How GMOs participate in renewable energies

“Brazil GMO firm seeks cellulosic ethanol from cane”

A Brazilian biotechnology company aims to find a way to increase the production of one of the most promising biofuels: cellulosic ethanol.

Click here to read the article:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0428150920080304 

In this discussion, we will focus on the GMOs role into the cellulosic ethanol production, and on the environmental and economic impacts. 

Cellulosic ethanol is the new generation of biofuel. Compared to the corn ethanol, its environmental impact is reduced, and its economic benefit seems to be more interesting.

But let’s talk about the role GMOs play into its production.

First, the corn used as raw material can help convert itself into ethanol if its genetic code is altered.

This leads firms to save money. For example, an enzyme that should have been added to the natural corn is not needed anymore.

This reduces the production time, simplifies the technological process and save money on the enzyme.

Currently, the GMOs can increase the cellulosic ethanol production by 2% to 5% per year. Other procedures could lead to improve this percentage in the next years. The example of Allelyx, which tries to create plants enriched in syringyl, and the growing numbers of farmers planting GMO corn to meet ethanol demand, are the proof that GMOs can offer a real advantage in the biofuels market.

 Cellulosic ethanol is more environmentally friendly than the corn ethanol: it uses two times less raw material and less fossil fuel and water.

The crops are specifically grown on marginal soils for this purpose. This prevents the soil from erosion and also avoids conflicts drawn by crops which serve both to feed people and to produce ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol is also economically advantageous, as you can produce more using less material and technologies.

GMOs indirectly take an active part in improving the renewable energies.

Some useful links:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=200974

http://www.scionline.org/index.php/Genetically_Modified_Crops_in_Agriculture

Do we have to choose between eating GMO or starving?

“GM food wins backing from Country Life”

Mark Hedges, the editor of Country Life, took position in favour of GM food to feed the world, accusing politicians “of being too short sighted”.

Click here to read the article of the Telegraph

Is the GMO food the best  alternative to feed all these people? Well, each opponent has valid arguments.

On one hand, certain facts come into play in favour of the GMO alternative.

First, the world population is rocketing. In 2050, it will reach 9.3 billions people, according to the INED (French National Institute of Demographic Studies).  Among the countries which population will grow the most, we can cite African countries, or in other words, under developed countries. Where will they find the necessary resources to survive?

Some GMO can mature in less time than their natural equivalent. This implies that there will be more crop harvests per year than before, and more available food. Moreover, some GMO are enriched in nutrients.

Let’s take for example the “Golden rice”. This rice can produces 3 or 4 times more vitamin A through biosynthesis than the white rice. All around the globe, more than 140 millions people suffer from Vitamin A deficiency (VAD), according to UNICEF. The properties of Golden Rice make it the ideal remedy to this illness.

Another interesting characteristic of GMO is that some of them are very well-adapted to extreme weather conditions: dryness, coldness, warmness.  A common particularity of GMO is also their resistance to insects: rice, apples…

In the actual context of global warming, such plants would perfectly fit the human needs, especially for African countries, which cumulate extreme warmness, insects’ invasion and lack of water.

On the other hand, some points must be underlined.

The main point is the possible consequences of GMO food on human health: you will often hear about allergies problems, toxicity of the GMO, etc.

A lot of studies have been conducted in order to verify these claims. However, according to Dr Arpad Pusztai, no reliable study is available: experiments on humans have not been conducted yet, and design of other studies is usually flawed. Some of them were more relevant for a commercial use than scientifically.

Though, always according to Dr Arpad Pusztai, risks still exist: gene mutation are unpredictable and “may lead to the development of unknown toxic/allergenic components”.  Are people ready to take the risk?  This is a value statement, but maybe we should keep in mind that even if nothing proves that GMO are dangerous for the public health, nothing proves they are not, especially in a long term vision.

An economic argument should also be emphasized. Monsanto, one of the biggest proponents of GMO, produce infertile seeds. This implies that farmers are dependant, and need to keep buying seeds to the company for each crop. For poor countries, the economical consequences are weighty.

As a conclusion, GMO food open a lot of opportunities in feeding people, but some points need to be solved, particularly the possible side effects on human health. Deeper studies must be conducted to evaluate the possible risks.

Some useful links for this post:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html

Let’s start with…

A short definition:

GMO, or Genetically Modified Organisms, are organisms whose genetic material has been altered, often through the insertion of a modified gene into their DNA.

GMO can be found in animals, plants and even microbes. Several aims of using GMO can be underlined, such as improving agriculture, improving medical knowledge, producing pharmaceutical products, etc.