MALIN HEDLUND

DANIELLE BROWN

JENNY SJALIN

JONATHON LOWE

A GEN-ET(H)ICAL INITATIVE

MALIN HEDLUND DANIELLE BROWN JENNY SJALIN JONATHON LOWE

COULD REALITY BE THAT ONE MANS POVERTY IS ANOTHER MANS WEALTH, THAT ONE

WOMAN’S ILLNESS IS ANOTHER WOMAN’S FORTUNE, IF THERE WOULD ONLY BE ONE SIDE

TO A STORY, HOW WOULD THIS THEN FORM OUR OPINION? OUR SURROUNDINGS HELP SHAPE

OUR BELIEFS, WHICH MORE OR LESS ARE AFFECTED BY THE WAY WE PERCEIVE THINGS, THERE

ARE ALWAYS TWO SIDES TO A COIN, AND IT IS THROUGH TAKING OWN RESPONSIBILITY IN

ONES DECISIONS, THAT OUR REALITY COULD BE A MATTER OF PERCEPTION.

To establish an understanding of the general perception surrounding GM foods, a survey was conducted, where 82 people between 19-35 years responded, with the outcome that most people found it to be scary, confusing but also interesting. Most of them had some knowledge and little interest due to the circumstances to find and filter information and were concerned about eating GM food because of the uncertainty of its impact on their health and environment. On the other hand the majority answered that they were not concerned about using GM medicines.

Other factors that play a roll in determining peoples perception are the bad operating practices by the driving corporations behind the technology, leading to allegations of corruption in the way the technology is regulated and how it is being used. The testing and regulating process has been implemented unsustainably and irresponsibly. The patent system works against the majority of commercial and subsistence farming methods.

ISSUE

“BECAUSE THERE IS LITTLE TO NO SCIENTIFIC DATA AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT ITS LONG TERM AFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND US”

A possible safety issue was brought out clearly several years ago. Despite the fact that soybeans are a good source of protein, the protein is of low quality. Since they are not containing enough of the essential amino acid methionine, scientists in Nebraska planned to transfer a gene from a Brazil nut to a soybean. This was intended to get better quality protein from soybeans to be used as an animal feed. However, as some people are allergic to Brazil nuts, it turned out that the better quality protein was one of the Brazil nut allergens. Since this fact was quickly revealed by testing, the genetic modification project was abandoned. This shows that testing for safety is necessary and that such testing is being performed and that they are working.

Primary concerns that people have are fears towards the environmental impact that genetically modified products could contribute to, where one of the mayor concerns is a possible loss of biodiversity. GE crops can indirectly promote antibiotic resistance, making it difficult to treat human disease. In the technique of transplanting genes there is need for a marker to identify which cells have taken up the foreign gene. One way is to attach a gene for antibiotic resistance. Following the attempt to insert the new genes,

THINK IT CONTAINS LESS NUTRITION & VI TAMINSAM SCARED IT WILL REPLACE NA TURAL CROPS

THINK IT’S UNETHICAL & LARGE LEADING COMP ANIES TAKE ADVANTAGE I WANT TO KNOW WH AT I EAT

WAN’T TO BE AS NATURAL AS POSSIBL EAM UNCERTAIN OF TH IMPACT ON HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT

NOTHINGSOME MUCH

BAD CORPORATIONS PATTENING

ISSUES GOVERNMENT LOBBING

FOR THE REGULATION

Even though the genetical technology is available on a worldwide basis, many worry that a few large companies would get control of the global market of agriculture, such as Monsanto, holding more than 90 per cent of the market of genetically modified (GM) agricultural products, critiqued for their way of forcing their patent on the smaller farmers, putting them out of business.

Many are worried that products are not tested thoroughly enough before reaching consumers, there has been unfortunate incidents when this has occurred, but not the extent that most assume.

RESEARCH AFFECTED,

CORPORATE DOMINATION

A possible safety issue was brought out clearly several years ago. Despite the fact that soybeans are a good source of protein, the protein is of low quality. Since they are not containing enough of the essential amino acid methionine, scientists in Nebraska planned to transfer a gene from a Brazil nut to a soybean. This was intended to get better quality protein from soybeans to be used as an animal feed. However, as some people are allergic to Brazil nuts, it turned out that the better quality protein was one of the Brazil nut allergens. Since this fact was quickly revealed by testing, the genetic modification project was abandoned. This shows that testing for safety is necessary and that such testing is being performed and that they are working.

