Download GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS/TRANSGENIC PLANTS

RDOS Regular Board Meeting
Agenda Item 10.3.1 Attachment 2
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS/TRANSGENIC PLANTS
AN INTRODUCTION
Genetic engineering is the use of a process called recombinant DNA technology
to take genes from one organism (a plant, animal, microbe etc.) and inject them into
another organism usually of a completely different species. The characteristic the
transferred gene is associated with (e.g. resistance to Round-up) is then expressed in
the receiving organism plus in all of the progeny of that organism. The organism that
has been transformed is often referred to as a genetically modified organism or a GMO.
These are new organisms, which are self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once
released, they will be difficult, if not impossible, to recall.
Genetic engineering (also known as horizontal gene transfer) is often presented
as an extension of traditional crossbreeding that nature and humans have always done.
It is not. Crossbreeding uses natural reproductive systems that can only combine
genetic material from the same or closely related species i.e. cauliflower can cross with
broccoli, but not corn. Genetic engineering can shift a gene from one species or with
something created in a laboratory to any other species, i.e. from a fish to a tomato, a
yeast to a plant, a snowdrop gene to a potato and so on. This process alters or disrupts
the genetic blueprints of living organisms. So far it has been done mainly with plants
although work with fish, mammals, microorganisms and humans is also underway.
Horizontal gene transfer does, albeit rarely, occur in nature. When it does, it can be
deadly because the host does not have any defenses to handle the new material.
Examples are viruses causing flus moving from chickens or pigs to humans or HIV from
chimpanzees to humans. Increased horizontal gene transfer via genetic engineering
creates opportunities for unwanted as well as wanted species to move to new hosts.
Up to 70% of processed foods can now contain soybeans, canola, corn or
potatoes that have been genetically engineered: soy flour and oil, cereals, veggie
burgers and other meat substitutes, soy sauce, margarine, infant formula, cookies,
crackers, corn starch, corn flours and oil, syrups, chips, salad oils etc. etc. etc…..
Because labeling is not required in North America (and is being strongly resisted by the
GMO companies), consumers have no way of knowing which products contain GMOS.
Processing is said to destroy the inserted DNA. Sometimes that is the case but
1
not always . In any event, the presence of foreign DNA in a GMO organism is only one
source of concern. A processed food from which the inserted DNA has been destroyed
or removed can still contain new and potentially harmful substances. Genetic
engineering is the combination of genes that would never occur naturally. Genes affect
one another producing proteins, enzymes, hormones, etc. They can combine to produce
unpredictable disturbances in host genetic function as well as in the introduced gene.
These disturbances in the biochemistry of the host could produce novel toxins, allergens
and altered nutritional value. An example follows.
GMOS: An Introduction: page 2
1
UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods: DNA still detected after most commercial processing
procedures.
The tryptophan food supplement from genetically engineered bacteria that killed
37 people and made thousands more ill was 99 +% pure tryptophan and contained no
foreign DNA. The suspected novel toxin (created in the process of producing the
genetically engineered tryptophan) that was so harmful, was present at less than 0.1%
of the product that went on sale. Then and even now this product passes the
“substantially equivalent to non-genetically produced tryptophan “ standard where only
contaminants present at greater than 0.1% need to be identified.
Mayeno & Gleich, Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: a
cautionary tale. Tibtech 1994.
Pollen from a genetically engineered tree transferred by bees to the flower of a
tree that wasn’t genetically engineered would result in both known and unknown
changes. As a result of pollination, two sperms or generative nuclei from the pollen are
discharged from the pollen tube into an ovule of the flower. One of these nuclei fuses
with the egg to form a seed. This seed would contain and test positive for the foreign
DNA. The other pollen nuclei combines with 2 polar nuclei from the embryo sac of the
