Advances in Food Biotechnology

By Ravishankar Rai V

The application of biotechnology in the food sciences has led to an increase in food production and enhanced the quality and safety of food. Food biotechnology is a dynamic field and the continual progress and advances have not only dealt effectively with issues related to food security but also augmented the nutritional and health aspects of food.

Advances in Food Biotechnology provides an overview of the latest development in food biotechnology as it relates to safety, quality and security. The seven sections of the book are multidisciplinary and cover the following topics:

• GMOs and food security issues
• Applications of enzymes in food processing
• Fermentation technology
• Functional food and nutraceuticals
• Valorization of food waste
• Detection and control of foodborne pathogens
• Emerging techniques in food processing

Bringing together experts drawn from around the world, the book is a comprehensive reference in the most progressive field of food science and will be of interest to professionals, scientists and academics in the food and biotech industries. The book will be highly resourceful to governmental research and regulatory agencies and those who are studying and teaching food biotechnology.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wiley
• Release date: Oct 9, 2015
• ISBN: 9781118864500

Book preview

List of Contributors

Tjakko Abee, Laboratory of Food Microbiology, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Cristóbal N. Aguilar, IBB – Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, Campus Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal

Nana Akyaa Ackaah-Gyasi, Food Science & Agricultural Chemistry Department, McGill University (Macdonald Campus), 21,111 Lakeshore Road, Ste Anne de Bellevue, QC, Canada H9X 3V9

Athanasios Alexopoulos, Democritus University of Thrace, Faculty of Agricultural Development, Laboratory of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Hygiene, 193 Pantazidou str., Orestiada, 68200, Greece

Filiz Altay, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Chemical & Metallurgical Engineering, Department of Food Engineering, Ayazaga Campus, Maslak, 34469, Sar yer, Istanbul-Turkey

Antonella Amore, Department of Chemical Sciences, University of Naples ‘Federico II’, Complesso Universitario Monte S. Angelo, Via Cintia, 4 80126, Napoli, Italy

Seyedeh Zeinab Asadi, Department of Food Science and Technology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Jamuna Bai Aswathanarayan, Department of Studies in Microbiology, University of Mysore, Mysore 06, India

Bojana Balanč, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Michela Barbuto, Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

Rejane Andrade Batista, Laboratory of Flavor and Chromatographic Analysis, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil. Av. Marechal Rondon, s/n., 49100-000, São Cristóvão, SE, Brazil

Argyro Bekatorou, Food Biotechnology Group, University of Patras, Department of Chemistry, Patras, 26500, Greece

Yves Bertheau, INRA, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, F-78026 Versailles, France

Eugenia Bezirtzoglou, Democritus University of Thrace, Faculty of Agricultural Development, Laboratory of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Hygiene, 193 Pantazidou str., Orestiada, 68200, Greece

Sebastiaan Bijttebier, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Business Unit Separation and Conversion Technology, Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

A. Blandino, Department of Chemical Engineering and Food Technology, Faculty of Sciences, International Agri-Food Campus of Excellence (CeiA3), University of Cádiz, Polígono Río San Pedro s/n, Puerto Real 11510, Spain

Ilaria Bruni, ZooPlantLab®, Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, P.za della Scienza 2, 20126 Milan (MI), Italy

Antonia Bruno, ZooPlantLab®, Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, P.za della Scienza 2, 20126 Milan (MI), Italy Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

Branko Bugarski, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, Serbia

F. Cabrera-Chávez, Nutrition Sciences and Gastronomy Unit, University of Sinaloa, Culiacan, Sinaloa, 80019, Mexico

AM Calderón de la Barca, Department of Nutrition, Research Center for Food and Development (CIAD, AC), Hermosillo, 83304, Sonora, Mexico

Verônica Cardoso, BIOINOVAR-Biotechnology: Unit Biocatalysis, Bioproducts and Bioenergy, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro UFRJ, Cidade Universitária, 21941-902, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Institute of Microbiology Paulo de Góes, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, 21941-902, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Domenico Carminati, Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l'Analisi dell'Economia Agraria, Centro di Ricerca per le Produzioni Foraggere e Lattiero-Casearie (CREAFLC), 26900 Lodi, Italy

I. Caro, Department of Chemical Engineering and Food Technology, Faculty of Sciences, International Agri-Food Campus of Excellence (CeiA3), University of Cádiz, Polígono Río San Pedro s/n, Puerto Real 11510, Spain

Maurizio Casiraghi, ZooPlantLab®, Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, P.za della Scienza 2, 20126 Milan (MI), Italy

Cristina Cavinato, University Ca' Foscari of Venice, Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Calle Larga Santa Marta, 30123 Venice, Italy

Li Oon Chuah, School of Industrial Technology, University Science Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

Aidan Coffey, Department of Biological Sciences, Cork Institute of Technology, Bishopstown, Cork, Ireland

Raffaele Coppola, Institute of Food Science, CNR-ISA, Via Roma, 64, 83100, Avellino, Italy DiAAA, University of Molise, Via De Sanctis, 86100, Campobasso, Italy

Juan C. Contreras, Food Research Department, School of Chemistry, University Autonomous of Coahuila, 25280, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

P. J. Cullen, School of Chemical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Antonio d'Acierno, Institute of Food Science, CNR-ISA, Via Roma, 64, 83100, Avellino, Italy

Winnie Dejonghe, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Business Unit Separation and Conversion Technology, Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

I. de Ory, Department of Chemical Engineering and Food Technology, Faculty of Sciences, International Agri-Food Campus of Excellence (CeiA3), University of Cádiz, Polígono Río San Pedro s/n, Puerto Real 11510, Spain

Heleen De Wever, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Business Unit Separation and Conversion Technology, Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

Heidy M. W. den Besten, Laboratory of Food Microbiology, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Daniel A. Dias, RMIT University, School of Medical Sciences, College of Science, Engineering and Health, PO Box 71, Bundoora, 3083

A. B. Diaz, Department of Chemical Engineering and Food Technology, Faculty of Sciences, International Agri-Food Campus of Excellence (CeiA3), University of Cádiz, Polígono Río San Pedro s/n, Puerto Real 11510, Spain

Yichen Ding, Singapore Centre on Environmental Life Sciences Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Verica or ević, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Ivana Drvenica, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Kathy Elst, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Business Unit Separation and Conversion Technology, Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

Paula Judith Perez Espitia, Food Research Division, Observatorio del Caribe Colombiano, Getsemaní, Calle del Guerrero #29-02, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia

Berta N. Estevinho, LEPABE, Departamento de Engenharia Química, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal

Vincenza Faraco, Department of Chemical Sciences, University of Naples ‘Federico II’, Complesso Universitario Monte S. Angelo, Via Cintia, 4 80126, Napoli, Italy II’, Napoli, Italy

Pasquale Ferranti, Dipartimento di Agraria, University of Naples ‘Federico II’, Parco Gussone, Portici, I-80055, Italy Avellino, Italy

Florinda Fratianni, Institute of Food Science, CNR-ISA, Via Roma, 64, 83100, Avellino, Italy

Andrea Galimberti, ZooPlantLab®, Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, P.za della Scienza 2, 20126 Milan (MI), Italy

Linsey Garcia-Gonzalez, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Business Unit Separation and Conversion Technology, Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

Giorgio Giraffa, Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l'Analisi dell'Economia Agraria, Centro di Ricerca per le Produzioni Foraggere e Lattiero-Casearie (CREAFLC), 26900 Lodi, Italy

Ana Catarina Gomes, Genomics Unit, Biocant – Association for Technology Transfer, Parque Tecnológico de Cantanhede, Núcleo 4, Lote 8, 3060-197, Cantanhede, Portugal

