GMO pig feeding trials – the data

By Jason Major

TechNyou

In reference to the news story I posted this morning about the feeding trials of pigs with Bt corn, the kind people from Teagasc has supplied me with some proceedings and slide presentations from this research – see below.

I will appreciate anyone’s thoughts on the study, their analysis, it implications and any shortcomings in the research methodology and initial results, etc,

I mentioned that I thought the data was unpublished. It turns out that part of the research – the short-term feeding stuff – has been published in the British Journal of Nutrition and is now available for review (Walsh et al., 2011).

Links to

Proceeding paper

Pig_Conference_Proceedings2011

Slide presentation

8_GMSAFOODSlidePresentation

Further Teagasc research 

Hanging questions and caveats

The proceedings paper doesn’t explicitly say if the GM and non GM Bt corn used in the trials were exactly the same cultivars – see following extract:

The Bt maize was grown in a neighbouring plot to the non-GM maize counterpart under identical environmental conditions in Valtierra, Navarra, Spain and the only difference between the two maize types was the Bt toxin.

This is important as two cultivars of corn can have radically different nutrient profiles, and levels of other compounds such as naturally occurring allergens, toxins and anti-nutrients. They were at least grown under identical conditions – something else that can significantly change these components.

These results only apply to the short and medium-term studies because the laboratory analysis for the long-term data is still happening. There a few lines of, “further research will need to be done to find out what is happening…” in the proceedings so we will have to wait and see. It is possible the long-term feeding analysis will provide some answers and clarification.

Couple of findings

I have yet to analyse the paper in detail and will probably wait until the long-term trial analysis is completed, but here a couple of the findings that jumped out.

Results from the medium-term study found that feeding Bt maize to pigs for 110 days had no effect on body weight, their average daily weight gain or their average daily feed intake.  But average daily feed intake (ADFI) was higher in pigs fed Bt maize during days 14-31 and overall from day 0-31. However, there was no difference in body weight between the two groups of pigs on day 31. Overall, feed efficiency was not affected by feeding Bt maize even though pigs fed Bt maize were less efficient on days 14-31 which was a consequence of higher feed intake by these pigs at that time. In other words weanling pigs were eating more during days 14-31 but their weight gain was the same as the conrol pigs.

If this difference in ADFI at days 14-31 is real (ie, it would need to be repeated and probably with a larger sample) then it would be interesting to know why this is happening.

In the slide presentation they present the finding that Bt maize may offer protection against an inflammatory response observed following non-GM maize consumption. I wonder if this is because maize is notoriously affected by a fungal toxin that is prevalent in corn damaged by insects?  Has anyone got any knowledge on this and if this may be a cause?

Update (30 Jan 2012)

Peadar Lawlor the head of the Irish component of the project got back to me re: the research and plans for publication. His response, “… we will have ~12 peer review papers from this work by the middle of this year. We have published in the British Journal of Nutrition, Animal, PLoS ONE etc. We will publish all our work from the project.” All links to papers and research updates will be posted on their website see Teagasc link above

And here is the link to their PLoS One paper

Home page image: impactlab.net

GM corn safe in pig feeding trials

A three year feeding study has shown no adverse health effects in pigs fed genetically modifieBt corn.

Teagasc: 24 January 2012

TechNyou

Note. this research has yet to be per-reviewed as far as I can tell, so it has yet to be subjected to the scrutiny of other scientists. At the moment the reserach is to be presented at a scientific meeting in March. I am unsure if there are plans to publish it in a scientific journal. I have emailed Teagasc to find out.

Image: waterfootprint.org

Two tribes at war. What The Atlantic’s very real dangers of GM food reveals about us.

By Jason Major

TechNyou

The Atlantic which ran the article, “The very real dangers of genetically modified foods”, by Ari Levaux has unleashed an unusually massive online response. The reasons seem to be many, but I would suggest it starts with the journalist’s complete mangling and distortion of the science that produced a misleading, even deceptive article. The result was 334 comments, at last count, some from TechNyou. An analysis of this commentary reveals the obvious two distinct tribes fighting trench warfare at a stalemate, but more revealing was the difference in their tactics, which might be indicative of why this debate never moves forward..

