[For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see the Forum website.
NB - participants are assumed to be speaking on their own behalf, unless they state otherwise.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 03 June 2002 09:50
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 2: Gene flow and genetic diversity

[Participants are reminded
i) to introduce themselves briefly in their first first posting to the conference
ii) that people posting messages are assumed to be speaking on their own behalf and not on behalf of their employers. Rule 5 of the Forum states "5. Attribution: Regardless of whether they identify the entity by whom they are employed, Participants are assumed to be speaking in their personal capacity unless they explicitly state that their contribution represents the views of their organization. For this reason, Participants should not quote the postings of other Participants as representing the views of the organizations to which those other Participants belong."........Moderator]

The already existing non-GM populations in the crop, forestry, animal and fishery sectors are the sink of economically and genetically important traits,which have to be preserved for future research and breeding programs. These valuable genetic resources have to be preserved in their respective pure nature not only for the future usage but also to preserve the genetic diversity.

In the mean time, irrespective of the argument of whether GM food will feed and alleviate the poverty in developing countries, the fact is that the knowledge explosion that has taken place in the field of biotechnology has brought genetic modification across the species into reality.

The million dollar question is whether gene flow from GM to non-GM populations will affect genetic diversity and pollute its purity? The GM organisms should be studied not as a whole by case by case. In all cases, it is always good to do studies on the behaviour of GM organisms in the long term interest before releasing them into the environment. And also it always advisable to set up GM-free zones around the GM populations to prevent gene flow between GM and non-GM populations.

GM crops could be released for commercial production in the case if
1) it is 100% self pollinating and it is not crossing with its ancestors
2) the risk of gene pollution is worth taking when compared to the hazards caused by the excessive usage of chemicals in agriculture.

Rajaratnam Muhunthan
M.Sc- in Biotechnology
Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture,
University of Peradeniya,
Peradeniya
Sri Lanka.
muhunthan_r (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 03 June 2002 10:22
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 3: Re: Fundamental considerations in hazard identification of GMOs

Further to the inputs of Dr. Suzanne Wuerthele (message 1, 31 May) recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology is isolating a gene and inserting it into the DNA of another organism. Also called genetic engineering, gene splicing, genetic modification. Genetic modification should not be confused with biotechnology. Just as genetic modification does not refer to conventional plant breeding.

Education is essential for the public to better understand this misunderstood differences. Failing to address the potential risks would be a betrayal of public trust. Uncertainty of the current rDNA crops and food is of substantial economic concern as the conflict affects the entire field of plant biotechnology. The careless and continous release would be insidious and irreversable to developing more abundant and nutritious foods in a more enviromentally sound manner.

Javier M. Claparols
Director
Ecological Society of the Philippines
jmc1 (at) mozcom.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 03 June 2002 11:40
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 4: GM crops - exotic genes/species

This is from Bert Uijtewaal. I am active as a product safety manager for Aventis CropScience where my responsability is to support the global safety evaluation of GM products. I got my PhD degree in Plant Breeding and BioTech. I support a careful approach to release the new plant products developed with the help of modern biotechnology. The necessary safety evaluation should be done on a case by case basis.

I know from my own experience that characteristics like 'stability of expression', 'unexpected side effects', 'expression in different genetic backgrounds', ' interaction with soil organisms', 'effects on persistence' etc are topics that are studied for at least 3-5 years during an intensive selection program. The costs related to the development and registration of such a product are so high that a company can not afford to develop a product that will not last. This might have been different 10 years ago, but is certainly not the case now.

The more we get to know about biotechnology, the more we learn about conventional breeding. It seems that also in these products chromosomal rearrangements occur and outcrossing always happened; we only missed the easy to score markers. Working with exotic genes is also not specific for biotechnology. At the moment you release a crop in an area where this did not grow naturally you introduce an enormous amount of exotic genes that can and will outcross to wild relatives. We never bothered about this and even learned over time that the impact of this is limited. It is the introduced new species itself that can be a disaster for regions where it was not known. This has however nothing to do with biotech or with conventional breeding.

Bert Uijtewaal
The Netherlands.
Bert.Uijtewaal (at) aventis.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 03 June 2002 14:22
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 5: Re: Fundamental considerations in hazard identification of GMOs

I wish to make some comments on the message of Suzanne Wuerthele (message 1, 31 May). [Message 1 contained seven paragraphs and these comments are organised here by paragraph. Definitions of some technical terms used here are provided at the end of the message...Moderator]

Paragraph 1: - Novel traits, not novel methods of producing traits, are what should be of concern.

Paragraph 2: - Virtually all eukaryotes contain DNA from organisms with which they cannot breed (e.g., mitochondrial DNA, relictual T-DNA in Nicotiana). This is hardly unique to GMOs.
- Organisms produced by conventional breeding can, and do, transfer 'exotic' genes, for the simple reason that nearly all major crops are grown outside their native geographic range.
- Conventional breeding does not 'merely' rearrange existing native genes, either. Mutation (induced and spontaneous), combined with intense artificial selection, are the drivers of conventional breeding.

Paragraph 3: - Agrobacterium has been moving genes across wide phyletic divisions for millions of years. Horizontal gene transfer is not a human invention, and is not limited to viruses in nature.

Paragraph 4: - Surely the argument is not that transgenes are *uniquely* unstable -- there is a vast literature on paramutation, transposition, etc. to refute this.
- Transgenes may, or may not, have altered transcriptional regulation. No sweeping statement about transgene stability or regulation can be made truthfully; each transgene and transgenic event must be characterized separately.
- The idea that mutations are a 'modern' breeding technology is laughable. Look at teosinte and maize if there is any doubt about the longstanding importance of mutation in agricultural breeding.

Paragraph 5: - Regarding the statement: "Transgenes are multiplied in number or are accompanied by promoters so that the products for which they code are expressed in high concentration.", They may, or may not, be. No such generalization is possible.
- There is no such thing as a 'promoter gene.'

Paragraph 6: - It is wrong to say that "Transgene insertions create frameshift mutations which may alter host DNA function and stability.". Transgene insertion may cause *insertional* mutations that abolish gene function. If the claim is that this leads to instability as well, please provide some evidence of that.
- It is wrong to say that "Ideally transgenes are inserted into "quiescent" sections of the host genome, previously assumed to be non-coding regions.". Ideally, transgenes are inserted into euchromatin, which is transcriptionally active. 'Quiescent' regions of the genome are generally heterochromatic, and poor targets for transgenes whose expression is needed to produce the desired trait.
- mutation=DNA damage, and mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation upon which all evolutionary mechanisms act.

Paragraph 7: Regarding "When rDNA techniques employ promoters and other genetic elements derived from viruses there is a potential for these elements to combine with DNA from host pathogens to create novel diseases. While this phenomenon has been documented in conventional plants and animals..", could an example from plants be provided

Toby Bradshaw
College of Forest Resources & Department of Botany
University of Washington,
United States
toby (at) u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/toby

[Euchromatin: Chromosomal material that is stained less intensely by certain dyes. Thought to be the chromosomal domains which are gene-rich...
Eukaryote: One of the two major evolutionary clades, characterized by having the nucleus enclosed by a membrane, and possessing chromosomes that undergo mitosis and meiosis. Eukaryotic organisms include animals, plants, fungi and some algae.
Heterochromatin: Regions of chromosomes that remain contracted during interphase and therefore stain more intensely in cytological preparations. These regions have a high content of repetitive DNA, and a low content of genes; thus they are for the most part genetically inactive.
Paramutation: A naturally occuring gene silencing phenomenon.
T-DNA: The DNA segment of the Ti plasmid, present in pathogenic Agrobacterium tumefaciens, that is transferred to plant cells and inserted into the plant's DNA as part of the infection process.
Transposition: The process whereby a transposon (A DNA element that can move from one location in the genome to another) or insertion sequence inserts itself into a new site on the same or another DNA molecule.
Further information on such terms can be got from the FAO Biotechnology Glossary, available at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2775E/Y2775E00.HTM or, as a searchable database, at http://www.fao.org/biotech/index_glossary.asp ......Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 03 June 2002 14:31
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 6: GM crops in Africa

My name is Jane Morris, and I am Director of the African Centre for Gene Technologies (ACGT) based in South Africa.

Having been involved with biosafety issues in Africa for a number of years, it is clear that research is needed in order to enable scientists and regulators to make informed judgements concerning the safety of GMOs. Too often the only information available is derived from experiments carried out in the developed world. For instance:
- Insufficient information is available about the potential for crops to cross-pollinate with African wild relatives
- Not enough is known about the insect pollinators in Africa and their habits (e.g., can recommendations on separation distances gathered, for example, from knowledge of the range of bees in the United States be translated into similar recommendations for field trials in Africa?)

There is huge potential for multidisciplinary research projects to gather information on this type of issue, but as is usual in the African context, the funding is scarce! It would be encouraging if the companies who are developing GMOs in the First World would give attention to the need to fund this type of research in the developing world. Otherwise, there is a danger that the safe implementation of GM technology in Africa will be impeded in future.

E Jane Morris PhD
Director
African Centre for Gene Technologies
P O Box 75011
Lynnwood Ridge
Pretoria 0040
South Africa
Tel: +27 12 841 2642
Fax: +27 12 841 3105
Cellular: +27 82 566 2210
e-mail: jmorris (at) csir.co.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 03 June 2002 14:54
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 7: Personal view on GM crop gene flow

I am Dr. Swapan Datta, plant biotechnologist at the International Rice Research Institute, working on rice improvement using haploid and transgenic breeding approaches.

