What it is?

Benefits, Risks and its Implications (Digested from various sources)

Teodoro C. Mendoza, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Agronomy UP Los Banos, Laguna Tcm@mudspring.uplb.edu.ph

Content
      What is genetic engineering? Some Features of Transgenic DNA which makes it different from natural DNA Potential Benefits of GE What proponents say concerning GE? Potential Risks of GE Are GE crops safe? State of GE Research and Development Implications of GE in Developing Countries

What is Genetic Engineering?

Genetic Engineering = modifying the traits of a living organism "A" by introducing foreign genes from an organism "B" into its genome The organisms "A" and "B" can be plants, animals and/or microorganisms EXAMPLES Bacteria genes Plant "A" genes Animal genes Human genes

Plant Cell Plant Cell Plant cell Animal cell

Transgenic plant Transgenic plant "B" Transgenic plant Transgenic animal

Genes Involved in GE
1) donor 2) carrier or vector Bt bacteria

plasmids of bacteria viruses 3) promoter : VIRUSES 4) Antibiotic resistance marker

Some Features of Transgenic DNA which makes it different from natural DNA
All artificial constructs tend to be unstable, Transgenic DNA is more likely to break and join up again, ie, to recombine. Transgenic DNA typically contains DNA from widely different sources has the potential to recombine homologously with all those agents, ie, due to similarities in DNA basesequence. Homology enhances horizontal gene transfer 10 million to 100-fold

 Transgenic DNA is designed to cross species barriers and to invade genomes. Enzymes catalysing jumping in also catalyse jumping out.

Certain 'receptive hotspots' have now been identified in both the plant and the human genome. These may also be 'recombination hotspots', prone to breaking and rejoining.

There are mechanisms in the cell that actively seek out, inactivate or eliminate foreign DNA from the genome

 Cell and embryo culture methods are well-known to induce unpredictable, uncontrollable (somaclonal) variations Making transgenic plants induces further genetic instability leading to chromosomal rearrangements, genome scrambling Monsanto's Roundup Ready soya, commercially grown for years, was finally analyzed. Not only is the gene order of the insert found to be scrambled, the plant genome at the site of insertion is also scrambled

 Recombination hotspots within the transgenic DNA, such as that associated with the ubiquitous cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter, could enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination. Instability compromises agronomic performance.

Recently, landraces of corn growing in remote regions of Mexico were found contaminated with transgenic corn DNA by probing with the CaMV 35S promoter

GRADIENTS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

Modern Biotechnology Genetic Engineering of Plants Genetic Engineering of Animals Microbial Genetic Engineering Recombinant DNA Technology

Monoclonal Antibody Production Mammalian Embryo Transfer Plant Tissue Culture Biological Nitrogen Fixation Microbial Fermentation Traditional Biotechnology

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING

Medicine - Human insulin (vs diabetes) - Interferon (treat cancer) - Vaccine-Hepa A, B; diarrhea - Diagnostics - Vaccine fruit Industry - Enzymes - Feeds Environment - Removal of heavy metals; lead, mercury, cadmium - Pollution control - Biodegradable plastics

In Agriculture - Plants resistant to pests, diseases, drought (high stable yields, low chemical use, not harmful to non-target organisms) - Plants resistant to herbicides (high stable yields, survive the herbicides, reduce other herbicides, costs; need for soil tillage, less erosion) - Rice with Vitamin A - Food that is more nutritious (higher vitamins, antioxidants, higher lysine, tryptophan in cereal; high methionine in legume, high protein content in root crops)

-Delayed ripening in tomato (better flavor, color, texture) -Bio-organic fertilizers -Vaccine fruit (better health) -Plants that thrive on saline soils, less water, less nutrients -Plants that extract pollutants, produce industrial polymers -New grains which reduce E. coli incidence in beef cattle; reduce incidence of Salmonella toxins in poultry

What proponents say concerning GE?