The ample commentary tearing apart Levaux’s faulty analysis and interpretation has forced him to rewrite his article and I won’t repeat the criticism of the article from others more qualified than myself. Nevertheless because Levaux’s claims the main point of his article was to point out the inadequacy of substantial equivalence as a tool to assess the safety of GM foods, calling it an outdated and an unproven hypothesis, at the end of this post I have included some of his points and the key responses to it. I have done this largely because Australia’s regulators also rely on substantial equivalence as their key assessment tool for GM foods.

Two tribes

I thought I would take a different tack with a dissection of the commentary rather than the article itself.

There are two distinct and obvious tribes: those in favour (or at least not vehemently opposed) to GM Foods, and those against it. The interesting this is the difference in tactics. Each fight with different weapons that pitted against each other appear to neutralize themselves, so that neither side gains ground.

The following is my quick and subjective analysis of the commentary. I sorted the comments into those obviously arguing in favour of GM foods and those arguing against them. Within the ‘in favour’ and ‘against’ I split them again into additional categories: those making commentary using scientific evidence to support their arguments and those using value-based judgements to support their arguments. I also had a category for those that appeared neutral. I didn’t review all the comments because basically I got bored, but I got through close to two-thirds of them. There were a few threads I ignored because they were the same two people going tit-for-tat: you’re wrong; no you’re wrong. There were also other ignored comments that were simply along the lines of, “you are a nutter”.

In the ‘in favour’ camp under scientific arguments I made a third category: ‘science neutral, which is explained below.

The categories

In favour of GM food

Scientific argument

Examples:

see comment from Karl Haro Von Mogel toward end of post

Or, “We know where the proteins in a genome are by sequencing messenger RNA that is in the cell and matching it up to the genome. We know where the miRNAs are by sequencing short RNAs that are in the cell (those that are about 21 bases) and matching them up with the genome… In humans, the miRNAs are generally in between genes, or within genes in the part that gets spliced out (the introns). In plants the miRNAs are generally not within genes at all…”

Values argument

Example: “I understand why Monsanto tried to use the Terminator gene system, because I understand intellectual property. A company can’t give something away for perpetual use for a one time fee.”

Or, “Yes, I suppose I could be worried that every funny looking potato in my garden is a dangerously toxic mutation, but part of being rational is sticking your head in the ground and not letting your life be consumed by worry over every trivial risk.”

Science neutral

This category was included because there were a number of comments from people who in previous posts appeared to, in principle, support GM food, though taken in isolation such comments would have appeared neutral because in this case they simply stated the science without appearing to use them to support or denigrate GM foods.

Example: “The word *can* is important here. Just as you say the substantial equivalence concept is a hypothesis so is the idea that GMO foods can cause metabolic disorder. This idea has never been demonstrated. I’m not saying GMO is great but if you are going to use science to demolish an opponents argument you should apply the same standards to your own.”

Against GM food

Scientific argument

I could have split this category again because there were about five comments using false or misunderstood assumptions about the science, such as the 1st example below. But I decided to lump them all together.

Examples: “But whereas organic apples and non-GMO are selected over a period of decades, GM food is spliced with viruses including Ebola. Not sure I like the idea of consuming that.”

Or, “genetic engineering can cause changes in metabolism that are much more extreme than mere cross breeding. This is because genetic engineering depends on DNA expression promoters and the introduction of completely novel proteins into organisms that have never produced them before.”

Values argument

Examples: “I disagree*. Evolution isn’t motivated by profit.”

Or, “Sadly, every decision made by big business is based upon the bottom line rather than the common good. Until this mentality changes, we are doomed to endure that which will benefit commercial interests.”

Neutral

This covers a lot of commentary, and some may not necessarily be neutral, but they appear to be so relative to the GM issues. For example there a long thread discussing heirloom seeds and hybrid seeds and how this related to their yields and ability to save seeds. Unless they had posted an earlier comment that revealed whether they were for or against, it was impossible to know whether these people were for or against GM and if they were relating their comments to the GM discussion. That is, just because you may wish to have everyone grow heirloom seeds, doesn’t necessarily mean you are anti-GM. That, at least, was the assumption I chose to make. Other examples included arguments about monoculture V polyculture.