Marco Gottardo, University Ca' Foscari of Venice, Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Calle Larga Santa Marta, 30123 Venice, Italy

Miguel Gueimonde, Institute of Dairy Products (IPLA-CSIC), Department of Microbiology and Biochemistry of Dairy Products, Paseo Río Linares s/n, 33300 Villaviciosa, Asturias, Spain

Kathleen L. Hefferon, 25 Willcocks St, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

N.G. Heredia, Department of Plant Food Technology, Research Center for Food and Development (CIAD, AC), Hermosillo, 83304, Sonora, Mexico

Camilla B. Hill, The University of Melbourne, School of BioSciences, Building 122, Professors Walk, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia

Ahmad Homaei, Department of Biochemistry Faculty of Science, Hormozgan University, Bandarabbas, PO Box 3995, Iran

A.R. Islas-Rubio, Department of Plant Food Technology, Research Center for Food and Development (CIAD, AC), Hermosillo, 83304, Sonora, Mexico

Kasipathy Kailasapathy, School of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney, Penrith NSW 2751, Australia and Visiting Professor, School of Biosciences, Taylor's University, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Julie Kellershohn, Russell & Associates, 76 Knights Bridge Road, London, ON Canada N6K 3R4

Kianoush Khosravi-Darani, Research Department of Food Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Gijs A. Kleter, RIKILT – Wageningen UR, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Akkermaalsbos 2, NL-6708WB Wageningen, The Netherlands

Paliz Koohy-Kamaly, Research Department of Food Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Thomas Koupantsis, Laboratory of Food Chemistry and Technology, School of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Sigrid Kusch, University of Southampton, Engineering and the Environment, SO17 1BJ, Southampton, UK

Massimo Labra, ZooPlantLab®, Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, P.za della Scienza 2, 20126 Milan (MI), Italy

Abdullah Makhzoum, Department of Biology, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada

Ioanna Mantzourani, Democritus University of Thrace, Faculty of Agricultural Development, Laboratory of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Hygiene, 193 Pantazidou str., Orestiada, 68200, Greece

Fani Mantzouridou, Laboratory of Food Chemistry and Technology, School of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Abelardo Margolles, Nutrition and Bromatology Group, Department of Analytical and Food Chemistry, Food Science and Technology Faculty, University of Vigo, Ourense Campus, E-32004 Ourense, Spain

Aurora Meucci, Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’Analisi dell’Economia Agraria, Centro di Ricerca per le Produzioni Foraggere e Lattiero-Casearie (CREAFLC), 26900 Lodi, Italy

Federico Micolucci, University of Venice, Department of Biotechnology, Strada Le Grazie, 15, 37134 Venice, Italy

N.N. Misra, Bioplasma group, School of Food Science & Environmental Health, Dublin Institute of Technology, Marlborough Street, Dublin 1, Ireland

Antonio Morata, UPM, Department of Food Technology, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Madrid

Diana B. Muñiz-Márquez, Food Research Department, School of Chemistry, University Autonomous of Coahuila, 25280, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Solange I. Mussatto, Department of Biotechnology, Delft University of Technology, Julianalaan 67, 2628 BC Delft, The Netherlands

Rodrigo Pires Nascimento, School of Chemistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitaria, 21941-590, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Eleni Naziri, Laboratory of Food Chemistry and Technology, School of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Filomena Nazzaro, Institute of Food Science, CNR-ISA, Via Roma, 64, 83100, Avellino, Italy

Viktor Nedović, Institute of Food Technology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Eoghan Nevin, Department of Biological Sciences, Cork Institute of Technology, Bishopstown, Cork, Ireland

Houshang Nikoopour, Research Department of Food Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Maryvon Y. Noordam, RIKILT – Wageningen UR, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Akkermaalsbos 2, NL-6708WB Wageningen, The Netherlands

Nagihan Okutan, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Chemical & Metallurgical Engineering, Department of Food Engineering, Ayazaga Campus, Maslak, 34469, Sar yer, Istanbul-Turkey

Jim O'Mahony, Department of Biological Sciences, Cork Institute of Technology, Bishopstown, Cork, Ireland

S.K. Pankaj, Dublin Institute of Technology, Cathal Brugha Street, Dublin, Ireland

Deepak Pant, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Business Unit Separation and Conversion Technology, Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

Adamantini Paraskevopoulou, Laboratory of Food Chemistry and Technology, School of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Gianluca Picariello, Istituto di Scienze dell'Alimentazione – CNR, Via Roma 52 A/C, I-83100, Avellino, Italy

Anderson S. Pinheiro, Department of Biochemistry, Chemistry Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Stavros Plessas, Democritus University of Thrace, Faculty of Agricultural Development, Laboratory of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Hygiene, 193 Pantazidou str., Orestiada, 68200, Greece

Mahbuba Rahman, Division of Experimental Biology, Sidra Medical and Research Center, Burj Doha, Doha, Qatar

Ravishankar Rai V., Department of Studies in Microbiology, University of Mysore, Mysore 06, India

Fernando Rocha, LEPABE, Departamento de Engenharia Química, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal

Raminta Rodait -Riševičien , Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania

Igor Rodrigues de Almeida, Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Natural Products and Food (DPNA), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitaria, 21941-590, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Raúl Rodríguez, Food Research Department, School of Chemistry, University Autonomous of Coahuila, 25280, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Ute Roessner, The University of Melbourne, School of BioSciences, Building 122, Professors Walk, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia

Patricia Ruas-Madiedo, Institute of Dairy Products (IPLA-CSIC), Department of Microbiology and Biochemistry of Dairy Products, Paseo Río Linares s/n, 33300 Villaviciosa, Asturias, Spain

Lorena Ruiz, Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre & Department of Microbiology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Inge Russell, Heriot-Watt University, International Centre for Brewing and Distilling, Edinburgh Scotland Road E., London, UK

Gulam Rusul, School of Industrial Technology, University Science Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia

Anna Sandionigi, ZooPlantLab®, Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, P.za della Scienza 2, 20126 Milan (MI), Italy

Fabrizio Sarghini, University of Naples Federico II, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Engineering and Biosystems Section, Via Università 133, 80055 Portici (NA), Italy

Yamini Satyawali, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Business Unit Separation and Conversion Technology, Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

Rita Saul , Laboratory of Bio-nanotechnology, Semiconductor Physics Institute, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Vilnius, Lithuania

Gintautas Saulis, Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania and Laboratory of Bio-nanotechnology, Semiconductor Physics Institute, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Vilnius, Lithuania

Borja Sánchez, Nutrition and Bromatology Group, Department of Analytical and Food Chemistry, Food Science and Technology Faculty, University of Vigo, Ourense Campus, E-32004 Ourense, Spain

Annalisa Segat, Department of Food Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy

João Simões, Genomics Unit, Biocant – Association for Technology Transfer, Parque Tecnológico de Cantanhede, Núcleo 4, Lote 8, 3060-197, Cantanhede, Portugal

Benjamin K. Simpson, Food Science & Agricultural Chemistry Department, McGill University (Macdonald Campus), 21,111 Lakeshore Road, Ste Anne de Bellevue, QC, Canada H9X 3V9

Viktorija Skaidrut Dainauskait , Laboratory of Bio-nanotechnology, Semiconductor Physics Institute, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Vilnius, Lithuania

José A. Suárez-Lepe, UPM, Department of Food Technology, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Madrid

Olga Luisa Tavano, Alfenas Federal University, Nutrition Faculty, 700 Gabriel Monteiro da Silva St, Alfenas, MG 37130-000, Brazil

José A. Teixeira, IBB – Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, Campus Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal

