Trial Version
Science and Technology
The Nature and Development of Science and Technology
Case study – The important issues of science and technology
Case 6: Genetically Modified Food (GM Food)
Activity and case-based learning & teaching resources
Students’ version
Table of Content (Students’ version)
Outline
Aims of study
Scheme of work
Background information
Teaching Resources
Lesson 1, 2: Why are GM food needed?
Background
Activity 1: Reading and discussion on the reference articles
Activity 2
Additional background information
2
2
3
4
4
5–8
Lesson 3, 4: How are GM food produced?
Background
Activity 3: reference articles, worksheet
Additional background information
9 –10
11 -14
15
15
16 - 18
19 - 22
Lesson 5, 6: What are the problems behind GM food?
Background
Activity 4: reference articles, worksheet
Activity 5: worksheet, reference articles
Extended readings
23
23
24 - 26
27 - 30
31 - 33
1
Students’ version
Outline
Aims of study
The aim of these lessons is to introduce an important scientific issue – the Genetically
Modified Food (GM Food). Students will learn the background information about GM food and
their understanding about this new technology will be enhanced through the designated examples.
Through activities such as group discussion and collecting information, students will learn to
develop their abilities of analysis, critical thinking and evaluation and to foster them with the
quality of independent thinking and actively probing into questions.
Scheme of work
Lessons
Learning objective
1, 2





3, 4



5, 6



Teaching strategy
Why are GM food needed?
Why do we need GM food?
How to compare the methods of
genetic modification with the
traditional methods?
Activity 1: Reading and
discussion
Activity 2: Collecting
information – the existing GM
food
How to produce GM food?
Students revising the examples
of DNA science and how
biotechnology is applied in
processing DNA
Activity 3: Designing the
dream food

What are the problems behind
GM food?
For example: economic
advantages to developing
countries, unknown risks,
policies of environment and
hygiene, brief introduction of the
policy on labelling GM food in
Hong Kong
Activity 4: Reading and
discussion
Activity 5: Role-play and
discussion






Learning and
teaching resources
Briefly explain the  PowerPoint
background of GM  Reference articles
food

Activity
Reading and
Worksheet discussion
Group activities
Briefly explain the
production
techniques of GM
food
Group activities

Briefly explain
different
viewpoints
concerning the
GM food issue
Quoting the news
articles recently to
explain the
problems behind
GM food





PowerPoint
Activity
Worksheet
Reference articles
Video clip: ‘GM
Food’
PowerPoint
Reference articles
Activity
Worksheet
2
Students’ version
Background information
Have you ever tried the GM food before? How much do you know about the genetically
modified food? The rapid development of biotechnology can alter the natural essence of
organisms. Genetic engineering (techniques of recombinant DNA) can even be applied in food
production and improve the quality of agricultural products. What are the unique features of GM
food? What are the differences between genetically engineering and the traditional farming
methods? How many kinds of food in the market have been listed among the GM food?
It is not difficult to find out the different opinions about GM food from the report of local
newspapers and magazines and from the public opinions internationally. The organisations and
individuals support or oppose GM food have their own arguments which are ample and powerful.
The different ideas they have presented showed that the GM food issue is related to problems in
various aspects causing different influences to different groups of people, organizations as well as
the ecological environment. What are the student’s ideas in the debate, as this topic is related to
many different countries?
The development of science and technology has advanced with a tremendous pace. Their
applications have far-reaching influences in different aspects in our lives. In this case study topic
on GM food, students would be able to understand further about the modern genetic engineering
as the application of biotechnology. Students would have more chances to investigate the positive
and negative impacts on the human society and natural ecology caused by this kind of
technology.
3
Students’ version
Teaching Resources
Lesson 1, 2: Why are GM food needed?
Background
Since the ancient time, people have already known different ways to
collect, hunt and store food. They will use different techniques to improve the
quality of the food. In several thousands of years ago, people started to select
plant seeds of better quality, such as with a more appealing colour or better
tastes, for cultivating and reproducing. In other words, the agricultural
techniques of modifying the inheritance genes of plants have been started
since the ancient time. However, the ancient people did not understand the
scientific principles behind during that time.
In the early 19th century, George Mendel discovered the basic principle of inheritance genes
through an experiment of beans. It showed the characteristics of plants are transferred through a
particular inheritance factor. Mendel’s discovery laid an extremely important foundation for the
development of plant technology. Since then, the researchers started to launch the exploration of
different new species with various outstanding characteristics through the method of cross
breeding. From the end of the 19th century to the early 20th century, researchers could
successfully apply the method of cross-breeding to cultivate new species of various fruits such as
plums, prunes and peaches.
At about 50 years ago, James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helix
structure of DNA from researches. DNA is a molecule to carry the inheritance massages of
organisms. Since its structure has been understood further, scientists started to use the new
knowledge to uncover more myths about the inheritance of organisms. In the 1970s, scientists
succeeded to transfer DNA from one organism to another organism. This great breakthrough was
a big leap for human in biotechnology.
In the past 100 years, peasants and researchers have started to apply different cultivation
techniques (such as the cross-breeding method mentioned previously) to improve the quality of
plants. The research objectives are within the major aspects below: how to improve the quality
and increase the yield of plants; how to enhance the ability withstanding unfavourable climatic
conditions (such as drought, hot or cold climates and high salinity soil, etc.), how can the plants
possess anti-viral, anti-bacterial and anti-pests abilities, how to reduce the unfavourable reactions
of plants to pesticides and herbicides.
What are the differences between the modern genetically modification method and the
traditional inter-breeding and cross-breeding methods in handling the problems mentioned above?
Why can modern genetic science cultivate more efficiently for the researchers’ ‘desired’ ideal
species ?
The aim of this lesson is to briefly introduce this controversial issue to the students by
explaining the background of GM food from the viewpoint of human needs in agricultural
products, and the scientific development history, in contrast with the traditional cultivation
methods.