Primary concerns that people have are fears towards the environmental impact that genetically modified products could contribute to, where one of the mayor concerns is a possible loss of biodiversity. GE crops can indirectly promote antibiotic resistance, making it difficult to treat human disease. In the technique of transplanting genes there is need for a marker to identify which cells have taken up the foreign gene. One way is to attach a gene for antibiotic resistance. Following the attempt to insert the new genes, antibiotics can be applied to determine which cells survive, and are therefore carriers of the implanted DNA. Once these resistant genes are into the food chain, more disease causing bacteria may become antibiotic resistant, which could increase issues of public health.

Some pesticide resistant crops could be toxic to non-target organisms. One issue has been that the Bt toxin could be harmful to insects related to the European corn borer, including moths and butterflies. In 2001 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its findings: that Bt does not harm monarch butterflies. There was still however a that this testing was only conducted after the questions were raised, when half the nation’s cornfields were already planted in Bt corn.

The growth of Bt crops may kill or harm non-target organisms by changing soil chemistry. The roots of Bt plants have been found to release the toxin into the soil and following harvest, decaying plants still contain some amounts.

MAIN CONCERNS

VITAMINS AND MINERALS Some foods can be genetically modifies to contain higher amounts of important vitamins and minerals. Vitamin A deficiencies cause blindness. In Africa, 500,000 go blind each year. If rice can be modified to contain more vitamin A, the amount of people going blind will decrease.

IMPROVED ANIMAL FEED

Phosphorous overabundance in poultry manure is a common environmental problem in areas of intensive livestock production. When added to animal feed, the enzyme phytase can alleviate this problem by reducing phosphorus discharge by up to a third. Scientists have genetically modified the forage crop alfalfa to contain high levels of phytase. Another example is LY038, a maize line with enhanced lysine content for improved animal feed quality. It is now awaiting authorisation in the EU.

HEALTHIER

Crops for healthier food and feedModified oil content and composition (e.g. polyunsaturated fatty acids such as linoleic acid, laureic acid) for maize, soybeans, rapeseed and other oil crops: These modified crops could be important in the fight against cardiovascular disease, obesity, and certain forms of cancer. “Golden rice” – enrichment with carotenoids (provitamin A): This project produced a rice cultivar with enhanced levels of beta-carotene and other carotenoids, which are metabolic precursors of vitamin A. Because rice naturally contains only a negligible amount of beta-carotene, vitamin A deficiency is widespread in regions of the world where rice is a staple food.Higher content of protein or amino acids, or modified amino acid composition for enhanced nutritional value: For example, a GM potato was developed in India containing one third

more protein including essential, high quality nutrients. The novel gene came from the protein-rich amaranth plant. Gluten-free wheat: Celiac sprue patients cannot tolerate the protein gluten (something similar to an allergy).Higher levels of beneficial antioxidant compounds (e.g. lycopene, flavinols found in tomato) to prevent cardiovascular diseases and certain forms of cancer.

LONG LIVED

Fruits with longer shelf-life: The FlavrSavr® tomato is the most famous example. These tomatoes were the first GM fruit sold in the US and were sold as tomato purée in the UK. Apples, raspberries and melons with delayed ripening have also been developed.

NEW PRODUCTS

As more research is done the technology is bound to improve. Scientists are already considering genetic modification to make fish, nuts and plants grow faster.Crops optimised for industryRather than a mix of different starches, the transgenic “amylopectin potato” contains almost exclusively amylopectin (an increase from 75 to 98 percent). This starch will be used for paper, textiles and adhesives.GM rapeseed oil with high erucic acid content is used in plastics and in high-grade industrial lubricants.

NON TOXIC

Elimination or reduction of undesirable substances like allergens or toxic substances (e.g. caffeine, nicotine).

GMO GOLDEN RICE IN ASIA WITH ENHANCED VITAMIN A BENEFITS FOR CONSUMERS

CROP CASE STUDY:

Genetically modified rice that contains beta-carotene, widely known as Golden Rice (GR), has not yet been introduced in any country. It was developed to address Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) in low-income rice consumers, but currently needs much more development and testing before it can be introduced into farmers’ fields. GR is the most famous biofortification effort undertaken with modern biotechnology, due to the initial publicity (e.g., the cover of Time magazine on July 31, 2000). As such, it has been a lightening rod for the debate about the use of GMOs in meeting nutritional needs. Thus, for this special issue on GM foods and biofortification, a review of the lessons learned from the GR case is crucial to understanding the political landscape for other biofortification efforts. GR shows both the dramatic nutritional benefits that can be achieved with use of modern biotechnology and the considerable hurdles to eventual adoption and impact.