Flavio Tidona, Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l'Analisi dell'Economia Agraria, Centro di Ricerca per le Produzioni Foraggere e Lattiero-Casearie (CREAFLC), 26900 Lodi, Italy

Kata Trifković, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Chibuike C. Udenigwe, Dalhousie University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Sciences, Truro, NS, B2N 5E3, Canada

Maarten Uyttebroek, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Business Unit Separation and Conversion Technology, Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

Karolien Vanbroekhoven, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Business Unit Separation and Conversion Technology, Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

Alane Beatriz Vermelho, BIOINOVAR-Biotechnology: Unit Biocatalysis, Bioproducts and Bioenergy, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro UFRJ, Cidade Universitária, 21941-902, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Institute of Microbiology Paulo de Góes, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, 21941-902, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Stefan Voorspoels, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Business Unit Separation and Conversion Technology, Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

Liang Yang, Singapore Centre on Environmental Life Sciences Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Myrto-Panagiota Zacharof, Centre for Complex Fluid Processing (CCFP), College of Engineering, Swansea University, Talbot building, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK

Miriam Zago, Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’Analisi dell’Economia Agraria, Centro di Ricerca per le Produzioni Foraggere e Lattiero-Casearie (CREAFLC), 26900 Lodi, Italy

Yi Zhang, Food Science & Agricultural Chemistry Department, McGill University (Macdonald Campus), 21,111 Lakeshore Road, Ste Anne de Bellevue, QC, Canada H9X 3V9

Preface

The application of biotechnology in food sciences has led to an increase in food production and also enhanced the quality and safety of food. Food biotechnology is a dynamic field and the continual progress and advances in the field has not only dealt effectively with the issues relating to food security but also augmented the nutritional and health aspects of food. Food biotechnology, which began with exploring the role of microbes in fermentation of food, has now progressed to increasing the shelf life of food and enhancing the flavour of fermented foods. In recent years there has been a shift in the focus of biotechnological progress to find new approaches in food fermentation and develop multifunctional microorganisms to improve the nutritional and health benefits of foods. The use of GM foods with both technological and nutritional benefits is timely and relevant. The advent of modern biotechnology in food sciences has not been free of controversies and ethical issues. In the next few years food biotechnology will be all about improving food production and its quality and safety by using cutting-edge technologies and state-of-the art techniques. Biotechnology and its application in foods will undeniably offer great potential for developing novel food products and processes in the food industry.

Advances in Food Biotechnology covers safety, quality and security aspects of biotechnological approaches in food. As food biotechnology is a wide subject, important issues that appeal to food scientists are covered in this book. The topics are multidisciplinary, covering subjects such as: advances made in the field of fermentation technology; progress in the development of functional foods and nutraceuticals; the application of enzymes in the food industry; techniques that are gaining importance in food processing without altering quality of the food; genetically modified foods with technological and nutritional benefits; and safety aspects of foods with respect to the detection and control of food-borne pathogens. The contributions on these topics are from the experts in the field. Although food biotechnology is a vast field, all the important aspects of food biotechnology have been covered by focusing on recent advances and providing a perspective on future trends in the field. This book provides comprehensive and exhaustive information and suits the needs of the targeted audience.

The contents of the book are divided into seven parts. Each part has many chapters, each introducing, discussing and exploring the recent advances, current challenges and future trends of that particular field.

Part I deals with global food security, and asks whether genetically modified organisms can provide the solution to the food security issue. Apart from improving food safety and quality, the major challenge for the food scientists has been to improve food production. Scientists are focusing on GM crops and transgene technology to solve the food security crisis. In this part, the use of GMOs to increase the quantity and nutritional quality of food, risk assessment of GM foods and also the ethical issues concerned with their application in food are reviewed.

In Part II, the application of enzymes in the food industry has been discussed. The use of enzymes in the food industry and their role in food processing to improve the quality of foods are discussed.

Part III covers the recent advances in fermentation technology. The use of rDNA technology and the ever-increasing application of omics technologies to improve starter cultures and strain development are discussed.

In Part IV, functional foods and nutraceuticals and their corresponding nutrition, health and safety aspects, their mechanisms of action and health benefits are analysed.

Part V covers the subject of valorization of food wastes using biotechnology. The byproducts and wastes generated from food processing industries are valorized to obtain commercially valuable substances. Valorization of food products is an environmentally friendly process and has the potential to generate economically valuable products that can be reused in the food industry as starters, nutraceuticals and bioactives.

The latest tools and molecular techniques used to detect and control food-borne pathogens and their toxins are discussed in Part VI on food safety. The various novel strategies that are being developed to combat pathogens and enhance food safety and quality are described.

Finally, Part VII deals with emerging techniques in food processing. Innovative techniques used in processing, packaging and preserving foods, both to maintain their integrity and improve their nutritional quality, are discussed.

Advances in Food Biotechnology covers the fundamental aspects of food biotechnology from the perspectives of safety, security and quality of food. Important issues in the field are exhaustively covered by expert contributors. This book is valuable reference material for graduate students, researchers, scientists from food industry and food policy-makers.

I would like to thank all the authors for sharing their knowledge and expertise. My sincere thanks goes to my doctoral student Miss Jamuna Bai A for her immense help during the preparation of this edition.

Dr. Ravishankar Rai V.

Part I

Global Food Security: Are GMOs the Solution to the Food Security Issue?

1

Biotechnological Approaches for Nutritionally Enhanced Food Crop Production

Kathleen L. Hefferon¹ and Abdullah Makhzoum²

¹ 25 Willcocks St, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

² Department of Biology, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada

1.1 Introduction

Human health can be directly attributed to the nutritional content of plants grown as food crops. The biologically active compounds found in food crops are high in number and wide in diversity. Food crops can however be nutritionally enhanced to improve the content and bioavailability of these essential nutrients. One approach that is rapidly gaining momentum is through the use of biotechnology. Specifically, plants can be genetically modified to produce higher levels of much-needed vitamins and minerals. This chapter describes some of the recent advances in agricultural biotechnology that has been undertaken to improve human health.

1.2 The Case for Biofortified Food

Currently, 1 billion people or 1 out of every 7 who live on this planet do not get enough food to eat each day. In fact, 40% of the human race suffers from ‘hidden hunger’ or malnutrition resulting from the lack of essential micronutrients in their daily diet. In most cases, people who suffer from malnutrition consume meals which centre around a staple crop such as rice, maize or cassava but the wide variety of fruits and vegetables that are required in a healthy diet are either unavailable or unaffordable. Almost two-thirds of childhood deaths worldwide are the result of nutrient deficiencies such as vitamin A, zinc and iron. The situation is confounded by the fact that the world's population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050, and the vast majority of this population increase will most likely take place in the developing countries. The looming spectre of climate change will present even greater challenges with respect to achieving global food security, through the increase of abiotic stresses such as drought, salinity and severe temperatures. One step towards providing relief from hunger and malnutrition will involve the introduction of nutritionally enhanced food crops.

Traditionally, foods have been nutritionally enhanced through biofortification via a series of international efforts that involve providing the missing nutrients in the form of supplements. While some improvements have been made in the health and welfare of people who live in developing nations, the outcome still falls well short of the mark of the goals that have been set out by health organizations. Food supplementation and fortification programs can be expensive, and there is often an unacceptably high level of non-compliance among the populace that it is meant to help. To address the shortcomings with respect to accessibility to supplementation, the process of biofortification (i.e. the delivery of essential vitamins and minerals through micronutrient-dense crop) offers an approach that is at once more cost-effective, sustainable and realistic. Biofortified crops can be generated by traditional plant breeding or through the use of biotechnological approaches such as the production of transgenic plants. Currently, many of the world's staple food crops such as rice, wheat and maize are under development to produce higher levels of the most important micronutrients that are frequently at an insufficient density in the diets of developing world, including the vitamin A precursor β-carotene, folate and iron (Mayer et al. 2008).

