Noted GE Critic Testifies on Capital Hill
Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@iatp.org) Posted: 07/03/2000 By
M.W.Ho@open.ac.uk
============================================================
Can biotechnology help fight world hunger?
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Institute of Science in Society www.i-sis.org <http://www.i-sis.org> and
Open University, UK
Special Forum organized by Congressman Tony Hall, Capitol Hill, Washington
DC, 29 June 2000
1. It's a great honor to be invited to speak here. I'm a scientist who loves
science and believes science and technology can help build a better world
and combat world hunger. But it must be the right kind of science and
technology, and it must be decided by people themselves. There is no
alternative to the democratic process of seriously informing and empowering
people. And I congratulate Congressman Tony Hall for putting on this special
forum.
2. I am among the 327 scientists from 38 countries who have signed an Open
Letter to all Governments demanding a moratorium on GM crops because we have
reasons to believe they are not safe (1). We are also calling for support
of sustainable agricultural methods that are already working successfully
around the world. There is genuine disagreement within the scientific
community. The public are not served by portraying the debate as science
versus anti-science.
3. Let me begin with recent report from Germany that GM genes in GM pollen
have transferred to the bacteria and yeasts in the gut of baby bees (2).
4. This kind of horizontal gene transfer involves the direct uptake of
foreign genetic material. It has been found to happen also in the field.
After GM sugar beet was harvested, the GM genetic material persisted in the
soil for at least two years and was taken up by soil bacteria (3).
5. Not only microorganisms, but animal cells, including human cells can
readily take up the GM constructs and the foreign genes often end up in the
cell's own genetic material, its genome (4).
6. Not so long ago, the pro-biotech scientists were insisting horizontal
gene transfer couldn't happen. Now, they are saying it happens all the time,
so no need to worry.
7. So the crucial question is whether GM genetic material is like ordinary
genetic material. The answer is no. There is a world of difference between
GM genetic material and natural genetic material
8. Natural genetic material in non-GM food is broken down to provide energy
and building-blocks for growth and repair. And in the rare event that the
foreign genetic material gets into a cell's genome, other mechanisms can
still put the foreign genes out of action or eliminate it. These are all
part of the biological barrier that keeps species distinct, so gene exchange
across species is held in check. And that has been so for billions of years
of evolution.
9. GM-constructs are designed to invade genomes and to overcome natural
species barriers. Because of their highly mixed orgins, GM constructs tend
to be unstable as well as invasive, and may therefore be more likely to
spread by horizontal gene transfer (5).
10. GM constructs consist of genetic material of dangerous bacteria, viruses
and other genetic parasites from widely different origins. They are combined
in new ways that have never existed, and put into genomes that they have
never been part of. They include antibiotic resistance genes that make
bacterial infections very difficult to treat. And, you never just put a gene
in by itself. It needs a gene switch or a promoter to work. Typically an
aggressive promoter from a virus is used to make the gene over-express
continuously - something which never happens in healthy organisms.
11. One viral promoter in practically al GM crops out there, including the
so-called second generation GM plants such as the 'golden rice' (6) is from
the cauliflower mosaic virus, CaMV for short. This CaMV promoter has a
recombination hotspot - a site where it is prone to break and join up with
other genetic material (7). It is promiscuous in function (8). Plant genetic
engineers thought it works in all plants and plant-like species, but not in
animals. Just last week, we discovered in the scientific literature more
than 10 years old that this same CaMV promoter works extremely well also in
frog eggs (9) and extracts of human cells (10). It is already known to be
able to substitute for promoters of other viruses to give infectious
viruses.
12. What will happen when these dangerous GM constructs spread? Remember, GM
constructs are made from genetic material of viruses and bacteria and are
designed to cross species barriers and to invade genomes. In the process,
there's the obvious potential that they may recombine with viruses and
bacteria to create new strains that cause diseases. The antibiotic
resistance genes may also spread to bacteria associated with serious
diseases such as meningitis and tuberculosis. GM constructs that invade
genomes may recombine with, and wake up dormant viruses that have now been
found in all genomes (reviewed in 8).
13. GM crops are turning out to be useless as well as unsafe. The bacterial
bt-toxins, engineered into many crops, are poisonous for beneficial and
endangered species such as lacewings, the Monarch butterfly as well as the
black swallowtail (11). Bt crops encourage new resistant pests to evolve.
Stink Bugs in North Carolina and Georgia are eating up the bt-cotton crops
(12) and have to sprayed with deadly pesticides. A study in the University
of Nebraska shows that GM Roundup Ready soya yielded 6-11% less than non-GM
soya (13), confirming an earlier Univ. of Wisconsin study which also found
that the GM soya required 2 to 5 times more herbicides.
14. The way to fight world hunger is definitely not GM crops. World
population figures have been wildly exaggerated. The figure of 10 billion
has been bandied about. In fact, figures have had to be revised downwards
several times in the late 1990s. By mid-1998, the UN's estimate was that
world population will peak at 7.7 billion in 2040, then go into long term
decline to 3.6 billion by 2150, less than two-third of today's number (14).
15. Population arguments are based on the ecological concept of carrying
capacity. Ecologists are increasingly finding that the more biodiverse the
ecosystem, the greater the carrying capacity (15), and hence the more people
and wild-life it can support. Biodiverse systems are also more stable and
resilient. The same principles have guided traditional indigenous farming
systems, and are now being re-applied in holistic approaches that integrate
indigenous and western scientific knowledge (16). Some 12.5 million hectares
around the world are already farmed in this way. The yields have doubled and
tripled and are still increasing, at the same time reversing some of the
worst environmental, social and health impacts of the green revolution.
