A. Genes in green

GMOs and the environment

CONSUMERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: A TURBULENT MARRIAGE

We are being spoiled. We want to eat strawberries in winter, luscious oranges, cheap pork and a slice of kangaroo now and then. We want to choose freely what we eat any day of the year. The customer must be kept satisfied, and that is why all possible efforts are being made: using tons of fertilizers, weed killers and insecticides … The result is not so pretty: general pollution and a gigantic slurry surplus.

At the same time, we want a clean environment – out of respect for nature and self-protection. We are outraged when we hear that the plans of farmers and ecological associations are not compatible.

And yet, there are some options for farmers who want to serve both consumers and the environment:

° Grow traditionally bred strong crops so that it is not necessary to buy large amounts of pesticides.

° Switch to organic farming, although this is not easy,. No fertilizers or synthetic pesticides may be used, farms must be small-scale, and only genetically non-modified crops may be grown. Organic farming is quite harmless to the environment and respects animal welfare. Unfortunately, yields are smaller and labour-costs higher. That explains why organic products are more expensive. Not all consumers are willing or able to pay higher prices …

° Modern biotechnology is yet another option. When growing genetically modified crops, the use of harmful pesticides may sometimes be reduced.

But, not everyone agrees that biotech plants are always ecologically safer. Those who may benefit from the new techniques sometimes turn a blind eye to the possible risks, whereas those against GMOs often get carried away by unrealistically gloomy prospects.

The following pages provide a description of both the advantages and the risks related to this issue:

 

0. Biotech contribution to an ecologically sound agriculture

- Plants that are resistant to pests and disease

Farmers using GMOs that were made resistant to pests and disease do not need to spray so much harmful pesticide. A few examples:

* Insect resistant plants: plants protect themselves from insect damages. Result: the use of insecticides drops

The American Department of the Interior estimated that in 1999 the growing of insect resistant cotton reduced the use of insecticides by 300,000 tons.

* Plants that were made resistant to virus diseases

Consequence: the use of insecticides drops even further. Viruses are often carried from one plant to another by insects, which means that protecting the crop from insects prevents the spread of viruses.

* Plants having a built-in resistance to fungi

Consequence: a drop in the use of fungicides.

- Herbicide tolerant plants

One example:

Biotechnologists have discovered a gene that makes plants insensitive to Roundup. Roundup is one of the best known ‘total herbicides’, i.e. herbicides that are not at all choosy: they kill all kinds of plants, crops included. Farmers cannot use such an herbicide, because it also destroys their crop.

Both farmers and nature benefit from the use of Roundup tolerant GMOs. For farmers,

1 or 2 sprayings of Roundup will do, instead of 2 to 4 treatments with traditional and sometimes harmful herbicides. Moreover, Roundup is ecologically safer than other herbicides, as soil bacteria readily break it down. In America, Roundup tolerant plants may be grown.

From 1995 to 1998, the number of sprayings dropped by 9% and the use of herbicides by 19%. On the other hand, there has been a change in the types of herbicides. The ecologically safer product Roundup is replacing some traditional and sometimes highly toxic products.

- Mapping biological diversity

Biotechnology may contribute to preserving biological diversity. Biotechnologists are able to make a genetic mapping of plants and to create gene banks or gene libraries. This makes it possible to preserve plants ‘in a genetic way’, including plants threatened by extinction. With the help of the new biotech tools, the various genetic patterns of apparently identical plants may be discovered, which may be a first step towards a more conscious planting of crops and towards an increased diversity in agriculture.

1. Risks involved by the presence of GMOs in the environment

The first genetic modifications carried out in the laboratory go back to the early 70s. Since then, people have wondered what the possible effects of GMOs on nature might be. Some people compare criticisms to the panic aroused by the first trains and laugh off suspicious remarks. To others, transgenic plants are like the Trojan horse and they talk about genetic pollution. They condemn the arrogance of man who releases into nature fragments of genetic information belonging to other species.

The concern arises from the idea that ‘foreign genes’ are freely released into nature.

Sire, there are no foreign genes anymore Foreign genes are genes that are transferred from one organism to another. So, ‘foreign’ does not mean ‘extraterrestrial’ or ‘scientist-made’. The progress of genetic engineering is such that the boundaries between species may be crossed: transferring pieces of the genetic material of an apple to a pear, or that of a pear to a fish, or that of a fish to tomatoes, and so forth.

Genes can spread. If this were not so, life on earth would have lasted for just one generation. Foreign genes can spread as well, in two ways to be precise: by means of pollen and by means of plant seeds.