The generation of biofortified plants requires some knowledge of the micronutrients themselves. While vitamins are organic molecules that are plant-made, minerals are inorganic compounds that are taken up by the plant from the soil and by the plant for storage. Biofortified plants must also be able to generate high yields, so that they can benefit both the farmer and consumer alike. Regardless of whether the plant itself contains high concentrations of a particular micronutrient, the micronutrient also has to be readily bioavailable, or absorbed and utilized by the body, so that micronutrient status is improved in human subjects. These improvements in micronutrient status must be maintained in the cultural processing and cooking practices of a particular culture. Finally, the biofortified crop must be accepted by communities and readily adapted by farmers in significant enough numbers to improve the general nutrition of a given population (Bouis et al. 2011). Successful implementation of all of these points will enable remote populations with a less-than-adequate infrastructure to have a fighting chance of securing better nutrition and a better life.

The following sections provide examples of some of the biofortified food crops that are under development today.

1.2.1 Biofortified Rice

Three million pre-school-aged children have visible eye damage as a result of vitamin A deficiency. Each year, approximately 500,000 of these will go blind and two-thirds will die shortly afterwards. β-carotene, the precursor molecule required for vitamin A biosynthesis, is not found in cereal grains such as rice. As a result, many with a largely monotonous diet such as poor SE Asians are at risk. Golden Rice, designed by Potyrus and co-wokers, provides a biotechnological solution to reduce diseases related to vitamin A deficiency. This transgenic crop, named for its golden colour when compared to conventional white rice due to its β-carotene content, was engineered with two genes from other organisms (daffodil and the bacterium Erwinia uredovoia) which reconstitute the carotenoid biosynthetic pathway within the rice genome (Sperrotto et al. 2012). The beta carotene loci can be transferred into high-yielding local commercial cultivars via marker-assisted back-cross-breeding, and this has taken place in areas of great need within rice-based societies such as India, Bangladesh and the Philippines.

Golden Rice represents the first in the line of transgenic, nutrient-rich crops that could act as a powerful tool against malnutrition. Biofortified crops such as Golden Rice could reach remote rural populations and provide essential nutrients for those not reached by supplementation programs. Similarly, high beta-carotene-biofortified maize, sweet potato and cassava have also been generated to combat vitamin A deficiency in Africa (Tanumihardjo et al. 2010).

Other biofortification practices of rice through modern biotechnology are also underway. Iron deficiency affects one-third of the human race and impairs physical growth, mental development and learning capacity. Transgenic rice with increased ferritin content was demonstrated to replenish haemoglobin and liver iron concentrations in studies using rats as an animal model. Ferritin represents a storage centre for iron. Other genetically engineered japonica rice plants have been developed with six times the iron content of their non-transgenic counterparts by inserting plant genes encoding the iron transport protein, nicotianamine synthase, and ferritin into the rice genome. These two genes allow the rice plant to synergistically absorb more iron from the soil, where it can accumulate within the rice kernel. A third gene engineered into this rice line, encoding phytase, also prevents the plant antinutrient phytate from inhibiting iron absorption into the intestine, and increases the iron bioavailability of the plant (Gómez-Galara 2010). These experiments offer the possibility that this may be a feasible means by which to address iron deficiency in populations who use rice as a staple (Xudong et al. 2000; Murray-Kolb et al. 2002; Paine et al. 2004; Liu et al. 2008). Other groups have fortified rice with additional essential amino acids such as increased free lysine levels and other amino acids associated with the lysine metabolic pathway, including threonine and aspartic acid, by inhibiting lysine mRNA degradation through the use of RNA interference (RNAi) silencing technologies. These improvements in the nutritional quality of rice will improve general public health in these regions. Finally, folate biofortified rice has been developed as a means to reduce neural tube birth defects. De Steur et al. (2012) demonstrated that this transgenic crop could more cost-effective in alleviating folate deficiency as compared to conventional supplementation programs.

1.2.2 Biofortified Maize and Cassava

Maize has been biofortified with all of the micronutrients that are necessary to maintain health. This could provide a short-term solution and maintain the health and nutrition status of subsistence farmers in times of need, when they do not have access to a diverse diet and are unable to obtain all of the micronutrients they need to maintain health. For example, a triple-vitamin-fortified maize containing high amounts of β-carotene, ascorbate and folate has been developed by genetically modifying several metabolic pathways within the maize plant (Jeong and Guerinot 2008). Another example of this approach has been realized in the BioCassava Plus project, which targets the nutritionally deficient staple of a quarter of a billion sub-Saharan Africans.

The bioavailability of β-carotene from cassava is scarce. A study was conducted using cassava enhanced with vitamin A fed in the form of porridge to 10 healthy American women (Talsma et al. 2013). Blood samples taken from these women demonstrated a rise in β-carotene levels, suggesting that biofortified cassava could be used to prevent vitamin A deficiency. This program uses conventional means to produce a version of cassava which provides increased levels of iron, zinc and vitamin A, as well as pathogen resistance (Sayre et al. 2011).

1.2.3 Biofortified Wheat

Wheat is now under development to become safer for people who suffer from celiac disease, caused by wheat gluten consumption and resultant damage to the small intestine. Experiments are underway to remove the celiac-causing gliadins in the wheat grain itself as well as increase levels of lysine, an essential amino acid that is generally scarce in wheat (Nemeth 2010). As an example, RNAi technology has been utilized to down-regulate gliadin expression in wheat lines. Bread-dough-making quality was analysed and found to be acceptable for the celiac community, therefore enhancing the diet of gluten-intolerant or -sensitive populations (Gil-Humanes et al. 2014). Wheat has also been biofortified for micronutrients using modern biotechnology. Similar to other staple cereals, wheat contains low levels of iron and zinc and one-third of the human race suffers from iron and zinc deficiencies. Using knowledge gained from studying model grasses, transgenic varieties of biofortified wheat are currently under development (Borrill et al. 2014).

1.2.4 Oilcrops Biofortified with Omega-3 Fatty Acids

The metabolic engineering of fatty acids in plant seed storage oils has also been investigated. For example, a ‘designer oilseed’ transgenic plant has been developed which synthesizes omega-3 fatty acids found routinely in fish oils (Ruiz-López et al. 2013). Omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids are of considerable interest, based on clear evidence of dietary health benefits and the concurrent decline of global sources. Omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docohexaenoic acid (DHA) provide significant health benefits for brain function and development and cardiovascular conditions.

However, most EPA and DHA for human consumption is sourced from small fatty fish caught in coastal waters and, with depleting global fish stocks, recent research has been directed towards more sustainable sources. These include aquaculture with plant-based feeds, krill, marine microalgae, microalgae-like protists and genetically modified plants (Adarme-Vega et al. 2014; Ruiz-López et al. 2014).

Such overfishing and pollution-related concerns in the marine environment have directed research towards the development of a viable alternative sustainable source of VLC-PUFAs. As a result, the last decade has seen many genes encoding the primary VLC-PUFA biosynthetic activities identified and characterized. This has allowed the reconstitution of the VLC-PUFA biosynthetic pathway in oilseed crops, producing transgenic plants engineered to accumulate omega-3 VLC-PUFAs at levels approaching those found in native marine organisms. Moreover, as a result of these engineering activities, knowledge of the fundamental processes surrounding acyl exchange and lipid remodelling has progressed (Ruiz-López et al. 2012a, b).

