GMF:

Crucial Issues and

Ethics

Bioprocess Technology, Engineering Faculty, UI

Indonesian Consortium of Biotechnology

Let’s read Some “News”

Every food from transgenic plantation is not safe

Ilyani S Andang (Peneliti YLKI):

"Tanaman utama transgenik adalahkedelai, jagung, kapas, dan kanola. Semua makanan yang berasal daritanaman transgenik seperti kedelaidan jagung tidak aman digunakan. Contoh kasus, pangan transgenikini berbahaya antara lain lima ribuorang dirawat di rumah sakit, 37 meninggal dunia dan 1.500 cacattetap akibat mengonsumsisuplemen makanan L-tryptophantransgenik di AS," kata Ilyani. Sumber: Lampung Post, 20 Januari 2008

Indonesia Should Produce Its Own Food29 November 2011 07:36, Koran SI

Kepala Badan Litbang Pertanian Haryono mengatakan, pangan harus diproduksi sendiri oleh bangsa Indonesia tanpa harus bergantung pada impor. Sebab

pangan merupakan komoditi strategis baik dari sisi ekonomi maupun politis.

Menurutnya, apabila persoalan pangan ini bergantung kepada negara lain, maka bisa berbahaya. Sehingga dengan demikian, selain menjaga ketahanan pangan, Indonesia harus punya kedaulatan pangan.

"Terkait dengan itu, bioteknologi diperlukan Indonesia dalam upaya memproduksi pangannya sendiri,” kata Haryono ketika menjadi pembicara pada Diskusi Terbatas “Bioteknologi: Mampukah Meningkatkan Produktifitas Pangan dan Kesejahteraan Petani?” di Jakarta, Senin (28/11/2011) malam.

Haryono menyatakan, produk bioteknologi lebih aman dibandingkan produk nonrekayasa genetika karena selalu dipantau dan dievaluasi. Dalam kesempatan itu, Haryono mengungkapkan bahwa tahun ini Kementerian Pertanian (Kementan) menyatakan ada delapan tanaman bioteknologi atau hasil rekayasa genetika dinyatakan berstatus aman pangan.

Dari delapan tanaman tersebut, enam di antaranya merupakan varietas jagung yakni GA21 dan NK603 yang toleran herbisida glyphosate, jagung MIR 162, BT 11, MON 89034 dan MIR 604 yang tahan serangan hama. Sementara itu dua tanaman lainnya adalah kedelai hasil rekayasa genetika yakni GTS40-3-2 dan MON89788 yang toleran herbisida glyphosate.

“Rekomendasi ini sudah dimuat di Balai Kliring Keamanan Hayati untuk notifikasi publik dan disidangkan di rapat pleno KKH pada 17 November 2011 lalu,” katanya.

Sementara itu tanaman biotek berstatus aman lingkungan di Indonesia pada 2011 yakni tebu toleran kekeringan (NXI-1T, NXI-4T dan NXI-6T). Tanaman biotek yang telah dinotifikasi ke publik dan disidangkan di KKH untuk aman lingkungan yakni jagung NK603 yang toleran herbisida glyphosate.

Perwakilan kompartemen bioteknologi di CropLife Indonesia Fadilla Dewi Rakhmawaty mengungkapkan pada 2010 pengembangan tanaman produk rekayasa genetika di seluruh dunia telah mencapai satu miliar hektare (ha).

Negara yang menanam tanaman bioteknologi meningkat dari 25 negara menjadi 29 negara yang mana 10 negara penanam terbesar (lebih dari 1 juta ha) delapan di antaranya merupakan negara berkembang.

Petani yang membudidayakan tanaman bioteknologi di seluruh dunia mencapai 15,4 juta orang yang mana 14,4 juta di antaranya petani kecil dan miskin. Dampak keuntungan yang diperoleh petani dengan menanam tanaman bioteknologi, menurut dia, sebanyak USD10,8 miliar pada 2009 yang mana 53 persennya petani di negara berkembang. (Sudarsono/Koran SI/ade)

Wine from GM was protested in French

• REPUBLIKA, PARIS–Sedikitnya 50 petani ditahan setelah sekitar 500 orang petani se-Prancis melakukan aksi demonstrasi. Mereka memprotes munculnya varietas baru anggur hasil rekayasa genetika.

• Para demonstran itu menghancurkan varietas unggul anggur itu di lokasi penelitian milik pemerintah di Perancis bagian timur.

