be used to create dominant mutations, for example to repair a damaged gene.
The scientists with whom Wiedenskab spoke do not believe that directed mutagenesis should be called GMOs and should be subject to EU legislation on GMOs.
Genetically Modified Pork and Chemicals
The forms of GMOs grown today have not reduced the amount of chemicals.
On the contrary, plants are deliberately modified to withstand the effects of pesticides, and therefore, where genetically modified corn or soybeans are grown, people pour even more chemistry on the ground.
Today, most of the pigs we eat in Denmark are fed with soybeans, which, through transgenesis, have received an entire gene from a bacterium into their genetic material. This gene makes soybeans resistant to the Roundup chemical.
Multinational agribusiness Monsanto has developed the soybeans and is selling Roundup.
The types of genetic engineering that scientists say should instead focus on creating resistant plants that require fewer chemicals.
Where can I get more GMOs?
Do you think GMOs can save the world? How to use them more? Here are the best tips from scientists.
For example, post the following on social media:
• Research conducted for 30 years has not been able to identify any risks to humans and the environment associated with GMOs.
• GMOs can give us more efficient agriculture.
Strict GMO Legislation Benefits Large Companies
GMO laws in the EU do not permit the production of genetically modified food for humans.
Even if you want to grow genetically modified crops for animal feed, it is very difficult to obtain permission. Only one genetically modified fodder corn variety is approved and grown in small quantities in Spain.
But selection based on mutations does not fall under these rules. So the question is, does the CRISPR method, when used to induce specific mutations, is it GMO or not? And should products made using CRISPR be subject to and labeled as GMO laws?
In 2018, the European Court of Justice will decide whether new genetic engineering techniques that use CRISPR to remove crop genes will be regulated by EU GMO legislation.
Marie Barse