Introduction to Plant
Biotechnology
PlSc 452/552 Lecture 1
Chapter 1
C. Neal Stewart, Jr.
plantsciences.utk.edu/stewart.htm
nealstewart@utk.edu
Rules for class
•
•
•
•
•
•
Do the readings
Proper preparation prevents poor performance
Ask lots of questions
Question the answers
All opinions will be heard and respected
This class is mostly about the science of plant
biotechnology and so facts are valued
• Grades are not awarded on the basis of need
Have fun!
Questions for the semester
• What is/are genetic engineering, transgenic
plants, biotechnology?
• What are the current and potential
applications?
• Risks?
• Benefits?
• How does plant biotechnology fit in with
modern agriculture and its current and
future challenges?
Today’s objectives and
questions
•
•
•
•
Define plant biotechnology.
What biotech crops are grown and where?
Why do farmers grow transgenic crops?
How has the adoption of plant
biotechnology impacted the environment?
• What has been plant biotech’s impact in the
US and in developing countries?
• What is the prospect for future impact?
Central dogma: DNARNA protein:
why genetic engineering is possible
Transgenic plantsAgrobacterium
Any gene, any organism
The new plant will pass the transgene
to its progeny through seed.
Biolistics
Plant biotech milestones
• 1962 Murashige and Skoog publish their paper on
tissue culture media that is very effective for
tobacco and other plants
• 1982 First stably transgenic plant—marker gene in
tobacco
• 1987 Gene gun invented
• 1994 Flavr Savr tomato commercialized
• 1996 First wide-scale planting of soybean and
corn
• 2005 Billionth acre of transgenic crop planted
somewhere in the world
• 2008 Second billionth acre planted
• 2011 Third billionth acre planted
• 2013 Fourth billionth acre planted
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2 Global Area of Biotech Crops, 1996–2012: by Crop (Million Hectares). (Source: James, Clive. 2012.
Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM crops: 2012. ISAAA Brief No. 44. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.)
Progression of transgenic plants
• 1st Generation: Input traits (herbicide
tolerance, insect resistance, etc.)
• 2nd Generation: Output traits:
(pharmaceuticals, enhanced nutrition, etc.)
• 3rd Generation: Non-ag– (phytoremediation,
sentinels, detectors)
Herbicide tolerant soybean
Bt corn
Bt cotton
Environmental benefits
Herbicide tolerant crops have increased and
encouraged no-till agriculture– less soil erosion.
Over 1 million gallons of unsprayed insecticide per
year.
Dr. Norman Borlaug
Nobel Peace Prize 1970
Father of the Green Revolution
1914-2009
TABLE 1.1 Global farm income benefits from growing GM Crops 1996–2012 (million US $).
Trait
Increase in
farm income
2012
4,797.9
Increase in Farm income benefit in
farm income 2012 as % of total value of
1996-2012
production of these crops
in GM adopting countries
37,008.6
4.4
Farm income benefit
in 2012 as % of total
value of global
production of crop
4.0
GM herbicide
tolerant soybeans
GM herbicide
tolerant maize
GM herbicide
tolerant cotton
GM herbicide
tolerant canola
GM insect resistant
maize
GM insect resistant
cotton
Others
Totals
1,197.9
5,414.7
1.2
0.5
147.2
1,371.6
0.4
0.3
481.0
3,664.4
4.9
1.3
6,727.8
32,317.2
6.6
3.0
5,331.3
36,317.2
13.1
11.2
86.3
18,769.4
496.7
116,590.4
Not applicable
6.8
Not applicable
5.6
Notes: All values are nominal. Others = Virus resistant papaya and squash and herbicide tolerant sugar beet. Totals for
the value shares exclude ‘other crops’ (i.e., relate to the 4 main crops of soybeans, maize, canola and cotton). Farm
income calculations are net farm income changes after inclusion of impacts on yield, crop quality and key variable costs
of production (e.g., payment of seed premia, impact on crop protection expenditure)
TABLE 1.2
GM crop farm income benefits during 1996–2012 in selected countries (million US $).