4
Students’ version
Activity 1: Reading and discussion
<Reference article 1>
Agriculture in Developing Countries:
Which Way Forward? (Extract)
I. Introduction
The structure of agricultural production in developing countries has radically changed in
the last two decades. Since the late 60s and 70s, the World Bank and its various agricultural
research institutes have actively promoted the adoption of industrial (high chemical input)
agricultural methods such as the Green Revolution ‘miracle’ seeds, promising landfall yields.
These high technology methods were expected to benefit all farmers, including the poor. Since
yields would increase, incomes were also expected to increase.
However, the heavy dependence on imported inputs could not be sustained economically
by developing countries. This was compounded, in the 1970s and 1980s, by the oil crisis and the
debt crisis. The economic and financial crisis in developing countries led to the proliferation of
loan packages from the international financial institutions. Structural adjustment policies were
then introduced as a condition for loans borrowed by countries. Since the 1980s, close to 100
countries have been forced to take on structural adjustment packages. The policies included on
the one hand forced liberalization, and on the other, the conversion of domestic agricultural
production for exports.
Over the last two decades, the experience of small farmers from Central to South America,
Africa and Asia have been strikingly similar. Many have been pressured to switch from diverse
traditional polycultures to monocultures for overseas markets. For example, the provision of
extension services and credit were often conditioned upon farmers accepting the new
technologies in export crops that were promoted. Farmers have been likewise forced to switch to
export crops when local prices in staples and traditional crops have plummeted as a result of
cheap subsidized imports often from the industrialized countries flooding the local markets. For
the majority of small farmers, the process has been one of systematic impoverishment. Many
have even been squeezed out of farming altogether. Instead of abating food scarcity, which has
always been the reasoning for public investment in agricultural technology and hybrid seeds,
food surpluses are increasing on the world market, yet ironically, for those most in need, hunger
and food insecurity remains more of a problem.
The Green Revolution technical fix focused narrowly on increasing yields is clearly not the
answer. The Gene Revolution today, is headed towards compounding the already serious
problems faced by the rural sectors in developing countries.
This paper will explore how the industrialization of agriculture, the increasing
concentration in production, the emphasis on exports, and the removal of barriers even for
staples have been detrimental for small farmers’ livelihoods and also food security in developing
countries. The market does not respond to those in need but to those with financial prowess and
bargaining power. The paper will also look at alternative food production methods for small
farmers in developing countries that can ensure their livelihoods, their food security, as well as
the long-term sustainability of food production. The final section will be on recommendations
5
Students’ version
for the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).
II. Small Farmers and the Market
Why focus on small farmers? In developing countries, agriculture continues to be the main
source of employment, livelihood and income for between 50% - 90% of the population. Of this
percentage, small farmers make the up the majority, up to 70 – 95% of the farming population.
Small farmers are therefore a significant proportion of the population. They have traditionally
survived on subsistence production. Many in the last 2 decades have experimented with export
crops with occasional initial success but many disastrous failures.
The industrialization and export orientation of agriculture has not benefited them. In the
globalised market, the small players have been marginalised, as will be illustrated below. Yet
economically, they should not be ignored. Policies which have led to their marginalisation has
meant the continuation of the vicious cycle of poverty for sectors of society, highly uneven
development and hence the inability of many developing countries to attain satisfactory levels of
overall development.
Analysts Conroy, Murray and Rosset (1996) write about how many developing countries
cannot achieve a satisfactory level of development because their small farmers have been
sidelined:
‘It is our belief, and that of respected economists (Janvry 1981) and Jeffrey Sachs (1987),
that the sort of inequity and poverty the peasantry must face actually blocks true development.
The rural masses are so poor that they have little purchasing power. They thus do not constitute
an important market for domestic industry. This in turn means that domestic markets are too
small to stimulate much economic activity, so production is largely directed toward foreign
markets and urban elites. As a consequence, the level of demand in the economy is too narrow
to sustain broad based, effective development. This creates a high degree of dependence on
foreign markets and a lack of structural incentives (nationally, that can bring about) better living
standards for the poor. In short, poverty becomes a vicious circle that is itself an obstacle to
development.’
Prior to Bretton Woods and WTO liberalization, many farmers in developing countries
were protected through a combination of policies such as tariffs, quantitative restrictions
especially on staples, through subsidies which artificially reduced the costs of inputs, or through
support prices which increased the price farmers got for their commodities. These policies had
the effect of protecting the livelihoods and employment of those in the rural sector.
Source:
Kwa Aileen (2001) Agriculture in Developing Countries: Which Way Forward?
Trade-Related Agenda, Development and Equity (T.R.A.D.E.) Occasional Papers 4,
South Centre
http://www.focusweb.org/publications/2001/agriculture_which_way_forward.html
6
Students’ version
<Reference article 2>
Scientists detail rice code
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1910692.stm
4 April, 2002
Jonathan Amos
Scientists have laid bare the "life code" of rice.
Two groups of researchers report a draft DNA sequence of the plant - a staple for more than
half the world's population - in the journal Science. The genetic information should speed up the
breeding of tougher and higher-yielding varieties that can help feed the world's burgeoning
population. The genomic data will also prove invaluable in boosting the productivity of the other
grasses on which humans depend, such as maize (corn) and wheat.
The research shows that a rice plant probably has more genes than a human - perhaps as
many as 50-60,000 genes, compared with our 30-40,000. But the rice genome, like the gene sets
of all plants, contains tremendous duplication. Something like three-quarters of all rice genes are
repeated in the code.
Much duplication
Scientists think plants copy their genes and then modify them as a strategy for coping with
the selective pressures associated with evolution. The Beijing Genomics Institute and the
University of Washington Genome Center, with colleagues at 11 Chinese institutions, read the
code of the rice strain known as indica, the predominant subspecies in China and other
Asian-Pacific countries. The second team, fronted by the Swiss-based Syngenta company,
decoded the japonica, or Nipponbare, subspecies, which is popular in more arid regions and, in
particular, Japan.