". . . many of our needs have an ally in biotechnology and the promising advances it offers for our future. Healthier, more abundant food, less expensive crops . . . With these advances we prosper; without them we cannot thrive. As we stand on the edge of a new millennium, we dream of a tomorrow without hunger. "Worrying about starving future generations won't feed them. Food biotechnology will. Robert Shapiro, Monsanto's CEO

What Proponents say concerning Genetic Engineering A solution to the problem of securing world food supplies while preserving the environment is today well-nigh inconceivable without recombinant genetics and biotechnology. "Like the "Green Revolution", genetically engineered varieties for food crops are a land-saving technology, and as such can be of particular importance for those who have little or only marginal land". NOVARTIS, 1999 Biotechnology is most extensively researched and reviewed in agricultural history; much greater scrutiny by industry and regulating agencies; GE produce have the same or better characteristics than conventional produce. In the US they are heavily regulated (USDA APHIS, EPA, FDA) WHO, USFDA, EPA, and USDA had proven safety

 US NAS - 8 academy of Science has supported the safety of food

derived from biotech National Committee on Biosafety in the Philippines, DA Bureau of Agricultural and Fisheries and products Standard, DOH - Department of Health, Bureau of Health, Bureau of Food and Drug Administration, GE is safe. Biotech supports SA - Reduced pesticide use - Greater safety for workers - Safety to the ecosystem

Biotechnology can increase the quantity of harvest by addressing factors that limits growth such as pests, diseases, nutrition, weeds, drought and wind Risks associated with food biotechnology are fundamentally the same as conventional food. While there is no such thing as "zero risk ," present GM food had undergone stringent regulatory tests and found safe to humans, livestock, and the environment Impacts of ag-biotech is expected to be greater in developing countries where - yields are lower - there are greater areas of production, poverty and greater populations exist

WHAT PROPONENTS OF GMOs DO NOT SAY A. Health 1. Appearance of new allergens and toxicants Occurrence of pleitropic effects up to 30% - New, not previously identified and unanticipated toxicant and allergens - Increased level of known naturally occurring toxicant - Alterations in the levels of nutrients Food allergies related to soybean increased 50% Allergenic reactions had chronic illness such as irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems and skin problems , chronic fatigue syndrome, headaches and lethargy.

2. Contamination with viral DNA y Some 99% of GM crops had virus genes either as promoters or to control virus infection. Recombination with other viruses create new diseases and more virulent forms (Greene and Allison 1994; Gebhard and Smalla 1998). y Naked DNA (Nucleic Acids) ingested by mice can be transferred to offspring and be voided and spread in animal feces (Schubbert et al. 1998; Schubbert et al. 1997). y There is evidence that foreign DNA can enter the body via the gastrointestinal tract and cross the placenta (Doerfer

3. Threat to efficacy of antibiotics y Antibiotic resistance genes used as markers may be transferred to pathogenic microorganisms ,threatens efficacy of existing antibiotic medicine for humans. y In a simulated large intestine experiment, DNA remained intact, halflife was 6 minutes, a time possible to transform the cells. Also, chances to pass the DNA is 1 in 10 million, and in the gut, there are thousand billion bacteria.

4. Direct health effects y Rats fed with GM potato (with lectin) had stunted growth and damaged immune system, including damage to internal organs (intestine, liver, spleen, thymus, pancreas) y Damage immune system thereby causing hypersensitivity (These are not easy to detect at the moment) 5. Increased levels of chemical residues

A.

Environment 1. Imprecise technology lead to uncertainties y Unintentional genes (2 extra fragments were found in herbicide-resistant soybean only after being planted for four years) y Pleiotrophic and positioning effects - High lignin content of Round up Ready soybean - BT cotton bolls dropping - Ineffective Bt crops y Promiscuity of gene fragments y Disturbance of gene ecology

2. Genetic pollution yContamination of non-GMO crops o Pollen movement can reach as far as: 400 m by wind 4 km if carried by insects 250 km distance (trees) o Bt corn Starlink contamination in the US yIntroduced genes may be transmitted to other plants and produce super weeds yTransfer of novel genes and viral vectors to other species (Dreiseikelmann 1994; Green and Allison 1994; Harding 1996)

3.