The polished rice grain does not contain beta-carotene, a Vitamin A precursor that the body converts into Vitamin A. In low-income populations where rice is the primary staple, several micronutrient deficiencies are chronic problems, including lack of Vitamin A. Such deficiencies are particularly pronounced in small children, who need greater nutrient density in food to meet their higher nutrient needs. While the link between VAD and blindness captures public attention, VAD also lowers immune response and increases the death rate from common childhood diseases in developing countries, and as such VAD is often considered primarily in terms of childhood-mortality effects.

VAD is widely recognized as a globally significant problem. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2004, p. 4) estimates that “Vitamin A deficiency is compromising the immune systems of approximately 40% of the developing world’s under-fives and leading to the early deaths of an estimated one million young children each year.” VAD is often a problem where rice gruel is used as a weaning food. It is most important in the poorest nations of the world, including most of South and Southeast Asia where rice is the main staple, and that situation has not changed during the past decade.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED RICE THAT CONTAINS BETA-CAROTENE, WIDELY KNOWN AS GOLDEN

IMPETUS, DEVELOPMENT, AND INITIAL REACTIONS

VITAMIN A DEFICIENCY IS COMPROMISING THE IMMUNE SYSTEMS OF

APPROXIMATELY 40% OF THE DEVELOPING WORLD’S UNDER-FIVES AND

LEADING TO THE EARLY DEATHS OF AN ESTIMATED ONE MILLION YOUNG

CHILDREN EACH YEAR.”

The United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF, 2004

The idea of using rice as a vehicle to address micronutrient deficiencies dates at least to the early 1980s. This idea emerged within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system and led to conventional breeding efforts to increase iron and zinc in rice in the 1990s. Creating rice with beta-carotene content was not possible until the advent of modern biotechnology techniques. The Rockefeller Foundation (RF) funded the initial GR research through its Rice Biotechnology Network, which was specifically established to address the need for basic biotechnology research on this important food crop that was likely to be ignored by the private sector in industrialized countries. With support from the RF in the 1990s, Ingko Potrykus at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and Peter Beyer at the University of Freiburg, Germany, collaborated to introduce daffodil genes into rice. The science was complex and cutting edge at that time, as it was an early example of the use of pathway engineering. Their success was hailed as a significant breakthrough in the application of modern biotechnology, and the work appeared in Science (Ye et al., 2000).

In conjunction with scientific publication, Potrykus appeared on the cover of Time (July 31, 2000). Interestingly, the cover itself posed the debate that has dogged this idea from the beginning: “This rice could save a million kids a year, but protesters believe such genetically modified foods are bad for us and our planet.” The article appeared at the height of the relatively new debate about the acceptance of GM foods, largely triggered by trade conflicts between exporting countries that had adopted the technology (the United States, Canada, and Argentina) and the importing countries (largely the European Union [EU] and other European nations).

Part of the publicity focused on the donation of intellectual property (IP) rights for the GR technology so that it could be further developed and adapted for introduction in the developing world. Apart from the patent held by Potrykus, several enabling technologies were also needed for further development. Potrykus formed a partnership with Zeneca (which later became Syngenta Seeds AS after its merger with Novartis), due to their history of work in carotenoids. Syngenta negotiated to put together a package of rights to be donated for humanitarian use, including patents held by Bayer AG, Monsanto Co., Orynova BV, and Zeneca Mogen BV. The condition for use of these patents include a) that seeds are developed

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

TRADE CONFLICTS IN EXPORTING/IMPORTING COUNTRIES

POTRYKUS, TIME (JULY 31, 2000)

for distribution to farmers in developing countries earning less than $10,000 per year from farming and 2) that release only takes place in countries with adequate biosafety regulations. The donation of this package of IP rights for humanitarian purposes was advertised as a model for the future transfer of this technology to developing countries.

