GM Corn In Europe: Withering Away Soon?
by Tim McGee, Helena, MT, USA on 12.13.07
Three weeks ago John covered the continuing saga of GM corn, and the divide between U.S. and European environmental regulations. This week Nature news picked up the story, and the council for agricultural science and technology (CAST) threw in its two cents with a new study on gene flow and how it thinks GM corn would have minimal harm on the environment.
All of this attention is aimed directly at the EU, who is being pressured by the WTO to end their national moratoriums on GM corn by January 11, 2008. The German agriculture minister Horst Seehofer summed up the issue when he said “The reservations of the public are not being sufficiently considered.”
To help gain perspective, this might be the perfect time to look at some of the science of GM corn, and listen to a few dissenting voices that may just be speaking for those who are not being sufficiently considered.
Gene flow is the general term used by population biologists to discuss how genes 'migrate' between different distinct populations. The idea is that a population of GM corn might be able to have sex with a population of non-GM corn. Corn sex is an interesting, and in this case, important part of the story. Each corn plant releases anywhere from 4 to 18 million grains of pollen, that is around 20,000 grains for every potential kernel of corn.
The pollen grains travel on the wind, and typically land within a short distance of the plant. It has been found that isolating fields by more than 50 feet will reduce cross-breeding down to about 1%. But, 1% is actually a lot of gene flow. And some pollen grains can travel for miles. So while most of the genes will stay close to the field, there will always be a few cases of interbreeding, no matter what measures you take to protect your fields.
Yet the story gets stranger. It turns out that genes don't just flow from parent to child, or corn stalk to corn stalk but quite readily move from one individual to another- even in another species. Called horizontal gene transfer, this new method of gene flow has been proven in bacteria, and increasing evidence shows gene transfer may be common in higher organisms, like corn or humans. One of the more subtle aspects to consider is how gene transfer from the GM corn into other crops, insects, bacteria, or humans might effect our environment or health.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a critic of genetic engineering writes:
"While horizontal gene transfer is well-known among bacteria, it is only within the past 10 years that its occurrence has become recognized among higher plants and animals. The scope for horizontal gene transfer is essentially the entire biosphere, with bacteria and viruses serving both as intermediaries for gene trafficking and as reservoirs for gene multiplication and recombination (the process of making new combinations of genetic material)."
With such fundamental questions about biology still being discovered it seems a little foolish to rush into pushing GM crops as a solution. Michael Pollan, in an interview with the Sierra Club from 2004 provides a prescient view of GM corn:
"Genetically modified organisms are a tool, and tools help you do what you want to do. So what is it we want to do? We need to stop spraying so much pesticide. Are GMOs the only way to do that? No. There are other ways: We can plant a polyculture instead of a monoculture, for instance. But Monsanto doesn't like that strategy because it wants to sell as much of its product as possible. So far, GMOs have mainly been a way to sell more Roundup herbicide.The first generation of GMO products offered the consumer nothing. The food was not cheaper, and it was still grown with pesticides--and in some cases required even more pesticides. In the late 1990s, the companies told me about this second generation of products that was going to provide superior nutrition. Where are they?
We still have the same crops that were rolled out in 1996. It suggests that either the capital to do research and development is drying up, or they've found it's harder than they thought to make these more complex products work. Either way, the industry is on the ropes. I don't think in ten years we'll be talking about GMOs. I can easily see the industry withering away."
::Nature News
:: CAST (Pay Subscription)
:: Pollen Drift Research
This GMO crap is the most dangerous thing the world is doing. The nuclear arms race of the 80's was less threatening. At least there was a button to push (or not). They were'nt "self-launching" missles. In the case of GMO, the most powerful, uncontrollable force is at the helm with one objective: reproduce. If you've ever caught a cold, you know how hard it is to see it coming.
That was perhaps a stronger way to put it, but I agree. Introducing GMOs into a native population is the same as introducing any new species to a native population. Just think of what happened in South America when diseases unique to Europeans started hitting native populations. We have tested GMO crops against common crop diseases but who knows how they will react to rare ones or diseases that normal crops are able to fight off. With each GMO released there is the potential to affect the main species (lets say corn) and whatever genes from other species were used to modify it. The fact is we just don't know what it will do or what happens when it mixes with non-modified crops in normal sexual mutations.
It's not that I support the use of GMOs, but I don't see what's so horrible about them. It seems like something that some environmentalists oppose just because something about it seems wrong, while there really is a lot of potential for it. Could someone please explain what's so bad about GMOs?
sounds like wishful thinking to me. .. monsanto wont give up that easily. They are tied with huge major players in politics that have done their best to make america the worst it can be.