Gene flow is a natural phenomenon that happens in nature, more in compatible outcrossing species and less in self-pollinating species. Transgenes per se should be understood well from the scientific point of view, stability, products and its possible interaction with the environment. Once the gene is known as safe and characterized, there should not be much concerns regarding its possible flow to the environment. In such case, nothing could go wrong with the transgene flow compared to naturally occurring gene flow. Any deviation reflected in the phenotype or based on molecular characterization can easily be discarded which is a normal practice followed by all plant breeders. Transgenic plants process the inherited transgene and, in most cases, produce a product (e.g. protein) and there is a possible reflection in the phenotype - either for plant protection, yield or nutrition improvement. This process takes time until a homozygous material is developed and eventually farmers get an option to use it. Scientists take care in developing such products before transferring the materials to the recipient farmers through regulatory/biosafety processing. It is a great opportunity to explore this visible science of plant breeding while scientists can monitor the gene expression and understand its better use for improvement of agricultural crops.

Swapan Datta
IRRI, Philippines
S.DATTA (at) CGIAR.ORG

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 03 June 2002 15:11
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 8: Re: GM crops - exotic genes/species

As Dr. Bert Uijtewaal mentioned (message 4, 3 June), introduction of a conventional breed also could be a disaster for the already existing species. A good example is some exotic freshwater fish species brought into Sri Lanka as ornamental varieties that are posing immense threat to some already existing local varieties. It shows that the ecological balance of a region could be tilted by the introduction of a conventional breed also. The GM organisms should be analysed case by case (as I said in my previous posting (message 2, 3 June), also Dr. Bert Uijtewaal expressed a similar view).

As far as crops are concerned, many of them have been domesticated by man long ago and the plant breeders have enough data about their behaviour in the ecosystem, i.e., how they cross and breed. Unlike crops, on forest tree species no extensive studies are being carried out and the available data are not substantial. Therefore, we have to do extensive studies on them before any genetic modification is done.

Rajaratnam Muhunthan
M.Sc- in Biotechnology
Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture,
University of Peradeniya,
Peradeniya
Sri Lanka.
muhunthan_r (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 03 June 2002 15:24
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 9: Re: GM crops - exotic genes/species

My name is André Dusi, working at Embrapa Vegetables, Brasília, Brazil. I'm a plant virologist and work on a project on GM virus resistant potatoes.

I want to make just a brief comment on the statment by Bert Uijtewaal (message 4, 3 June):"It is the introduced new species itself that can be a disaster for regions where it was not known.". I completely agree with that statement. In Brazil (and also in other countries), ecological problems related to the introduction of new conventional species (crops) can be easily identified. Destruction of continuous areas to grow pastures, soybean or maize may cause potentially more damage to the environment then some GM crops.

Of course we have to be on the safe side and analyse case by case, but with an open mind for the benefits of introducion of new traits into a crop.

André Nepomuceno Dusi, Ph. D.
Embrapa Hortaliças
CP218, Brasilia, DF
Brazil
70359-970
Phone:+55-61-3859066
Fax: +55-61-5565744
dusi (at) cnph.embrapa.br
www.cnph.embrapa.br

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 04 June 2002 09:16
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 10: socio-economical and environmental impacts of gene flow from GM crops

This is John Nishio, botany faculty at the University of Wyoming, USA. I will soon be relocating to California State University at Chico to help form a research center focusing on photosynthesis and sustainable plant productivity. I have great interest in the environmental impacts of agriculture, so the present discussion interests me. A couple of areas of concern follow that are related to the socio-economical and environmental impacts of plant breeding.

While it is true that transfected genes may be "foreign" and alter the genotype, it is the phenotype that results that is pertinent, as mentioned by others. As an example, a gene may be transferred to a crop plant that confers high phosphorus (P) uptake efficiency. If native plants pick up the trait, would we expect ecological damage to the native community? Would a native plant with increased phosphorous uptake efficiency outcompete the other plants and cause a major shift in the plant populations? Should we consider such "pollution" of native populations by modern varieties "good" or "bad"? Unfortunately, placing specific values on a particular type of shift in populations and ecosystem dynamics is likely to be fraught with folly and emotion. Indirectly related to out crossing of recombinant genes, where will we get our fertilizer (e.g., P) in 50 years, if we don't recycle our human and livestock waste, and if we don't decrease the use of fertilizers? Indirectly related, because plants with improved nutrient use efficiency and uptake will likely result from recombinant technology.

If it is shown that a particular GM crop plant can be safely released without concern for gene flow to non-GM populations, then the socio-economic impacts can be viewed as likely positive, as long as the new releases are beneficial in stress tolerance, nutrient use efficiency, nutritional quality, and productivity, for example. On the other hand, if the releases are based on using more polluting chemicals, such as herbicides, then there is a possible negative impact due to degradation of water quality, soil biodiversity, and so forth. The positive economic impact is that whoever sells the chemical makes money. However, a scenario where decreased inputs and lower costs result from such plants is certainly possible; and whoever sells the chemical still makes money. Therefore, the cost level acceptable for any given benefit must be established. For example, if by increasing energetic inputs by 10% we see a return of 20% increase in usable crop yield, is that a worthwhile investment? It depends on the cost of the inputs, and whether they are less than the 20% increase in income. What percentage increase in income is worth a 10% energetic cost? For the herbicide resistance example, what level of pollution is acceptable for society and the environment? The specific trait(s) imparted by the recombinant technology will have specific impacts that must be individually evaluated, as has been stated by others.

The points have already been made about the release being close enough to the native ecosystems that it may or may not matter, and that the "escape" of pertinent genes from "classically" and "mutationally" derived plants can and will have the same positive or negative impact as the escape of genes from recombinants. Because we haven't in the past considered the impact of outcrossing of conventionally bred plants or the escape of crop plants (which as already pointed out is generally not a problem), this does not mean that such lack of consideration is acceptable. The true environmental (energetic) cost should be factored into the analysis of all new releases. Scientists developing new varieties should always consider the ecological and socio-economic impacts. Are we willing and able to do that?

John N. Nishio
Department of Botany
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071--3165
United States
Nishio (at) uwyo.edu
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/botany/nishio.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 04 June 2002 10:46
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 11: Liability and ownership of genes

One of the socio-economic concerns regarding gene flow from GM crops has to do with "ownership" of the genes. If one owns the gene, and it escapes and causes economic and social damage, then the owner should be held responsible. It is the risk of ownership. However, as most of the participants are aware, this is a complicated issue.

Related to ownership is the possibility that GM seeds retained for next year's planting may not have the same quality as the original release. We can relate that to the notion of planned obsolescence [i.e. the production of goods with uneconomically short useful lives so that customers will have to make repeat purchases...Moderator]. However, if the GM seeds do not lose their competitive and economic advantage, then such releases can be a great contribution to the developing country. It will be especially significant if the trait relates to improved energy efficiency in agriculture, such as better drought tolerance or nutrient uptake, for example, or if the plant has significantly better nutritional quality than that of the lines presently in use.

One obvious way to prevent gene pollution is the terminator technology. Plants that "self" can release pollen, so that is not a complete solution. Seeds that do not germinate may also result from plants that produce viable pollen. Thus, abortion of all reproductive structures in the releases is the obvious solution. Timing reproduction to occur at different times from natives does not seem feasible, unless one can guarantee a particular time of planting. So, here is the paradox. We don't want to pollute native populations (terminator technology and no seeds), and we don't want "industry" to own the seeds (as in hybrids) and to block normal practices of saving seed for the next planting. How can we have it both ways?

No one wants to prevent growers from being successful, but how can developers of successful recombinant plants recoup the cost of development, if they can't sell the seeds over a number of years? I personally don't know, but I would like to hear some solutions. Do we need to develop licensing fees, as in the music industry, for use of seeds? It is OK to make a recording for personal use, but if you sell the recordings then that represents an infringement. So, by analogy if one is growing plants for personal use, then it is OK to save seed stock, but if you are selling for profit, then you must register your product. Of course, you wouldn't let a neighbor have a copy of your music. If we really want to get cute, we can make the product have a "mark" of anthocyanin or something similar (as in a degraded, copy protected recording-hybrid). The industrial owners could easily monitor use of "their" genes, and organic (biological) food consumers would know what products (at least raw products anyway) to avoid.

In reality, how would such a system be monitored, especially around the world? This seems to be a sticky issue. Do we need government sponsored releases? How to do that? Quit giving patents for genes!! Whoa, Nelly! Maybe then, government scientists could compete, and many releases would be in the public domain. How do we get government sponsored science to behave like industry (meaning getting more things to market)? Jane Morris (message 6, 3 June) related it to money. Maybe industry should consider the inevitable i.e. desirable plants that make good seeds will be used for seed stock. As long as a reasonable profit is being made, let the music (seeds) spread around the world. [Note, there was a good discussion on the whole issue of IPRs and biotechnology in Conference 6 of the Forum entitled "The impact of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on food and agriculture in developing countries" - see http://www.fao.org/biotech/Conf6.htm...Moderator]

John N. Nishio
Department of Botany
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071--3165
United States
Nishio (at) uwyo.edu
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/botany/nishio.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 05 June 2002 08:10
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 12: GM canola - herbicide tolerance - pollen

Pollen pollution by genetically modified crops is a growing problem in North America and the problem has not been well-publicized nor has it been fairly addressed by authorities in government. Canola varieties currently marketed in Western Canada include tolerance to glyphosate, glufosinate, bromoxynil, and imidazolinone herbicides. Gene flow between cultivars with different herbicide tolerance traits has already resulted in volunteer canola with multiple resistance in a field situation in western Canada.[Volunteers crops are those that are unintentionally cultivated due to germination of seeds remaining in the ground from the previous season or that spilled at harvest...Moderator]. Canola also has weedy relatives in Canada with which it could form hybrids. For example, birdsrape mustard in eastern Canada, feral Brassica rapa canola in western Canada, and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) in parts of both regions could be at risk of forming hybrids with herbicide-tolerant B. napus. These hybrids could serve as a bridge for gene transfer to a subsequent canola crop or else become more difficult to control because of the presence of the herbicide tolerance gene in wild populations.