Negative reactions to GR were immediate and in many cases quite emotional. The groups reacting included environmental advocacy groups already engaged in arguing against GM crops in general, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engaged in nutrition and food-security issues in developing countries. In Southeast Asia, such groups included Biodiversity and Community Rights Action (BIOTHAI) in Thailand, the Cambodian Center for Study and Development in Agriculture (CEDAC), the Development Research Communication and Services Centre (DRCSC) in India, GRAIN-MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, Inc.) in the Philippines, and PAN-Indonesia and Policy Research for Development Alternatives (UBINIG) in Bangladesh (BIOTHAI et al., 2001). First-world opposition includes organizations opposed to GM technology, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Food First, as well as various groups in Europe (e.g., Institute for Science in Society in the United Kingdom). Nutrition intervention groups do not seem to have been as vocal in the debate.

Many of these reactions reworked long-standing concerns about Green Revolution technologies and the commercialization of smallholder agriculture and thus were not specific to GR. All of the opposing groups agree that VAD is an important problem but objected to GR either as an inappropriate or an ineffective solution. To summarize, the negative reactions were based on these points:

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY GROUPS ALREADY ENGAGED

TAKES PLACE ION COUNTRIES WITH ADEQUATE BIOSAFETY REGULATIONS

AS AN INAPPROPIATE OR AN INEFFECTIVE SOLUTION

Malnutrition is a result of poverty and interventions already exist to address micronutrient deficiencies. Instead of developing GR, resources should be focused on poverty alleviation, sustainable farming, and proven strategies for nutrition intervention, supplementation and diet diversification through community gardens.

GM foods are inherently unsafe to human health and the environment. GR poses risks of these kinds and thus will not achieve its humanitarian goals.

Rice is directly consumed by the poor, and thus the poor would be “guinea pigs” for any human health impacts. Either GR will not provide enough Vitamin A to do any good or will provide too much, resulting in Vitamin A toxicity.

The IP arrangements are so convoluted that they do not preclude commercial abuse and do not represent a useful replicable model. The idea of “donation” is an anathema to those who object to commercial control of any agricultural IP.

GR is part of the continued use of “Green Revolution” technologies that are unsustainable and harmful to the poor.

The virulence of the debate is surprising to someone who is agnostic on the subject. On the one hand, scientists, multi-national seed companies, and the CGIAR felt that they deserved credit for addressing a humanitarian issue head-on and for donating technology for beneficial use. Admittedly, multi-nationals were in need of positive publicity following the negative reactions to first-generation GM crops in Europe, and this was a strong motivation for their action on IP issues. Scientists involved were surprised to have their motives questioned, as they genuinely believed in the positive humanitarian potential of this technology. On the other hand, those opposed to GM technology for ethical, environmental, or health concerns seem to have felt that this represented a commercial conspiracy to win over the public. They wanted to debunk this technology because it diverts attention from potential negative impacts to potential positive ones, thus changing the terms of the debate. They labeled it a “Trojan horse” for other biotechnology products in less-developed countries. For the NGOs involved in poverty alleviation, it represents competition for resources and influence. Thus, the debate has been quite hostile in that each side accuses the other of acting in bad faith.

1

POSTITIVE PUBLICITY FOLLOWING THE NEGATIVE REACTIONS TO FIRST GENERATION GM CROPS

2

3

4

5

The public attention to this potential new technology reinforced for its advocates the need to address several issues in its development. It is perhaps unfortunate that the first scientific breakthrough generated so much attention when it remained fairly far removed from implementation. The initial strains of GR utilizing daffodil genes did not contain very much beta-carotene and might have had little impact on VAD in most Asian diets. This point was noted almost immediately by astute advocates for the opposition (e.g., Shiva, 2000). Later GR1 lines contain as much as 5 times more beta-carotene, although Dawe, Robertson, and Unnevehr (2002) found that even this level may not have much impact in some populations that are severely affected by VAD and for whom rice is not the only staple.

Beyond issues of agronomic viability, there are other development efforts required to address issues of acceptance, safety, and impact. Some taste tests have been carried out (Dubock, 2005), although not yet in Asia. Bioavailability testing is currently ongoing at Tufts University, using GR2 lines (Stein, Sachdev, & Qaim, 2007), and the next phase will be a study in Asia (G. Toenniessen, personal communication, August 1, 2006). Detailed work for biosafety risk assessment will continue as the crop-development work advances. This risk assessment work will be mostly carried out in Asia by NARS and will take several years to complete.