flower to form the endosperm – a triploid, nutrient tissue of the ovule (seed). This
endosperm produces hormones and plant growth regulators which serve as the catalyst
for the metabolism of the seed and for the tissues that will make up the fruit. This fruit
tissue should not contain foreign DNA. However, no one can say at this time what
differences there will in it be because of the altered endosperm and the hormones it
produces or what secondary and unknown metabolites might have formed as occurred
with the tryptophan.
An analogy would be changing the engine in your truck from gas to diesel. The
truck would look the same from the outside but there would be differences in how it
functioned. Some of these might be undetectable especially in the short run while
others might be more obvious. See the “Unexpected Results” paper. Without thorough
and long term testing, no one can accurately predict either the primary or secondary
results of the introduction of new genetic material into a system.
GENETIC ENGINEERING: HOW IT IS DONE
Plants, animals, microbes – all organisms - have defense mechanisms that have to be
overcome before foreign DNA can be inserted. The examples to follow are about
genetic engineering of plants, but the information applies to other types of hosts as well.
To insert foreign DNA researchers construct “vectors” that include genes to carry the
package ( the gene to be introduced) into the cell, promoters (usually viral DNA
material) to activate the package and biochemical markers to confirm presence of the
transgene (usually antibiotic resistance) . The emphasis is always focussed on the
gene being inserted (i.e. for glyphosate resistance) and the expression of that gene.
However, the package inserted can also block or activate other genes (nearly always
unknown) in the area of insertion resulting in reactions that are impossible to predict. In
addition to that, the components of the package itself can produce effects.
HOW IT IS DONE
There are two methods for inserting the gene:
1. Agrobacterium, a bacterium that naturally alters a plant’s DNA (causing crown gall
for example) is used. The desired genes are put into the bacterium and then a cell
of the host plant is infected. The bacterium inserts the new genetic codes into the
plant’s DNA. The cells are then grown to maturity producing future generations of
the plant with the desired characteristic.
2. A “gene gun” is used to propel genetic material coated with microscopic shards of
tungsten into a group of plant cells. The tungsten penetrates the cells and carries
the DNA to the nucleus area. The DNA then makes its way into the nucleus and
joins with the genes inside.
Genetic engineering is often described as a precise process. Isolating the selected
gene in a test tube may be precise but insertion of it into the host is a hit-and-miss
2
affair. Rates of successful incorporation can be as low as 1%. Marker genes are
necessary to let researchers know when their procedures have succeeded.
The Marker: When a gene is inserted into a plant, it is linked to another gene that
serves as a marker that helps determine if the first gene was successfully
inserted. These marker genes also become part of the modified organism.
An Example:
One of the most commonly used markers is a genetically modified bacterium gene with
antibiotic resistance. After the genes have been inserted into the plant cells, the cells
are exposed to antibiotics. The unmodified cells die. The live ones have taken up the
new genes.
Research in the Netherlands has shown that these genetically modified bacteria can
transfer their antibiotic-resistance genes to bacteria in the stomachs of humans. This
could contribute to antibiotic resistance to future infections.
A paper published in the Journal of Applied and Environmental Microbiology this year
reported that the human mouth and pharynx also contain bacteria that can take up and
express transgenic DNA containing antibiotic resistance marker genes.
GMOS:How It Is Done – page 2
2
There is also nothing precise about the insertion of genetic material into a new host. There is no control
over where it attaches – perhaps in the middle of another gene, or in the unknown areas referred to as
“junk” DNA or ???. The functioning of attachment areas will be affected in unpredictable ways.
Unexpected side effects are inevitable.
In summary, since every cell of a transgenic plant contains these antibiotic
resistant bacterial genes, consumption of these plants will contribute to increased
resistance to antibiotics in the consumer. This is a well understood and accepted