Commercial cultivation of marine microorganisms and aquaculture are not sustainable and cannot compensate for the shortage in fish supply, however. Researchers have therefore been making efforts to engineer omega-3 fatty acids in oilseed crops. Ruiz-López et al. (2014) inserted a set of heterologous genes capable of efficiently directing synthesis of these fatty acids in the seed oil of the crop Camelina sativa (false flax), a relative of canola and a potential new source of biomass for biofuel production, while simultaneously avoiding accumulation of undesirable intermediate fatty acids. The authors had previously used Arabidopsis thaliana to determine the contribution of a number of different transgene enzyme activities, in addition to the contribution of endogenous fatty acid metabolism. These studies identified the minimal gene set required to direct the efficient synthesis of these fatty acids in transgenic seed oil (Ruiz-López et al. 2013). This reconstitution of the VLC-PUFA biosynthetic pathway in oilseed crops produced transgenic plants that could accumulate omega-3 VLC-PUFAs at levels approaching those found in native marine organisms (Ruiz-López et al. 2012a, b). It is interesting to note that some of these transgenic plants which harbour the enzymes responsible for omega-3 fatty acid production exhibited higher resistance to abiotic stresses, such as salt tolerance (Wang et al. 2014). This salinity stress tolerance was demonstrated for tomato plants which expressed ER-type omega-3 fatty acid desaturase (Wang et al. 2014).

Other fatty acids have also been made in plant seed oils, including γ-linolenic and stearidonic acid, as well as arachidonic acid (Haslam et al. 2013). Other plant species have been utilized for this purpose, such as microalgae (Adarme-Vega et al. 2012). Other more novel oils can be produced from plants and single-celled organisms through biotechnology and may provide a solution to the public health problem of making these components available to all (Gillies et al. 2011).

1.3 Nutritionally Enhanced Feed Crops

Besides contributing to human health, nutritionally enhanced crops to address improvements in livestock and poultry feed are being designed. As the human population increases, so will the demand for meat consumption; as a result, more nutritious and environmentally friendly feed crops with lower undesirable components are under development.

Animal feed crops with increased levels of limiting amino acids are being engineered, which enable agricultural workers to avoid the use of supplements as well as reduce the amount of nitrogen that is excreted into the environment. For example, transgenic maize with increased free lysine content has been engineered through the insertion of a gene from a common soil bacterium known as Corynobacterium glutamicum. Corn expressing higher levels of free lysine in this way resulted in poultry and swine with increased body weight gain, comparable to animals fed with Lys-supplemented diets. Similarly, poultry fed rice that expressed the transgene OASAID, which increased free tryptophan (Trp) levels in seed, also gained weight more quickly. Similar results were found for chickens fed with soybean that expressed a novel protein as well as narrow leafed lupin that expressed sunflower albumin.

1.4 Plants with Other Health Benefits

While nutritionally enhanced plants produce vitamins and minerals essential to human and animal health, food crops can also be designed which contain bioactive compounds that have health benefits or can reduce the risk of chronic diseases. An example is the increased expression of the anti-oxidant anthocyanin in tomato plants through metabolic engineering. Anthocyanins protect plants from sun exposure and are found at high levels in blueberries, blackberries and raspberries. Anthocyanins are also associated with protection against a broad range of human diseases such as cancer. Recently, fruit deep purple in colour from a transgenic tomato plant which produced anthocyanin was able to extend the lifespans of cancer-susceptible mice by up to 30% (Butelli et al. 2008).

1.5 Biopharmaceuticals Produced in Plants

The production of biopharmaceuticals in plants, or molecular farming, has now reached preliminary commercial stages and adds another dimension to the role of plants in human health. This field centres around the generation of pharmaceutical compounds such as vaccine proteins and monoclonal antibodies in plant tissue. The range of therapeutic proteins produced in plants is large and diverse, ranging from human monoclonal antibodies against HIV to vaccine proteins against smallpox and other potential biological warfare threats, and even an assortment of anticancer therapeutic agents for the newly emerging field of personalized medicine.

Molecular farming was initially developed to address the need for safe and inexpensive therapeutic proteins in developing countries with poor medical infrastructure. These vaccines needed to be easily transportable and not require refrigeration, making them easily accessible by inhabitants of remote regions of the planet. Vaccines produced in plant tissues such as tomatoes can be directly consumed and effectively elicit an immune response to a particular pathogen. Plants expressing vaccine proteins can be raised using local farming techniques, and do not require sophisticated instrumentation for processing or trained medical personnel. Plant-made biopharmaceuticals may require only partial purification, therefore reducing the expense involved in producing therapeutic proteins. For example, vaccines produced in corn kernels can be ground into powder and stored as cornmeal, or tomatoes lyophilized into a powder and reconstituted months later as a juice (Hefferon 2013).

Plant-made vaccines have been designed to combat infectious diseases which are major causative agents of infant mortality in the Third World today, including cholera, rotavirus and Norwalk virus (Richter et al. 2000). Clinical trials for plant-derived monoclonal antibodies directed towards difficult-to-treat diseases such as HIV and Ebola virus are also underway (Lai et al. 2012). While some of these are produced in transgenic plants, others are transiently expressed using plant virus expression vector systems. The advantage of using a genetically engineered plant virus is that large amounts of protein can be produced without the lengthy time requirements needed to produce a transgenic plant. However, transgenic plants are still preferred in certain instances because they produce transgenic seed and therefore an endless supply of the production system used. Chloroplasts have also been engineered to express vaccine proteins. (Davoodi-Semiromi et al. 2010).

More recently, plant virus expression vectors have been deconstructed into a series of modules to facilitate their use as vaccine production platforms. The expression of vaccines against pandemic influenza virus epitopes using a tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) -based vector in tobacco plants is an example of successful employment of this technology (Roy et al. 2011). Vaccines produced in this way can be readily stockpiled en masse to be prepared for future pandemics.

As an alternative to fully grown mature plants, therapeutic proteins can be continuously expressed from cell lines which provide environmental conditions that can be more easily controlled. Aquatic plants such as laemna cells or hairy root expression systems are also favoured because they can release vaccine proteins into the media to be harvested (Boothe et al. 2010; Lin et al. 2010; Talano et al. 2012).

1.6 Genome Editing for Nutritionally Enhanced Plants

Much of the nutritionally enhanced food crops described in this chapter have focused on the use of transgenic plants and/or transformation technologies. More recently, however, a new line of technological advances has produced a novel strategy by which to edit the genomes of a wide variety of organisms, from mammals to insects to plants. This nuclease-based form of genome engineering offers much promise in both medicine and agriculture by creating precise incisions, mutations and substitutions in eukaryotic cells with surprising ease (Gaj et al. 2013; Jankele & Svoboda 2014). These technologies offer a paradigm shift in the way biological research can be performed, including the design of novel varieties of crop plants. For example, multiple nucleotides can be inserted at precise locations within the genomes that are known to be transcriptionally active, or nucleotide substitutions can be made that can affect the regulation of a given gene or even the biological activity of a particular gene product.

This new wave of technologies is distinct in their use of either the transcription-activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) system of genome editing or the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated (Cas) system. Each system has its own set of specific attributes. The TALEN system originated from recent advances in zinc-finger nuclease technology and involves the fusion of the Fok1 cleavage domain to a series of DNA-binding domains derived from the TALE proteins. The TALE can be custom-made to recognize almost any specific nucleotide sequence within the genome. By harnessing the double-stranded break repair machinery that exists in the cell, a highly targeted series of mutations can be introduced to a precise location in the genome. Similarly, CRISPR/Cas systems involve the introduction of short RNA species of a designed synthetic sequence that guides the Cas 9 endonuclease toward a target double-stranded DNA sequence, providing highly selective gene disruption or integration.