4.

GMOs are threat to biodiversity yBt toxins are in active form thus it can be toxic to many life forms yCauses genetic erosion GMO crops are not environment friendly yHigh selection pressure of pesticidal crops makes evolution of pest resistance very fast o Resistance will develop: High-dose toxin in all parts of the plant, 24 hours a day, throughout plants lifetime; irrational approach to pest control accelerates pest resistance (Gould 1994), corn borer became resistant corn in 2 years time instead of 5 years. yNon-target species: Butterflies (Losey 1999); Lacewings (Hilbeck 1998); Ladybird beetles (Birch 1996/97); other friendly insects are affected ySoil ecology: Bt toxin exuded in roots and in the soil 8 months (Stotzky 1998, 1999) may harm beneficial soil organisms

Are GE crops safe? No scientific consensus: 2) We do not know; not enough data (e.g. British Med Assn 1999) 3) GE crops are too risky; Debate has intensified; this is not a debate between informed scientists and ignorant public, but a debate among scientists. 1) GE crops are safe (e.g. industry scientists) (e.g. Dr. Mae Wan-Ho 1999) Attitudes to uncertainty: US: Since they are substantially equivalent( SE), GE crops as safe as conventional crops, unless proven otherwise (i.e. substantial equivalence) EU: Since we lack data to guarantee safety, GE crops are not safe, unless proven otherwise (i.e. precautionary principle)

Evidence that GM and GMOs are unsafe 1. Bt toxins, isolated from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, and incorporated into a wide range of GM crops, are harmful to beneficial and endangered species, such as lacewings and the monarch butterfly. 2. Several Bt toxins, are allergens or suspected allergens, including the Cry9C in Aventis Starlink GM corn, 3. Random insertion of GM constructs result in monstrous abnormalities in animals such as pigs and fish.

4. In plants, unexpected toxins and allergens have arises, as in Monsantosoya: 26.7% increase in allergen and growth inhibitor, _-antitrypsin, and 100% increase in soya lectin, another allergen

5. In 1989, a genetically modified batch of tryptophan killed37 and made 1500 seriously ill, many to this day. 6. The instability of GM constructs lead to inconsistent performance in the field, yield drag, and other failures which have frequently turned up in GM crops. 7. Herbicide tolerant GM crops created weeds and superweeds. A canola resistant to three different herbicides made by different companies, was ound in Alberta, Canada. 8. GM genes in GM pollen have transferred to bacteria and yeasts in the gut of baby bees.
9. GM genes in GM pollen have transferred to bacteria and yeasts in the gut of baby bees. 10.UK government scientists provided indirect evidence that antibiotic resistance genes from GM pollen and dust can transfer to bacteria inhibiting the human mouth and respiratory tract.

11. GM genes from GM plants have been found to transfer to soil

bacteria in laboratory experiments and in field monitoring. 12. GM corn DNA has been found transferred to chicken. 13. Gene therapy experiments show that animal cells, including human cells, can readily take up GM constructs, and incorporate them into the genome. 14. New viruses have arisen in GM plants engineered with viral genes. 15. GM constructs may recombine with, and wake up dormant viruses that have now been found in all genomes. 16. Random insertion of GM constructs into animal genomes may lead to cancer. This also occurs when GM constructs are put into cultured cells.