The genetic difference between the two is small but significant - about a half to one percent
variation in the code. This is about 10 times the variation you would find in the genetic codes of
two humans. Rice, known scientifically as Oryza sativa, is the second plant to be decoded. The
first was the tiny mustard plant, Arabidopsis thaliana, used as a laboratory model to investigate
plant biology.
Rice, however, is the first food crop to be sequenced.
Another method
Both teams used the Whole-Genome Shotgun technique, the same method employed by the
private company Celera to read the human "code of life". And just like Celera, Syngenta has
struck a deal with the Science journal editors that ensures it keeps proprietorial control over the
japonica sequence. The code has not been deposited in a public database, GenBank, as is
customary, but in an escrow account held by Science and a separate system run by Syngenta.
Researchers wanting to work on the sequence will have to sign usage agreements with the Swiss
company. Critics claim the access restrictions go against the spirit of open research and will slow
the advance of new knowledge. A consortium of public laboratories, known as the International
Rice Genome Sequencing Project (IRGSP), financed by Japan, is also sequencing the Nipponbare
subspecies. The consortium has opted to use a more systematic, traditional route to decryption
which, though more precise, can take longer. The IRGSP is expected to publish its results later
this year.
7
Students’ version
Try to answer the questions below:
1. What are the challenges faced by peasants in the developing countries?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
2. How can the peasants face the challenges (i.e. what kind of methods have been used to
solve the problems)?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
3. According to Articles 1 and 2, what are the contributions made by genetic engineering
to agricultural industry worldwide?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
8
Students’ version
Activity 2: Information collection
The main purpose of the activity is to let students observe through information collection
from daily lives (such as from newspaper and daily experiences of purchasing), from books
and internet, and find out the diversity and existence of GM food in the local market.
Students collect the existing GM food samples through different ways. They can carry out
surveys and observation at local shops and supermarkets. The goods on the selves, the
managers of the supermarket and representatives from food retailers can all be treated as the
source of information.
Activity guide
Students can use the methods below for collecting information and write a report with more
than 300 words to explain the course and the result of information collection.
1.
Information collection from internet and newspapers – Students can refer to some
science websites included:
<Nature>:
http://www.natureasia.com
<Scientific American>:
http://www.sciam.com.tw
<The website of Food and Environmental Hygiene Department>:
http://www.fehd.gov.hk/safefood/gmf/index1c.html
2.
Observation – Students can observe the label on the food package in stores and pay
attention to the ingredients specified which contained transformed gene. The schoolmate
may pay more attention to some shops selling western imported food from the healthy food
companies.
3.
Asking – Instead of collecting information from the Internet and newspapers,
students can proactively visit the food retailers and try to see which kind of food they supply
contains genetic modified ingredients.
9
Students’ version
Activity 2: Investigating the existing GM food
Worksheet
Short report: please write a short report with more than 300 words to describe the course and
result of information collection. Students can also take photos to record the pictures of GM
food or collect the labels on the food packages.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
10
Students’ version
Additional Background information:
Traditional Plant Breeding:
A chromosome contains thousands of genes. Traditional plant breeding combines many genes at
once.
Using traditional genetic modification methods, such as cross-fertilization, scientists can produce
a desired trait, such as a hardier plant. But in doing so, they mix thousands of genes, requiring
many attempts over many years to remove the unwanted traits that occur.
Newer methods of genetic modification, in the form of genetic engineering, are more precise and
predictable--and faster. By controlling the insertion of one or two genes into a plant, scientists
can give it a specific new characteristic without transferring undesirable traits.
Modern Plant Breeding:
Using plant biotechnology, a single gene may be added.
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/plantDNA.html
Introduction to Genes and GM Foods
Genes is made of DNA (Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid). A gene is a unit of hereditary material,
which carries the required information necessary to produce a protein(s) that determines the
characteristics of an organism. Plants and animals, from which foods are derived, have thousands
of genes in their cells.
Without knowing the exact mechanism, farmers centuries ago depended on various breeding
methods to produce grains and plants which were bigger, tastier or easier to grow. Nowadays,
scientists are learning to identify and modify genes controlling specific characteristics through
the development of modern biotechnology. With the help of biotechnology, genes can be more
﹛selectively and precisely inactivated, or transferred from one organism to another to produce
so-called genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Any food derived from this way is put under the umbrella of the name "GM food".
Source: Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
http://www.fehd.gov.hk/safefood/gmf/gen_info1.html
11
Students’ version
Additional Background information:
Genetically Modified Food-Safety and Labelling
12
Students’ version
Source: Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
http://www.fehd.gov.hk/safefood_2/pamplets/labelling/1.html
13
Students’ version
Additional Background information:
Just What is Genetically Modified?
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/643
24 March 2005
Matt Singer
Americans are extremely ignorant of genetically modified foods (sometimes humorously so). At
least, that's what a new survey of American consumers shows. Get this set of statistics:



a majority of consumers believed that supermarket chicken is genetically modified while
it is not
yet a majority said they were unaware genetically modified foods are sold in
supermarkets
nearly 75% of processed food sold in supermarkets has a genetically modified component,
but unprocessed foods, like supermarket chicken, are not genetically modified
In other words, we hold views that are not only inconsistent, but virtually as wrong as possible.
Meanwhile, the biotech food industry is promising "cooking oils with less trans fat, tastier
potatoes and peanuts that don't trigger allergies." I understand the purpose of less trans fat and no
allergies, but tastier potatoes? I didn't think they really had much flavor to begin with. That's why
they work so well with other things, like sour cream, or bacon bits, or wasabi, or whatever you
put on your baked potato. Wouldn't a potato with stronger taste kind of undermine its usefulness
as a generic base?