The results

Table 1. Number of comments for each of the two tribes for each category.

The analysis

It is no wonder this debate never moves forward and we keep plodding over the same old ground.  From the Table 1, the difference in how the two sides approach the debate is immediately obvious.

The “In favour” camp use science and values equally to argue their case whereas the “Against” camp rely almost exclusively on values. Science barely rates a mention in the “against” camp and if it does it is often based on a flawed understanding of the science, in this case about 50% of the time. Note, however, there were incorrect assumptions from a handful of those arguing in favour of GM crops, though as with the following example, he or she was simply misinformed rather than having a flawed scientific understanding: “Africa would be decimated right now due to massive wheat shortages from the crops being susceptible to bacteria. GM wheat helped revive Africa’s wheat production, staving off a massive food shortage that could have been catastrophic.” I have no idea where this guy would have got this info from.

The majority of the values of those against GM foods alluded to the dislike, mistrust, hate, undesirable ethics of the handful of companies who own the GM crops and the respective patents. This aligns with TechNyou’s experience with the Australian public, as does the breakdown of the comments in general. Other against-based values comments aligned with the “Mother Nature” philosophy and that we are tinkering with things we don’t understand, or that natural is best. The labelling issue (a right to know) and the occasional dose of the yuck factor – ie that it is inherently wrong to put genes from one species into another – were also present.

Risk

It is difficult to extrapolate from my analysis to the general population, but if you took the second values example used above for those in favour of GM foods as a reflection of society as a whole re: this issue, it exemplifies another difference between the tribes and that is our perception of risk. Those in favour of GM foods are less risk averse than those against it. Again. however, this aligns well with the more robust studies out there.

For example, compare the above view with the following comment linked to the Levaux article:

“The insertion of powerful DNA expression promoters and proteins that are very different from those occurring naturally in plants can have dangerous, unintended and unanticipated consequences. Some plants produce toxic chemicals and may even produce harmful proteins or peptides. It is arrogant in the extreme to assume, as you do, that all possible combinations of DNA, proteins and biochemistry is safe for everybody to consume for a lifetime.”

One side is, benefit dependant, prepared to accept some risk, the other side accepts only zero, risk at least when it comes to food. The story is very different if you talk about topics such as medicine.

Venus and Mars

If you want to use a scientific argument, it will more than likely be countered with a values argument, regardless of whether the values are rational or not. Values define a person and they are not about to change them easily. Certainly, attempting to do so with scientific evidence is unlikely to succeed. Conversely, the person who can only see the scientific facts can have trouble understanding the nature of their opponent’s values, though it is notable that the “in favour” camp has an even split between those that used science and values to back their arguments. This is not a criticism of either camp. From where I sit it is human nature and if we are to have such debates move forward then we need to better understand where each group comes from and what makes them tick.

Caveat

Note, as mentioned above this is not a robust analysis. It is my quick, dirty and SUBJECTIVE analysis, so I am sure any worthy social scientist will be able to pick holes in it. However, this analysis does align reasonably well with my personal experience (again anecdotal) and some of the more robust public opinion surveys and peer-reviewed literature.

Substantial equivalence

OK, here is the basics of the arguments put forward about substantial equivalence (SE).

Response from Ari Levaux to critical comments about his position on SE

“I think substantial equivalence is outdated, and Monsanto’s stance against toxicity testing is transparent, arrogant, and reckless. microRNA shows just how much more complicated things are than the assumptions built into substantial equivalence. That said, microRNA provides nothing more than a possible path by which a problem might occur.”

And again

“… Anyway, none of the nitpickers – except the impressively level-headed mirna, have provided any useful response to my points that substantial equivalence is a transparent joke of an unproven hypothesis, and that Monsanto’s stance against toxicity testing is based in business objectives, not scientific objectives.”

