What is being done about the potential risks?
For the Environment
Genes from crops can pass into wild relatives of the crop. This will happen with both conventionally bred and GM crops. The extent of such gene flow and its significance depends on the crop: some have very few or no wild relatives in the UK.
GM crops could be made 'male sterile' so that their genes could no longer be spread through pollen. Or genes could be introduced in such a way that they are not passed on in pollen.
Spread of genes from GM crops that are resistant to a herbicide could create weeds that are resistant to it ('superweeds').
Some conventionally bred crop varieties and weeds are already herbicide-resistant. If GM crops led to herbicide-tolerant weeds they would be tolerant only to that herbicide and could be controlled by others if required. Many wild weeds in the countryside are never sprayed, so whether or not they contain a gene for herbicide tolerance does not affect them. Scientists are currently comparing the behaviour of a non-GM non-tolerant variety and a GM tolerant variety to determine optimal management strategies.
GM crops might grow as weeds (volunteers).
In UK trials, herbicide-tolerant GM oilseed rape does not appear to pose any more problems than conventionally bred varieties. Many crops are relatively poor competitors: wheat for example can only survive for about 2 years in the wild.
GM crops that are resistant to insect pests might deplete pest populations and so damage the natural food chain.
Any form of pest control e.g. mechanical, chemical, organic or GM has the potential to deplete pest numbers and so impact on the food chain. GM crops could be designed so that they switch on the gene that protects against pests only when the crop is under severe attack by the pest. or only when it is sprayed by a harmless compound. This would prevent depletion of pest populations.
GM crops that are resistant to insect pests might accelerate the evolution of pests to overcome this resistance.
Resistant pests evolve in response to any control method. Careful and limited use of spraying and using different sprays in rotation are among the strategies already employed by farmers to minimise this effect. With GM crops there is the potential to use two or more different genes that confer resistance against a pest in tandem in a crop. This would make it much harder for pests to overcome the resistance because they would need to evolve two or more changes at the same time. Alternatively farmers could rotate crops that each contains a different gene conferring resistance against the pest. Scientists are exploring the use of' refuge areas of non-GM plants in and around GM crops, in which populations of pests would be free from any pressure to evolve resistance.
GM crops that are resistant to insect pests might be harmful to other species.
Scientists are conducting laboratory and field trials to study the impact of insect-resistant GM crops on interactions between the plant, its pests and the pest's predators or parasites. The genes used in current GM insect-resistant crops code for natural compounds produced by the bacterium Bocillus thuringiensis (Br) that are used in sprays approved for use in organic farming. These compounds are highly specific: for example, the agent against butterfly and moth larvae does not affect bees.
GM crops will reduce biodiversity
A preliminary trial on GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet has shown that leaving weeds to grow for longer in the crop before, praying increases the number of insect species living on them; after spraying, there is a new range of species that colonise the dying weeds.
For the consumer
Fears have been expressed that: GM foods might result in unexpected health hazards such as I novel allergens, or transfer of antibiotic resistance from marker genes in GM crops to bacteria that live in the human gut.
Allergens can be introduced through conventional breeding. Tests are used routinely to detect and eliminate them. The same tests could be used with GM foods. GM technology could be used specifically to eliminate known allergens from foods.
Foods derived from GM crops may or may not contain any of the inserted gene or the protein for which it codes - it depends on the type of food. Technically it is becoming possible to produce GM crops in which the inserted gene would be active only in nonedible parts of the plants, where this would be appropriate.
Concerns about the long-term dietary effects of eating novel pieces of DNA apply equally to new varieties bred by conventional breeding. As all DNA is made up of the same four building blocks, and DNA sequences are broken down into short pieces of DNA by enzymes in the gut, it is inconceivable that novel combinations of these building blocks would be more likely to arise from GM than non-GM plants. Conventional, non-GM foods carry many unidentified microbial genes, which are consumed along with the genes of the plant or animal material.
Further research into the fate of DNA in the diet would be equally appropriate for GM and non-GM foods.
Alternative technologies have been, and are being developed to replace the use of antibiotic marker genes and eliminate unwanted marker genes from GM plants.
For the farmer
GM crops might show unexpected properties and might not breed true.
Laboratory studies on a range of crops have shown that genes inserted by genetic modification into plants are stable, perform predictably and are inherited normally.
Just like conventional plant breeding, genetic modification may produce some offspring with unstable and undesirable characteristics. In both cases, these can be identified and eliminated from breeding lines.
Scientists have identified mechanisms by which genes inserted by genetic modification may very rarely get switched off. They are developing options for more precise regulation of inserted genes.
The above information is from GM agriculture in the UK? Published in 1999 by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's (BBSRC). For more information visit their website: www.bbsrc.ac.uk
@ Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
Genetic modification of Plants and Food Crops?
