Nanaimo, British Columbia
March 22, 2006
Source:
Checkbiotech
By Robert Wager
There is no such thing as risk-free anything. However, this fact
does not stop some from demanding risk-free agricultural
biotechnology.
The controversies (mostly
hypothetical) over genetically engineered (GE) crops and food
never seem to end. As soon as one scare story is demonstrated to
be false or highly unlikely, another floods the media. No doubt,
this is by design. Canada recently stirred up a hornets nest
when its representatives at the meeting of the U.N. Convention
on Biodiversity in Bangkok called for the end to a de facto
moratorium on the research and development of genetic use
restriction technologies for genetically engineered crops.
Recently several other countries have joined Canada in calling
for an end to the ban.
Genetic use restriction technologies or GURTs are systems
designed to prevent the unwanted transfer of transgenes (the DNA
engineered into GE plants) to other plants or the unauthorized
propagation of transgenic crops. There are several different
ways they work, but these systems have one thing in common. They
all block the possibility of the engineered genes and traits
from ending up elsewhere.
Some GURT-containing GE seeds will not germinate, for example,
while other GURT engineered plants will produce only sterile
pollen. Either way, no genetically engineered genes will spread
to other plants. This is why critics of GE crops call these
terminator technologies. However, a more appropriate and
descriptive term would be coexistence crops, since they would
eliminate the possibility of two neighboring fields crossing
with each other. Perhaps more than any other aspects of
genetically engineered crops, these technologies have been the
target of massive fear-generating campaigns by critics.
Critics say coexistence crops threaten farmers in the developing
world by preventing the saving of seed from this year's crop for
next years planting. But coexistence crops are not designed for
developing world farmers. They are designed, in part, for
farmers who already buy new seed each year. Most farmers in the
developed world buy hybrid, certified or transgenic seed each
year. These types of seed cost more, but produce far better
yields, protect the environment or cost far less to grow, so the
farmer gains in the end. Virtually all corn grown in North
America is from hybrid seed with 50 per cent transgenic. Better
than 70 per cent of the canola grown in Canada is transgenic.
The benefits are well documented, including less pesticide use,
healthier corn with less fungal toxin contamination and healthy
canola oils that are trans-fat free.
The development and incorporation of coexistence crops would
have several advantages over today's transgenic crops. Along
with ending illegal propagation of transgenic crops, the issue
of horizontal gene flow would also be eliminated. Therefore,
there would no longer be any issue of cross-pollination between
transgenic and organic crops.
Perhaps this is why certain groups are fighting the development
of coexistence crops so ferociously. In fact, pollen from
transgenic crops does not threaten organic crop certification at
all. According to the International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), there should not be any threshold
of cross-pollination, and if it occurs it does not necessarily
threaten the organic status of the product. The IFOAM does not
even advocate mandatory testing for the cross-pollination of
organically grown crops from transgenic ones.
It has been suggested that coexistence crops will threaten
biodiversity. Critics claim the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,
of which Canada is a signature, prohibits the development of
coexistence crops. However, Article 2 of the protocol states:
"Parties shall ensure that the development, handling, transport,
use and release of any living modified organism [international
term for GE crops] are undertaken in a manner that prevents or
reduces the risks to biodiversity."
Since coexistence crops would block gene flow from transgenic
crops to other plants, their incorporation into biotechnology
crops is actually in keeping with the International Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety agreement. There are approximately 60,000
seed varieties sold in North America each year. There are
approximately 100 transgenic varieties of crops. It seems very
far-fetched to suggest 100 transgenic varieties with sterile
GURT engineering are going to threaten 60,000 non-transgenic
varieties.
Blocking gene flow is important in another area of agricultural
biotechnology. Up to now the production of most pharmaceuticals
has required very expensive laboratories and production
facilities. This is all about to change. Scientists have
developed ways to make pharmaceuticals in plants. This has
tremendous health and economic benefits. Where once a particular
pharmaceutical might cost $100 per dose to produce, it can now
be made in a plant for pennies. Everything from vaccines to
heart medicines will be produced in genetically engineered
plants. Of course, safety issues surrounding the growing of
"pharma crops" have been considered in detail. There are very
elaborate rules to maintain separation between food and
pharmaceutical producing crops, including dedicated fields,
large isolation distances, dedicated equipment, as well as
separate storage and processing facilities.
Adding GURT technology to pharma crops would further increase
the safety with the complete elimination of the possibility of
pollen flow from pharma crops to related plants.
The whole world stands to benefit from such developments. Soon
the lack of refrigeration that has hampered vaccine delivery in
many parts of the world will no longer be a problem, for
example. Pharma crops containing edible vaccines will be grown
wherever they are needed. Two of the pharma crops furthest along
in development contain vaccines for Hepatitis and Norwalk virus.
Hundreds of millions of people stand to benefit from these
advances in agricultural biotechnology.
Almost 10 years of growing biotechnology crops has demonstrated
huge environmental benefits, better yields and healthier food
with absolutely no demonstrated harm from consumption. Canada
should be applauded for its call for a return of a science-based
approach to continued research and development of coexistence
crops. It is clear there are many benefits to incorporating
coexistence crops into agricultural biotechnology.
Robert Wager is a researcher at
Malaspina University College in Nanaimo BC in Canada. |