Field, nature

Transgenic plant

Pollen of the transgenic plant spreads and fertilizes wild variants

Some characteristics are released in nature…

Transgenic plant

Seeds of the transgenic plant spread, germinate and grow into new plants.

Risks related to GMOs

Risk 1: Genes are released into nature by pollen

Genes may be carried from one plant to another by pollen. This is also possible between a cultivated plant and a wild variant and may result in the appearance of weed plants that are very hard to control (super weeds).

Transgenic pollen spreads into nature and may fertilize wild plants of the same species. The ‘descendants’ of such plants then have some of the properties of the transgenic plant. In this way, genes of the transgenic plant may be released into nature.

Herbicide tolerant wild plants are hard to destroy in a field of a crop that is tolerant to the same herbicide. Therefore, such crossings between a cultivated plant and a wild variant should be avoided at all cost.

A virus resistant plant may become a nuisance if the virus has controlled the wild population. That is why great attention is given beforehand to the types of resistance that should not be built in.

We must always be conscious of the fact that new genes in nature might have an undesired effect on the ecological balance.

Certain conditions must be met to make the fertilization of plants succeed:

° plants (modified plants included) can only be crossed with closely related plants

° the plants must flower at the same time

° the plants must be at a small distance from each other, so that pollen may be exchanged between them.

For some crops, such as potatoes, corn and tomatoes, we do not have wild variants we can cross them with. This means that their (authentic or modified) genes cannot be released into nature.

Oilseed rape, grass, sugar beet and carrot do have wild variants in our country. So, it is especially for these plants that the possible risks involved in a spread of genes should be examined.

Risk 2: Genes are released into nature through seeds

Seeds of plants spread beyond the field where they are grown, germinate and develop into new plants. When transgenic seeds are spread into nature, they may develop into super plants and kill off the natural variants. That would mean a loss of natural resources.

The new plant’s chance of survival is small. Some plants (like corn) have been improved to such a degree that they do not stand a chance in nature. It is most unlikely that adding a few properties would change that.

For other plants, such as oilseed rape and grass, which are still very similar to their wild variants, things are quite different. In their case, adding a single property may make a difference and the plant might be able to survive in nature. So, we must proceed with caution.

Risk 3: rampant plants

During harvest, seeds or tubers will inevitably be lost. In the next season, these may develop into new plants. If the plants become much stronger because of the new property, they may be hard to destroy in the following crop. They may even chase other plants from the field. If there is the slightest suspicion that this might happen, extra tests must be performed to be absolutely sure. Creating rampant plants must be avoided at all cost.

Risk 4: development of resistance

Weed plants, and especially insects, may develop a resistance to a pesticide that has been used against them for a long time. Weed plants may become resistant to herbicides, insects to insecticides. Many examples may be found in traditional agriculture.

The situation will be much the same for transgenic plants.

Just one example:

Researchers have modified plants to such a degree that they may produce an insecticide themselves. Larvae that hungrily ate the plants for lunch are destroyed. Because the plants produce this toxic substance continuously, insects might develop a tolerance much sooner.

To avoid this situation, it is advisable to alternate transgenic fields with non-transgenic fields that are not sprayed and that are safe havens for insects. In this way, the insects will not easily develop a resistance.

After 5 years of large-scale production of herbicide tolerant crops in the US, no herbicide tolerant weeds have yet been found. However, some people notice minor changes in the weed population and think that farmers should not take any risks and should, therefore, alternate crops (and herbicides).

Risk 5: killing harmless organisms

Insect resistant plants are supposed to fire live ammunition and destroy only the organisms that are harmful to the plants. Of course, it is always possible that other, useful organisms feed on the transgenic plants as well. If these organisms are sensitive to the insecticide, they will be destroyed although they were completely harmless.

The same may be said for traditional agriculture. Numerous sprayings of ecologically harmful pesticides may also have some negative effects on the organisms that live on or near the field. It is precisely because many pesticides are harmful to the environment that biotechnologists try to develop more sustainable solutions, including the use of insect resistant plants.

In 1999, a truly revolutionary article was published in ‘Nature’. It reported laboratory experiments involving insect resistant Bt corn and larvae of the milkweed butterfly (monarch), a nice little creature. It was found that the larvae that had nibbled the pollen of Bt corn died sooner than those who had not. This article kicked up a lot of pollen. Advocates and opponents were equally fierce. Many of their arguments had nothing to do with the article as such – they were wrenched from their context and caused great panic. Yet, the author had emphasized that the article was nothing more than an intermediate report on non-completed laboratory tests. In fact, the negative effect of Bt pollen on monarch caterpillars was already known. The aim of the tests was to find out how this effect was really brought about. At the moment, there is some evidence that the monarch larvae may have a minor contact with Bt pollen in nature. The impact of that phenomenon on the monarch population is still being discussed and analysed.