• Kepala keamanan untuk wilayah Haut-Rhin, Jean-Christophe Bertrand, mengatakan kepada radio Europe-1 bahwa 50 orang ditahan setelah insiden pada hari Ahad.

• Setidaknya tiga menteri, Menteri Lingkungan, Pertanian, dan Penelitian Prancis mengutuk ‘kehancuran sengaja’ di National Institute for Agronomic Research di Colmar itu.

• Dalam sebuah pernyataan, para menteri mengatakan penelitian tentang bioteknologi tanaman merambat itu tidak menimbulkan risiko terhadap kesehatan atau lingkungan. Justru, kata mereka, teknik rekayasa genetika itu diperlukan untuk mengantisipasi menjalarnya virus yang merusak kebun anggur mereka.

• Pertanian yang dikembangkan dengan teknologi rekayasa genetika ditentang secara luas oleh ktivis lingkungan Prancis. Mereka menghancurkan secara rutin ladang pertanian yang ditanami dengan tanaman hasil rekayasa genetika.

Sumber: Republika, 16 Agustus 2010

Transgenic corn enters Phillipine

Alasannya karena produktivitas per hektar tanaman jagungtransgenik lebih tinggi 10-20 persen dibandingkan hibridanontransgenik.

Peningkatan produktivitas karena tanaman tersebut lebihtahan terhadap serangan serangga penggerek batang dantongkol yang dapat menurunkan produktivitas.

Petani di Cagayan, Filipina, mulai gemar menanam jagung

transgenik karena produktivitasnya yang lebih tinggi

daripada jagung hibrida konvensional

Sumber: Kompas, 29 Agustus 2008

Transgenic Cassava for Arid Land

• Jakarta (ANTARA News) – Sejumlah penelitian rekayasa genetika tanaman pangan dalam menyiasati perubahan iklim yang lebih kering di masa depan sudah mulai dilakukan Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia , misalnya pada tanaman ubi kayu atau mannihot esculenta.

• “Misalnya gen penyandi phytoenesynthase (Psy) yang terlibat dalam biosintesis beta karoten pada ubi kayu sudah diidentifikasi dan sudah di-sequence untuk konfirmasinya,” kata peneliti pada puslit Biotekologi LIPI Prof Dr. Enny Sudarmonowati yang baru saja dikukuhkan sebagai profesor riset oleh LIPI di Jakarta, Senin.

• Gen yang diperoleh ini akan diintroduksi kembali ke tanaman ubi kayu melalui transformasi genetik yang tekniknya telah dikuasai sehingga diharapkan tidak lagi mengalami kesulitan di masa datang, ujar Enny.

• Beta karoten yang diduga berkorelasi dengan ketahanan terhadap kekeringan, ujarnya, sudah bisa ditingkatkan dalam penelitian tersebut.

• Upaya menghasilkan ubi kayu yang mengandung kadar amilosa lebih tinggi juga sedang dilakukan.

• Selain itu biofortifikasi (menambahkan zat gizi pada tanaman) juga sudah dilakukan terhadap singkong ini seperti memasukkan zat besi dan seng, tambah Enny.

Source: AntaraNews.com -IPTEK, 24 Mei 2010

Biotechnology Industry Development Strategy in Indonesia

• Bioteknologi Pertanian

Prioritas dalam bidang ini :– Pemetaan, eksplorasi gen-gen penting dan sekuen genom

hewan, tanaman dan mikroba yang berguna dalam perakitangenetik;

– Pengungkapan biokimia dan molekuler serta struktur biologiyang menjadi dasar pertumbuhan tanaman dan hewan

– Pengembangan teknik dan metode untuk pengujiankeamanan pangan

Buku Putih Bioteknologi Indonesia, 2008

• Prioritas dalam bidang ini (cont’d) :– Penciptaan galur-galur unggul yang dapat merespon kondisi

lingkungan ekstrim (cekaman abiotik dan biotik) sepertikekeringan, lahan asam, salinitas tinggi dan lain-lain.