Multiple herbicide resistant to glyphosate, glufosinate and imazethapyr in volunteer canola was detected in western Canada. Pollen flow between volunteer canola plants was shown to be the manner in which the resistance genes stacked to make the super resistant variety. Sequential crossing of the three individual herbicide tolerant varieties led to the formation of the final multiple resistant variety Last fall the Canadian government acknowledged that the separation distance (175 meters for production of oil and pressed seed cake for feed) between GM canola and adjacent fields was inadequate because the pollen had been observed to spread for at least 800 meters to produce two pollinations per thousand flowers at 400 meters and 7 pollinations per ten thousand flowers at 800 meters. The figure of 7 pollinations per ten thousand flowers may seem inconsequential until it is realized that each plant from a pollinated seed may produce several hundred seeds.

If the herbicide glyphosate is used to kill weeds on a field, that field can rapidly be populated with GM canola. Even without glyphosate exposure, the proportion of GM plants in a field can soon become very significant. Interestingly, the Canadian government had been aware of the problem of extensive pollen flow for some years before acknowledging it to the public. Essentially no canola grown in western Canada can be claimed to be free of gene modification and production of organic canola may not be possible in western Canada. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency that regulates GM crops in Canada seems engaged in complicity in allowing GM crops to spread throughout the farming area.

A further complication was a recent Federal Court decision that patented genes in crops that have arrived on a farmer's field by windborn pollen or seed falling from trucks are the property of the farmer onto whose field the pollen or seed had polluted the farmer's crop. However, since the genes in pollen or seed are patented the farmer whose land has been polluted cannot use the crop. The court judgment seems to allow lawyers from at least three major corporations to try to 'pick the bones' of farmers whose land has been polluted through no fault of the farmers.

Professor Joe Cummins,
University of Western Ontario.
Canada
jcummins (at) uwo.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 05 June 2002 09:24
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 13: Re: Fundamental considerations in hazard identification of GMOs

1. Limiting concern to novel traits limits risk assessors' ability to identify hazards. Identifying that an organism was created by recombinant-DNA (rDNA) techniques does not prevent a case-by-case review, but can be an important alert. For example, when reviewing a GMO, risk assessors know immediately that they need to determine if it contains a marker conferring resistance to a medically useful antibiotic, or if it contains uncharacterized DNA, especially if transgenes originated in a pathogen or organism with allergenic properties.

2. Dr. Bradshaw stated that virtually all eukaryotes contain DNA from organisms with which they cannot breed, citing as examples DNA which has been conserved over many thousands of years (mitochondrial and relictual T-DNA) and which could hardly be compared with transgenic DNA from bacteria in corn or human DNA in pigs. GMOs are different from conventionally-bred organisms precisely because they contain exotic DNA and may act as vectors of that DNA to other members of their gene pool.

3. Dr. Bradshaw incorrectly implied that GMOs are not unique in transferring exotic genes because nearly all major crops are grown outside their native geographic range. However, regardless of where they are grown, conventional crops do not contain and cannot transfer genes from incompatible species. Conversely, a GM crop like Bt corn can transfer exotic bacterial genes both to modern corn and landraces. [Bt corn is a variety of corn genetically modified to express one of the toxin-producing genes from the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), that confer insect resistance...Moderator]. This ability to transfer exotic genes across species is the essence of what makes GMOs unique: they are gene vectors.

Dr. Bradshaw correctly pointed out that Agrobacterium moves genes across wide phyletic divisions. However, Agrobacterium inserts its own genes into the genome of host plants; it does not transfer genes which are not its own to a third species. That occurs in the laboratories of genetic engineers, where exotic genes are inserted into Agrobacterium, which is then used to infect plants, and transfer those genes to them.

4. Dr. Bradshaw is right that transgenes are not "uniquely" unstable. My statement was that GMOs are "inherently" unstable because of the way they are made: they contain genes removed from regulatory controls; insertional mutations increase the probability of silencing via repair mechanisms; the location and number of transgenes cannot be controlled; and transgenic promoters may activate host genes or retroviral DNA. There are already numerous examples of instability (inconsistent phenotype) in GMOs, the most famous being boll drop and malformation in glyphosate-resistant GM cotton in 1997 in Louisiana.

5. When he points out that mutations have been important in agricultural breeding, Dr. Bradshaw incorrectly implies that the use and implications of mutations in historical and modern breeding and genetic engineering are similar.

Historically, breeders selected plants and animals with useful, but spontaneous mutations. Recently breeders have intentionally created mutations with radiation. With rDNA techniques, mutations are an unintentional but necessary by-product of inserting foreign genetic material into the host genome. Methods which intentionally or unintentionally create mutations are highly inefficient because mutations kill most of the offspring or render them undesirable. Moreover, organisms created this way, even if at first apparently predictable, have a high probability of exhibiting unexpected behavior.

6. Even though Dr. Bradshaw states that there is "no such thing as a promoter gene," conference participants should not get the mistaken impression that promoters do not exist. Promoters are genetic sequences added to GMOs to activate transgenes, and as such are one of the unique features of rDNA techniques which makes it important for risk assessors to know if a new crop or animal is a GMO.

Suzanne Wuerthele, PhD, toxicologist
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
United States
e-mail: Wuerthele.Suzanne (at) epamail.epa.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 05 June 2002 09:33
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 14: Transgene flow to maintain genetic diversity

I am Saturnina C Halos, a molecular geneticist with a plant breeding background providing advice on biotechnology policy and program in the Philippines.

I think that transgene flow from GM varieties to non-GM populations could be exploited by a developing country with limited resources to help maintain genetic diversity. There are possible cases when transgene flow from GM varieties to non-GM populations helps save genetic diversity and exploiting it could make for a cost-effective government program of saving biodiversity. For example, we are currently having problems with a viroid disease called cadang-cadang which is wiping out coconut plantations. Suppose we have a GM-coconut with a gene that protects it from this disease, will it not be to the advantage of the native coconut populations to naturally acquire such a gene? Will it not be a most cost-effective eradication program for government to develop and require the planting of such GM-variety in the middle of different non-GM coconut plantations (coconut is cross pollinating) so that the gene is naturally spread especially since there is no control measure for this disease?

A similar situation exists with our abaca, banana and papaya where natural and cultivated populations are decimated by virus and fungal diseases. In some provinces, a native banana variety is no longer commonly found in backyards where 20 years ago they are a common sight. The papaya industry of one province was already destroyed by a virus disease. What we need to realize is that even natural plantations are in a constant state of flux because of its pests and its environment. In leaving them alone we could eventually lose these populations.

The current practise of transferring a transgene to as many popular varieties as possible also helps maintain genetic diversity at the farm level. It makes sense to adopt this as a government policy. On the other hand, the natural transfer of helpful genes from GM to non-GM varieties would be advantageous to a small farmer since he/she will not incur any additional cost besides giving him/her some peace of mind knowing that his/her crop will provide yield and income.

Saturnina C. Halos Senior Project Development Adviser
Bureau of Agricultural Research
Philippines
Tel No. 63(2)920-0239
halos (at) mozcom.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 05 June 2002 16:11
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 15: GM crop gene flow - developing countries

As a person from a developing country, Sri Lanka, and having also lived in India for the past five years, I think I can address some issues pertaining to GM crop cultivation in the developing world.

Unlike farmers in US or in Canada, who own hundreds of hectares of land, farmers from the developing countries do their cultivation in small plots. In this scenario, it is not at all possible to prevent gene flow from GM to non-GM crops and there will not be any space left to set up a refuge. Also, the farmers from these countries are poor, and already are under the burden of increasing prices of agricultural inputs in the open economy of these countries. And usually these farmers are living under the pressure of loans borrowed for cultivation. In this context, if a farmer from these developing countries is sued by giant GM seed-producing companies for breach of patents, then these farmers will be helpless and one cannot imagine their plight, how they could bear the penalties or fight the court cases.

Alternatively, we can uplift these poor farmers' living conditions by applying the 'Biovillage Concept' conceived in India. Biovillage is a concept of farm transformation through application of proven biotechnologies at grassroot level, with integration of the best traditional technologies to enhance the livelihood security of rural people. It has been designed for sustainable agriculture and runs on the theme of pro-poor, pro-women and pro-ecofriendly. The biotechnologies involved are micropropagation, biofertilizer, bio-pestcontrol, bioenergy, vermiculture, mushroom culture and aquaculture, floriculture, meat and dairy production. Biovillage programmes have become successful in India and could be applied to other developing countries too.