Why do we always think that because we invented something clever, we have to use it straight away?
What the heck is GM corn anyhow? Is it just another Chevy, or a Buick?
Apart from greed why is the US so desperate to export it's GM crop?
Whilst the US has a relatively short agricultural history that has decimated its forests, created dust bowls of parts of the country and has a long association with Pork barrel politics; I think the US should consider European reticence to follow its GM lead as very sensible.
Horizontal gene transfer - a phrase that might go down in history as the killer of billions - who knows...
To those of you that are wondering why GM crops are "bad", here is some insight...
Crops are genetically modified to give a better product. This comes from a gene that was found in another organism, example a fish or another plant species, and placed into the crop. However, that's not all that gets put into the GM crops. Scientists must use what they call a "selection marker" to find the plants that have the new gene in them. This is most commonly a gene that produces antibiotic resistance or herbicide resistance. This marker is the problem for ecologists and other scientists. If there is gene transfer from the crop to a native species of plant they now become herbicide resistant and may result in the increase use of herbicides in farming rather than the decrease of herbicides. Additionally, antibiotic resistance could cause problems with bacteria that can easily mutant and become antibiotic resistant as well. It goes along with the concerns in the health field right now with "supergerms". There are many other potential concerns with GM crops that pertain to the gene that has been introduced, such as food allergies. For example, if the gene from a peanut is introduced and you are allergic to peanuts you may be affected. If you don't know about the gene introduction there is a liability issue with the seed manufacturer, the farmer, and the food processor and distributor.
This scare-mongering about horizontal gene flow from plants to humans is absurd and no better than terror alerts from the Bush administration. The evidence of any significant gene flow from plants-to-humans is vanishingly small. In fact, human-to-human gene transmission of functional genes through any mechanism other than reproduction is insignificant to human evolution.
The fact is that very few mammalian viruses actually permanently modify host DNA species, and when they do it is usually to insert redundant fragments of genes that are almost never active. Add that to the fact that there are no known viruses that are pathogenic in both humans and plants, and the worry that genes from GMOs are going to find their way into human populations and that it is going to be detrimental to human health somehow is laughable. If it were the case, then you'd already have regular corn genes littering your DNA, and this just isn't the case. You'd also be able to contract genetic diseases from other people, and that is also unheard of.
Furthermore, demonizing crops for being genetically modified is ignorance masquerading as science. Genetic modification of crops is the foundation for agriculture and has been happening for thousands of years. All our modern crops were originally wild plants that were very different. Corn was originally a grass called teosinte that was bred for a couple of thousand years until it became modern maize.
What's different is that modern GMOs have maybe 3 or 4 purposeful and well-characterized genetic changes in a genome that has an estimated 50,000-60,000 genes. Contrast that with traditional cross-breeding in which the hybrid offspring has potentially half it's genome changed at random with a high rate of mutations as a result of the normal process of gamete segregation and cross-over. In fact that same process is happening in your gametes right now if you're a male. Nature is the greatest genetic experimenter of all. You have about 45 random genetic mutations that neither of your parents have, half of which will be passed to your children and most of which will have no consequence. One of them however, may wait several generations and eventually pair up with another bad gene in your great, great, great grand-child and cause disease. Or not.
Modern molecular biology is sniper whereas traditional breeding is carpet bombing. Why is research into the former is being hampered by fears of "collateral damage", while the latter is being extolled the preferred "natural" way?
I do agree with the Sierra Club rep's assessment that the advantages of genetic modification have not really been fully realized. The promised future generations of wonder crops have not been forthcoming, like breeding vaccine peptides into rice and extra vitamins into staple crops. Nevertheless, perhaps that has more to do with asinine political resistance from people who know just enough about the science to get it wrong and yet sound convincing than with actual flaws in the principle of using molecular biology to solve human problems.
I agree that the environment is in grave danger, but not from purposefully modified genes. We are going to run out of fresh water, land, and energy long before genes from Monsanto crops destroy the ecosystem or mutate the human race. Properly applied, genetic changes may help in overcoming some of these problems if you give them a chance.
Does anyone reading this know how to join the fight against acceptance by the EU of GM crops in Europe? I'm in Finland and was very happy knowing that we didn't have to worry about these crops coming over, but now with the WTO challenging the EU stance on GM crops, what can Joe Schmoe do to make his or her voice heard?
Very concerned,
Peter