Preliminary stability and retention studies are also underway in Germany, the United States, and the Philippines in order to take account of varying storage and cooking conditions in different socioeconomic and cultural settings. For example, exposure to air, light, and moisture during storage will vary across locations. As another example, rice is parboiled in Bangladesh before eating. Conditions and food preparation processes such as these could have large effects on the quantity of beta-carotene in the cooked grain, so the results of these studies will be critical for making a better assessment of the potential contribution of GR to alleviating VAD. More work of this kind will need to be done as more material adapted to local conditions is developed.

The importance of VAD is widely recognized. Its persistence is testimony to the limitations of current interventions (discussed more fully in other papers in this special issue). GR has the potential to reach important subpopulations that have not been targeted by current interventions, most notably small children in parts of rural Asia where rice is the predominant staple and weaning food. Several different studies have now tried to assess the potential benefits of GR using different

SUBSEQUENT EVOLUTION AND CURRENT STATUS

BIOAVAILABILITY TESTING IS CURRENTLY ONGOING

economic methods and building their analyses on some strong assumptions about nutritional benefits. Because GR is still so far from actual production and consumption, little is known about bioavailability, losses in storage or cooking, or many other factors that would influence the actual delivery of Vitamin A. These studies are beginning and will help define the deployment options for the product.biofortification of rice or wheat with either iron or zinc. The latter biofortifications

To move forward, it seems clear that GR must be agronomically viable at a minimum. To be acceptable to consumers and accomplish its nutritional goals will require that countries make some strategic decisions about implementation, adoption, and promotion. Such decisions include desirable beta-carotene levels, target populations, desirable agronomic characteristics, and methods for distribution and promotion. These choices would be best informed if the health and agricultural policy-makers can agree on the need for and potential benefits from this technology and if NGOs who work with the poor embrace it. As this approach to biofortification is relatively challenging, future investments in research need to increasingly be driven by policy dialogue.

The GR story provides guidance for other biofortification efforts. First, any biofortification of a staple crop using GM technology will likely encounter greater political resistance, as well as more challenges in safety assessments and delivery, than non-GM approaches. Second, any biofortification effort will need support and guidance from NARS and NGOs within countries with nutritionally deficient populations in order to be designed and targeted appropriately.

Eggplants will only set seeds in warm weather, so to grow them in the winter in an unheated greenhouse, the grower must use a chemical to trick the plant into beginning fruit development without setting seed. Plants can be protected from those viruses by using insecticides or other pest management methods. There is essentially nothing else that a farmer can do to protect his crop from virus damage, except to grow a different crop. But genetic engineering a plant to protect it from a particular kind of virus is quite easy.Sentinel plants are intended not for food but for quality control. It contains a gene derived from a luminescent jellyfish, but in all other ways it is identical to the food crop it is planted

alongside. When these sentinel plants experience a lack of water, they literally glow in the dark. The farmer then knows that his crop must be watered or

whether irrigation can be postponed.Escherichia coli are friendly bacteria that live in our intestines and contribute to our health. But there is one strain of E. Coli (designated as O157:H7) that

SENTINEL PLANTS EXPERIENCE A LACK OF WATER, THEY LITERALLY GLOW IN THE DARK

MODIFIED PLANTS

can make us sick, even kill us. We can get it from inadequately cooked meat. Genetic engineers are working on a neat solution. They are developing a transgenic animal feed which resists complete digestion in the stomach and delivers the antibody, specific to the virulent E. coli strain, into the intestines.A more important potential application may be the development of very fast growing trees. If global warming cannot be prevented by adding less carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, by burning less coal and oil, the only alternative is to depend on processes that remove it.

OTHER RESOURCES

Scientific evidence shows that the risks to do with genetically modified foods are fundamentally the same as other food products. Like with any food there is no such thing as no risk being involved, but consumers can be assured that foods that are genetically modfied meet the same strict safety standards as foods produced using natural methods Genetically modified planets have the potential in todays society to have a huge impact on useful alternative resources and substances. With genetic engineering, the potential also exists to modify plants to efficiently produce valuable pharmaceuticals, cleaner & cheaper ethanol, bringing back and saving from becoming an extinct organism, biodegradable products.