Why genetically modify plants?
The use of GM in plant breeding aims to:
· Increase crop yields beyond the maximum for existing varieties
· Reduce post-harvest losses
· Make crops more tolerant of stresses (crops, drought, salt, heat)
· make crops that do not exhaust soil fertility (make more better use of nitrogen, phosphorous etc.)
· improve nutritional value of foods
· reduce reliance on chemical pesticides by producing pest resistant crops
· develop alternatives for industry such as starches, fuels, and pharmaceuticals
Some of these aims involve transferring genes across species in a way that cannot be done by plant breeding. Whether it is SAFE to do this depends on which genes are being transferred, and this is addressed by safety assessments and regulations whether it is ETHICAL to do so raises a different set of questions.
How is GM different from ordinary plant breeding?
Because we can identify which genes code for particular characteristics, and move these genes from one organism to another, we can produce a desirable combination of genes more quickly and easily by genetic modification than by breeding. Sometimes genes are moved between closely related organisms - for example, moving a gene from a weed that is naturally resistant to insects to a closely related crop to make the crop pest-resistant. Alternatively, genes can be moved between very different organisms, e.g. production of hepatitis vaccine in plants. In conventional breeding, it is impossible to move just one or two genes. Usually, whole chromosomes, containing thousands of unknown genes, are transferred.
Is plant breeding 'natural', or safe?
Many people are concerned that GM isn't natural and believe that conventional breeding is better because it follows the principles of natural selection, or uses natural mutations. However, it is just as possible, if not more so, to produce undesirable combinations of genes by conventional breeding: potatoes with dangerous levels of toxic glycoalkaloids and celery with high levels of chemical irritants have been produced by conventional breeding.
With cross-breeding, it is difficult to transfer genes between unrelated plants. However, plant breeders have devised ingenious techniques e.g. 'embryo rescue' to force crosses between species that wouldn't normally interbreed.
Plant breeders have for years used techniques to generate more variation than Nature produces: bombardment of a plant with mutagenic chemicals or radiation causes mutations randomly throughout its genes. From the plants that survive this treatment, plant breeders select the mutations they want. So long as the plant grows well and shows no toxicity, other mutations (maybe tens, maybe hundreds) will remain unidentified and uninvestigated.
GM and Farming?
Even before our ancestors settled down to become farmers, humans were busy changing their environment: as bands of roving hunter gatherers, they killed off many of the big mammals, Farming was an attempt to ensure a more secure food supply, and the aim has always been to prevent weeds, pests and diseases from competing with us for our crops, In medieval times in Europe, the farmer expected in a good year to be able to Consume only one-third of his crop: one third was saved for planting the following year and one-third was lost to pests. With the development of higher yielding crops through thousands of years of artificial selection, and intensive agriculture, productivity is higher although, in the developing world, up to 50% of crops are still lost to pests and diseases.
The past 50 years have arguably seen greater changes in agriculture than the previous 1000 years: high intensity agriculture is more efficient and productive, reducing prices and the risk of total crop failures like the potato famine of the 1850s, and consequent hardship and economic collapse. These agricultural changes all aim to achieve the goal of the first farmers: growing crops that only we can eat. Undoubtedly this has had an impact on the wildlife that depends on the same fields to exist the weeds, the insects, birds and mammals - and has made major changes to the environment.
Considering the need to feed the rapidly growing world population and recognising that all agriculture is 'unnatural' and changes the environment, everyone agrees that future fanning must be 'sustainable', but has different visions of what sustainable is, Three basic models can be thought of: high-intensity (high-input) agriculture; organic agriculture; and GM crop-based agriculture.
High intensity:
* High input (i.e. reliant on agrochemicals –fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides), and mechanisation to maintain high yield.
* For many crops, multiple crops can be grown each year.
* Requires new varieties to remain competitive; but many crops are reaching their biological and physical limits to yield. Crossbreeding slow to produced improved varieties; difficult to introduce new characteristics by crossbreeding within limited gene pool.
* Pesticide use can eventually lead to pest resistance, necessitating higher doses and new pesticides
* High-intensity agriculture has a record of producing more than sufficient food to feed the world population, but at high environmental cost.
Organic farming:
· ORGANIC FARMING IS. GAINING gradual momentum across the world. Growing awareness of health and environmental issues in agriculture has demanded production of organic food which is emerging as an attractive source of rural income generation. While trends of rising consumer demand for organics are becoming discernible, sustainability in production of crops has become the prime concern in agriculture development.