16. World market for GM crops has collapsed because people all over the
world are rejecting them and opting for organic sustainable agriculture
(17). An organic revolution is rising from the grass-roots and also sweeping
across the disciplines within western science. From quantum physics to the
ecology of complexity and the new genetics, the message is the same: nature
is dynamic, interconnected and interdependent (18). Proponents of GM
technology are stuck in the mechanistic era, it is that above all that makes
the technology both futile and dangerous. It is just not innovative enough!
17. In conclusion, GM crops are not safe, not needed and fundamentally
unsound. Far from helping to fight world hunger, they are standing in the
way of the necessary global shift to sustainable organic agriculture that
can really provide food security and health around the world.
Notes and References
1. Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments calling for a
moratorium on GMOs <www.i-sis.org>
2. Barnett, A. (2000). GM genes 'jump species barrier' The Observer May
28, 2000.
3. Gebhard, F. and Smalla, K. (1999). Monitoring field releases of
genetically modified sugar beets for persistence of transgenic plant DNA and
horizontal gene transfer. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 28, 261-272; see also
"Horizontal gene transfer happens" ISIS News #5 www.i-sis.org
<http://www.i-sis.org>
4. Reviewed by Ho, M.W., Ryan, A., Cummins, J. and Traavik, T. (2000).
Unregulated Hazards: 'Naked' and 'Free' Nucleic Acids, ISIS and TWN Report,
Jan. 2000, London and Penang www.i-sis.org <http://www.i-sis.org>
5. See Old, R.W. and Primrose, S.B. (1994). Principles of Gene
Manipulation, 5th ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford; Kumpatla, S.P.,
Chandrasekharan, M.B., Iuer, L.M., Li, G. and Hall, T.c. (1998). Genome
intruder scanning and modulation systems and transgene silencing. Trends in
Plant Sciences 3, 96-104.
6. This can be seen in the scientific report itself: Ye, X., Al-Babili,
S., Kloti, A., Zhang, J., Lucca, P., Beyer, P. and Potrykus, I. (2000).
Engineering the provitamin A (?-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into
(carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287, 303-305; see also ISIS
Sustainable Science Audit #1: The Golden Rice - An Exercise in How Not to Do
Science www.i-sis.org <http://www.i-sis.org>
7. Kohli, A., Griffiths, S., Palacios, N., Twyman, R.M., Vain, P.,
Laurie, D.A. and Christou, P. (1999). Molecular characterization of
transforming plasmid rearrangements in transgenic rice reveals a
recombination hotspot in the CaMV 35S promoter and confirms the predominance
of microhomology mediated recombination. Plant J. 17, 591-601; Kumpatla,
S.P. and Hall, T.C. (1999). Organizational complexity of a rice transgenic
locus susceptible to methylation-based silencing. IUBMB Life 48, 459-467.
8. Ho, M.W., Ryan, A. and Cummins, J. (1999). Cauliflower mosaic viral
promoter - a recipe for Disaster? Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease
11, 194-197; Cummins, J., Ho, M.W. and Ryan, A. (2000). Hazards of CaMV
Promoter? Nature Biotechnology April; Ho, M.W., Ryan, A. and Cummins, J.
(2000). Hazards of transgenic plants with the cauliflower mosaic viral
promoter. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (in press).
9. N Ballas,N., Broido, S., Soreq, H., and Loyter, A. (1989).
Efficient functioning of plant promoters and poly(A) sites in Xenopus
oocytes Nucl Acids Res 17, 7891-903.
10. Burke, C, Yu X.B., Marchitelli, L.., Davis, E.A., Ackerman, S.
(1990). Transcription factor IIA of wheat and human function similarly with
plant and animal viral promoters. Nucleic Acids Res 18, 3611-20.
11. Wraight, C.L., Zangerl, R.A., Carroll, M.J. and Berenbaum, M.R.
(2000). Absence of toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis pollen to black
swallowtails under field conditions. PNAS Early Edition www.pnas.org
<http://www.pnas.org>; see also "Swallowing the tale of the swallowtail" and
"To Bt or Not to Bt", ISIS News #5 www.i-sis.org <http://www.i-sis.org>
12. "Research Shows Roundup Ready Soybeans Yield Less". News Release
from IARN News Service, University of Nebraska <IANRNEWS@unlnotes01.unl.edu>
13. See Biodemocracy News #27 www.purefood.org <http://www.purefood.org>
14. World Population Projections to 2150, UN Population Division, New
York, 1998.
15. See Tilman, D., Wedin, D. and Knops, J. (1996). Productivity and
sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature
379, 718-720.
16. See Altieri, M., Rosset, P. and Trupp, L.A. (1998). The Potential of
Agroecology to Combat Hunger in the Developing World, Institute for Food and
Development Policy Report, Oakland, California; also Rosset, P. personal
communication.
17. Over the past four years, US corn exports to the EU have fallen from
$360 million a year to near zero, while soya exports have fallen from $2.6
billion annually to $1 billion- and expected to fall even further as major
food processors, supermarkets, and fast-food chains ban GM soya or soya
derivatives in animal feeds. Canada's canola exports to Europe similarly
fell from $500 million a year to near zero. From Biodemocracy News #27
www.purefood.org <http://www.purefood.org>
18. See Ho, M.W. (1998). The Rainbow and The Worm, The Physics of
Organisms, 2nd ed., World Scientific, Singapore; Ho, M.W. (1998, 1999).
Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare? Gateway, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin.