GM CORN FUEL

Scientists have genetically modified transgenic corn plants that break down cellulose by producing enzymes that can turn their leaves and stems into sugars. So bascically using biowaste from the GM corn plant to produce ethanol. These genetically modified plants could lower the cost of how we produce ethanol from these resources, making such biofuel more competitive instead of using corn kernels, which is the primary source of ethanol.The Farmers perception of growing corn for human consumption are ones of concern, that cross-contamination may accur. The GM corn plant was developed by a branch of the Swiss pesticide firm Syngenta, which contains

an added gene for an enzyme (amylase) that speeds the breakdown of starches into ethanol. Ethanol plants normally have to add the enzyme to corn when making ethanol. Syngenta “maintains the corn variety has a high yield, and that it has the appropriate safeguards to prevent cross- pollination.”1 After Kansas, they are planning on furthering the development of the gm corn plant by growing it in Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, and southwest Minnesota. One of the major concerns in this new development, is that aid organistations belive that it could be focusing more on producing corn plants to benefit the energy segment, then focusing on more important matters such as the global food crisis and famines.

Our solution is made up of two parts. The first part consisting of a new world recognized patent on all existing naturally occurring plants and animals similar to the open source classification of software copyright. For the second part we propose a more accurate and sustainable approach to the regulation and testing procedure. To do this we hope to found a grassroots Lobbyist organization with the goal of achieving the first two parts by advocating and explaining the safe potentials of GMOs. By eliminating the bad operating practices that make the technology dangerous and exploitive we can attempt to change the perception of GMO technology.

OUR SOLUTION

Develop a set of standards and practices that adhere to scientific and ethical conventions that respect the existing natural order.

Remove all forms of transgenic DNA insertion methods that utilize coded resistance to antibodies.

Advocate buffer zones between GMO and natural crops

Increase the testing procedures to be inline with current drug and food additive standards.

AIM1: AIM2:

Develop a set of standards and practices that adhere to scientific and ethical conventions that respect the existing natural order.

Remove all forms of transgenic DNA insertion methods that utilize coded resistance to antibodies.

Advocate buffer zones between GMO and natural crops

Increase the testing procedures to be inline with current drug and food additive standards.

Form a Grassroots Organization (Open Source) that has the goal of raising awareness of the potential of the technology and advocating the safe and sustainable approach.

Create a website that outlines our approach and showcases the possibilities GMOs can offer and inform the public on GMO safety.

Raise funds through engagement via the website and various campaigns run by the organisation.

Use the Open Source organisation to lobby Countries to introduce Resolutions to the UN that facilitate our aims 1 & 2. (send open invitation to all countries to adopt the resolutions)

Target researchers and universities are participating members of the organisation.

Advocate the technology through Media and viral marketing (create

Short film about the potential of GMOs with a view to a larger documentary).

DELIVERY

Industrial ProductIndustrial applications: “Bio” plastic biodegradable plastic from GM oilseed rape (canola)Transgenic plants can be used toproduce biodegradable plasticsmore...

Drought ResistanceAbility to grow crops in previ-ously inhospitable environments (e.g. via increased ability of plants to grow in conditions of drought, soil salinity, extremes of temperature, more...

Industrial Products

issues related to

containment.2”Medical useIndustrial applications:

“Bio” plastic biodegradable plastic from GM oilseed rape (canola)

Transgenic plants can be used to produce biodegrad-able plastics such as poly-hydroxybutyrate (PHB). Researchers have taken two genes from the bacterium Alcaligenes eutrophus, which encode enzymes responsible for synthesising the naturally occurring plastic PHB, and introduced them into plants. PHBs are 100% biodegradable and are physically similar to

polyethylene.

range of uses from medical

implants to shopping bags.“Given the ability to engi-neer new protein expres-sion in plants, the range of

potential applications is

obviously broader than pharmaceuticals. In fact, a number of PMIPs are5being pursued, although their development does not appear to be as advanced as for PMPs. Enzymes that can be used in detergents, industrial products or food manufacturing, constitute a fairly large market and are a promising target. One such enzyme developed by Prodigene and expressed in maize is laccase, which acts on lignine and could have

Industrial ProductsIndustrial applications: “Bio” plastic biodegradable plastic from GM oilseed rape (canola)

ansgenic plants can be used to produce biodegradable plastics

WEBSITE

The Open source website is there to inform people of the benefits of GMO’s and will effect policy and change to minimize risks and dangerous and unethical misuse and research.