Organic farming is being practised in 100 countries of the world. The ill-effects of chemicals used in agriculture have changed the mindset of some consumers of different countries who are now buying organic with high premium for health. Policy makers are also promoting organic farming for restoration of soil health and generation of rural economy apart from making efforts for creating better environment. The global organic area is 26 million hectare roughly along with 61 standards and 364 certification bodies roughly. The world organic market is now 26 billion U5$. The organic area in India is 2.5 million hectare including certified forest areas. Non-certified organic area is more than certified organic area. India has developed National Standard under NPOP programme. The National Centre of Organic Farming under Ministry of Agriculture is promoting organic farming as facilitator across the country and providing various
assistance to organic entrepreneurs, and farmers.
GM Crops:
Genetically modified crops ia category of genetically modified organisms, GMOs) are produced through genetic engineering (a branch of biotechnology known as recombinant DNA technology) involving insertion of a foreign gene construct into the genome (genetic constitution) of a crop plant. Genes from any organism (microbes, plants and animals, including man) can be incorporated into the genome of a crop plant with various objectives such as resistance to insect pests, tolerance to herbicides, enhancement of nutritional value, taste etc. The first GM crop, developed in 1994 by Calgene (since acquired by Monsanto) is a delayed ripening variety of tomato, named Flavr Savr, with longer shelf-life, has now been withdrawn from the market.
A wide range of agriculturally important crops developed mostly by the multinational corporations (MNCs) are now being tested in field trials but only four major crops are grown commercially; these are soyabean, maize, cotton and canola (an oil-yielding crop of the mustard family). The USA, Argentina and Canada having 63, 21 and 6 percent of global GM crop area account for 90% of the total area and three other countries, Brazil (4%), China (4%), South Africa (1%) together account for another 9%; a few other countries including India make up the rest (1%) as per 2003 data.
The major research and developmental work on GMCs have done by three multinational corporations, Monsanto of the USA, the Swiss company Syngenta and the German MNC Bayer CropScience, with Monsanto as the undisputed leader having 90% of the world’s GM crop areas sown with Monsanto’s plant incorporated protectants (PIPs) for imparting resistance to certain insect pests or tolerance to herbicides.
So far no GM crop developed within the country exclusively by Indian scientists has been commercially grown in Tamil Nadu, Maharastra, Rajasthan, Gujrat, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh are produced with technology licensed from Monsanto and a range of Bt cotton hybrids by Mahyco and others are under trials. The several other entrants in the Bt cotton development in India are Nath Seeds, Rasi Biotech and JK Agri Genetics etc. In the pipeline is Bt rice, Bt Mustard, Bt. Brinjal, Bt Okra etc. and most GM crop researches in India are insect resistance oriented and based on Bt gene.
· GM could enhance agricultural productivity by introduction of genes from same or other species (very slow, or not possible by crossbreeding) barriers to: break existing variety yield barriers; reduce reliance on agrochemicals by producing diseases, pest resistant varieties; create optimally adapted varieties that do not exhaust soil fertility (i.e. make better use of nitrogen, phosphorus); decrease water requirement by adaptation to drought; reduce post-harvest losses to pests and improve nutritional value of foods; make use of marginal environments through adaptation to salt, cold or heat; develop alternative resources for industry such as fuels, starches, pharmaceuticals.
· As with any other pesticide, pest resistance to GM crops is ultimately likely, and indiscriminate use of pest-resistant plants will hasten their appearance.
· The use of plants as 'factories' to produce renewable, 'clean' resources for industry may help to replace environmentally damaging chemical industries and exhausted fossil-fuel supplies, but will inevitably require land for growing the industrial crops. Developing plants able to use marginal lands (ton dry, salty nr high in aluminium) and currently useless to agriculture, will result in wildlife habitats being lost.
· While pest- and herbicide resistant plants are available, other developments important for securing a food supply (e.g. nitrogen fixation and stress resistance) are way behind: achieving some of these goals is likely to rake another 5-20 years. Field performance, as with any or her variety is likely to vary depending on environmental conditions and farming practice. GM crops are likely to help secure food supplies for future population growth, but the extent to which it will help is unknown.
What is Sustainable?
* Today's high intensity agriculture is not sustainable long-term: in industrialised countries, 10 calories of fossil fuel energy are spent (mechanisation, production of agrochemicals etc.) to produce 1 calorie of food; a century ago during the agricultural revolution, the ratio was 1 calorie per 1 calorie food; and in hunter-gatherer society, it was 0.1 to 1.
* Yesterday's methods of agriculture are not adequately productive to feed today's population, let alone tomorrow's.
* Food production has so far kept pace with population growth with higher yielding crops and agrochemicals, but has incurred environmental damage.
* Economic sustainability in a competitive global market requires a competitive and efficient agriculture.
* Most crops require a lot of water - increasingly, in the next century, unpolluted fresh water will become a limiting resource across the world.
* All farming has some impact on the environment (like most activities to make life more secure for ourselves. farming isn't 'natural'). The best sustainable solution will probably require a combination of methods. Integrated pest management (IPM) uses biocontrols and rotates crops, creates refuges and uses agrochemicals in moderate amounts.