Meanwhile, some people do have concerns about the health impacts of genetically modified
foods. Montana Senate President Jon Tester, D-Big Sandy, sponsored SB 218, a bill that would
make seed companies liable if genetically modified wheat did something horrible. That bill died.
Meanwhile, Monsanto, the target of much of the anti-modified activist's disdain, is a useful
Google Search for anyone interested in learning more about what some people think the potential
dangers are.
14
Students’ version
Lesson 3, 4: How are GM food produced?
Background
Genetic modification, genetic engineering and the techniques of recombinant DNA indicate
the input of one or more genes of another species into a particular species. The purpose is to
enhance or eliminate some characteristics of the related species. To transfer genes from one cell
to another cell, there are various methods. One of the methods is using the extremely specific
bacterial restriction enzymes to distinguish the DNA coding sequence, which shapes certain
characteristics and then cut it off using carrier for transferring into another organism. The carriers
can be originated from bacteria. Another method is the Ballistic impregnation, which makes use
of gunpowder explosion to inject tungsten or gold particles attached with DNA into the target
cell.
Methods of gene transformation:
1. Ballistic impregnation – Attaching DNA on the gold-coated bullet and inject into cells at
high speed. Some of the plant cells would combine with the gene and grow again.
2. Use soil bacteria Agrobacterium as the medium– The bacteria carried transformable genes that
can combine with plant cells to change the characteristics of plants.
http://www.fehd.gov.hk/safefood/gmf/edu_res2c.html
In 1983, the first transgenic plant of the world, a tobacco plant resistant to an antibiotic,
appeared. In 1994, the first series of transgenic tomatoes with delayed maturation was introduced
to the US market. Afterwards, other types of GM food started to appear in the market such as
corns and beans.
15
Students’ version
Activity 3: Designing the dream food
Simply speaking, GM food is the kind of food having been applied genetic engineering
techniques to change the genes of some plants (and animals) by science researchers, in order
to introduce or eliminate some of their original characteristics. In the activity during the
lesson, students can combine the characteristics of different organism with imagination to
design new types of food. Students may consider the questions below when designing the
dream food:
-
The function of the new food type
What problems can be solved by the new food
The possible positive and negative influences bring about by the new food type
Resources needed for investigating the new type of food
Public acceptance to the new food
There are three brief explanations about researches on genetic modification for students
references.
GM decaf coffee plant created
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3002112.stm
19 June, 2003
Richard Black
Japanese scientists have used genetic modification technology to create a decaffeinated
coffee plant - the first time it has been done, according to expert observers.
Writing in the British journal Nature, the researchers say their
GM plants contain roughly a third of the caffeine content of
natural varieties.
But it may be many years before engineered coffee beans are
being used widely to make refreshing drinks in the world's cafes.
The active lobby against GM technology that exists in some
countries has particular concerns about coffee, a crop that is
hugely important to developing countries.
The GM coffee plants are
about a year old
ActionAid has described GM technology as "a trend towards corporate control".
It fears novel coffee crops may reduce considerably the job opportunities presently offered in the
labour-intensive industry.
But according to the trade body, the International Coffee Organisation (ICO), several major
questions remain - not least over how the cost of the GM technology will compare with the
industrial decaffeination process used currently.
16
Students’ version
No tears over new onion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2153308.stm
26 July 2002
The no-tears onion was developed in Lincolnshire
A new variety of onion developed in Lincolnshire tastes milder and is less irritating to the eyes,
researchers say.
Available from supermarkets next month, the vegetable has a distinctive pale, thin skin and is
easy to peel. It contains less of the chemical that makes people's eyes water. The new onion
follows work on testing and classifying onions. "Supasweet has a crunchy texture and a delicate
sweet flavour," said grower Paul Cripsey, of FB Parrish and Son in Bedfordshire. "They are
delicious eaten fresh." Scientists say the onion has lower levels of pyruvate, a chemical released
when the vegetable is cut open. The pyruvate is what makes the eyes stream.
The onions were created after government-funded research found a way of analysing the strength
of the vegetable for the first time.
GM rice can tough it out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2512195.stm
26 November 2002
The rice plant on the left has been genetically modified
A new genetically engineered variety of rice, which can grow in all types of conditions, has been
developed by scientists in the United States and Korea.
The researchers added sugar genes from a bacterium to create their improved plant. The genes
allow the rice to maintain yields even if it is stressed, by cold, drought and high salt levels. The
sugar leaves the chemical composition of the rice grains unchanged.
It is hoped the new crop will help farmers in developing countries be more productive on poor
land, increasing yields by up to 20%.
17
Students’ version
Activity 3: Designing the dream food
Worksheet
Students can use words and pictures to briefly introduce their design ideas and answer the
questions below:
1. What are the functions of the new food type?
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
2. What kind of problems can the new food solve?
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
3. What kind of arrangements you will make for monitoring food safety and testing the effect
of the new types of food on human health?
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
18
Students’ version
Additional background information:
Genetic engineering
Genetic engineering, genetic modification (GM) and gene splicing are terms for the process of
manipulating genes, usually outside the organism's normal reproductive process.
It involves the isolation, manipulation and reintroduction of DNA into cells or model organisms,
usually to express a protein. The aim is to introduce new characteristics or attributes
physiologically or physically, such as making a crop resistant to a herbicide, introducing a novel
trait, or producing a new protein or enzyme. Examples can include the production of human
insulin through the use of modified bacteria, the production of erythropoietin in Chinese Hamster
Ovary cells, and the production of new types of experimental mice such as the OncoMouse
(cancer mouse) for research, through genetic redesign.