concept in the beef and poultry industry where animals are required by law to be taken
off any antibiotics well before sale.
The Promoter: Promoters are included in the package to promote/enhance/result
in the expression of the gene which was inserted. These promoters also become
part of the modified organism. Most genetic engineers use viral promoters
because they are simple, very active and powerful.
An Example:
The cauliflower mosaic viral promoter (CMVP) is in most of the GMO plants currently on
the market. Cauliflower mosaic virus only infects cauliflower and cabbages. However,
the promoter is CMV without its viral coat. Why is this a problem ?
- The viral coat is structured to attach only to specific hosts – in this case cauliflower.
Naked viral DNA loses this specificity and is more infectious than intact virus. Naked
viral promoters can be taken up and integrated into mammalian cells. Integration of
foreign DNA into the genetic make-up of mammals is known to be able to activate
host genes that could lead to cancer.
-
Viral promoters could also reactivate dormant viruses or other genes in the genetic
material of plants and animals. They can also generate new viruses by
3
recombination . CMV is closely related to human hepatitis B virus and to
retroviruses including HIV.
New markers and promoters are being developed. They may or may not have
unanticipated and possibly harmful side effects. In the meantime, the resistant bacteria
and cauliflower mosaic viral material is in most of the crops currently being planted.
There has been no indication of any plans to make any changes in the material already
released.
In summary, the primary concern is not with the gene inserted to make a plant
resistant to a disease, insect or herbicide. As described above, the whole methodology
of genetic engineering is flawed.
So are the assumptions. Commercial gene technology views genes as isolated units
which will behave the same in all situations achieving only what the researcher wishes to
achieve. This current application of gene technology is very similar to the use of a
chemical pesticide to control a specific pest while ignoring or trying to pretend it will have
no effect beyond that pest. Nowadays most science has moved from reductionist or
single item analysis to looking at systems and items in context. Biotechnology is the
exception.
Remember too that the same companies that assured us DDT, PCBS, Agent
Orange and organophophates were safe are the same ones now assuring us genetic
engineering is.
3
Recombination is the formation of new gene combinations that are based on genes from parent organisms
into combinations not present in either parent.
UNEXPECTED RESULTS
Genes are associated with specific characteristics. It is life’s way of
remembering how to perpetuate itself. However, genes are not isolated materials. They
influence and are influenced by other genes and are defined by context. For example, a
gene that produces a hormone stimulating growth in a fish might have quite another
effect in a tomato. Or it might stimulate growth but in the tomato might make it more
susceptible to post harvest breakdown later on.
Most genes have many different and often unrelated effects. Many genes affect
the function of other genes. An alien gene from a snowdrop flower for example, inserted
by genetic engineering into the gene structure of broccoli to make them resistant to
aphids could activate other genes in the same area which had been dormant. These
genes could result in everything from smaller to larger broccoli to the development of
toxins or a change in flavour or nutrient levels. Such effects might not show up until
another generation of the broccoli after genes combine in the production of the seed. It
would be necessary to breed a GE crop for many crosses and generations before all the
possibilities resulting from the introduced gene would be known.
It has been shown that transgenic expression in a modified plant can be
enhanced or decreased – even silenced under different environmental conditions.
Also the DNA isolated for gene transfer sometimes includes genetic parasites –
viruses, plasmids and sequences of DNA that can change position in the genome.
Science knows very little about these parasites or about what they can do.
A FEW EXAMPLES OF UNEXPECTED RESULTS
 Researchers at Michigan State University recently found that genetic engineering of
plants to resist viruses could result in the viruses mutating into new and more
virulent forms or forms that could attack other plant species.