Rajaratnam Muhunthan
M.Sc- in Biotechnology
Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture,
University of Peradeniya,
Peradeniya
Sri Lanka.
muhunthan_r (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 06 June 2002 10:46
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 16: Re: Fundamental considerations in hazard identification of GMOs

[A reminder to participants that the main theme of this conference is the potential importance and impact of gene flow from genetically modified (GM) crops, forest trees, fish or animals to non-GM populations, with particular focus on developing countries. The previous discussions between Drs. Bradshaw and Wuerthele (in messages 1, 5 and 13), and continued here by Dr. Bradshaw (and by Professor Burke in the next message), relate to whether there are fundamental differences between conventionally-bred or genetically modified organisms. We would request that future messages would focus on the implications of such concerns for GENE FLOW...Moderator].

A reply to comments of Suzanne Wuerthele (message 13, 5 June)

"1. Limiting concern to novel traits limits risk assessors' ability to identify hazards. Identifying that an organism was created by recombinant-DNA (rDNA) techniques does not prevent a case-by-case review, but can be an important alert."
- The U.S. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council disagrees with you and agrees with me: "The same physical and biological laws govern the response of organisms modified by modern molecular and cellular methods and those produced by classical methods.", i.e. it is product, not process, that matters. [This quotation is from the United States National Research Council 1989 report "Field testing genetically modified organisms: Framework for Decisions"...Moderator].

"2. Dr. Bradshaw stated that virtually all eukaryotes contain DNA from organisms with which they cannot breed, citing as examples DNA which has been conserved over many thousands of years (mitochondrial and relictual T-DNA) and which could hardly be compared with transgenic DNA from bacteria in corn or human DNA in pigs."
- Why not? Horizontal gene transfer is common in evolution.

"3. Dr. Bradshaw incorrectly implied that GMOs are not unique in transferring exotic genes because nearly all major crops are grown outside their native geographic range."
- I did not *imply* it, I stated it clearly. Perhaps a concrete example is needed. When Lombardy poplar (a clone of Populus nigra, a species native to Eurasia) produces hybrids in North America with native North American Populus, that represents a transfer of 'exotic' genes.

"However, regardless of where they are grown, conventional crops do not contain and cannot transfer genes from incompatible species."
- So what? Exotic genes are, by definition, non-native. Whether they are spread sexually or asexually is irrelevant.

"Conversely, a GM crop like Bt corn can transfer exotic bacterial genes both to modern corn and landraces."
- A crop like non-GM corn can transfer genes to teosinte, as well. Should corn planting be banned where teosinte is native?

"This ability to transfer exotic genes across species is the essence of what makes GMOs unique: they are gene vectors."
- All sexually reproducing organisms are 'gene vectors' by this definition.

"Dr. Bradshaw correctly pointed out that Agrobacterium moves genes across wide phyletic divisions. However, Agrobacterium inserts its own genes into the genome of host plants; it does not transfer genes which are not its own to a third species".
- So what? Bacterial-plant gene transfers are 'natural,' yet you complain about Bt corn.

"4. Dr. Bradshaw is right that transgenes are not "uniquely" unstable. My statement was that GMOs are "inherently" unstable because of the way they are made: they contain genes removed from regulatory controls;"
- Not necessarily, it depends on the particular transgene in question.

"There are already numerous examples of instability (inconsistent phenotype) in GMOs, the most famous being boll drop and malformation in glyphosate-resistant GM cotton in 1997 in Louisiana.
- This is an example of pleiotropy , not transgene instability. [pleiotropy is the simultaneous effect of a given gene on more than one apparently unrelated trait...Moderator]

Toby Bradshaw
College of Forest Resources & Department of Botany
University of Washington
United States
toby (at) u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/toby

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 06 June 2002 10:54
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 17: Re: Fundamental considerations in hazard identification of GMOs

I am Derek Burke; my experience lies much more in the area of the safety for human consumption of the products from GM than in environmental issues. I was Chairman of the UK Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes for 9 years, and as such was concerned with the safety evaluation and regulation of the first generation of products from GM.

I want to make two points; the first is to question the initial paragraph of the first contribution from Dr. Suzanne Wuerthele (message 1, 31 May), who starts by saying:

"Because GMOs are fundamentally different from conventionally-bred organisms, they raise novel concerns about their effects on ecosystems at the genetic level and about their behavior in ecosystems at the agricultural level."

I want to know what is the evidence for this broad statement? Certainly it not the starting point for risk evaluation of products of genetic modification in either the US or the UK, and is I suggest more a statement of philosophical belief than one arrived at from evidence. This attitude is very common in Europe and has led to the breakdown of the regulatory approval process since opponents of the use of GM are demanding that the level of 'contamination' is 0% and since this cannot be delivered, then this is effectively a veto on all development. This attitude springs from both a philosophical position (Prince Charles has said that GM is going where God alone should go), and from the attitude of the organic farmers where the presence of any GM material in say, canola, disqualifies growers from organic certification. This regulation has been imposed, in essence, by organic farmers on organic farmers. Having established themselves as rule-makers such certification bodies are now endeavouring to assert them over others who had no part in establishing the rules in the first place! Is this democratic?

So I would like to see the evidence that all GM plants are 'fundamentally different from conventionally-bred' ones. I understand that canola can be rendered herbicide resistant by either GM or conventional plant breeding. Why treat them differently?

My second point is to draw attention to the new issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology (June 2002, Number 6) which is focused on the environmental impact of GM crops. It contains a number of articles directly relevant to this debate.

Professsor Derek Burke
13,Pretoria Road
Cambridge CB4 1HD,
United Kingdom
Tel/Fax 01223 301159
email: dcb27 (at) cam.ac.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 06 June 2002 11:01
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 18: GM crops, landraces and seed banks

I am an independent consultant in the areas of crop biotechnology, sustainability and communications. My background is in the food and agbiotech industries.

First let me say that, as a scientist, I believe that recombinant DNA technology is a tool offering considerable promise. However, like any technology, it is intrinsically neutral, and can be put to both good and bad uses. We also have to recognise that there is almost never a case of something being wholly good or bad: even highly desirable things may have minor negative effects. As rational beings, we have to decide what we find acceptable on balance.

In the case of crop biotechnology, we have at one extreme those critics who, for a variety or reasons, consider this a "bad" thing and who will misuse data and opinion selectively to support their case. At the other end of the spectrum, there are some ardent supporters whose knee-jerk reaction is to support the science at all costs and refuse to admit that biotechnology is not perfect. The result can be a dialogue of the deaf, since both have equally closed minds.

Fortunately, most people are more open-minded than this, and I hope will continue to contribute to fora such as this. In this spirit, I'd like to put forward some thoughts for comment and discussion:

Landraces have been established locally by selecting the best seed season after season for sowing the next year. They are not fixed (at least in outcrossing crops) because of the regular small degree of pollination by neighbouring crops and the farmer's selection of seed.

Introducing GM crops does not change this situation, it merely introduces one further gene into the equation, amongst the tens of thousands which will be transferred and mixed during natural pollination. The only potential threat to genetic diversity of the crop is that caused by the farmer selecting the best seed each year. But this threat has existed ever since new, better-yielding varieties of a crop have been available to farmers. Naturally, if they are able, they will select the seed which gives them the best crop.

It is for this reason that germplasm banks were established: varieties and landraces supplanted by new varieties with superior yield might well have genes with other desirable traits, perhaps vital for future breeding programmes. I don't believe that the situation is changed one iota by the introduction of highly-regulated GM varieties: farmers will continue to choose seed varieties which yield consistently well, and seed banks will continue to be an important source of genetic variation. If anyone has a different view, I'd be very happy to hear it.

Martin Livermore
Ascham Associates
Cambridge
UK
MartinLivermore (at) aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 06 June 2002 11:38
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 19: GM crops in Africa

My name is Niels Louwaars, working at Plant Research International in Wageningen, The Netherlands, a not-for-profit research institute with joint research projects with partners all over the world.

Even though many interesting topics have been brought up in this discussion already, I would like to comment on the concern mentioned by Jane Morris (message 6, 3 June): "insufficient information is available about the potential for crops to cross-pollinate with African wild relatives". Next to the technology gap it is the information-gap which creates an inequality in the development and use of biotechnologies between North and South.

Irrespective of whether cross fertilisation poses a risk to the integrity of local plants, to biodiversity, food safety or trade (of certified non-GMO-products), information on possibilities for cross fertilisation is basic to analysis of environmental safety. Especially the aspect of cross fertilisation is local. Whereas food safety research from the North can be used for risk analysis in any other country, cross fertilisation needs to be researched taking the local plant populations into account. The concept of "the botanical files" fills this gap. It is a map-based system on which cultivated, weedy, feral and wild populations, can be plotted. Combined with the knowledge on reproductive biology of the species and its relatives in the country/region, this provides exactly the information that Ms. Morris is looking for. Currently, botanists in Eastern Africa are starting to build botanical files for a number of species in their region under the BioEARN programme. Similarly, botanists in the Balkans will do the same under a UNEP-GEF programme later this year. It seems useful to extend this initiative to other regions of the world to contribute to the necessary informed judgement, while at the same time stimulating research on the botanical wealth of nations. [The East African Regional Programme and Research Network for Biotechnology, Biosafety and Biotechnology Policy Development (BioEARN) is a programme aiming to build national capacity and competence in biotechnology, biosafety and biotechnology policy in the region - http://www.bio-earn.org ...Moderator]

Niels P. Louwaars
Plant Research International
POBox 16
6700 AA Wageningen
The Netherlands
n.p.louwaars (at) plant.wag-ur.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 06 June 2002 12:23
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 20: Gene-containment strategies for GM crops

This is from Bhagirath Choudhary. I work as a researcher on plant biotechnology and regulatory aspects at the National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies (CSIR), India.