Since a protein is specified by a segment of DNA called a gene, future versions of that protein
can be modified by changing the gene's underlying DNA. One way to do this is to isolate the
piece of DNA containing the gene, precisely cut the gene out, and then reintroduce (splice) the
gene into a different DNA segment. Daniel Nathans and Hamilton Smith received the 1978
Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for their isolation of restriction endonucleases, which are
able to cut DNA at specific sites. Together with ligase, which can join fragments of DNA
together, restriction enzymes formed the initial basis of recombinant DNA technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
19
Students’ version
The Process of Genetic Engineering
In order to understand how genetic manipulation is accomplished, it is important first to
understand the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. Within its chemical structure, DNA
stores the information that determines an organism's hereditary or genetic properties. DNA is
made up of a linked series of units called nucleotides (Blaese), Different nucleotide sequences
determine different genes genetic information. Genetic engineering is based on this genetic
information.
Genetic manipulation is carried out through a process known as recombinant-DNA formation, or
gene splicing. This procedure behind genetic engineering is one whereby segments of genetic
material from one organism are transferred to another. The basis of the technique lies in the use
of restriction enzymes that split DNA strands wherever certain desired secjuences of nucleotides,
or specific genes, occur. This desired segment of DNA is referred to as donor DNA. The process
of gene splicing results in a series of fragments of DNA, each of which express the same desired
gene that can then combine with plasmids (Rubenstein).
Plasmids are small, circular molecules of DNA that are found in many bacteria. The bacteria act
as vectors in the process of genetic engineering. The desired gene cannot be directly inserted into
the recipient organism, or host, therefore there must be an organism that can carry the donor
DNA into the host. Plasmid DNA is isolated from bacteria and its circular structure is broken by
restriction enzymes (Dworkin). The desired donor DNA is then inserted in the plasmid, and the
circle is resealed by ligases, which are enzymes that repair breaks in DNA strands. This
reconstructed plasmid, which contains an extra gene, can be replaced in the bacteria, where it is
cloned, or duplicated, in large numbers. The combined vector and donor DNA fragment
constitute the recombinant-DNA molecule. Once inside a host cell, this molecule is replicated
along with the host's DNA during cell division. These divisions produce a clone of identical cells,
each having a copy of the recombinant-DNA molecule and thus permanently changing the
genetic makeup of the host organism (Steinbrecher). Genetic engineering has been accomplished.
Source: GENETIC ENGINEERING by Michelle Smith
http://www.bucconeer.worldcon.org/contest/2002e_5.htm
20
Students’ version
Additional background information:
How to make a genetically modified plant that contains a
gene encoded pesticidal characteristic
1. Bacillus thuringienesis is a
bacterium that can produce a
natural pesticide called Bt protein
2. The gene coded for the Bt
protein is isolated from the
bacterium
The gene coding for the Bt protein
3. The isolated gene is then
combined with a plasmid to form a
recombinant DNA by using
recombinant DNA techniques .
Plasmid
Recombinant DNA
21
Students’ version
4. The recombinant DNA is put
into another species of bacteria for
producing more recombinant DNA
5. The bacteria is incubated with
plant cell and the recombinant
DNA will be transferred from
bacteria cells to plant cells
6. The plant cell develops to a
plantlet.
7. The new plant is tested for the
presence of the Bt protein. A
genetically modified plant can be
successfully made if the testing is
positive
Genetically modified plant
Source: Food and Enironmental hygiene Department
http://www.fehd.gov.hk/safefood/gmf/gen_info1.html#1
Lesson 5, 6: What are the problems behind
22
Students’ version
the GM food?
Background
It is certain that biotechnology creates new species and new methods to improve the quality
of agricultural and food industry. The application of genetic engineering not only increases the
yield of agricultural products, improves the appearance, taste and nutritional values of food and
lengthens the storage period of food, it also reduces the need for farmers to use chemical
pesticides. The introduction of GM food provides new hopes for solving the food supply and
starvation problem and creates strong development potentials in controlling the quality and
production of agricultural products and food. Meanwhile, different stakeholders have different
viewpoints on GM food. Since the appearance of the first GM tomato in 1994, the new
technology of GM food raised controversies among nations and organisations in Europe and the
United States.
Simply speaking, the supporters of GM food believe that we can deal with the crisis of food
shortage by the new technology and improve the food qualities. Reduction on the application of
pesticides is also beneficial to the protection of a healthy ecological environment. The opponents,
on the other hand, worry about the hidden harmful effects of GM food on human health and its
possible effect of damages to the ecological environment. Since this kind of technology (such as
the safety testing programme on GM food designed by different countries) has not yet been
developed fully, controversies and uncertainties still exist in argument as whether GM food is
suitably for large-scale production or sales.
Activity 4: Reading and discussion
Worksheet
<Case 1: GM potato and the research of Dr. Pusztai>
GM safety research stokes new row
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/464416.stm
4 October 1999
The research triggered a scare over GM food safety
The controversial research which sparked the furore over the safety of genetically-modified
(GM) foods is to be published in a prestigious medical journal.
Now the Lancet is to publish some of the work, leading supporters of Dr Pusztai to claim he has
been vindicated. All prominent journals insist that research is thoroughly checked by other
scientists. Successful "peer review" is seen by the scientific community as the hallmark of
excellent research.
Immediate criticism
23
Students’ version
However, the BBC understands that the paper does not confirm that the GM potatoes stunted the
growth of rats. It does say the stomach lining of rats fed on GM potatoes are worse than those fed
on a normal diet.
The authors admit that this may not necessarily be because the potatos were genetically modified
- it could be due to other differences in the potato.
And scientists at the UK's Royal Society, who in May 1999 said Dr Pusztai's work was "flawed
in many aspects of design, execution and analysis," have also dismissed the latest work. They
told the BBC that once again the research was not properly carried out.
Government defence
But a spokesman for the government's GM Foods Unit said that publication of the research is "in
line with the Royal Society's recommendation, with which the government totally concurs.
Research scientists should subject their findings to peer review before release into the public
domain."