Journal of Medicinal Food: The concentrations of beneficial compounds thought to
protect against heart disease and cancer were lower in genetically engineered
soybeans than in conventional ones.

The bacterial enzyme that makes soybeans resistant to glyphosate has the side
effect on the production of lignin in the plant resulting in plants that are more brittle
and prone to structural damage when subjected to heat stress than non-engineered.
New Scientist.

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology wanted to
make a starchier potato. They knew all the steps in the biochemical pathway that
plant cells use to produce starch and a yeast gene could be produced to produce
more starch. However, the engineered potatoes turned out to have a sixth less
starch than before ! Another gene was inserted that should have corrected the
problem. Once again, the plants biochemistry shifted in an unexpected way and
starch yields dropped another sixth. The inability to control the behaviour of cells
GMOS;Unexpected Results – page 2


and organisms by tinkering with one or two genes is not unusual. Biochemical
pathways criss-cross, branch and merge to form complex networks.
Some of the genetically engineered potatoes have also been found to have as much
as 20% less protein.
Crop Performance: Figures released by the USDA for 1997 and 1998 on the
performance of genetically engineered maize, cotton and soybeans (Round-up
resistant or containing Bt) showed that the yields were no better than traditional
varieties. Also, any gains are offset by the higher cost of the seed and the
technology fee that is charged. They also showed that the genetically engineered
crops were using similar amounts of pesticides. There have been other problems
as well . Bt cotton in Arkansas required more growth regulator to synchronize plant
development and had to be picked twice instead of once as with non-genetically
engineered cotton. Also, Round-up resistant cotton has produced deformed cotton
balls and other plant form distortions.
HUMAN HEALTH HAZARDS:

In 1989, a genetically engineered brand of L-tryptophan, a common dietary
supplement killed 37 Americans and permanently disabled more than 5000 more
with a blood disorder (Eosinophilia myalgia syndrome) before the product was
recalled.

Preliminary research in Britain comparing the effects of GE potatoes spliced with
DNA from the snowdrop plant and a viral promoter the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus
indicate that the latter may have been what damaged the vital organs and immune
systems of the lab rats. This particular promoter is used in nearly all GE foods and
crops.

GE recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) increases cancer risks. The milk
(and all dairy products) from injected cows contains significantly higher levels (400500% or more) of a hormone called Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF-1). Harvard
studies have shown that humans with elevated levels of IGF-1 (which can result from
using these dairy products) are much more likely to get breast , colon and prostate
cancers. There are also problems with increased levels of antibiotic use because the
rBGH cattle become more susceptible to disease. Canada, Europe and even the
GATT Codex Alimentarius have banned it. It is permitted without labelling in the US.

Food Allergies: There are two main ways this could happen: by putting a known
allergenic material into an organism: An example is insertion of fish genes into
tomatoes to make it more cold hardy or a nut gene into a grain to increase protein
levels. Anyone allergic to fish or nuts upon eating the transgenic crop would
experience an allergic reaction. One would hope that if such products ever reach the
market, they would be labelled.

Of much more concern is that many scientists and medical persons feel that any ill
effects from genetically modified foods that might occur are most likely to be
immune system/ allergic reactions to unfamiliar material. Others are concerned
about cancer for the same reason. In most cases, humans have never eaten most
of the foreign proteins now being gene-spliced into food. A GE plant contains the
insecticides, herbicide or whatever over its whole lifespan. Also these genes will end
up in our food at levels that never occurred before. The results of this are unknown.

“Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of
modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in the laboratory
that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses from such
constructions.” Dr. J. Cummins, professor emeritus University of Western Ontario.
There are no long term studies to prove the safety of genetically engineered foods. The
negative effects many of the pesticides introduced in the 1940’s, took many years and
widespread use to become apparent.
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Researchers in Oregon found that a genetically engineered bacterium Klebsiella
planticula developed to break down crop wastes performed as expected in trials
carried out in sterile soil. However, when the product was tested in living soil plants
put into the soil afterwards died. It turned out that the bacterium destroyed essential
soil mycorrhyzal fungi as well as crop wastes.

Use of Pesticides: Although GMOS have been touted as a way to decrease the use
of pesticides, indications are that this is not happening. Most of the crops currently
being planted carry genes for resistance to herbicides. This means and apparently
is resulting in farmers spraying as much herbicide as they want and that is equal to
or greater than before. An Apple discussion line on the Internet recently had
orchardists talking about Round-up drift becoming a problem in areas where
orchards are next to Round-up ready grain crops. Although there is debate about
how long it will take, there is general agreement that resistance will develop in the
pests GE plants are engineered against. When this occurs it also means loss of the
pesticide as a foliar spray as well as a protectant in the genetically engineered plants
and a resumption of application of other pesticides.