GMOs, health, and food safety issues: y New pathogens: Brit Medical Association warns of the potential emergence of new diseases associated with GM material (May 1999); the CaMV promoter is prone to recombine with other viruses (Ho, Dec 1999) y Antibiotic resistance: BMA wants ban on AR markers as the risk from antibiotic resistance in microorganisms is one of the major public health threats in the 21st century. (May 1999) y Horizontal gene transfer: DNA can remain intact for minutes in the large intestine, enough time to transform many gut bacteria (New Scientist, Jan 1999); a German researcher found evidence of gene transfer to bacteria and yeast in beesgut (Kaatz, May 2000) y Hormone disruption: Sprayed GE soya has more isoflavones, whose estrogenic activity may cause sex organ dysfunctions and tumors (Lappe 1998); GE potato lectin binds to human white blood cells (Lancet, Oct 1999)

State of GE research and development

y Some 90% of GE research is funded by the biotech

industry. Most of these are efficacy studies, not safety tests. (Dr. Terje Traavik, Univ. of Tromso, Norway, 1999) y Zero scientific studies published on GE feeding tests on primates or human volunteers, long-term effects, interaction with other toxins/proteins y GE industry: GE firms are waging a media campaign to malign independent scientists. PR budget: $250 M in the next five years.

Global area of transgenic crops planted by crop Soybean Corn Cotton Canola Potato Squash Papaya TOTAL 21.6 million ha 11.1 3.7 3.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 39.9

Source: Clive James, 1999

. Global area planted with dominant transgenic crops in 1999 based on Trait Herbicide tolerant soybean Bt maize Herbicide tolerant canola Bt/herbicide tolerant cotton Herbicide tolerant cotton Herbicide tolerant corn Bt cotton Bt/herbicide tolerant cotton TOTAL Source: Clive James, 1999 21.6 million ha 7.5 3.5 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.8 39.9 million ha

How extensively planted are transgenic plants? Global area of transgenic crops from 1996 to 1998 1996 1997 1998 1999 1.7 million ha 11 million ha 27.8 million ha 39.9 million ha

Global area of transgenic crops in 1999 by country USA Argentina Canada China Australia South Africa Mexico Spain France Portugal Rumania Ukraina 28.7 million ha 6.7 4.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

(32 M ha in industrial countries: 7 M ha in developing countries)

Worlds top 10 agrochemical corporations (The top10 agrochemical corporations account for $26.2 billion or 85% of the $30.9 billion agrochemical market worldwide.) Company 1997 Revenue (US millions) Aventis Group (France) pending $4,554 Novartis (Switzerland) $4,199 Monsanto (USA) $3,126 Zeneca/Astra (UK) pending $2,674 DuPont (USA) $2,518 Bayer (Germany) $2,254 Dow AgroSciences (USA) $2,200 American Home Products (USA) $2,119 BASF (Germany) $1,855 Sumitomo (Japan) $ 717 Source: RAFI, with information provided by AGROW: World Crop Protection News

US GE Industry and the Philippines y 68% of the total hectarage of soya in the US is GE o found in about 60% of all processed food. y25% of the total hectarage of corn in the US is GE o corn and soya found in 80% of all processed food. yThe Philippines was the No. 1 importer of US soymeal in 2000 yThe Philippines is the largest ASEAN importer of genetically engineered grain importing over 1.1 million metric tones of soya and 550,000 metric tones of corn from the United States and Argentina y The US GE industry is trying to exploit the remains of unsuspecting Asian markets, following closure of European and Australian markets as well as growing skepticism in their own country.

Present status of biotechnology in the Philippines y 1997 AFMA signed; 4% of R & D budget to biotechnology y January 2000 policy of instituting biotechnology as a tool for national development y GMO products are out in the market  Nestle Products (16 brands)  Others (11 different brands)  GE contaminated US Products (27 brands)

GE-contaminated US products which might have been imported into the country:
y Frito-Lay Fritos Corn Chips yBravos Tortilla Chips y Kellogs Corn Flakes yGeneral Mills Total Corn Flakes Cereal y Postblueberry Morning Cereal yHeinz 2 Baby Cereal y Enfamil Prosobee Soy Formula yNestle Carnation Alsoy Infant Formula y Quaker Chewy Granola Bars yNabisco Snackwells Granola Bars y Ball Park Franks yDunca Pines Cake Mix y Quick Loaf Bread Mix yUltra Slim Fast y Quaker Yellow Corn Meal yLight Life Gimme Lean y Aunt Jamima Pancake Mix yAlpo Dry Pet Food y Gardenburger yBoca Burger Chef Maxs Favorite y Morning Star Farms Better n Burgers y Green Giant Harvest Burgers (now called Morning Star Farms) y MacDonalds McVeggie Burgers y Ovaltine Malt Powdered Beverage Mix y Betty Crocker Bac-Os Bacon Flavor Bits y Old El Paso Taco Shells y Jiffy Corn Muffin Mix Source: Genetic ID (an independent testing firm) and US Consumer Reports, September 1999)