2. Legislation

Transgenic plants must not be released into the environment, nor marketed, without a government licence. All European countries apply the same rule, which aim to avoid undesired effects on the environment. Genetic engineering is still a young science. Therefore, it is too soon to know all the real effects GMOs have on the environment. That is why the government proceeds so cautiously. Activities involving transgenic plants are authorized only after a most careful risk analysis. If there is still any doubt, the authorization will not be granted.

The directives lay down safety rules that biotechnologists must comply with at each stage of their research:

1. in the laboratory

2. in the greenhouse

3. on the test field

Field tests must be authorized by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Biosafety Council, which is composed of scientific experts like plant biotechnologists and ecologists, examines the application. They verify the risk analysis and the test information supplied by the applicant.

4. If the first three stages are successful, growing or importing the transgenic plants for commercial purposes becomes possible. However, in Europe, this cannot be done just like that: the plants are once more submitted to a series of severe environmental safety tests.

A company that wants to grow a transgenic crop in Europe must submit a file to the authorities of the country where the crop will be grown for the first time. That file contains test reports that must prove the product is safe for humans, animals, and the environment. A scientific advisory council examines the information contained in the file. Only when the advice is positive does the European Commission send the file to the other 14 Member States of the European Union. Then, scientists from these 14 countries examine the file once more. At least a qualified majority is required before transgenic farming in accordance with the strict regulations is allowed. What is a qualified majority? The 15 Member States of the EU are given a certain number of points depending on the population of the country (Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy each have 10 points. Small countries, like Belgium, have less than 5 points). In all, there are 87 points. If a country says ‘yes’, all the points of that country are counted in favour of the application. A file has a ‘qualified majority’ if it has at least 62 out of the 87 points.

> A separate file with reports must be submitted before transgenic plants may be used to produce food. The food safety file must follow the same strict procedure as the environmental safety file.

> The Advisory Council examines genetic modifications case by case. Using general terms such as ‘the’ risk involved in ‘the’ genetically modified crops, strongly distorts the actual risks. As a matter of fact, each genetic modification also involves a change in the possible effects.

> Given the extremely high rate at which biotechnology is developing, the European directives are frequently adjusted to the most recent findings.

Unfortunately, we cannot foretell the future. Nobody, not even the geneticist, can tell what the effects of transgenic agriculture will be in, say 20, 100 or 500 years from now. That is true for all technological innovations, and also for plants that have been improved according to traditional methods. The difference is that GMOs have to meet very strict standards, whereas crops that were improved by traditional methods may be grown and marketed without any environmental safety or food safety tests. Because we have been practising traditional improvement for several centuries now, we assume it is perfectly safe; although, sometimes, its effects are comparable to those of transgenic agriculture.




But the bacterium will be able to survive only if the gene does not hamper it. Or, what is more, if the bacterium does not in any way benefit from the gene, the gene will probably not stay in the population. Furthermore, it is not at all certain that the gene will survive the journey unharmed and be able to pass the right commands to have the cell form the right proteins. 

B. About time

No matter where your farm is located, disease may always destroy large parts of your harvest. Diseases are different in all areas. Genes that protect our plants here in the north are often useless when it comes to protecting plants from diseases in the south. Moreover, the climate in developing countries is often harsh. And farmers do not have the money to buy enough pesticides. There is only one remedy: make local plants stronger. This can be done by means of traditional improvement, but that method would take too long.

Population is increasing continuously, but the agricultural area cannot be increased at the same rate. One would think that you need bigger plants to produce more, but that is not true for cereals. Dwarf plants are small but tough. Thanks to their short stems, they do not easily bend or break. Moreover, the plant may concentrate solely on the fruits and the seeds. Japanese dwarf cereals were already being imported into Europe in the 1950s. Plant breeders succeeded in crossing Japanese and European variants to obtain smaller plants with higher yields.

In many Third World areas, farming is impossible. Numerous crops suffer from climate stress. They cannot survive when conditions are too harsh. We can hardly change the climate, but we can change plants.

The diet of many people in the developing countries (especially in Asia) consists only of rice. As a result, these people lack some nutritive elements that are absolutely necessary, such as vitamin A. Children are the first to suffer from this lack. Each year, 1 to 2 million die from vitamin A deficiency and some 250,000 go blind.

Bananas are one of the most important products in the world. To millions of people in some 120 tropical and subtropical areas, bananas provide a steady income and are an important element in their diet. In countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Ecuador and some Central-American countries, bananas supply half of the amount of calories to the majority of the inhabitants.