– Penciptaan bibit dan benih unggul yang mempunyaiproduktivitas tinggi

– Penentuan biokimia dan mekanisme control genetik dalammetabolisme pada hewan, tanaman dan mikroba

Biotechnology Industry Development Strategy in Indonesia

Buku Putih Bioteknologi Indonesia, 2008

“Biotechnology” from Ancient

Memunculkan Domestikasi dan Pertanian

– Manusia jaman batu mulai hidup menetap dan

mengembangkan budaya bertani± 10,000 tahun yang lalu

– Petani di Asia muka mulai bercocok tanam gandum

(wheat dan barley), serta gandum hitam (rye)

– Pertanian (gandum dan buncis) dan peternakan (sapi,

kambing, dan biri-biri) mulai berkembang di Mesir (6,000

tahun yang lalu)

– Arkeologis menemukan bukti adanya lokasi pertanian

purba di Amerika, Asia Timur, dan Eropa

pelepasan atau pemanfaatan jenis asing (tanaman rekayasagenetika) di alam terbuka sukar ditangani karena adakemungkinan penyebaran gen asing berpindah ke tanamansekerabat yang liar atau mengubah tatanan spesifik atau sifatunggul tanaman GM itu sendiri. Seperti pada kasus serbuk sarikanola (Brassica napus) penghasil minyak nabati, yangmembuahi kerabatnya dan kerabat jauhnya. Di samping adakemungkinan produk GM dapat mengganggu kesehatanmanusia dan ternak.

• Ditandatangani 136 ilmuwan dari 27 negara,ditujukankepada seluruh pemerintah dunia.

• Isinya, antara lain :

• meminta penghentian segera seluruh pelepasan tanamanrekayasa genetika (Genetically Modified Crops) dan jugaproduk rekayasa gen (Genetically Modified Products).

• Alasannya, tanaman GM tidak memberikan keuntungan. Hasil panennya secara signifikan rendah dan butuh lebihbanyak herbisida. Makin memperkuat monopoli perusahanatas bahan pangan dan memiskinkan petani kecil.

• Teknologi transgenik yang menggabungkan gen hewan dengan tumbuhan.

• Babi dengan gen bayam ternyata mempunyaikandungan lemak lebih sedikit daripada babinormal.

• iritani mengakui bahwa makanan hasil rekayasagenetik sulit diterima masyarakat. Tapi serangkaianuji klinis yang aman akan dilakukan sehinggamasyarakat diharapkan tertarik mengonsumsidaging babi ini untuk kesehatan mereka.

• menganggap berbagai bentuk transgenikyang ada saat ini merupakan efek dariperkembangan teknologi dan ilmupengetahuan.Yang jelas teknologi ini sepertihalnya teknologi lain selalu mempunyai efekpositif dan negatif.

“Kami memikirkan agar kita tak perlu ke dokter

gigi, cukup dengan sebuah apel”

“penolakan publik terhadap makanan hasil

rekayasa genetika dapat menangguhkan

usaha ini. Tapi, saya memimpikan dokter

memberikan apel transgenik sebagai resep

kepada pasien yang memiliki masalah dengan

pembusukan gigi dan hal ini merupakan

terobosan baru untuk kesehatan

masyarakat.”

• melakukan penelitian pada tanaman transgenik. Selama 10

tahun, tim peneliti mengamati berbagai jenis tanaman

transgenik di 12 lokasi di Inggris.

• menyimpulkan bahwa tanaman hasil rekayasa genetika

tidak perlu dikhawatirkan.

• Penelitian ini membuktikan bahwa tanaman ini tidak

berubah menjadi •tanaman superal• ataupun berproduksi

tanpa kendali sampai mengambil alih habitat tanaman asli.

Discussion

Can we consider GMF Safe?

• Traditional seeding and breeding methods:– Correct genetic trait increased production and desired properties

– Instead , the method is not entirely free from risk

– E.g: celery plants (bred to have properties resistant to insect attack ) increasing levels of psoralen .

– E.g: the selective breeding of potato (increased solanines )

– Both cases potential toxicity of new varieties (Garza and Stover, 2003) .

• Similar risk, unwanted and unexpected , can also occur in the GM method in developing new varieties .

GMF Advantage

Genetic modification has many advantages over traditional methods :

• the development of new varieties can be accelerated .

In fact this is the jargon of GMF : GMF is a product of natural selection

process that is accelerated by technology .

• the GMF is more specific gene modification. It is better controlled than the mutations and breeding methods of conventional methods .

• the genes of other varieties or species can be incorporated to produce a particular advantage.

Approach of Testing Hazards

• Approaches for the hazard assessment of GM foods (derived from biotechnology) have been in preparation for many years through international collaboration of the FAO, WHO and OECD (Kuiper and Kleter, 2003).

• Toxicological methods developed for the hazard assessment of chemical entities, which rely on administration to animals of doses much higher than experienced in the environment, will not work for GM foods, where the whole food makes up much of the mass of the diet.