The cross pollination between GM and non-GM compatible species is a vital issue as far as the future of GM crops are concerned and is of a considerable interest to breeders and environmentalist in developing countries, though have no/little practical experience. It becomes a powerful weapon for anti GM lobbyist.

Because of awareness, the pure and safe environment is becoming the integral part of individual life. Therefore anything that degrades and causes harm to the environment wouldn't be simply accepted. Therefore, simply, environmental concerns surrounding GM crops are not going to go away. They have to be tackled scientifically. As gene pollution is a major threat impeding the acceptability of GM crops, preventing farmers access to advanced technologies and blocking the growth of industry. Preemptively, the industry should have to take decisive steps to address gene flow from their GM products. To overcome, the CGIAR centers and industry have to innovate, develop and introduce crops and/or products that have the capability to self-contain gene pollution even among compatible species, in the similar way as the industry has developed terminator technologies for commercial purposes. [There are 16 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centers - http://www.cgiar.org/ ...Moderator]

It has been discussed in the literature and recent articles about new molecular strategies for gene-containment. There are various technologies currently under development for addressing gene flow among crops species. To properly address the issue, the CGIAR centers should collaborate with industry to expedite the work on potential technologies for containment of gene flow. Gene-containing techniques under developments are: maternal inheritance, seed sterility (terminator technology is being widely criticized and voluntary abandoned, can also be used for blocking gene flow), male sterility, apomixis, cleistogamy, incompatible genomes, transgenic mitigation and temporal and tissue-specific control via inducible promoters etc. For more information, you may access Dr Henry Daniell's article entitled "Molecular strategies for gene containment in trasgenic crops" in the recent issue of "Nature Biotechnology".[June 2002, Volume 20, pages 581-586...Moderator]

Bhagirath Choudhary, India
bc (at) nistads.res.in

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 07 June 2002 11:58
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 21: Natural gene flow - cherimoya fruit tree

This is from Dr Aisha, A. A. Badr in the Tropical fruit division of the Alexandria Horticultural Research Station, Alexandria, Egypt. I have worked for more than 33 years in breeding research and propagation using conventional methods and concerned and beginning biotechnological researches on papaya, loquat and, prefered, the cherimoya [a fruit tree, Annona cherimola, also called custard apple, chirimoya or chirimolla...Moderator].

In the case of fruit trees there is a great need to increase productivity. The gene flow from one cherimoya species to another was naturally done across open or chance pollination as a result of random plantation. Controlled self-pollination is important to preserve good cultivars. As we work long ago in breeding of cherimoyas we used conventional methods of pollination for improving the adapted species and cultivars. Such research revealed gene modification and gene flow as noticed by improving fruit performance, seed number, productivity and high acceptability. This was clear when pollination was done using introduced wild Annona cherimolia for pollinating indigenous Annona squamosa. The gene flow was pronounced in their hybrid A. atemoya, which showed great variation than parents and high number of clones distributed and adapted in the country.

Regarding the classification mentioned in the Background Document of this conference, Annona squamosa could be considered as a domesticated species. The high quality sqamosa selection in Egypt, namely "Abd El-Razik", is grown now in hot areas and desert. In Alexandria (mediterranian sea environment), the most adapted species are: A. Squamosa (special adapted cultivars with protuberances attached to the fruit after ripening, while protuberances of known squamosa were partially separated after ripening), A. cherimolia and A. senegalensis (the wild cherimoya, which is known in other countries as A. glabra). Both of the last species were introduced long ago and showed high adaptability, tolerancy and longevity, followed by A. atemoya. Researches was also conducted on papaya.

The breeding, selection and improvement was done long ago in Egypt (1935) and research were re-conducted again by me since 1989. So a background of evaluated species and selection of improved and tolerant long-survival trees and cultivars is found in published research. Conventional methods of propagation for spreading cultivars followed and other studies were continued.

I believe that all previous effort with such background must be followed by modern studies for improving populations, so trials are conducted on micropropagation as quick method for gene flow and for conservation of new and old selections. Inducing mutation, doubled haploid is also under study, besides other biotechnological research. The biggest problems facing such studies is the lack of trained people and facilities needed for conservation of natural and adapted species.

In my opinion, the human resources is one of the most important factors for success of research, including high desire to complete research with high soul, searching not only as a work, but for loving the research work. Trained responsible people are also needed.

- It was noticed that common or even highly educated people, always ask about safety of eating GM food. The fearful feeling increases when they find big-sized, highly-colored or unusual characteristics of fruits or vegetables in the markets. Juicy fruits such as grapes, plums, apricot; seedless fruits such as cherimoya; vegetables such as strawberry, cantaloupe are also fearful, so that people search for native cultivars with good smell and smaller size. The question is about how much risk during gene transfer operation and what are the carcinogenic used substances and their residual effect.

- In relation to the message of Niels Louwaars (message 19, 6 June): Of course the importance of native crops and cross pollination research must be considered. There is much valuable research in libraries that needs to be applied. Old research is not found on the world wide web. This will help if we need information about Africa. We can help each other for this great work

Dr Aisha, A. A. Badr
Tropical Fruit Division
Alexandria Horticultural Research Station
Alexandria
Egypt
momidic (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 07 June 2002 13:46
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 22: Gene flow in transgenic plants: challenges and opportunities

This is from Willy Valdivia-Granda and Edward Deckard in the Plant Pathology Department and the Plant Sciences Department respectively of the North Dakota State University, United States.

Despite the uncertainty and disagreements about the consequences of unintended effects of transgenic plants in least developed countries (LDCs), there has been a significant increase in the area dedicated to its growth. In 2000, the area of transgenic crops in LDCs grew by 51 % from 7.1 million hectares in 1999 to 10.7 million, compared with increase of only 2 % in industrialized countries where the area increased from 32.8 million in 1999 to 33.5 million in 2000 (James, 2000). Risks associated with the release of transgenic plants include their potential persistence as weeds, gene flow to wild relatives, contamination of genetic diversity centers and genetic erosion. In addition to the development of pest's resistance, undesired effects on non-target organisms including microorganisms, parasitoids and predators have been raised.

Many developing countries are the genetic centers of origin for cultivated plants modified by genetic engineering. Heterotic hybrids, resulting from the hybridization of transgenic crops with wild relatives, may rapidly accumulate fitness that can lead to non-intentioned problems in both agricultural and natural ecosystems. Hybridization between transgenic plants and their wild relatives can produce genetic pollution of natural gene pools. Insect or herbicide resistant plants may become weeds and their problem enhanced trough gene stacking. [Refers to the insertion of two or more genes into the genome of an organism. An example would be a plant carrying a Bt transgene giving insect resistance, and a bar transgene giving resistance to a specific herbicide...Moderator].

Selectively neutral genes in one background will not necessarily be so in another (Hails, 2000). For example, hybrids with herbicide resistant will have minor impact in an environment where no herbicide application is produced. However, risk is plausible if these hybrids contain a gene that confers insect resistance and imposes selective advantage over its natural relatives. The rate at which these biological interactions will overpass lineage barriers and exhibit novel combinations and ecological properties is dependent on other organisms, including animals and humans, and the closeness and number of wild relatives in both agricultural and non-agricultural ecosystems.

Most models assume that gene flow is due to variation in the frequency of pollen movement between species and locations. However, multiple mechanisms for the physical transfer of DNA from one species to another are known (Syvanen, 1994). Transgenic potato, papaya, and squash have been engineered with viral coat proteins. However, two safety issues have been raised: 1) gene flow from the transgene to an infecting virus by recombination could lead to new viral genomes 2) heteroencapsidation could allow non vectored virus to become vector trasmisible (Golsalves, 1998; NAS, 2000, Barton and Dracup, 2000; Wolfenbarger and Phifer, 2000). [heteroencapsidation is where transgenic plants expressing the coat protein gene of an aphid-transmissible virus may mediate the spread of a non-aphid transmissible isolate of the virus or other unrelated viruses...Moderator].

A distinguishing characteristic of many transgenic plants is the presence of antibiotic resistance genes that allow selection of transformed cells in selective growth media. Kanamycin is one of the most commonly used resistance markers for plant transformation and it still used for the treatment of human infections (NAS, 2000). [kanamycin is an antibiotic of the aminoglycoside family, important as a substrate for selection of plant transformants...Moderator]. Despite that resistance to antibiotics can arise from a mutation in the pathogen genome, the risks of acquisition of resistance genes for pathogens from transgenic plants have been raised. It has been argued that the development of new transformation systems does not solve the problem of antibiotic resistance genes in transgenic plants approved for commercialization (Syvanen, 1999). The investment of time and money in transgenic plants containing antibiotic resistance markers makes it difficult that these plants will be withdrawn from the market (Syvanen, 1999).

The risk assessment of gene flow in developing countries is complicated by the reduced research in their local environments and due to the fact that most studies on gene flow have concentrated on economically important crops for developed countries. In addition, many LDCs lack the resources and infrastructure to assess the risks related with innovations such as the introduction of transgenic plants and their cumulative effects on their environments.