My initial thought to Levaux’s response was that his inability to understand and interpret the science (sounds like he didn’t even try) severely dented any credibility to the point that it make it hard to respect his thoughts on substantial equivalence.  Nevertheless, the questions of substantial equivalence and the precautionary principle, which he also refers to, are legitimate ones. Whether you agree with Levaux or not is another matter. Levaux claims the objectives are based on business rather than science.

The precautionary principle is equally controversial. I am no expert, but the conversations I have had with people on this topic are steeped more in values and personal ethics than anything to do with science. Much of it comes down to your definition of safe, though that is a bit simplistic.  Interpretations of the precautionary principle are as many and varied as those of the bible. This has been the case even as far back as my third year undergrad class 20 years ago when it was part of an assignment and tutorial topic.

Becasue Australia uses substantial equivalence as the basis to assess GM foods, I thought it pertinent to at least present some more details on the issue. Levaux’s arguments can be read in his articles and his responses to the comments. The following details are largely from the dudes at Biofortified

Karl Haro Von Mogel – part of a posted reply to Levaux

…Your treatment of Substantial Equivalence is simplistic and you don’t indicate that you understand precisely what is meant by it, and why it was developed. There is a perception amongst anti-GE individuals that it is some sort of way of avoiding testing, when in fact it is a way to determine if there is a biochemical or nutritional change that falls outside the natural range of variation, which would suggest further testing. It is not an assumption of equivalency, but a determination that is reached only after testing has occurred. It doesn’t preclude further testing, nor is it a claim that there is no possible side effects from genetic engineering. Genes exist in a connected network of activity, and any change, including by mere breeding, can have effects on that system. Substantial equivalence is in fact a recognition of this fact that a genetically engineered trait can significantly affect this system, and if it does, further scrutiny is advised.

Anastasis Bodnar

Bodnar had previously written a reasonably extensive article for Biofortified, though it is written from a US/FDA perspective.

What substantial equivalence can do is give us a starting point.

We know that there is variation in amounts and types of proteins and metabolites, gene expression, and other parameters from variety to variety, from environment to environment, and from plant to plant. For example, if I use a microarray to find similarly and differently expressed genes in two genetically identical plants grown in slightly different environments, such as different temperatures, I will find some genes that have significantly different expression. Similarly, plants of different varieties grown in the same environment will have different gene expression profiles and even two identical plants in the same environment will have some differences.

The first step in a comparative assessment is to test and compare the genetically engineered variety to a genetically similar variety that doesn’t have the trans- or cis-gene. Tests can include gene expression, metabolic profiles, feeding studies, and more. If differences aren’t found in a reasonably wide panel of tests, then the genetically engineered variety can be called substantially equivalent to the genetically similar variety.  More here…

Finally, the perspective of the Australian Regulator, Food Standards Autralia New Zealand (FSANZ)

Assessment of long-term, multigen feeding studies says GM foods are safe

Jason Major

TechNyou

A review of long-term and multi-generational animal feeding studies declares GM foods are safe, though there are many criticisms of the studies.

The review appears in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (in press). They analysed 12 long-term (greater than 90 days) feeding trials and 12 multi-generational feeding trial on a range of GM crops and traits. They analysed these alongside the many 90 day or less feeding studies.

Their overall conclusion is that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.  The caveat here is that the reviewers had serious concerns with the study design and consequent strength of the statistical analysis for a lot of the studies reviewed. Topping the concern list was the lack of a comparable isogenic lines in the feeding trials. This means that the GM cultivar the researchers used was different to the non-GM one they used as a control. For example, if you go to the nursery to buy sweet corn, you will have loads of different varieties to choose from – all different cultivars. Each of these varieties (or cultivars) will have different nutritional and metabolomic/proteomic, etc profiles and consequently your body will produce different metabolites, etc in response to them. Hence if you have a specific GM cultivar, you should use the same cultivar without the transgenic trait for an accurate comparison.

There were also concerns with many trial having insufficient animals to provide sufficient statistical strength – the more you have the more certain you can be about your results.