Approach of Testing Hazards

• Alternative methods: based on the premise that the use of DNA recombinant technology does not present any inherent risks because the structure of DNA is the same in all species and the transfer of genetic material between species has been a driving force in evolution (Konig et al., 2004).

• The methods are based on assessment of any changes of the functional and chemical characteristics that result from genetic modification.

• Foods generally accepted as safe, on the basis of their history of safe use (Kuiper and Kleter, 2003) are used for comparison

Substantial equivalence

• Novel foods are compared with foods accepted as safe.

Incl. comparison are the agronomic and morphological characteristics and the chemical composition of key nutrients and toxins or anti-nutrients present in the crop.

• Several steps:

– the characterisation of the organism (and the donor organism for transferred genes);

– Description of the genetic modification (inserted gene, method of insertion and stability and expression of the resulting inserted gene);

– the effects of the modification on the composition and morphology of the crop. On the basis of the assessment of substantial equivalence, the further toxicological assessment of the hazard from the novel food can be determined (Kuiper and Kleter, 2003).

New Proteins

• Following their identification, novel proteins should be characterised in terms of their structure and function.

Included in this should be their similarity with other proteins and their fate after ingestion, processing and storage. Toxicological assessment will depend on the outcome of this characterisation.

• Usually, NP will be tested in animal studies for at least 28 days.

• Toxicological assessment will normally include an assessment of allergenicity, based on sequence homology with known allergens, testing of stability in simulated gastric fluid and specific in vitro and in vivo testing for allergic potential (Kuiper and Kleter, 2003).

Other constituents

• Any non-protein constituents will need to be assessed using traditional toxicological methods.

• The whole food will also need to be tested in in vivo studies, usually for at least 90 days.

• Recent guidance on the safety assessment of GM crops (Koniget al., 2004) builds on these concepts.

• 4 step process

Sustainable issues

• Introduction of GM crop will have impact on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD), which aims to ensure the ecological, economic and social strength of future generations equally with those of the current generation).

• The concerns about the introduction of GMOs focus on effects on the environment, economic viability and of social networks.

• It may improve the living standards of rural communities,

• It may worsen disparities between and within communities and strengthen corporate control over agriculture.

Sustainable issues (cont.)

• There may be different impacts on agriculture between developed and developing countries. In developed countries, consumers may favour quality and variety over quantity of food.

• Nevertheless, farmers are confronted with increasing competition because of trade liberalisation, and efficiency may play an important role in sustainability.

• Controversy: the discrepancy of interests between overseas consumers of the final food and the producers.

In developing countries, where the quantity of food is more important, yield

increase may be more important than cost efficiency. Many in the population obtain their food from local markets and thus the conflict between the interests of the producers and consumers may be smaller.

Sustainable issues (cont.)

• Sustainability Assessment of the sustainability of GMOs in agriculture can be made using the three indicators of SARD, namely, capital stocks, efficiency and equity.

• A wide variety of genes and parent organisms can be used in genetic manipulation, but in practice developments have concentrated on a few core crops (soybean, maize, canola, rice, wheat, cotton, tobacco and potato).

• Equally, the traits introduced are also concentrated (herbicide tolerance, insect and disease resist-ance, tolerance to stresses, quality improvement and productivity enhancement).

Case Studies (70 papers)

Study by Frewer et al., 2013: • 70 papers of relevant data for meta-analisis (from 1994-2010), • Total 94.135 respondens

Case Studies (70 papers)

Case Studies (Conclusion)

• The use of systematic review combined with meta-analysis has provided a useful tool for comparing the data and results of the quantitative literature on public perceptions of genetically modified organisms applied to agri-food production.

• The results suggest that risk and benefit perceptions associated with all aspects of genetically modified agri-food application have been increasing with time, independent of whether animals or other GM applications are the “target” of the application.

Case Studies (Concl.)

• European consumers tended to be more negative about GM overall compared to Northern American and Asian consumers.

• However, ethical and moral concerns of consumers were, greater in North America (and possibly Asia) compared to Europe.

Public attitudes towards GMF

Frewer, L.J., van der Lans , I.A., Fischer, A.R.H., Reindersc, M.J., Menozzi, D., Zhang, X.Y., van den Berg, I., and Zimmermann, K.L., 2013. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic

modification, A systematic review and meta-analysis, Trends in Food Science & Technology 30:142-152.