Willy Valdivia Granda
Plant Stress Genomics and Bioinformatics Group
North Dakota State University
PO BOX 5130
Fargo, USA
701 231-8440 (Lab)
701 231 8255 (Fax)
willy.valdivia (at) ndsu.nodak.edu
www.ndsu.edu/virtual-genomics

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 07 June 2002 14:08
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 23: Frequency of gene-flow and gene-flow rates

My name is Franco Di-Giovanni and I am an air dispersal modeller with a private air quality consulting company in southern Ontario, Canada. My academic training has been in the physics and computer simulation of the airborne dispersal of plant pollen. For the last few years I have been working with the forestry industry in Ontario on defining appropriate genetic isolation zones for forest tree seed production with the aide of simulation models of pollen dispersal. We hope to begin work soon with the Canadian federal government on using these dispersal simulation models to aide risk assessments for "plants with novel traits," as defined in Canada, which includes GM crops.

I would like to address the items of gene-flow and gene-flow rates in this discussion.

The points I wished to raise were as follows: Where information is required on plant gene-flow distances and rates, it would be unwise to base decisions upon a few field trails. Isolation standards set for the production of seed seem, as far as I can tell, to have been based upon "representative" gene-flow distances established through a limited number of field trials. In some cases (at least in the Canadian case) isolation distances for GM crop field trials have also been based upon distances used for seed production isolation.

Field trials are essentially "snap-shots" in time of gene- or pollen-flow, under specific and generally non-repeatable conditions. Pollen- and gene-flow are inherently variable phenomena and I am generally uncomfortable with isolation distances promulgated without knowledge of the variability's involved. For example, what would a worst-case pollen- or gene-flow distance be? For wind pollinated crops, such factors as wind speed, atmospheric stability and turbulence, pollen and plant characteristics contribute to this variation. Think about the variability of smoke emanating from industrial smoke stakes, for example. Further, gene-flow is affected by pollen viability and other biological factors which themselves are influenced by (variable) environmental conditions. This type of information should be available to those assessing the risks of introduction of plants with novel traits.

We are developing a modelling system that is essentially a field trial "simulator," allowing the user to examine the long-term patterns of pollen- and gene-flow, thus providing information on variability and, ultimately, probabilities for pollen and gene-flow at various distances. We believe this to be a sounder basis for assessing the probabilities of pollen dispersal and, ultimately, gene-flow for wind pollinated outcrossing plants. However, as others have mentioned in this conference [e.g. Niels Louwaars, message 19, 6 June...Moderator], scientific information on pollination mechanisms of many tropical plants is not as well developed as we would like, and for certain plant-types pre-requisite pollination ecology studies may be required.

Others have raised the issue of the liability of the negative consequences of gene-flow, and this provides an interesting twist to discussions. In the environmental field, the concept of "polluter pays" is well established. However, in agriculture, the onus has generally been on the producer of the crop (products) to sufficiently isolate their fields so as to produce a "pure" product. These issues are being raised by a potential class-action law suit being initiated by organic farmers in western Canada against biotech companies: these farmers feel that because of the widespread use of GM canola, that they can no longer produce organic crops in the region.

Franco Di-Giovanni, PhD
Senior Air Quality Modeller
AirZOne Inc.
2240 Speakman Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
Canada N1C 1B6
Tel: 905-822-0946 ext.168
Fax: 905-822-3637
email: fdi-giovanni (at) airzoneone.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 07 June 2002 15:43
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 24: gene flow risk assessment - plants

[Both this message and the next one (by Dr. Wozniak) that we received exceed the normal length limits. Participants are reminded that messages should not exceed 600 words...Moderator]

I am Tom Nickson, a scientist with Monsanto Company and team leader for a group of about 20 scientists who are responsible for the design of our science based approach to assessing the ecological risks for our biotech crops. I would like to share with this group some information concerning the approach that we take when assessing risks associated with gene flow from transgenic crops. Because our focus is plant biotechnology, this note is not intended to address the broader topics of transgenic fish or other organisms.

It is first important to understand that this evaluation is grounded in the scientific principles of risk assessment as outlined in several sources (US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998 and Suter, 1993). The fundamental principles of the risk assessment framework we use for GM plants are, 1) risk assessment has a scientific basis, 2) it is conducted case-by-case, 3) risk assessment is iterative and new information requires a re-examination of the risk characterization and previous risk decision, and 4) inclusive of all available information. Regarding the last point, available information is not necessarily limited to scientific fact because expert opinions and personal beliefs are also considered in a well-conducted risk assessment. Clearly, the more objective, quantified information available, the less uncertainty will result; and hence a more certain decision can be made. However, in complex matters of plant ecology many parameters are not available quantitatively, and they must be described in qualitative terms. This is particularly evident in the hazard assessment which I will mention later.

Another key point concerning the broad ecological risk assessment for GM crops (not specific to gene flow) is the concept of comparative risk assessment. For many of the GM crops currently marketed in the world (herbicide tolerant, insect and virus protected), the final form of the risk assessment is comparative - where the risks associated with the GM plant are characterized and compared to those associated with the conventional system in which the GM crop will be introduced. As such, an appropriate comparative context should be determined at the outset of the risk assessment research. For example, the ecological risks associated with a crop protected against specific targeted insects by Bt (e.g., Bt cotton) should be compared to the conventionally grown crop. A complete assessment would consider non-target impacts of Bt from constitutive plant expression versus exogenous pesticide applications, yields obtained from Bt compared to conventionally produced product, risk of human toxicity of Bt compared to exogenously applied pesticides, and the potential impacts associated with resistance developed to Bt and the alternative pesticides that would be used.

Critical to conducting an appropriate risk assessment for gene flow is having clearly defined and operational terms (sometimes referred to as Terms of Reference). These should begin with the most important terms in risk assessment: hazard and exposure or likelihood. (Note: Risk = Hazard X Exposure). Hazard, as defined by Suter (1993) is "a state that may result in an undesired event, the cause of risk". Likewise, a recent report from the EU (Van den Eede, no date) defined hazard as: "a property of a substance, a property of an act, a property of phenomenon or a property of process that could cause harm" where they defined harm as "the realization of hazard: it is any form of physical or mental injury". The second component of risk is "exposure", which in the context of gene flow is synonomous with likelihood or frequency. The literature on gene flow from GM crops is repleat with many scientific works that measure the frequency of gene flow (the phenomenon), and inaccurately characterize their results using the broader term "risk".

The challenge that faces scientific risk assessors studying gene flow is having an accurate and testable definition for hazard. Given that hazard is a property that has undesired or injurious consequences, the challenge for scientists is to develop risk assessment experiments that can quantitatively or qualitatively assess the nature and magnitude of an injurious event associated with gene flow. This is made more complicated by the fact that gene flow has been occurring within domesticated crops and between these crops and their wild relatives in areas of sympatry for millenia. Prior to the development of transgenes, the undesired properties associated with gene flow have typically been in the direction from the weed to the crop (e.g., wild beet to sugarbeet). I am unaware of hazards associated with gene flow from a crop to a wild relative being of such significant magnitude as to merit the need for mitigation practices. In these cases, whole genomes have been involved. The situation that existed in agriculture prior to the introduction of GM crops provides little insight into the potential hazards and their magnitude that might be present from the introduction of a few transgenes into the system.

This lack of knowledge has resulted in broad characterizations of the hazards associated with gene flow from GM crops such as: impacts on biodiversity, impacts on population dynamics, genetic swamping, and alterations of gene pools; all of which are inoperative in terms of science based hypothesis testing. Furthermore, these "hazards" are rarely placed within the context of the experience with agricultural practices that have been used for centuries.

We have focused our scientific assessment of hazard on the potential for the transgene to confer increased weediness to the crop or its sexually compatible wild relative since there are valid methods to assess the growth, reproductive potential, persistance and dormancy of plants. For example, a modified maize plant that exhibits the same weediness characteristics as its conventional counterpart in field tests conducted at multiple sites over multiple years can be concluded to be unaltered in its weediness potential. In addition, we assess the potential for wild relatives to be growing near the area of intended release, as well as the frequency that our modified corn plant crosses with its conventional counterpart to determine if this property has been meaningfully altered. In the case where the properties measured for the modified corn plant compared to its control are similar, our characterization for the risk associated with gene flow is that it is not different from the risk associated with the conventional corn.

As a personal observation, the current biotech products have shown no measureable risks compared to the risks already present from their traditionally grown counterparts. However, the lack of detectable effects and measurable hazards seems to have left some of the scientific community with a sense of uncertainty, possibly due to dissatisfaction with negative results. As such, some have requested test systems to be designed to be more sensitive. However, the keen focus on detecting effects can result in a loss of perspective on relevence of the effect to safety and what is biologically meaningful within the entire system. Clearly, this is a balance where scientific discussion and dialogue can help to develop better test systems and means to obtain new knowledge and ensure that appropriate decisions can be made. Lastly, we must also balance our concerns resulting from a perceived lack of knowledge on how one or two transgenes will impact biodiversity with our need to prudently introduce new technologies that could help the overall sustainability of agriculture around the world?

Thomas E. Nickson, Ph.D.
Ecological Technology Center
Monsanto Company, V2B
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63141
USA
thomas.nickson (at) monsanto.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 07 June 2002 16:38
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 25: gene flow; Plant-Incorporated Protectants; USA

This posting is from Dr. Chris A. Wozniak, a scientific reviewer with the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C. My position as a biologist in BPPD includes review of mammalian toxicology issues, gene flow potential from Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIP; plants engineered with pesticidal traits), molecular characterization of transgenes, and the assessment of degradation rates of Bt delta-endotoxin in soil following culture of Bt crops. My training is primarily in plant pathology and plant molecular biology with research experience in plant transformation and biocontrol of insect pests through the use of pathogenic microbes and genetically modified (rDNA) plants. My comments, like those of my colleague Dr. Suzanne Wuerthele from region 8 (Denver, CO) of the U.S. EPA, are to be taken as personal scientific opinion and not to be construed as representing the policy or views of the Agency. [As mentioned in message 2, the Rules of the Forum state explicitly that participants are assumed to be speaking on their own behalf, unless they state otherwise...Moderator].