GM HT
maize
3,752.3
GM HT
cotton
975.8
GM HT
canola
268.3
GM IR
maize
26,375.9
GM IR
cotton
4,046.7
Total
US
GM HT
soybeans
16,668.7
Argentina
13,738.5
766.7
107.0
N/a
495.2
456.4
15,563.8
Brazil
Paraguay
Canada
South
Africa
China
4,825.6
828
358
9.1
703.4
N/a
81.3
4.1
92.5
N/a
N/a
3.2
N/a
N/a
3,368.8
N/a
2,761.7
N/a
1,042.9
1,100.6
13.3
N/a
N/a
34.2
8,396.5
828.0
4,851.0
1,151.2
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
15,270.4
15,270.4
India
Australia
Mexico
Philippines
N/a
N/a
5.0
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
104.7
N/a
78.6
96.4
N/a
N/a
27.3
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
273.6
14,557.1
659.6
136.6
N/a
14,557.1
765.5
238.0
378.3
Romania
Uruguay
Spain
Other EU
Colombia
Bolivia
Burma
Pakistan
Burkina
Faso
Honduras
44.6
103.8
N/a
N/a
N/a
432.2
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
1.7
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
18.1
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
17.6
176.3
18.8
47.4
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
15.4
N/a
215.4
725.1
186.9
44.6
121.4
176.3
18.8
826.6
432.2
215.4
725.1
186.9
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
6.9
N/a
6.9
52,087.7
TABLE 1.3
GM crop farm income benefits, 2012: developing versus developed countries (million US $).
Developed
Developing
GM HT soybeans
2,955.4
1,842.5
GM HT maize
654.0
543.9
GM HT cotton
71.4
75.8
GM HT canola
481.0
0
GM IR maize
5,327.5
1,400.3
GM IR cotton
530.7
4,800.7
GM virus resistant papaya
and squash and GM HT
sugar beet
Total
86.3
0
10,106.3
8,663.2
Developing countries = all countries in South America, Mexico, Honduras, Burkina Faso, India, China, the
Philippines and South Africa
TABLE 1.4.
Cost of accessing GM technologya relative to total farm income benefits (USD $, millions) 2012.
Tech
Farm
costs: all income
farmers gain: all
farmers
Total benefit of
technology to
farmers and
seed supply
chain
Cost of
technology:
developing
countries
Farm
income gain:
developing
countries
Total benefit of
technology to
farmers and seed
supply chain:
developing
countries
2,841.2
GM HT
1,528.1 4,797.9
6,326.0
998.7
1,842.5
soy
GM HT
1,059.4 1,197.9
2,257.3
364.5
543.9
908.4
maize
GM HT
295.0
147.2
442.2
22.2
75.8
98.0
cotton
GM HT
161.2
481.0
642.2
N/a
N/a
N/a
canola
GM IR
1,800.8 6,727.8
8,528.6
512.3
1,400.3
1,912.6
maize
GMN/a
IR = not 720.7
6,052.0 technology422.7
4,800.7
5,223.4
applicable. 5,331.3
Cost of accessing
based on the seed
premiums paid
by farmers for
using GM technology relative to its conventional equivalents
cotton
Others
76.2
86.3
162.5
N/a
N/a
N/a
Total
5,641.4 18,769.4 24,410.8
2,320.4
8,663.2
10,983.6
TABLE 1.5
Additional crop production arising from positive yield effects of GM crops.
Soybeans
Maize
Cotton
Canola
Sugar beet
1996-2012 additional
production
(million tonnes)
122.3
231.4
18.2
6.6
0.6
2012 additional production
(million tonnes)
12.0
34.1
2.4
0.4
0.15
Note: GM HT sugar beet has been commercialized only in
the US and Canada since 2008
Environmental Impact Quotient
(EIQ)
•Assessment of pesticide active ingredient used
•Assessment of the specific pesticides used
•Provides environmental impacts of individual pesticides into
a single ‘field value per hectare’.
•Balanced assessment of the impact of GM crops on the
environment
• Includes key toxicity and environmental exposure data
•related to individual products
•applicable to impacts on farm workers
•consumers and ecology
•consistent and comprehensive measure of environmental
impact.
(Kovach et al. (1992)
EIQ example
The EIQ value is multiplied by the amount of pesticide
active ingredient (ai) used per hectare to produce a field
EIQ value.
For example, the EIQ rating for glyphosate is 15.3. By
using this rating multiplied by the amount of glyphosate
used per hectare (eg, a hypothetical example of 1.1 kg
applied per ha), the field EIQ value for glyphosate would
be equivalent to 16.83/ha.
In comparison, the field EIQ/ha value for a commonly
used herbicide on corn crops (atrazine) is 22.9/ha.