Effects on Biological Control Agents and Non-Target Organisms: Work in Scotland
suggests aphids were capable of sequestering Bt toxin and transferring it to lady bug
predators reducing their longevity and functioning. Cornell University has shown
that the pollen form GE Bt corn was poisonous to Monarch butterflies. See Bt paper
for more details.

Gene Flow to Non Crop Plants: Superweeds are emerging. It has been established
that wild mustards near GE canola can become resistant to Round-up. Also GE
plants become hard to control weeds in rotations. Wind, rain, bees and other
insects carry genetically altered pollen beyond the fields of the GE plants, polluting
the DNA of non-genetically engineered crops, and pollinating wild weeds of the
same families (i.e. wild mustards) (Mikkelsen, TR, Andersen B, Jorgensen RB
(1996). The risk of crop transgene spread. Nature 380, 31).
There are also risks with virus-resistant transgenic (VRT) plants. One could be the
transmission of a resistance gene from transgenic crops to wild ones of which
presumably would make the wild plants more competitive. The other is that there
might be a gene flow from VRT plants to an infecting virus which could lead to
emergence of new viruses with modified biological properties i.e. host specificity
and symptoms caused (Teycheney, P-Y & Tepfer, M. 1999. Gene flow from virusresistant transgenic crops to wild relatives or to infecting viruses. BCPC Symposium
Proceedings # 72: Gene Flow and Agriculture: Relevance for Transgenic Crops).