With regard to message 5, June 3 from Dr. Wuerthele and to provide background on what is examined in the U.S. review of PIPs by the EPA:

The scientific review of the genetically modified plants which express pesticidal traits (e.g., insect or disease resistance) is performed in the U.S. by BPPD staff scientists who examine the product characterization (transgene sequence and function, plant compositional analysis, genetic stability / heritability, protein sequence and function, expression levels, comparison of sequence to toxin and allergen databases, protein thermostability), acute mammalian toxicity (oral dosing of rats), acute avian toxicity (oral dosing of chickens or quail), non-target organism effects (fish, aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, insects....), gene flow potential, environmental fate, insect resistance management for Bt crops, and potential for weediness. A more thorough discussion of our risk assessments can be found at http://www.ostp.gov/html/012201.html as represented in the analysis of case studies (MON 810 maize).

In the examination of gene flow potential, the U.S. EPA/BPPD has looked at the three species which are engineered to express pesticidal traits (i.e., potato, maize, cotton). Since cotton and potato contain extant sexually compatible relatives within the U.S., its possessions and territories, these were examined in more detail (see http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/otherdocs/bt_brad2/3%20ecological.pdf).

While we recognize that cultivated, commercial varieties selected over centuries by indigenous peoples and breeders are capable of hybridizing with sexually compatible wild or feral relatives and thereby transferring their 'exotic' traits, the case of PIP gene flow is under closer scrutiny because of the novel aspects of the transgenic traits and legal mandate. While the phenotype present in the PIPs registered to date (i.e., viral resistance, insect resistance) are within the normal realm of the genome of the PIPs registered (i.e., Bt maize, Bt cotton, Bt potato, virus resistant potato), the sequence of the gene construct may differ from endogenous genes. The functionally analogous phenotype (e.g., disease resistance, insect resistance) and gene are the keys to interaction with the environment (e.g, with related plant species through gene flow, introgression, non-target organism effects), not the process which created it.

The cautious route was chosen with regard to gene flow to native species (e.g., Hawaiian cotton (Gossypium tomentosum)) from a PIP until which time we can properly assess any hazard (e.g., enhanced or decreased fitness, loss of biodiversity through 'swamping' of populations...) associated with transfer of a pesticidal trait to this declining species. Note, however, that we do not assess the potential for gene flow to conventional or organic crops as part of our risk assessment as long as there is a food tolerance (defined below) in place as mandated by the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

For the sake of brevity I will respond to only a few comments contained in Dr. Wuerthele's response [message 13, June 5...Moderator] to Dr. Toby Bradshaw (message 5, June 3). I would have liked to respond to message 1 of May 31, however, ironically I was away from the office at a gene flow workshop.

Paragraph 4.) As far as I know, there is no evidence existing to demonstrate that rDNA techniques produce inherently unstable or unpredictable plants (or bacteria or fungi...). If there are such studies in the literature, they should be cited in full. Instability in the genome (e.g., Ds/Ac in maize, natural mutation rates, translocations, rearrangements) is the fodder of classical/conventional breeders and allows for new plant varieties (and new species). Experience with a variety of different transgenes and crops has led to some unintended effects (e.g., cotton boll drop, altered Petunia flower color and Sugarbeet leaf morphology...). However, unintended effects do not necessarily mean they should have been unexpected. With each experiment, our knowledge grows relative to fine tuning the production and selection procedures. This is the same for conventional breeding - rogue out the bad ones and select those with desirable characteristics. The studies I have reviewed regarding stability of transgene inheritance, based upon Mendelian inheritance and Chi square analysis, have been carried through the fourth or further backcross generation with no suggestion whatsoever that the inserted gene construct was unstable or in anyway altered following insertion. Similarly, the expression levels of the transgenes were within the range of variation as typical for protein levels of traits in near isogenic lines of the cultivar in question when grown under field conditions.

Paragraphs 5 and 2.) Conventional breeding includes embryo rescue techniques, pistil/style modifications, colchicine mediated chromosome doubling, bridging and wide hybrid crosses, phytohormone treatments to alter post-fertilization events, and chemical or irradiation induced mutations. This includes transfer from species through bridging crosses that bring gene combinations together that would otherwise not occur naturally. Tomato, wheat, triticale (rye/wheat), barley, potato, Tripsacum and sugarbeet are just a few examples where this has worked. The majority of tomato varieties produced in Italy (where they revere the 'love apple') and in some other countries are the result of chemical or radiation induced DNA damage (mutation). The alleles present in many key traits are not natural in the sense that they may have never evolved on their own without man's intervention. While they may seem like inefficient methods to produce novel tomato fruits, they are obviously worth the effort (i.e., feasible) and have produced some great tasting, nutritious and safe produce. There is no a priori reason to expect genetically modified plants to produce anything less, as long as careful screening and selection are practiced.

(Food tolerance - all pesticides associated with application in or on crops, intended for food or feed, require a tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in order to be legally applied. A simple way to think of this is the amount of residue allowed on a finished crop or commodity. All PIPs to date have been granted an exemption from the requirement of a food tolerance. PIP -Plant-incorporated protectant - a pesticidal substance expressed within a plant and the genetic material necessary for its production. Common examples of these are cotton, corn and potato engineered to express the endotoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to provide insect resistance. The trait is the PIP, not the plant itself.)

Chris A. Wozniak, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 7511C
Washington, DC 20460
United States
703-605-0513
703-308-7026 - fax
wozniak.chris (at) epa.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 07 June 2002 17:00
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 26: Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops

I am Stuart Smyth, a Ph.D. Candidate in Biotechnology at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada. I am researching the social science impacts of GM crops.

Many of you may be interested in this months Nature Biotechnology that has a section on the environmental impact of GM crops. The commentary that I have co-authored discussed some of the economic costs that have arisen from gene flow. We posit that a seed sterility mechanism may play an important role in the further development of GM crops. [This article was published in Nature Biotechnology, Volume 20, pages 537-541...Moderator]

Stuart Smyth
Ph.D. Candidate in Biotechnology
University of Saskatchewan
Canada
sjs064 (at) mail.usask.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 08 June 2002 11:57
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 27: Re: gene flow risk assessment - plants

I am Peter Jenkins, a policy analyst with the International Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, DC.

Below is a quote from Dr. Nickson (message 24, June 7):

"As a personal observation, the current biotech products have shown no measureable risks compared to the risks already present from their traditionally grown counterparts."

This observation cannot be reconciled with the GM herbicide resistant canola experience. Below is a quote from The Royal Society of Canada, "Elements of Precaution: Recommendation for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada," (January 2001) at 122-23 (citations omitted; these points were also stated by Professor Joe Cummins, in Message 12, June 5) [The report can be found at http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf ...Moderator]:

"Traditionally, volunteer crop plants occur at relatively low densities and are eliminated from crops by selective herbicides. However, this management tool is complicated if volunteers are herbicide resistant. Unfortunately, herbicide-resistant volunteer canola plants are beginning to develop into a major weed problem in some parts of the Prairie Provinces of Canada. Indeed, some weed scientists predict that volunteer canola could become one of Canada's most serious weed problems because of the large areas of the Prairie Provinces that are devoted to this crop. Of particular concern is the occurrence of gene exchange via pollen among canola cultivars resistant to different herbicides. This can occur through crosses between volunteer plants and the crop, or between different volunteer plants. Three classes of herbicide-resistant canola (resistant to glyphosate, glufosinate and imidazolinone) are currently grown in western Canada. Recent evidence indicates that crosses among these cultivars have resulted in the unintentional origin of plants with multiple resistance to two, and in some cases three, classes of herbicide. Such "gene stacking" represents a serious development because, to control multiple herbicide-resistant volunteer canola plants, farmers are forced to use older herbicides, some of which are less environmentally benign than newer products. This example involving the origin of multiple herbicide-resistant canola serves to illustrate the dynamic nature of weed evolution within managed agroecosystems. It also demonstrates that crops plants are not immune from becoming weeds of agriculture under the appropriate selection regimes.

Because of the large areas devoted to herbicide-resistant canola in the Prairie Provinces, it is not surprising that opportunities for the genetic mixing of different varieties occur. Despite the best efforts of growers, seeds may often be transported accidentally between fields containing different herbicide-tolerant canola varieties by farm machinery, or simply be blown from trucks transporting seeds to and from fields. Indeed, it has been argued that seed spillage, a form of gene dispersal, may be a much more common mechanism resulting in hybridization between varieties than is likely by long-distance pollen flow by animal pollinators. Regardless of the mechanisms giving rise to multiple herbicide-tolerant canola varieties, this example illustrates the problems in trying to predict the likelihood of gene flow from small-scale test plots involving relatively small numbers of plants. In addition, it emphasizes the inherent difficulties in areas of the landscape. Industry argues that as long as "good farming practices" are followed, these problems should not occur. This perspective may be unduly naïve. Environmental assessments associated with the release of GM crops should take account of the fact that in the real world human error and expediency may often compromise guidelines for the growing of such crops." [end quote]

Dr. Nickson also stated: "This lack of knowledge has resulted in broad characterizations of the hazards associated with gene flow from GM crops such as: impacts on biodiversity, impacts on population dynamics, genetic swamping, and alterations of gene pools; all of which are inoperative in terms of science based hypothesis testing."