Products out in the Philippine market with GMO's Nestle Products y y y y y y y y y y y y Crunch yButterfingers Kitkat yRolos Baci chocolate yNestle Ice cream bars Dreyer's Ice cream yStouffers Carnation Good Start Alsoy and Follow-up infant Formulas Carnation powdered, evaporated and sweetened condensed milk Hot cocoa Quick/Nesquick Toll House Chocolate Chips Lean Cuisine Frozen Foods Contadina Tomato and Pasta Products Nestle Nesvita Natural Cereal Drink

Others: y Bonus Vienna Franks y Rica Protina Hotdogs y Campo Carne Moby Hotdogs y Purefoods Beefy Hotdogs y Quality Foods Budget Franks y Crab Cake distributed by Food Mart enterprises y Yung Ho Soya Drink y Doritos Smokey Red Barbecue y Knorr Cream of Corn Soup y Isomil Soy Infant Formula y Cerelac Wheat

Implications of genetic engineering in developing countries

 Farmer disempowerment  Social disruption and the destruction of indigenous knowledge and skills  Equity  Control of food supply in the hands of a few  Economic dislocation  Intensification of biopiracy In 1994:  Developing countries lose $5.4 billion annually in royalty payments on pharmaceutical and agricultural products derived from indigenous plants  US earned $10.2 billion annually from maize and soybean crops developed with foreign germplasm (US Secretary of State Warren Christopher)  Environmental  Loss of Biodiversity 'Spread of modern, commercial agriculture' was the 'main cause' of the loss of genetic diversity (FAO)  Biosafety

Ethical, cultural, economic, political dimensions

Genetic Engineering Balance Sheet CREDIT DEBIT Human Health Unassessable environmental risks High yields Genetic erosion Varieties/strains resistant Some ethical questions to biotic stresses and abiotic stresses . . . etc . . . . . . etc . . . Precautionary principle: should be the basis for ethical judgement. "Absence of contrary scientific evidence must not be used as basis for proceeding with activities that might lead to irreversible damage to the environment (UNEP Agenda 21)." i.e. err on the side of caution

The case in the Philippines; can genetic engineering solve the problems of agriculture? Perception on the most important problems of the Philippine agriculture and the potential of genetic engineering for solving them. there is a mismatch in the perceived problems and the potential of genetic engineering in solving them "To use the food and nutrition problem and environmental degradation in developing countries as a justification by the industry for genetic engineering is insensitivity, ignorance, and lack of understanding of developing countrys agricultural, socio-economic and political systems. This justification is an abuse of the poverty of developing countries to justify a simple corporate strategy to amass greater profits for its investors".

Food and nutrition problems in the developing countries: another view  The world produces enough grain to provide every human being on the planet with 3500 cal/day (Lappe et al, 1998)  Increases in food production during the past 35 years outstripped the world's population growth by about 16%  Many of the developing countries in which hunger is rampant are in fact net food exporters India exported 625 million USD worth of wheat and flour and 1.3 billion USD worth of rice in 1995 while more than one in five Indians went hungry Brazil is the third largest food exporter in the world but fifth of its people (about 32 million) does not have enough food. In addition, 100,000 children die from hunger The poor farmers of developing countries are subsidizing the year consumption and wastage of the rich in developed over countries!

African Declaration at FAO (signed by delegates of 22 countries, June 1998) "We do not believe that such companies (Monsanto) or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves." "We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us."