Statistics V Biology

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that there is a big difference between something that is statistically significant and something that is biologically significant. In a few of the studies some parameters showed small differences that were statistically significant but not biologically significant. In the case of toxicology, it is the biologically significant that is important. For example, if 10 units of a particular toxin found naturally in a food is declared harmless for humans, and the normal range in a specific cultivar or plant is between 2 and 5 units. If your GM plant is found to have 6 units that may be declared statistically significant, but it is still going to be harmless from a biological perspective so has no biological significance and would be considered safe to eat.

It will be interesting to see if there is any controversy of this review. I have yet to see any which is surprising given the amount of uncertainty regarding the scientific methodology on some of the public papers and the criticism from the review authors. I would have thought this would have provided loads of ammunition for the opposing camps in this debate.  Maybe it is too close to Christmas?

Can GM-free biofortified crops succeed after Golden Rice controversy?

Howarth Bouis from HarvestPlus explains why their non-GM biofortified crops with higher portions of key vitamins can succeed in tackling malnutrition.

The Ecologist: 12 December 2011

TechNyou

This gives an insight into the issues of micro-nutrient deficiency worldwide.  However, Bouis implies that HarvestPlus focus only on non-GM breeding technologies to develop biofortified crops. HarvestPlus fund the University of Melbourne research being done by Dr Alex Johnson to develop iron-enriched rice using transgenic (GM) technologies.

And some TechNyou commentary on the Golden Rice V Iron-enriched rice

Status quo is the go for GM food labelling

By Jason Major

TechNyou

Well mostly status quo. The Government appears to think all is generally OK with labelling of GM foods based on their agreement or otherwise of recommendations in the national Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy.

The Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP and The Hon Catherine King MP, the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing put out a joint media release outlining the Government’s position on a raft of proposed changes in the review. You have to scroll down to recommendation 28 before you get to anything about GM foods. See below.

One change

So, assuming I have correctly interpreted the recommendations, the solitary change regarding labelling of GM foods involves the use of flavours. Any flavours containing detectable amounts of novel DNA or genetic material should now be labelled.

One other recommendation they agreed with, in principle, was improved monitoring of labelling requirements by more thorough testing of products. What the best way to achieve this outcome is undecided. See recommendation 33.

Nano foods

No, this is not a complaint about tiny portions on large white plates in fancy restaurants, but the use of nanoparticles in food. The Government agrees with Recommendation 35 that calls for, as a matter of urgency, a standard for regulating the presence of nanotechnology in food, though the Government’s agreement statement only suggested leveraging off existing procedures FSANZ has put in place. Not sure if I detect a sense of urgency here.

Recommendations

Rec 28: That as a general principle all foods or ingredients that have been processed by new technologies (i.e., all technologies that trigger pre-market food safety assessments) be required to be labelled for 30 years from the time of their introduction into the human food chain; the application of this principle to be based on scientific evidence of direct impact on, or modification of, the food/ingredient to be consumed. At the expiry of that period the mandatory labelling should be reviewed.

Do not agree: There is already a process in place to ensure that new technologies are safe before entering the food supply. As outlined in the response to recommendation 2, each should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Rec 29: That only foods or ingredients that have altered characteristics or contain detectable novel DNA or protein be required to declare the presence of genetically modified material on the label.

Agree: This reflects status quo including the exemption for flavours and the threshold for unintentional presence.

Rec 30: That any detection of an adventitious genetically modified event be followed by a period of monitoring and testing of that food or ingredient.

Do not agree: This would be difficult to justify with no breach of the Code and no evidence of such to justify the cost to establish.

Rec 31: That foods or ingredients with flavours containing detectable novel DNA or protein not be exempt from the requirements to declare the presence of genetically modified material on the label.

Agree in principle: There is no reason to exempt flavours however this should be referred to FSANZ for review and further advice.

Rec 32: That foods or ingredients that have been genetically modified and would require declaration if labelled be declared on menu/menu boards or in close proximity to the food display or menu in chain food service outlets and on vending machines.

Do not agree: Restaurants and food service outlets should provide this information upon request or could do it voluntarily.