TABLE 1.6
Impact of changes in use of herbicides and insecticides from growing GM crops globally, 1996–2012.
Trait
GM herbicide
tolerant
soybeans
GM herbicide
tolerant maize
GM herbicide
tolerant canola
GM herbicide
tolerant cotton
GM insect
resistant maize
GM insect
resistant cotton
GM herbicide
tolerant sugar
Change in
mass of
active
ingredient
used (million
kg)
-4.7
Change in field
EIQ (in terms of
million field
EIQ/ha units)
Area GM trait
2012 (million
ha)
-6,654
% change in ai % change in
use on GM
environmental impact
crops
associated with
herbicide &
insecticide use on GM
crops
-0.2
-15.0
-203.2
-6,025
-9.8
-13.3
38.5
-15.0
-509
-16.7
-26.6
8.6
-18.3
-460
-6.6
-9.0
4.4
-57.6
-2,215
-47.9
-45.1
42.3
-205.4
-9,256
-25.6
-28.2
22.1
+1.3
-2
+29.3
-2.0
0.51
79.1
TABLE 1.7
GM crop environmental benefits from decreased insecticide and herbicide use in 2012: developing versus developed countries.
GM HT soybeans
GM HT maize
GM HT cotton
GM HT canola
GM IR maize
GM IR cotton
GM HT sugar beet
Total
Change in field EIQ (in terms of
million field EIQ/ha units): developed
countries
-4,773.9
-5,585.9
-351.0
-509.1
-1,574.4
-805.5
-2
-13,601.8
Change in field EIQ (in terms of
million field EIQ/ha units): developing
countries
-1,880.2
-438.8
-109.3
0
-640.8
-8,451.0
0
-11,520.1
TABLE 1.8
Impact of GM Crops on Carbon Sequestration Impact in 2012; Car Equivalents
Crop/trait/country
Permanent carbon
dioxide savings
arising from
reduced fuel use
(million kg of
carbon dioxide)
Permanent fuel
savings: as
average family
car equivalents
removed from the
road for a year
(‘000s)
Potential
additional soil
carbon
sequestration
savings (million
kg of carbon
dioxide)
Soil carbon sequestration
savings: as average
family car equivalents
removed from the road
for a year (‘000s)
US: GM HT soybeans
Argentina: GM HT
soybeans
Brazil GM HT
soybeans
Bolivia, Paraguay,
Uruguay: GM HT
soybeans
Canada: GM HT
canola
210
93
1,070
475
736
327
11,186
4,972
394
175
5,985
2,660
156
69
2,365
1,051
203
90
1,024
455
US: GM HT corn
210
93
2,983
1,326
Global GM IR cotton 45
20
0
0
Brazil IR corn
157
69
0
0
Total Assumption: an average 2,111
10,939
Notes:
family car produces 150 936
grams of carbon dioxide 24,613
per km. A car travels 15,000
km/year on average and
Recap and answers
• Plant biotechnology: molecular manipulation of
cells and tissues that comprise plants.
• What biotech crops are grown and where? Row
crops soybean and corn for herbicide tolerance
and insect resistance. US but also in 27 other
countries.
• Why do farmers grow transgenic crops? More
efficient and effective; better control of pests.
• How has the adoption of plant biotechnology
impacted the environment? Positive—less
insecticides, less soil erosion.
• What has been plant biotech’s impact in the US
and in developing countries? Changed row crop
genetics in US and is improving yields in
international agriculture.
But…GM crops not universally
accepted and grown. Why?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Misunderstandings
Politics
Immature regulatory structures
Consumer issues
Benefits unclear to consumers
Fear of unknown, risk perception
Science and education should help
“Ordinary Tomatoes Do Not Contain Genes,
while Genetically Modified Ones Do”
52
Canada
33
45
United States
45
34
Austria
22
32
France
36
Italy
35
44
29
20
44
44
51
Netherlands
27
22
24
30
48
21
31
40
0
21
46
Switzerland
United Kingdom
10
39
Germany
Sweden
15
20
38
40
22
60
80
Percent Response
1996 - 1998
False (Correct)
Source: Tom Hoban
Don't Know
True
100
“I eat organic food and drink only green
tea– gallons of it when I’m writing. I
smoke cigarettes, but organic ones”*
Discussing her “healthy” lifestyle in Organic Style magazine March 2005.