* GM is seen by some as incompatible with organic farming, but a combined GM-organic approach could have environmental benefits in reducing the use of artificial chemicals: for example, GM plants resistant to fungal disease could reduce the use of fungicides. Nematodes destroy nearly £70 billion in crops worldwide annually, and there are few options available for large-scale agriculture for controlling them: crop rotation is only partially successful at best, and crop protection relies on some of the most toxic and environmentally damaging pesticides in widespread use. Classical plant breeding has so far failed to produce effective nematode-resistant varieties, but GM varieties are in development.
Points to consider:
Many foods and other products are marketed as 'natural'. What does this really mean? What is the difference between a 'natural' chemical and any other?
The earth's resources are finite - how can it support an ever-growing human population:
Minor insect- or parasite damage to food grown without pesticides is certainly 'natural', and generally not harmful to people. However, damage allows the growth of fungi, some of which produce mycotoxins - highy toxic 'natural' substances, some of which can cause cancer (e.g. aflatoxins in peanuts).
2000-2004, John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK.
Can GM crops help eradicate poverty?
It is not the interests of poor farmers but the profits of the agrochemical industry that heve been the driving force behind the emergence of GM agriculture. Four multinational corporation – Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and DuPont now control most of the GM seed market. Some 91 % of all GM crops grown worldwide in 2001 were from Monsanto seeds. By linking their chemicals to seeds via GM technologies, these corporations have been able to extend markets for their herbicides and pesticides.
GM crops are unlikely to help eradicate poverty because yields seem to be no more than non-GM crops and sometimes need more chemicals. Yields from GM soybeans are no higher than those from high-yield conventional varieties. In one study, Monsanto's GM soya had 6% lower yields than non-GM soya and 11 % less than high-yielding non-GM soya.
Insecticide use on GM cotton has fallen in some locations, but these gains may be short-lived as insects develop resistance to the insecticide that the cotton expresses. In time, farmers may need to invest in more, not fewer, chemicals. This also applies to chemical use on herbicide resistant GM crops, which has gone up rather than down as farmers use chemicals more frequently and/or in greater amounts. Herbicide use per hectare in Argentina has more than doubled on GM fields compared to conventional varieties.
GM crops are ineffective in tackling the underlying political and economic causes of food insecurity: poverty and inequality. The new GM technologies do not address the essential constraints facing poor farmers including lack of access to land, water, energy, affordable credit, agricultural training, local markets, decent roads, grain stores and infrastructure. In fact, GM could be disastrous for small-scale farmers as the costs are much higher and they risk falling into debt.
Do GM crops meet the needs of poor farmers?
GM varieties do not meet the needs of poor farmers who rely on affordable, readily available supplies of seeds for a range of crops to meet diverse environmental consumption and production needs. Poor communities need investment in low cost, low-input farmer-friendly technologies, building on farmers' knowledge. GM seeds, by contrast, are targeted at large-scale commercial farmers growing cash crops in monocultures. GM crops could undermine food security by wasting the scarce resources of poorer farmers and developing countries.
Most research and development in GM agriculture is conducted by the private sector. Less than 1 % of all GM research is directed at poor farmers.
GM research in Africa, for instance, focuses on export crops such as cut flowers, fruit, vegetables, cotton and tobacco, which are grown in large-scale commercial plantations in Kenya. South Africa and Zimbabwe. In Kenya, only one out of 136 intellectual property applications for plants were for a food crop; more than half were for roses.
Do GM threaten basic rights?
Farmers in developing countries have evolved complex, cheap and effective systems to save, exchange and use seeds from one harvest to the next. Patented GM seeds threaten to erode these rights and practices, to displace or contaminate seed supplies, and to increase farmers' dependence on private monopolised agricultural resources.
Up to 1.4 billion people, including up to 90% of farmers in Africa, many of them women, depend oh saved seed. Yet the proliferation of intellectual property regimes that comes with GM seeds threatens centuries-old practices of saving and exchanging seeds.
GM seeds must usually be bought each season. Before they can obtain and use the seeds, farmers have to sign a contract with the company obliging them to pay a royalty or technology fee, to agree not to save or replant seeds from the harvest, to use only company chemicals on them and to give the corporation access to their property to verify compliance.
Having to buy external supplies of seeds and pesticides leaves farmers more economically and agriculturally dependent on corporations. The technology fee makes such seeds prohibitive for the poorest farmers who lack access to credit. The contracts are complex and easily misunderstood by farmers, especially those who are illiterate.
The biotech industry continues to develop a set of GM crop technologies - Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs), which have been dubbed 'terminator technologies' - that produce sterile seeds: if saved and planted from one year to the next, they would have no yields at all.