The Lancet paper is believed to be an examination of the rats' stomach linings by Dr Stanley
Ewen, a pathologist at Aberdeen University.
He claims these were thickened and inflamed in the rats, which ate the GM potatoes but not in
control rats.
The GM potatoes had been engineered to produce a lectin insecticide. The control rats were fed
potatoes simply spiked with the lectin. This suggests that the GM process itself was responsible
for the changes in the rats.
Dr Ewen has said that a fragment of DNA commonly used to switch genes on and off could be to
blame.
But even if the rats are shown to have suffered ill-effects from the GM potatoes, the argument is
far from over. Some scientists still have serious misgivings over the use of raw potatoes, which
ordinarily contain numerous toxic compounds, and also over how the control experiments were
conducted.
<Case 2: Monarch butterfly and Bt2 anti-pest corn>
24
Students’ version
The Biotech debate: The monarch butterfly (Extract)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1298397.stm
27 April, 2001
Monarch larvae feed on milkweed in corn fields
Entomologist John Losey could hardly have imagined the furore that would ensue when he
happened to wonder, during a field trip one summer, whether dustings of pollen on milkweed
growing in a Bt-cornfield might harm the monarch butterfly.
This curiosity, the lifeblood of any scientist, sparked one of the biggest environmental debates of
the decade - could butterflies like the monarch be at risk from genetically-modified (GM) crops?
As with any big scientific question, arriving at an acceptable conclusion is an uphill slog.
Nearly two years after Losey and co-researchers at Cornell University, New York, showed that
monarch caterpillars died in the laboratory after eating pollen from genetically engineered corn,
experts are still divided over whether monarchs are at risk in the wild.
Meanwhile the monarch, the state symbol of Minnesota, has become an emblem of the struggle
between environmentalists and industry over the changing face of farming.
Hazard warning
The first alarm bells were sounded in spring 1999, when a letter by the Cornell team appeared in
the leading scientific journal Nature. Their laboratory study showed that consumption of large
amounts of Bt-pollen is hazardous to monarch larvae.
Any added risk from Bt-corn, say environmentalists, could tip the delicate balance too far. But
that stance has been attacked by some scientists as over-hyped.
But demonstrating what happens in the real world is more contentious. In theory, for butterflies
to be at risk, they would have to be present in the cornfields at the time that pollen was shed.
They would also need to be exposed to enough pollen for it to be harmful. In an attempt to
resolve the question of risk, independent and industry-sponsored scientists headed to the field to
study the butterfly in its natural habitat.
The monarch butterfly leads a fragile existence. In the winter, it hibernates along the coast of
southern California or in the fir forests of central Mexico. Come the spring, it heads northwards
in the most spectacular migration of any insect. By the time the monarch reaches its breeding
ground, the vast American cornbelt, it may have flown as far as 4,800 kilometres (3,000 miles).
25
Students’ version
The monarch faces many threats to its survival. A snowstorm in 1995 killed 5 to 7 million
monarchs during their incredible journey north. Prey to predators like ladybugs and lacewings,
less than 5% of the caterpillars survive to adulthood, even on standard corn.
But human activities pose perhaps the biggest threat. The mountain forests of central Mexico are
vulnerable to logging and the coast of southern California to development. At the monarch's
breeding grounds, pesticides destroy milkweeds, the sole food source for the caterpillars.
Any added risk from Bt-corn, say environmentalists, could tip the delicate balance too far. But
that stance has been attacked by some scientists as over-hyped.
“The kinds of things that are blown up out of proportion are that monarchs are going to be
gravely endangered," says Dr Robin Yeaton Woo of the Ceres Forum, Center for Food and
Nutrition Policy, Washington DC.
"Frankly as an insect developmental biologist, that's a real half story, there's no way when you
look at broad-spectrum pesticides that monarchs are even in as great a danger with Bt-corn as
they are when airplanes fly over dusting whole crops with poison."
Please have a brief discussion on the questions below:
1. Why did the research result of Dr. Pusztai make people to question about the safety of GM
food? Why were his research results regarded as not reliable later?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
2. Why did the research results announced by the University of Cornell make people to
question about the safety of GM food? Why was the research result regarded as not reliable
later?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
3. What are the important points for scientific research methods reflected by the examples
above?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Activity 5: Role-play and discussion
26
Students’ version
Summary of the story:
An international food manufacturer has planned to purchase a farmland owned by the
government to conduct researches on the genetically modified technology of plants. The GM
food would have anti-pest effect to cause death of the pests after ingestion. If the research is
successful, it can ensure the yield and quality of plant crops as well as reducing the need for
using pesticides to deal with pests. The local government is planning to hold a consultation
conference and conduct a survey on the public opinions about the proposal. This is to collect
different ideas, standpoints and concerns from different parties. In the consultation conference
for collecting the public opinions, there are different viewpoints from representatives of
different institutions and organizations. The backgrounds of the attendees are listed below:
1. Local peasant; 2. International food manufacturer; 3. Ordinary customer;
4. Environmental protection organization
If you have one of the above roles, what would be your opinions?
Students are divided into several groups and each group represents different organizations.
Please discuss the influences of the development of GM food production on them.
Guide of the roles:
As different roles have different points of view, students should think and ask from different
starting points:
1. Local peasant – If larger-scaled manufacturers monopolize the supply of grains and food,
what are the effects on the small-scaled agricultural production? How can the existence of GM
food benefit the small-scaled local agriculture? What are the understanding and level of
acceptance of peasants to the new technology? How can we ensure local agriculture would be
benefited by the GM technology? What are the responsibilities of the local government?
2. International food manufacturer – How can the international food manufacturer ensure the
safety of GM food? How can the local citizens and local government be persuaded to accept
their entry to the farmlands? How should they face the people who are suspicious or holding
opposing ideas to GM food? How influential are the research results of the development of
GM food to their industry?