Rec 33: That governments ensure effective monitoring of labelling requirements in the Food Standards Code relating to genetically modified foods or ingredients through support for sufficient Australian and New Zealand laboratories, observing world best practice protocols, and with the necessary resources and analytical skills.

Agree in principle: Currently the laboratories in Australia and New Zealand do not have the technology to undertake all the testing required for this level of monitoring. There would be significant costs involved in providing the laboratories with these technologies. It may be more cost effective to utilise overseas laboratories that already have this capability. Monitoring is also subject to resource priorities of respective enforcement agencies. There is currently a National Compliance and Monitoring Strategy for GM Foods agreed by jurisdictions. Both the Implementation Sub-Committee and FSANZ have surveillance and monitoring regimes in place, for example the survey of GM in soy based infant formula in 2011.

Rec 35: That Food Standards Australia New Zealand and other relevant bodies develop as a matter of urgency a standard for regulating the presence of nanotechnology in the food production chain, consistent with the recommendations in this Report relating to new technologies.

Agree: Support the development of a new standard leveraging off the procedures FSANZ already has in place to assess safety of foods containing nanoparticles.

Rubisco the underdog could boost crop yields

Modification of a small enzyme involved in photosynthesis could boost crop yields and be more resilient under drought and poor soil conditions.

Australian National University: ANU Reporter Summer 2011

TechNyou

Professor Jill Gready, who heads this project has some interesting thoughts on the ethics of food production, the role of multi-national corporations.

From ANU Reporter:

According to Gready, the serious ethical issues surrounding agriculture and technology stem from historical under-investment by public bodies in food production. Multinational agricultural biotech companies have stepped in to fill the gap, and as a result, they own and therefore control access to most of the technology.

nudies are GMO free

By Jason Major

TechNyou

nudie fruit juice proudly claim their juices are GMO free, otherwise they wouldn’t buy from them. Is this misleading advertising?

In the nudie fruit juice company website’s FAQs they have the following:

Are nudies GMO free?

Yes! In fact we make sure all our fruit suppliers sign a contract that stipulates they are GMO free too – else we won’t buy from them.

Why misleading?

It certainly isn’t false, as far as I can see. But I think it can be argued that such claims are misleading because none of their product range that I could see (and I checked about two-thirds of them) contain fruits or vegetables that are genetically modified full stop. That is, there are none in existence, so there is no way they could have any GMO ingredients in them and there is no point asking there suppliers to sign a contract stipulating they supply GMO-free products because it is hard to grow something that doesn’t exist.  Making the suggestion that there are varieties of the fruit and vegetable they use that are GMO and they take careful steps to avoid them is misleading the public. Isn’t it?

Is this sort of marketing widespread?

I would be interested to know of other examples and whether people think it is misleading; whether it harms the discussion about this technology, prevents an informed discussion…?

Did anyone out there witness such marketing and therefore draw the conclusion there actually varieties of that particular food that were GMO?

I could be wrong

I could have missed the corn, soy and cottonseed smoothie, or the sugarbeet and potato crushie, I guess.

Cartoon science. TechNyou’s postcard fun

Nick Kallincos, is a scientist turned full-time artist artist.  TechNyou occasionally drag him back to his science roots to design the artwork for  our postcards. They are the lighter side of emerging technologies and as postcards only stay on the shelves for a short time we thought we’d share the art with you here.

More of Nick’s work can be found on his website PicNick Productions

These images are copyrighted and cannot be downloaded/copied or used for any commercial purpose

Theme Environment – bioremediation

Theme: GM foods

Theme Stem Cells

Theme synthetic biology

Want a hard copy postcard?

TechNyou has a limited supply of extra postcards in the office. Contact us if you would like a few and I can post them to you

Vitamin A making yeast. Better than sliced bread?

By Jason Major

TechNyou

Give us our daily vitamin-enhanced bread. What if scientists genetically modified a yeast to make beta carotene  and used that yeast to make bread?  Assuming it does what it is supposed to do, people in developing nations, especially children, could eat that bread and help prevent the diseases (eg blindness) and often death associated with deficiency of this vitamin.

