Genetic modified Food(GMF) Crucial Issue and Bioethics

1. GMF:
Crucial Issues and
Ethics
Bioprocess Technology, Engineering Faculty, UI
Indonesian Consortium of Biotechnology

2. Let’s read Some “News”

3. Every food from transgenic plantation is not safe
 Ilyani S Andang (Peneliti YLKI):
 "Tanaman utama transgenik adalah
kedelai, jagung, kapas, dan kanola.
Semua makanan yang berasal dari
tanaman transgenik seperti kedelai
dan jagung tidak aman digunakan.
Contoh kasus, pangan transgenik
ini berbahaya antara lain lima ribu
orang dirawat di rumah sakit, 37
meninggal dunia dan 1.500 cacat
tetap akibat mengonsumsi
suplemen makanan L-tryptophan
transgenik di AS," kata Ilyani. Sumber: Lampung Post, 20 Januari 2008

4. Indonesia Should Produce Its Own Food
29 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)

5. Wine from GM was protested in French
Sumber: Republika, 16 Agustus 2010
• 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.

6. Transgenic corn enters Phillipine
Sumber: Kompas, 29 Agustus 2008
Alasannya karena produktivitas per hektar tanaman jagung
transgenik lebih tinggi 10-20 persen dibandingkan hibrida
nontransgenik.
Peningkatan produktivitas karena tanaman tersebut lebih
tahan terhadap serangan serangga penggerek batang dan
tongkol yang dapat menurunkan produktivitas.
 Petani di Cagayan, Filipina, mulai gemar menanam jagung
transgenik karena produktivitasnya yang lebih tinggi
daripada jagung hibrida konvensional

7. Transgenic Cassava for Arid Land
Source: AntaraNews.com -IPTEK, 24 Mei 2010
• 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.

8. Biotechnology Industry Development Strategy in
Indonesia
Buku Putih Bioteknologi Indonesia, 2008
• Bioteknologi Pertanian
Prioritas dalam bidang ini :
– Pemetaan, eksplorasi gen-gen penting dan sekuen genom
hewan, tanaman dan mikroba yang berguna dalam perakitan
genetik;
– Pengungkapan biokimia dan molekuler serta struktur biologi
yang menjadi dasar pertumbuhan tanaman dan hewan
– Pengembangan teknik dan metode untuk pengujian
keamanan pangan

9. Biotechnology Industry Development Strategy in
Indonesia
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) seperti
kekeringan, lahan asam, salinitas tinggi dan lain-lain.
– Penciptaan bibit dan benih unggul yang mempunyai
produktivitas tinggi
– Penentuan biokimia dan mekanisme control genetik dalam
metabolisme pada hewan, tanaman dan mikroba

10. “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

11. pelepasan atau pemanfaatan jenis asing (tanaman rekayasa
genetika) di alam terbuka sukar ditangani karena ada
kemungkinan penyebaran gen asing berpindah ke tanaman
sekerabat yang liar atau mengubah tatanan spesifik atau sifat
unggul tanaman GM itu sendiri. Seperti pada kasus serbuk sari
kanola (Brassica napus) penghasil minyak nabati, yang
membuahi kerabatnya dan kerabat jauhnya. Di samping ada
kemungkinan produk GM dapat mengganggu kesehatan
manusia dan ternak.

12. • Ditandatangani 136 ilmuwan dari 27 negara,ditujukan
kepada seluruh pemerintah dunia.
• Isinya, antara lain :
• meminta penghentian segera seluruh pelepasan tanaman
rekayasa genetika (Genetically Modified Crops) dan juga
produk rekayasa gen (Genetically Modified Products).
• Alasannya, tanaman GM tidak memberikan keuntungan.
Hasil panennya secara signifikan rendah dan butuh lebih
banyak herbisida. Makin memperkuat monopoli perusahan
atas bahan pangan dan memiskinkan petani kecil.

13. • Teknologi transgenik yang menggabungkan gen
hewan dengan tumbuhan.
• Babi dengan gen bayam ternyata mempunyai
kandungan lemak lebih sedikit daripada babi
normal.
• iritani mengakui bahwa makanan hasil rekayasa
genetik sulit diterima masyarakat. Tapi serangkaian
uji klinis yang aman akan dilakukan sehingga
masyarakat diharapkan tertarik mengonsumsi
daging babi ini untuk kesehatan mereka.

14. • menganggap berbagai bentuk transgenik
yang ada saat ini merupakan efek dari
perkembangan teknologi dan ilmu
pengetahuan.Yang jelas teknologi ini seperti
halnya teknologi lain selalu mempunyai efek
positif dan negatif.

15. “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.”

16. • 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.

17. Discussion

18. 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 .

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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).

23. 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).

24. 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 (Konig
et al., 2004) builds on these concepts.
• 4 step process

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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).

28. 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

29. Case Studies (70 papers)

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. Public attitudes
Frewer, 2003
• 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.

34. Public attitudes
Frewer, 2003
• 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 .

35. 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.

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. 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

45. Terima kasih atas
perhatiannya