3. Ordinary customer – What are the attitudes of ordinary customers toward GM food? What
are the considerations when they make decisions on buying the food? From the viewpoints of
the customers, should the ingredients of GM food be specified on the food labels?
4. Environmental protection organisation – what are the impacts of GM food on the natural
ecological environment? If a novel plant with anti-pest genes kill pests through the same way
as the pesticides, what will be the differences of the influences on ecological environment
between using modified plants implanted with anti-pest genes and using pesticides? Would
GM plants affect other organisms? Why should we assess the related scientific researches
carefully and analyse their reliability and authenticity seriously?
Guides to students:
Students in each group may read the two articles about the advantages, risks and
problems of GM food below. Students can also quote the articles from [controversial
issues on genetic modification and food safety] in <Additional background
information> and those from the Extended readings.
-
When studying the different opinions of different stakeholders and the problems they
27
Students’ version
pay most attention to in groups, each group should nominate 2 to 3 representatives to
report the conclusions they have made. Students should notice that although the
triggering point for deliberation are the same in each group, different ideas may have
arisen during the group discussion. These different ideas should be respected and the
representatives should try their best to report these different ideas made by their
members.
Activity 5: Role-play and discussion
Worksheet
Students should summarize the ideas and briefly explain the opinions of their own group and the
other group of different roles, then compare and contrast the points with their similarities and
differences.
1. Please briefly explain the viewpoints of your group:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Pleas briefly explain the viewpoints of the role from another group:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3. Compare and contrast the similarities and differences between the viewpoints of two groups:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4. According to your individual opinions, what are the suggestions you will give to the
government?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
28
Students’ version
<Reference article 1>
What are the benefits of developing GM food?
Herbicides-resistant crops
With genetic engineering, crops produced can have a higher resistance to herbicides, which can
allow better weed control. One of the most common herbicides is glyphosate, which is
commercially available as Roundup. Monsanto have produced various crop plants, such as Soya,
that are called Roundup-ready, in that they are resistant to the herbicide. Such plants are widely in
the USA and some other countries.
Insect-resistant crops
Genetically modified crops can enhance plant resistant to insect that can in turn increase the
crop yield and reduce the cost of purchasing insecticides. One well-known insect-resistant genes
can be obtained form the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and it is commonly applied in corn
cultivation
Improvement in food quality and quantity
With the incorporation of the technique of genetic modification, both of the quality and
quantity of food can be enhanced. Examples can be found in the followings.
A bacterial gene
has been inserted successfully into potato plants to increase the overall proportion of starch in
tubers while reducing water content. This can also results in reduced absorption of fat during oil
cooking thus good for health-conscious people. For another example, the addition of extra genes
coding for the high molecular weight subunits of gluten in wheat was found effective for the
improvement in the dough-making quality of certain wheat flours. In addition, milk production
can be increased as a result of recombinant DNA technology. In this case, genes from bovine
growth hormone is isolated from cows and then cloned in E. coli which is later incorporated to
the animal feedings for cows, sheep and goats. Enhancement in protein content in milk can also
be obtained. Furthermore, genetically modified tomatoes can give better taste and show a higher
shelf life. On the other hand, DNA of calf chymosin has been successfully cloned (copied) into
yeast, bacteria or mould for cheese manufacturing.
Salt and drought tolerant crops
Salt-tolerant plants can be produced by incorporating a gene from yeast that survives in salty
conditions. Besides, drought-tolerating plants can be obtained by transferring a gene from baker’s
yeast that expressed trehalose. This substance enables yeast to survive in a dried state. With the
result of genetic modification, growing seasons can be extended. Furthermore, plants can be
grown in any unfavorable conditions.
Source︰Learning and teaching materials of Science and Technology（edited by HKIVE）
<Reference article 2>
What are the risks and problems of GM food?
Risk to human health
GM foods are unlikely inducing any direct risks to the health of human beings. However, such
GM food could bring about allergic reactions. For example, one manufacturer used a gene from
Brazil nut for the improvement of the protein quality in soybeans. However, this induces
29
Students’ version
allegoric reactions to some consumers.
Besides, a research conducted in 1998 showed that rats consumed genetically modified
potatoes would suffer from ulcer in liver and digestive systems and their immune system would
also be damaged. This may cause threatening effect to the human health. Another concern of
human health is the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes from genetically modified food to
bacteria living in the intestine of human. This could reduce the efficiency of antibiotic drug
treatment.
Environmental risk
It seems that genetically modified crops can either be herbicide or insecticide resistant.
However, environmental scientists worry that such herbicide or insecticides resistant genes might
pass from crops into wild relatives and create “superweeds-invasive plants” that can cause lower
crop yield and disrupt the natural ecosystems. Besides, genetically modified fish or animals may
cause dramatic changes in the food chains as if only genetically modified food are interested, the
natural crops or animal species would become extinct gradually. This will lead to the loss of
biodiversity.
In addition, disruption of natural ecosystem would also be resulted. Vigorous transgenic crop
material might displaced into natural habitat and could threaten wild populations of related plants
through competition.
Ethical and moral concerns
People may argue that genetic engineering is just “man playing God’ which they think it is
ethically unacceptable to interfere with nature. These ethical issues include the transfer of
human genes to animals used as food. There were numerous cases of incorporating human genes
to animals like pigs, cows and sheep with the intention of improving growth rate. If we consume
these animals, though we are not eating our flesh, we are just “eating our genes”! Another
concern is the transfer of genes from animals whose meat is forbidden to certain religious people.
For example Muslim people would strongly reject any food containing a cow gene. Besides, the
transfer of animal genes to crop plants which might then become unacceptable to vegetarians.
Much of the public’s objection to genetic engineering has a moral basis. Milk and meat are
already produced in sufficient quantities in industrialized countries and so transgenic animals are
being raised solely for profit. If additional suffering caused to animals by genetic modification is
compared to the benefits gained, then the use of genetically modified animals for food production
can be viewed as ethically questionable, because the ends do not seem to justify the means.