This was the motivation behind a group of US students who did just this and entered their research in iGEM, the International Genetically Engineered Machine competition. They also developed modified yeast strain that makes Vitamin C (ascorbic acid). See link to John Hopkins University media release

The problem of course is whether people would accept bread made from GM yeast. Anti-GMO groups are opposed to GM wheat and rice with changed nutrient levels. The Greenpeace actions on a CSIRO wheat with changed starch characteristics is one of the more recent examples.  The difference here of course is that the GM component is not a staple such as wheat. It is a yeast that only makes up a small proportion of the ingredients in bread. Would this matter? The students involved in the project think the fact that yeast is such a small component of the bread ingredients it should be accepted, though they have yet to do the planned public attitude surveys to find out. From the construction of their survey questions it appears they want to survey those in developing nations who would be the likely recipients of their bread. The results of this would be interesting to know as so far we have a reasonable understanding of the public attitudes of people in developed nations such as Australia and to some extent the political stance of some developing nations but only anecdotal evidence (that I have come across) of what those in developing nations think of this, especially those that are suffering the micronutrient deficiencies these foods are trying to correct.

The student’s survey, lab notes and all loads of other info about their project is on their project website

Having their bread and trying hard not to eat it too

This is research that has moved beyond simply modifying the yeast – they have called it VitaYeast. They have used it to make bread. The bread has beta carotene in it. It looks and smells like bread. The students unfortunately can’t see if it tastes like bread. Because of its GMO status it can’t be eaten until it has undergone safety testing and regulatory approval. Bit like learning how to make chocolate and being told you can’t lick the spoon.

Variability in the system

I can’t determine from their results if the amount of beta carotene or Vitamin C in the bread is sufficient to have any clinical effect – not my area of expertise – but this is early days in their research and they have proof of principle, at least. Part of their future research will involve screening  yeast cells that produce varying levels of beta carotene and Vitamin C to find those that are making amounts of these vitamins that will be functional in their role of helping prevent micronutrient deficiency. That is, whenever you generate a genetically modified organism you get a huge amount of variability in the individuals that have been modified, whether it be a yeast or bacteria cell, or a more complex organism such as a plant or animal. This is because the gene insertion process is a random one. Scientists have little control over where the gene construct will insert itself in the host genome. The position of the insertion can influence the activity of the transgene or influence the activity of the existing genes of the host organism – often detrimentally. So apart from eliminating the individuals that have undesirable characteristics because of where the gene inserted, you have to screen for the individuals that have a gene inserted in a desirable location where it is stable over many generations (ie it doesn’t jump around to different spots in the genome), that the gene is doing the job you intended and not disrupting the function of the host genes in any undesirable way.

Even if they succeed at this scientific level there is no guarantee of success. It has to then run the gauntlet of public attitudes and expensive regulatory hoops and hurdles, which will at best take years.

iGEM

iGEM is do-it-yourself genetic engineering, or synthetic biology. Sometimes I find it hard to distinguish between genetic engineering and synthetic biology, except that maybe synbio is a more ambitious, brazen form of gen engineering. More distinctly, I guess syn bio might be described as taking the concept of DNA as simply a bunch spare parts that can be used to build or completely rejig the function of an organism, which at this stage is limited to single-celled ones such as bacteria and yeast.

iGEM is a competition that gets students to explore the possibilities of these ambitious and brazen ideas, often successfully and it is based on the use of biobricks, which are those DNA spare parts.

Biobricks

Biobricks are standardised biological parts based on DNA that can be incorporated into living systems to construct new living systems. The biobrick parts are kept in a registry and there is a Biobricks Foundation that oversees all this.

Here is what the Biobricks Foundation has to say about themselves

“We are dedicated to advancing synthetic biology to benefit all people and the planet. To achieve this, we must make engineering biology easier, safer, equitable, and more open. We do this in the following ways: by ensuring that the fundamental building blocks of synthetic biology are freely available for open innovation; by creating community, common values and shared standards; and by promoting biotechnology for all constructive interests.”

I have said it before and I’ll say it again, “tis a brave new world.”

Image: Photo by Will Kirk/Homewoodphoto.jhu.edu .