New tools such as the TALEN and CRISPR systems have the ability to completely revolutionize the way we generate food crops. By making small adjustments in protein specificity at a genomic level, advances in metabolic engineering to enhance the nutritional quality of plants can be more swiftly realized. Moreover, plants harbouring the small changes that are introduced in this fashion do not fall under the same set of regulations that currently exist for transgenic plants, which may very well help biotechnologists to avoid the same public controversy surrounding GMOs (Puchta & Fauser 2013). Genome editing has now been successfully accomplished, optimized and quantified in crops such as barley, rice, tobacco, maize and arabidopsis (Shukla et al. 2009; Townsend et al. 2009; Li et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2013; Gurushidze et al. 2014; Liang et al. 2014).

1.7 Epigenetics and Nutritionally Enhanced Plants

Epigenetics has emerged as a promising new field for better understanding the relationship between genomes, nutrition and the environment in humans, plants and other eukaryotes. There is clear evidence of the epigenetic role that some food and crop nutrients and active compounds play with regard to human health (Barnes 2008). These components are involved in different mechanisms that affect human epigenetics at organ, tissue and cellular levels by altering chromatin structural patterns and features through DNA methylation/demethylation, histone its modifications and other epigenetic alterations. These bioactive and phytonutrient components can either directly affect the enzymes involved in epigenetic it is modifications, or indirectly affect them by inhibiting the availability of substrates required for their activity (Choi & Friso 2010).

1.7.1 Epigenetics in Human Nutrition and Genetic Diseases

Some crop phytonutrients (nutraceuticals) have shown promise as both antiproliferative activity entities and preventative factors of some genetic diseases such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease (Mattoo et al. 2010). These take place through the epigenetic modification of the expression of many genes and their chromatin structures as some active compounds are involved in DNA methylation and demethylation, as well as histone modification, non-coding microRNA expression and DNA damage repair (Shankar et al. 2013).

Examples of these important bioactive substances are folate, carotenoids, selenium, dially sulphide, flavonoids, isothiocyanates and soy phytoestrogens (Ovesna et al. 2008; Huang et al. 2011; Scoccianti et al. 2011). Folate is also known to be a DNA methylation modulator, demonstrated in vitro in human WI-38 fibroblasts and FHC colon epithelial cells and in the presence of supra-physiological concentrations of folic acid, which leads to LINE-1 methylation or gene-specific CpG island (CGI) methylation (Charles et al. 2012). Soy phytoestrogens such as genistein and daidzein also have inhibitory effects on some cancers such as prostate cancer. They work by decreasing the hypomethylation status of specific genes, including BRCA1 and EPHB2, in carcinogenic cells in which these tumour-suppressor genes are silenced (Adjakly et al. 2011, 2013). Interestingly, some polyphenols such as resveratrol (red grape), quercetins (onion) and curcumin (turmeric) have shown a potential role in chromatin remodelling, and a modulation role in deacetylase activity (NF-κB activation) for lung cancer and COPD (Kode et al. 2008; Lawless et al. 2009).

1.7.2 Epigenetic Approaches to Improving Crops for Human Health

In plant breeding and plant biotechnology programs, various strategies have been envisioned for modifying crop genes, genomes and epigenomes relying on traditional breeding, genetic engineering, mutagenesis and application of specific chemical compounds known to be epigenomic modifiers and regulators. Various genetic engineering strategies have been successfully investigated for increasing the crop content of beneficial phytonutrients, such as carotenoids and flavonoids in various crops such as rice, tomato, potato, soybean and alfalfa, and reducing deleterious metabolite concentrations such as glutelin content in rice (Mattoo et al. 2010).

In genomics-assisted breeding and crop improvement programs, epigenetics has the potential to play a key role based on the screening for novel epialleles and the regulation of transgene expression for designing new pheno-genotypes with favourable epigenetic states of specific agronomical and nutritional traits (Varshney et al. 2005; Springer 2013). Variations in interesting agronomical traits can result from different epigenetic states of important and regulatory genes, and mutations at the epigenetic level are therefore an important potential source of inheritable traits and interesting new cultivars in main crops such as rice and ripening tomatoes (Seymour et al. 2008; Zhao & Zhou 2012; Zhang & Hsieh 2013).

Importantly, traditional breeding strategies have also been employed to induce epigenetic changes in crops by hybridization between a few species such as the wheat-rye 2R and 5R monosomic addition lines (Fu et al. 2013), and the introgressive hybridization of rice and Zizania latifolia Griseb, which led to rice lines with different DNA methylation patterns and features (Dong et al. 2006). As another example, a low-dose of laser irradiation (epigenetic mutagenic agent) was demonstrated to lead to the altering of whole-genome DNA methylation in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.; Wang et al. 2010).

In addition to transgenics or mutant modulation of methylation and methyltransferase (epimutants) approaches, the generation of stable new phenotypes has been made possible through the alteration of crop epigenetic status. Examples include the hypomethylation of specific epialleles for seed yield and attaining new composition traits by using specific chemical agents and substances such as 5-Azacytidine (5-AzaC) for the selective targeting of 5mCG, as demonstrated in Brassica rapus (Amoah et al. 2012). Other epigenetic factors involved in heritable variation in plants are small RNAs (non-coding sRNAs from 21–24 nucleotides) and their role in DNA methylation, and transposons and transposable elements (Kantama et al. 2013; Bond & Baulcombe 2014).

The diversity and discrepancies of ratios and spectra of interesting crop nutritional components and phytonutrients are related to specific loci in their genomes. Knowledge of the underlying chromatin structure and epigenetic traits is needed to decipher the necessary steps for their biosynthesis, so that important agronomic traits and nutritional compounds known to have therapeutic effects in humans can be improved (Chen & Zhou 2013). Despite the painstaking and laborious studies on these phytonutrient biosynthetic pathways, only limited success has been achieved (e.g. the case of carotenoid biosynthesis by gene stacking strategies; Bhatia & Ye 2012). The difficulty in improving these components in crop plants is due to the very complex variety of genes involved in the different steps of synthesizing and metabolizing phytonutrients (multi-gene traits). It might therefore be necessary to explore new strategies in plant phytonutrient metabolism, based on genomics, epigenetics and epigenomic studies that decipher their regulation mechanisms and seek to increase their levels in various crop plants.

1.8 Risk Assessment and Regulation of Nutritionally Enhanced Crops

This chapter has demonstrated that crops nutritionally enhanced through biotechnology have the potential to decrease both poverty and malnutrition in developing countries; however, constraints which prevent their implementation remain as described in this section.

All GM crops undergo a rigorous series of risk assessments which determine their effect on the environment and on human health. These regulations must be addressed before GM crops can be released for use and include concerns regarding the detailed molecular characterization of the crop, assessment of potential toxicity and/or allergenicity as well as a nutritional analysis with bioavailability studies, and comparison to a conventional crop of the same kind. In Europe, this process has become hindered by political opposition, and GM crops which could do a world of good are now mired in a bureaucracy rather than providing aid to those who need them most.

The strong views of European regulators can be attributed in part to the specific regulatory format that is followed in Europe, which tends to use the process involved in making the GM crop as key rather than the safety of the GM product itself, which is how the US and other nations tend to address agricultural biotechnology. The structure of this regulatory program has resulted in a virtual moratorium of GM crops across Europe. The path to regulatory approval in other countries, including the US, is still lengthy and costly; this blocks many from even considering advancing the research and development for humanitarian aid.