Researchers in Michigan State University found that plants genetically engineered to
resist viruses can cause the viruses to mutate into new and more virulent forms.
THE STORY OF BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS (Bt) AND GENETIC
ENGINEERING OR HOW TO RUIN A SAFE AND USEFUL PESTICIDE
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a bacterium that occurs at low levels in the soil. It is
possible to grow it in large quantities and formulate it as a pesticide that is used in
agriculture for the control of caterpillars like leafroller and fruitworms and for beetles like
Colorado potato beetle. Some of the Bt formulations (i.e. Dipel) are allowed for use in
organic production.
This bacterium is encapsulated in a coating that will not break down unless it
exposed to sunlight or pH’s over 8 plus specific binding sites. The gut of the caterpillars
and beetles in question have the two latter conditions. The capsule breaks down
releasing a toxin which kills them. There is extensive data showing that there is no
danger to humans either through ingestion or contact with the soil and foliar pesticide Bt.
Predators and parasites do not ingest the bacterium and there is do danger to them
from just coming into contact with it so they too are not negatively affected.
A number of plants have been genetically engineered to contain Bt in every cell.
Corn, cotton and potatoes were done first and thousands of acres of these crops have
been planted in Canada and the US. These plants contain the insecticide over their
entire lifespan .
Myth: That the Bt in genetically engineered plants is the same as the Bt in Dipel
and as such can not pose a hazard to humans.
Reality: The Bt that is inserted into the transgenic plants is not the same as the one
found in the soil or in Dipel. The Bt toxin in a GE plant is in a semi-activated and
enhanced form that the human gut has never encountered. Nor has the human gut ever
encountered such large amounts of Bt. When it is applied to crops as a foliar spray, it
breaks down within hours and is seldom if ever on the surface of the food portion of the
plant when it is harvested.
From “Genetic engineering of crop plants for insect resistance – a critical review” V.A.
Hilder & D. Boulter. Crop Protection 18(1999) 177-191
“ Although the early transgenic plants containing Bt genes demonstrated some
enhanced resistance to target pests expression levels were too low to provide adequate
protection. Substantial increases in levels were required and these have been achieved
through the use of strong promoters and enhancers and by engineering the codon
usage. The result is that the majority of the Bt genes now in use for plant genetic
engineering have been substantially modified and essentially rebuilt with expression
levels in transgenics very much higher (100X) than was obtainable using native Bt
genes.”
The bottom line is that eating a genetically engineered potato means you are
consuming something your system has never had to cope with before and at levels
much higher than you could ever possibly encounter of the native organism. The results
of this are unknown and could only be determined by long term studies.
GMOS: Bt – page 2
There is another way Bt definitely can be a hazard to humans. Bt is a form of
protein called lectin. Those who work with allergies4 are concerned because lectins are
potentially allergenic. An article just published in the journal Lancet by Ewen and
Pusztai’s research suggests engineering lectins into food can make the food harmful to
rats.
Myth: That Bt in plants will greatly reduce the use of pesticides and provide better
pest control
Reality: The Bt transgene inserted into potatoes for control of Colorado potato beetle,
corn for corn earworm, cotton for boll worm and fruit trees for leafrollers and such, is
expressed in every gene of every part of these plants throughout the whole season.
Although there is debate about how long it will take, there is general agreement that
insect pests will become resistant to Bt in all forms. In fact, it no longer works in some
genetically engineered cotton against the bollworms and hornworms. This means loss
of Bt as a foliar spray as well as a protectant in the genetically engineered plants.
This “total control” is no different than a pesticide like pyrethroids were for pear psylla.
It will kill 99% of them for a period of time. However, as we know, there are always
some that are genetically different enough that they cannot be killed in this way and that
these insects will become the dominant (and completely resistant to Bt) population.
Use of refuges, high dose strategies developing alternative forms of Bt etc. are being
offered as ways to avoid resistance. These are the same arguments that were put
forward as ways to prevent development of resistance to chemical pesticides. They
didn’t work there and are even more unlikely to work with GMOS
Foliar sprays will no longer work in these situations as well so there will be less use of Bt
wherever resistance develops. Conventional growers will have to return to using other
more toxic pesticides. Development of resistance to the Bt genetically engineered plants
will remove one of the few pesticides organic producers are able to use.
Myth: That genetically engineered plants containing Bt will have no negative
effect on the environment.
Predators and parasites: Foliar applications of Bt formulations have no effect on
biological control agents. They do not ingest them and there is no toxicity from contact.
However, work in Scotland suggests aphids feeding on GE plants were capable of
sequestering Bt toxin and transferring it to lady bug predators. A similar phenomenon
was found by French researchers in regard to lacewings. In both cases it reduced the
growth and survival rates of the predators.
As a side but very important issue, for the periods that the Bt plants are effective,
parasites in particular will go locally extinct. They require their specific prey to survive.
Predators will decline. When the pest in question becomes resistant to the insecticide.
there will be at least a lag period before predators and parasites can reestablish.
GMOS: Bt – page 3
4
Genetically Modified Foods and Allergenicity: Safety Aspects and Consumer Information: Workshop 2829 May 1999.
Non-target organisms: Researchers at Cornell documented that corn pollen from GE
corn that blew onto nearby milkweed plants killed the Mornarch butterly larvae feeding
on them.
There are other unknowns: Bt is expressed in every cell of the engineered
plants. After harvest, the plant remains will compost in the soil. Apparently the Bt toxin
does not degrade rapidly. This will result in a buildup of this bacterium at
unprecedented levels in the soil which could poison many beneficial insects and other
organisms in the soil.
A note in Nature “Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn” Saxena, Flores &
Stotsky, 1999 reported that Bt – transgenic corn exudes Bt toxin through root exudates.
This toxin binds with soil particles and becomes very stable – persisting in the soil and
remaining toxic to soil insects for very long periods. These root exudates are
augmented by the Bt toxin in corn plant residues later in the fall. The effect of this is at
this point unknown. However there will be an effect from these greatly enhanced levels
of Bt to soil microorganisms and soil microbial communities. This in turn will effect
nutrient cycling and uptake, soil pathogens and beneficial microorganisms etc. Some of
the effects may be positive while others will be negative. Soil type, management and
weather will result in different effects – again all unknown.