Public attitudes

• Public perceptions and attitudes about emerging bio-sciences and other new technologies are among the most important factors determining the likelihood of successful development and implementation of technology.

• An understanding of the determinants of perceptions and attitudes, and of trust in institutions must be considered to support successful exploitation of genetic technology.

• It is clearly important to develop the best method of communicating the risks and benefits of GM food.

Frewer, 2003

Public attitudes

• However, new ways of involving the public explicitly in the debate about new technology, in this case genetic modification of food, are also important.

Groupings:

1. Health-related concerns .

2. Beliefs associated with the perception that the genetic modification of foodstuffs are not under the control of the consumer ; in particular , that consumers do not have a choice about whether they can choose to eat GMF or not .

3. Related to the perceived benefits , including reducing costs and waste and increase shelf life .

Frewer, 2003

Ethical Concerns

• The publics’ concerns about the ethics of genetic modification are as important as their views on risk in the strategic development of the technology.

• Understanding how the public thinks about ethics helps to foste building about the long-term application of GMOs.

• Differences in ethical views between cultures, religious groups and other interest groups are also important, particularly in the light of the global economy.

Ethical Concerns

• What is considered ethically acceptable in one culture may be unacceptable in another.

• Public views on ethical matters might usefully be included in the regulatory framework surrounding biotechnology and thereby public trust in regulation and in biotechnology is likely to be increased consensus

Trust

• Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of (new) technology have an important impact on the political decision making process.

• Trust in the companies and scientists conducting research into gene technologies has an important bearing on the perception of risks and benefits from the products derived from that research.

• The more the company and scientists are trusted to have the interests of society at the forefront of their activity, the less their work is perceived to be associated with risk and the more it is perceived to be associated with benefits.

Trust (Continued)

• Social trust is defined as people’s willingness to rely on experts and institutions in the management of risks and technologies.

• Public trust of this sort in the particular scientific activity and in the regulators and regulatory institutions is likely to be crucial to technology acceptance.

• Unfortunately, public trust in scientific authority has lost some of its credibility.

• There is evidence that differences exist between different countries in this area, with the Scandinavian public being more likely to trust government than is the case in southern Europe or the UK.

Trust (Continued)

• Without public trust, long-term development of biotechnol-ogy, including GMFs, will be problematical.

• Source credibility refers to people’s perceptions of the motivations of institutions or individuals providing infor-mation to the public.

• It is usually assumed to be dependent on both the information source and the subject under consideration.

• Trust determines by:– “Competence” (the expertise and the extent to which the communicator are able to

pass on information), and

– “Honesty” (the extent to which a communicator will be truthful)

• Expertise without honesty is unlikely to result in long-term changes in attitude.

Trust (Continued)

• The extent to which people trusted information sources appeared to be driven by people’s attitudes to GM foods.

• Trust in information sources did not drive people’s reaction to the information.

• Thus, providing information about risks and benefits of GM foods is not sufficient to promote attitudinal change within the public.

• In the past, communication has often been technology driven or “top-down”: The communication has been driven by technical risk assessments rather than by issues salient to the wider public.

• This approach has failed to convince con-sumers of the merits of such products. Information from a trusted source, which reassures people of safety, will reduce perceived risk.

Trust (Continued)

• The same information from a distrusted source may increase perceived risk.

• Trust and perceived risk have independently influenced people’s attitudes to gene technology.

• Prior attitudes towards the hazard may also influence people’s interpretation of risk communication information.

• These processes create a positive feedback cycle that helps to explain the stability and resistance to change of people’s attitudes to particular hazards where these attitudes are strong and well established.

How to Communicate the uncertainties?

• Scientific experts and the general public have different views about reaction to uncertainty.

• Scientific experts have believed that the public is unable to handle information about uncertainty and that providing such information would increase distrust in science and cause panic and confusion about the impact of a particular hazard.

• The public are familiar with uncertainty, and their distrust in scientific and regulatory institutions increased with any tendency to deny that uncertainties exist when in fact uncertainty had been identified.

How to Communicate the uncertainties?

• Communication about GM foods should include discussion of uncertainty associated with risk management.

• Increased transparency in risk management and regulatory decision making will mean that information dissemination activities will focus as much on uncertainties as on what is known.

Conclusion

• The acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods is very complex

• A part of involving Toxicological experts is “only a part of it” to assure it is safe

• But it GMFs introduction should comply with other criteria that is discussed above:– SARD

– Trust

– Ethical Concerns

– And other Emerging issues

Terima kasih atas perhatiannya