Without argument, the most famous example of a biofortified GM crop which has languished in red tape is that of the nutritionally enhanced Golden Rice. In particular, the humanitarian group Greenpeace has used public pressure to block Golden Rice. Rather than ending the largest killer of children in the world, groups such as Greenpeace do not want to open the floodgates towards a global acceptance of GM food.

The success of nutritionally enhanced crops depends on their ability to have a positive effect on a specific population, and will depend on more complex factors such as overall diet, cooking and food preparation and cultural influences and social norms of specific population groups. Some groups in Africa, for example, are reluctant to consume orange-coloured maize biofortified with provitamin A because it more visually resembles animal feed rather than white maize (traditionally used for human consumption). Studies with respect to the food purchasing and eating practices of Kenyans were conducted in Nairobi and showed a strong preference for white maize over yellow. Kenyans were less interested in purchasing the biofortified product. In order for biofortified yellow maize to be accepted, a strong public awareness campaign must be conducted to educate consumers. In order for cultural changes to be realized, the involvement of both public health officials and the media is required (De Groote & Kimenju 2012).

1.9 Conclusions

As mentioned in Section 1.2 the population of the world will approach 10 billion by the year 2050; the vast majority of this population increase will be in the developing world. As a result, food production on a global scale must increase by 70%, while available arable land and water will be reduced due to the predicted effects of climate change. To achieve food security and prevent malnutrition in the future, we must find a way to increase not only the quantity of food crops but also the nutritional quality of the crops themselves. This chapter has described the integral role of biotechnology in providing more nutritionally enhanced crops and crops which are resistant to abiotic stresses such as drought, salinity and severe temperatures. While the purpose of this chapter was primarily to discuss nutritionally enhanced food crops, it must be stated that genetically engineered crops which confer pest resistance enables the population as a whole to avoid the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture and reduce the levels of mycotoxin-producing fungal pathogens which cause multiple health-related defects, contributing to a healthier population.

While nutritionally enhanced staple crops have long been under development, improvements in so-called orphan crops (which are grown by smaller populations and act as staples within specific geographical areas) are still lacking. The genomes of crops such as millet, chickpea and sorghum, for example, are still incomplete and little has been done to improve their nutritional content. Much work involving the interactions of many disciplines including plant breeders, molecular biologists, nutritionists and even social scientists will be necessary to enable these crops to be developed and utilized successfully for future generations. New crops which are developed must be tested for their nutritional benefits, and an extension framework must be set in place so that remote populations can be informed about how these advantages can make a difference to the lives of their families (Tanumihardjo et al. 2010). Finally, relationships must change between non-profit agencies, the commercial sector such as seed companies and healthcare officials before hunger can be truly eliminated from the world's rural poor.

References

Adarme-Vega, T.C., Lim, D.K., Timmins, M., Vernen, F., Li, Y. & Schenk, P.M. 2012. Microalgal biofactories: a promising approach towards sustainable omega-3 fatty acid production. Microbial Cell Factories11, 96.

Adarme-Vega, T.C., Thomas-Hall, S.R. & Schenk, P.M. 2014. Towards sustainable sources for omega-3 fatty acids production. Current Opinion in Biotechnology26, 14–18.

Adjakly, M., Bosviel, R., Rabiau, N., Boiteux, J.P., Bignon, Y.J., Guy, L. & Bernard-Gallon, D. 2011. DNA methylation and soy phytoestrogens: quantitative study in DU-145 and PC-3 human prostate cancer cell lines. Epigenomics3, 795–803.

Adjakly, M., Ngollo, M., Boiteux, J.P., Bignon, Y.J., Guy, L. & Bernard-Gallon, D. 2013. Genistein and daidzein: different molecular effects on prostate cancer. Anticancer Research33, 39–44.

Amoah, S., Kurup, S., Rodriguez-Lopez, C.M., Welham, S.J., Powers, S.J., Hopkins, C.J., Wilkinson, M.J. & King, G.J. 2012. A hypomethylated population of Brassica rapa for forward and reverse epi-genetics. BMC Plant Biology12, 193.

Barnes, S. 2008. Nutritional genomics, polyphenols, diets, and their impact on dietetics. Journal of the American Dietetic Association108, 1888–1895.

Bhatia, S. & Ye, V. 2012. Metabolic engineering strategies for the production of beneficial carotenoids in plants. Food Science and Biotechnology21, 1511–1517.

Bond, D.M. & Baulcombe, D.C. 2014. Small RNAs and heritable epigenetic variation in plants. Trends in Cell Biology24, 100–107.

Boothe, J., Nykiforuk, C., Shen, Y., Zaplachinski, S., Szarka, S., Kuhlman, P., Murray, E., Morck, D. & Moloney, M.M. 2010. Seed-based expression systems for plant molecular farming. Plant Biotechnology Journal8(5), 588–606.

Borrill, P., Connorton, J.M., Balk, J., Miller, A.J., Sanders, D. & Uauy, C. 2014. Biofortification of wheat grain with iron and zinc: integrating novel genomic resources and knowledge from model crops. Frontiers in Plant Science21, 5–53.

Bouis, H.E., Hotz, C., McClafferty, B., Meenakshi, J.V. & Pfeiffer, W.H. 2011. Biofortification: a new tool to reduce micronutrient malnutrition. Food Nutrition Bulletin32(Suppl), S31–40.

Butelli, E., Titta, L., Giorgio, M., Mock, H.P., Matros, A., Peterek, S., Schijlen, E.G., Hall, R.D., Bovy, A.G., Luo, J. & Martin, C. 2008. Enrichment of tomato fruit with health-promoting anthocyanins by expression of select transcription factors. Nature Biotechnology6(11), 1301–1308.

Charles, M.A., Johnson, I.T. & Belshaw, N.J. 2012. Supra-physiological folic acid concentrations induce aberrant DNA methylation in normal human cells in vitro. Epigenetics (official journal of the DNA Methylation Society) 7, 689–694.

Chen, X. & Zhou, D.X. 2013. Rice epigenomics and epigenetics: challenges and opportunities. Current Opinion in Plant Biology16, 164–169.

Choi, S.W. & Friso, S. 2010. Epigenetics: A new bridge between nutrition and health. Advances in Nutrition1, 8–16.

Davoodi-Semiromi, A., Schreiber, M., Nalapalli, S., Verma, D., Singh, N.D., Banks, R.K., Chakrabarti, D. & Daniell, H. 2010. Chloroplast-derived vaccine antigens confer dual immunity against cholera and malaria by oral or injectable delivery. Plant Biotechnology Journal8(2), 223–242.

De Groote, H. & Kimenju, S.C. 2012. Consumer preferences for maize products in urban Kenya. Food Nutrition Bulletin33(2), 99–110.

De Steur, H., Blancquaert, D., Gellynck, X., Lambert, W. & Van Der Straeten, D. 2012. Ex-ante evaluation of biotechnology innovations: the case of folate biofortified rice in China. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology13(15), 2751–2760.

Dong, Z.Y., Wang, Y.M., Zhang, Z.J., Shen, Y., Lin, X.Y., Ou, X.F., Han, F.P. & Liu, B. 2006. Extent and pattern of DNA methylation alteration in rice lines derived from introgressive hybridization of rice and Zizania latifolia Griseb. Theoretical and Applied Genetics (Theoretische und Angewandte Genetik)113, 196–205.

Fu, S., Sun, C., Yang, M., Fei, Y., Tan, F., Yan, B., Ren, Z. & Tang, Z. 2013. Genetic and epigenetic variations induced by wheat-rye 2R and 5R monosomic addition lines. PloS One8, e54057.

Gaj, T., Gersbach, C. A. & Barbas, C. F. 2013. ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering. Trends in Biotechnology31(7), 397–405.