Economic impact on developing countries
It may seem that GM food could alleviate hunger and starvation problem in developing
countries. However, the export market of agricultural products in these developing countries is
threatened by the genetically modified food produced by the industrialized countries. On the
other hand, developing countries may not enjoy the benefit of the biotechnology brought from the
developed countries. It is because developing countries have to pay more for transgenic seeds and
also the patenting cost for the transgenic crops.
Source︰Learning and teaching materials of Science and Technology（edited by HKIVE）
Extended readings:
30
Students’ version
Bioengineered corn damages rats, Monsanto secret
study reveals
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins/PointCounterpoint/453.html
22 May 2005
Geoffrey Lean
Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs
and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.
The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of secret research carried out by Monsanto,
the GM food giant, which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller kidneys and
variations in the composition of their blood.
According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these health problems were absent from another
batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project.
The disclosures come as European countries, including Britain, prepare to vote on whether the
GM-modified corn should go on sale to the public. A vote last week by the European Union
failed to secure agreement over whether the product should be sold here, after Britain and nine
other countries voted in favour.
Although Monsanto last night dismissed the abnormalities in rats as meaningless and due to
chance, reflecting normal variations between rats, a senior British government source said
ministers were so worried by the findings that they had called for further information.
Environmentalists will see the findings as vindication of British research seven years ago, which
suggested that rats that ate GM potatoes suffered damage to their health. That research, which
was roundly denounced by ministers and the British scientific establishment, was halted and Dr
Arpad Pusztai, the scientist behind the controversial findings, was forced into retirement amid a
huge row over the claim.
Now, however, any decision to allow the corn to be marketed in the UK will cause widespread
alarm. The full details of the rat research are included in the main report, which Monsanto refuses
to release on the grounds that "it contains confidential business information which could be of
commercial use to our competitors".
A Monsanto spokesman said yesterday: "If any such well-known anti-biotech critics had doubts
about the credibility of these studies they should have raised them with the regulators. After all,
MON 863 isn't new, having been approved to be as safe as conventional maize by nine other
global authorities since 2003."
Good old circular reasoning. Plenty of this corn is already growing in the US, but then Monsanto
has had powerful friends in the government all along, including Bill Clinton. The FDA blithely
approves whatever Monsanto creates, and no label is required to inform US consumers what they
are eating. Biodiversity has less than no value to a company like Monsanto trying to monopolize
crops.
31
Students’ version
Rodent Trials Show Biotech is Squeaky Unclean
Of Mice, Men and GM Peas (Extract)
http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva11262005.html
26/27 November 2005
Lila Rajiva
A 3 million dollar, ten-year trial of genetic modification (GM) on field peas at The
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australia's national
science research organization, was scrapped last week (November 18, 2005) when the GM pea
caused inflammation in the lungs of mice it was fed to.
Pea weevil takes a 30% whack out of Australia's 100 million dollar pea industry and the GM
strain, which inserted a bean gene into the peas that the pesky weevil could not digest, was touted
to reduce the need for insecticide to tackle the problem.
But scientists at the John Curtin School of Medical Research in Canberra who led the
immunological research found that when inserted into the pea, the bean gene triggered an
immune reaction in mice. Their results were published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry.
Slight as it seems, the case has fired up the anti-GM movement and may even have the
potential to derail the biotech juggernaut. Point by point, here's why:
Though CSIRO insists that the case shows that regulating GM does work, it does no such
thing. Instead, it shows up the alarmingly weak science behind GM. Greenpeace spokesman
Jeremy Tager said that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) approved a type of GM
corn, Mon863, for consumption even though it had caused "serious organ damage" to rats in
Germany. The FSAZ also claimed publicly that the rat study did not mean the corn was "unsafe."
Greenpeace Germany sued the corn manufacturer, Monsanto, in 2004 to require it to release the
rat study findings.
The problem gets worse in the US, which unlike Australia, does not even have a scientific
body that studies food technology before springing it on the public. With rather touching trust,
the FDA leaves the job of guarding pubic health to the biotech industry. So the only reason we
know that Monsanto's soy is OK for human beings, is because Monsanto says so.
The FDA's convenient see-no-evil stance goes back to a 1992 policy which claims GM foods
don't differ from other foods in any "meaningful or uniform way." But documents revealed by a
lawsuit years later tell a different story. It seems the FDA's own experts did indeed think that GM
foods were hazardous, but they were shunted aside by the FDA's policy chief, none other than
ex-Monsanto attorney and future vice- president, Michael Taylor. Any wonder that a FDA
microbiologist dismisses the agency's GM policy as "a political document" without scientific
basis. Ultimately, the FDA keeps all regulation of GM voluntary, even the industry's massaged
and poorly designed studies.
Also not true. There is evidence that biotech is not safe. True, it's limited but only for the
astounding reason that in the history of biotech there have been fewer than 20 peer-reviewed
studies that pass the academic smell test and no human clinical trials. There were just five papers
published in peer-reviewed journals until June 2000.
32
Students’ version
Ermakova used Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy which has genes inserted that let it
withstand Monsanto's "Roundup" brand of herbicide. But we're not just talking herbicides and
pesticides. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready and soy derivatives,
including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of processed foods sold in the US. That
means many Americans eat ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy every single day.
And that's the bottom line. Everyday most of us eat a GM food that has been demonstrated
to kill living creatures and affect their off-spring. Any wonder that soy allergies skyrocketed in
the UK by 50% after GM soy was introduced; that in Russia, allergies tripled in the three years
when GM foods were widely introduced; and that food-related sicknesses in the U.S. doubled
between 1994 and 2001, when many GM foods entered the supermarket.
It's not the activists but biotech groupies who need to put up or shut up. If they can't prove
their products are clean, time for them to take them off the shelf and get into another line of
business.
33