Gil-Humanes, J., Pistón, F., Barro, F. & Rosell, C.M. 2014. The shutdown of celiac disease-related gliadin epitopes in bread wheat by RNAi provides flours with increased stability and better tolerance to over-mixing. PLoS One9(3), e91931.

Gillies, P.J., Harris, W.S. & Kris-Etherton, P.M. 2011. Omega-3 fatty acids in food and pharma: the enabling role of biotechnology. Current Atherosclerosis Report13(6), 467–473.

Gómez-Galera, S., Rojas, E., Sudhakar, D., Zhu, C., Pelacho, A.M., Capell, T. & Christou, P. 2010. Critical evaluation of strategies for mineral fortification of staple food crops. Transgenic Research19(2), 165–180.

Gurushidze, M., Hensel, G., Hiekel, S., Schedel, S., Valkov, V. et al. 2014. True-breeding targeted gene knock-out in barley using designer TALE-nuclease in haploid cells. PLoS One9(3), e92046, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092046.

Haslam, R.P., Ruiz-Lopez, N., Eastmond, P., Moloney, M., Sayanova, O. & Napier, J.A. 2013. The modification of plant oil composition via metabolic engineering: better nutrition by design. Plant Biotechnology Journal11(2), 157–168.

Hefferon, K. 2013. Plant-derived pharmaceuticals for the developing world. Biotechnology Journal8(10), 1193–1202.

Huang, J., Plass, C. & Gerhauser, C. 2011. Cancer chemoprevention by targeting the epigenome. Current Drug Targets12, 1925–1956.

Jankele, R. & Svoboda, P. 2014. TAL effectors: tools for DNA targeting. Briefings in Functional Genomics13(5), 409–419.

Jeong, J. & Guerinot, M.L. 2008. Biofortified and bioavailable: the gold standard for plant-based diets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA105(6), 1777–1778.

Kantama, L., Junbuathong, S., Sakulkoo, J., de Jong, H. & Apisitwanich, S. 2013. Epigenetic changes and transposon reactivation in Thai rice hybrids. Molecular Breeding31, 815–827.

Kode, A., Rajendrasozhan, S., Caito, S., Yang, S.R., Megson, I.L. & Rahman, I. 2008. Resveratrol induces glutathione synthesis by activation of Nrf2 and protects against cigarette smoke-mediated oxidative stress in human lung epithelial cells. American Journal of Physiology: Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology294, L478–488.

Lai, H., He, J., Engle, M., Diamond, M.S. & Chen, Q. 2012. Robust production of virus-like particles and monoclonal antibodies with geminiviral replicon vectors in lettuce. Plant Biotechnology Journal10(1), 95–104.

Lawless, M.W., O'Byrne, K.J. & Gray, S.G. 2009. Oxidative stress induced lung cancer and COPD: opportunities for epigenetic therapy. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine13, 2800–2821.

Li, T., Liu, B., Spalding, M.H., Weeks, D.P. & Yang, B. 2012. High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nature Biotechnology30(5), 390–392.

Liang, Z., Zhang, K., Chen, K. & Gao, C. 2014. Targeted mutagenesis in Zea mays using TALENs and the CRISPR/Cas system. Journal of Genetics and Genomics41(2), 63–68.

Lin, C., Nie, P., Lu, W., Zhang, Q., Li, J. & Shen, Z. 2010. A selectively terminable transgenic rice line expressing human lactoferrin. Protein Expression and Purification74(1), 60–64.

Liu, Q.Q., Chan, M.L., Duan, R.X., Yu, H.X., Gu, M.H. & Sun, M. 2008. Regulation of lysine synthesis and catabolism in rice. Plant Genomics in China, PGCIX. Abstract.

Mattoo, A.K., Shukla, V., Fatima, T., Handa, A.K. & Yachha, S.K. 2010. Genetic engineering to enhance crop-based phytonutrients (nutraceuticals) to alleviate diet-related diseases. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology698, 122–143.

Mayer, J.E., Pfeiffer, W.H. & Beyer, P. 2008. Biofortified crops to alleviate micronutrient malnutrition. Current Opinion in Plant Biology11(2), 70–74.

Murray-Kolb, L.E., Takaiwa, F., Goto, F., Yoshihara, T., Theil, E.C. & Beard, J.L. 2010. Transgenic rice is a source of iron for iron-depleted rats. Journal of Nutrition132, 957–960.

Nemeth, A. 2010. GM wheat means hope for celiac sufferers. Available at http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/01/genetically-modified-foods-are-becoming-1/ (accessed 9 June 2015).

Ovesna, J., Slaby, O., Toussaint, O., Kodicek, M., Marsik, P., Pouchova, V. & Vanek, T. 2008. High throughput ‘omics’ approaches to assess the effects of phytochemicals in human health studies. British Journal of Nutrition99(Suppl 1), ES127–134.

Paine, J.A., Shipton, C.A., Rhian, S.C., Howells, M., Kennedy, M.J., Vernon, G., Wright, S.Y., Hinchliffe, E., Adams, J.L., Silverstone, A.L. & Drake, R. 2004. Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology23(4), 482–487.

Puchta, H. & Fauser, F. 2013. Gene targeting in plants: 25 years later. International Journal of Developmental Biology57, 629–637.

Richter, L.J., Thanavala, Y., Arntzen, C.J. & Mason, H.S. 2000. Production of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic plants for oral immunization. Nature Biotechnology18, 1167–1171.

Roy, G., Weisburg, S., Foy, K., Rabindran, S., Mett, V. & Yusibov, V. 2011. Co-expression of multiple target proteins in plants from a tobacco mosaic virus vector using a combination of homologous and heterologous subgenomic promoters. Archives of Virology156(11), 2057–2061.

Ruiz-López, N., Haslam, R.P., Venegas-Calerón, M., Li, T., Bauer, J., Napier, J.A. & Sayanova, O. 2012a. Enhancing the accumulation of omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana via iterative metabolic engineering and genetic crossing. Transgenic Research21(6), 1233–1243.

Ruiz-López, N., Sayanova, O., Napier, J.A. & Haslam, R.P. 2012b. Metabolic engineering of the omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid biosynthetic pathway into transgenic plants. Journal of Experimental Botany63(7), 2397–410.

Ruiz-López, N., Haslam, R.P., Usher, S.L., Napier, J.A. & Sayanova, O. 2013. Reconstitution of EPA and DHA biosynthesis in arabidopsis: iterative metabolic engineering for the synthesis of n-3 LC-PUFAs in transgenic plants. Metabolic Engineering17, 30–41.

Ruiz-López, N., Haslam, R.P., Napier, J.A. & Sayanova, O. 2014. Successful high-level accumulation of fish oil omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in a transgenic oilseed crop. Plant Journal77(2), 198–208.

Sayre, R., Beeching, J.R., Cahoon, E.B., et al. 2011. The BioCassava plus program: biofortification of cassava for sub-Saharan Africa. Annual Reviews in Plant Biology62, 251–272.

Scoccianti, C., Ricceri, F., Ferrari, P., Cuenin, C., Sacerdote, C., Polidoro, S., Jenab, M., Hainaut, P., Vineis, P. & Herceg, Z. 2011. Methylation patterns in sentinel genes in peripheral blood cells of heavy smokers: Influence of cruciferous vegetables in an intervention study. Epigenetics (official journal of the DNA Methylation Society) 6, 1114–1119.

Seymour, G., Poole, M., Manning, K. & King, G.J. 2008. Genetics and epigenetics of fruit development and ripening. Current Opinion in Plant Biology11, 58–63.

Shankar, S., Kumar, D. & Srivastava,