It seems overbroad to suggest that those potential hazards are "inoperative", i.e., not amenable to scientific testing. I cannot believe other scientists would concur.

I submit that Dr. Nickson is simply acknowledging the difficulty of testing for those potential gene-flow and weediness related hazards because of the difficulty of scaling up small-scale field tests to the broad world of supervariable habitats, misfeasance and malfeasance by product users, etc. For example, Monsanto proposes to release an herbicide resistant creeping bentgrass despite the fact that creeping bentgrass is a recognized weed in a wide variety of natural and semi-natural habitats. Aimed primarily at golf courses (this one's not about "feeding the poor") and homeowners in all sorts of imaginable landscapes, this is the most ubiquitous and potentially significant GM product Monsanto has ever proposed. Once glyphosate tolerant GM creeping bentgrass seeds are in the wholesale and retail marketplaces and planted out, they would be impossible to recall and whatever impacts they do have in managed or wild settings would probably be in essence irreversible, whether Dr. Nickson believes they are operative or not.

I will especially appreciate comments related to any gene flow or related risks/hazards specific to herbicide resistant creeping bentgrass.

Peter T. Jenkins, Policy Analyst
International Center for Technology Assessment
660 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20003 USA
Tel: 202.547.9359 ext. 13
Fax: 202.547.9429
Email: peterjenkins (at) icta.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 08 June 2002 12:16
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 28: Is double fertilization a complication in fruits and grain

Prof. Joe Cummins, Prof. Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario, Canada.

I was stimulated to think about Dr. A.A. Badr's comment (message 21, June 7) on horticulture and biotechnology and the problem of pollination in fruit trees. I recently had a question about genetically modified papaya in Hawaii, a recent approval by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for commercial application. The question was "will the papaya fruit on existing trees be effected in any other than the fruit seeds, following pollination by insect or wind". That, to me, was a truly astute question. as there is a problem, double fertilization in higher plants.

Double fertilization is when the pollen tube enters the ovule through the micropyle and ruptures. One sperm nucleus fuses with the egg forming the diploid zygote. The other sperm nucleus fuses with the polar nuclei forming the endosperm nucleus. Most angiosperms have two polar nuclei so the endosperm is triploid (3n). The tube nucleus disintegrates. The food in the cotyledons is derived from the endosperm which, in turn, received it from the parent sporophyte. In many angiosperms (e.g., beans), when the seeds are mature, the endosperm has been totally consumed and its food transferred to the cotyledons. In others (some dicotyledons and all monocotyledons), the endosperm persists in the mature seed.

In corn, fertilization with pollen from a transgenic corn plant of a non-transgenic flower results in a cob with grains which are mainly triploid endosperm with a small proportion of diploid endosperm. In contrast the dicotyledon fruit may be rich in endosperm milk or papaya in which the endosperm may mainly have been "consumed" as the fruit matures. However, the term "consumed" is deceptive as there seems to be few or no published studies on the fate of transgenic DNA as the endosperm matures. "Consumed" transgenic DNA may or may not persist in the mature fruit.

The approval of papaya ("USDA-APHIS Response to Cornell University and the University of Hawaii Petition 96-051-01p for a Determination of Nonregulated Status for 'Sunset' Papaya Lines 55-1 and 63-1" [available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/dec_docs/9605101p_det.HTM ...Moderator] did not include any data on the fate of endosperm DNA in the maturing fruit. Nevertheless, growers of non-transgenic papaya would be shocked to find that their fruit was richly transgenic. Similar considerations are true of a number of fruits and grains being considered for commercial release.

Professor Joe Cummins,
University of Western Ontario.
Canada
jcummins (at) uwo.ca

[From the FAO Biotechnology Glossary (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2775E/Y2775E00.HTM), double fertilization is defined as "a process, unique to flowering plants, in which two male nuclei, which have travelled down the pollen tube, separately fuse with different female nuclei in the embryo sac. The first male nucleus fuses with the egg cell to form the zygote; the second male nucleus fuses with the two polar nuclei to form a triploid nucleus that develops into the endosperm."...Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 10 June 2002 11:05
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 29: papaya

From my work in research, I would like to discuss the complication of double fertilization mentioned by Prof. Joe Cummins (message 28, June 8)

Papaya is new in my country for the common people. In fact, it was grown long ago, but was known for medical purposes and traditional medicine and very little for research. In the last few years, papaya plantation has grown up quickly. I was interested in working on papaya breeding not only for fresh consumption, but also for employing horticultural research to serve technological processing of papaya to increase benefits for the grower. The papaya fruit is one of the richest fruits of vitamin A, C a and contains vitamin B, high starch content, changes to sugar after ripening. Papaya's green, ripe fruits and seeds are used. Papaya is found in childrens' food because of its high nutrition value or even for coloration of food products. So it is very important to study the risk of modified papaya.

The problem of papaya pollination and gene flow is the existence of different papaya types: male plants, female plants, bisexual plants (bearing hermaphrodite setting flowers) and bisexual plants (bearing male flowers and hermaphrodite long necked flowers). During my research, when I used pollen from hermaphrodite long necked flowers of male plants for pollinating female dwarf American solo flowers (I don't know is it transgenic), I obtained lemon sized papaya. I was shocked, this is unexpected. In fact the parents fruits were about 450-500 grams. And the male parent fruit (which bear one or two fruits on long sticks) was of very high quality. I say all of this to explain the great variation which will be obtained and non expected when gene flow occurs from GM to non-GM plants. [The flowering system in papaya is clearly quite complicated. The chapter on papaya in "Fruits of warm climates." by J. Morton (1987) (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/papaya_ars.html), indicates that some plants bear only female or hermaprodite (having female and male organs) flowers while others bear only male flowers. Some plants may also have both male and female flowers. Male or hermaphrodite plants may also change completely to female plants after being beheaded...Moderator].

So it is important to determine the risk and to study the effect on other populations. Research must be repeated in different parts of the world under different environments. Complete reports on crops and trees are needed in each country, even in different parts of the same country.

The farmer in my country, by his nature, selects seeds of his good plantation and keeps them until the next growing season for two reasons: i) to preserve good qualities and ii) to reduce costs of new plantings by keeping his own seeds. Honestly, I always try to follow the new technology as a researcher, but as consumer, I think more and more before eating GM food because of the fate of transgenic DNA. The haphazard usage of new biotechnology by small farmers and rich companies is fearing me also, so we need trusted people. One later question: what about future studies on transgenic DNA and preserving genetic modifications using conventional vegetative propagation of fruit trees.

Dr Aisha, A. A. Badr
Tropical Fruit Division
Alexandria Horticultural Research Station
Alexandria
Egypt
momidic (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 10 June 2002 13:05
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 30: terminology - genetic pollution

My name is Tim Roberts. I am an intellectual property lawyer, based in the United Kingdom, with some experience in plant biotechnology patenting.

Could I raise a question about terminology (always dear to the hearts of lawyers)? Some participants refer to 'genetic pollution'. Is this a scientific term, or a political one? 'Pollution' is clearly to be avoided. But other names might be used - 'genetic transfer', say, or even 'genetic donation'. Referring to 'pollution' begs the question - is recombinant gene transfer undesirable (and, if so, when)? This is convenient for opponents and awkward for apologists for the technology, but a distraction in objective discourse.

Tim Roberts
twr (at) compuserve.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 10 June 2002 17:57
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 31: Re: terminology - genetic pollution

Prof. Joe Cummins, Professor emeritus of Genetics, Canada

Webster's dictionary defines pollute: to make unhealthy, impure; to corrupt ;to make ritually unclean.

Residues of registered pesticides in food or water are considered pollution in both regulation and science. Biopesticides such as Bt toxin are essentially similar to chemical pesticides and fairly said to pollute. The common virus promoter used in most genetically modified crops (the cauliflower mosaic virus promoter) originated from a pest and on that basis fairly pollutes.

Frankly, the issue of gene modification as pollution is not really an issue of objective or colorful language - it is simply extension of plant chemotherapy to inserted transgenes. Indeed, the corporate public relations officers do love to try to impose manipulated language. For example, corporate animal producers in Canada impose the term, nutrient management, for management of manure reflecting, perhaps, their dietary habits. In the final analysis it seems best to focus on substantive issues of human and environmental safety.

Professor Joe Cummins,
University of Western Ontario.
Canada
jcummins (at) uwo.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 10 June 2002 17:57
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 32: Re: terminology - genetic pollution

I (message 10, June 4) used "genetic pollution" to indicate a contamination of the "native" genetic pool with "foreign" DNA. No intrinsic, ethical value was implied; indeed I asked if we should consider it "good" or "bad". My usage was not meant to be political, though I can see how it could be inferred and misconstrued. Genetic pollution (contamination) used as I have intended seems concise.

John N. Nishio
Department of Botany
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071--3165
United States
Nishio (at) uwyo.edu
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/botany/nishio.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 10 June 2002 17:58
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 33: Re: terminology - genetic pollution

In Tim Roberts post of June 10 (message 30) he asks: "Some participants refer to 'genetic pollution'. Is this a scientific term, or a political one?"

This is not a scientific term, but rather one based upon a gut feeling and a sense of potential economic loss. Pollen has been moving by wind and animal vector since seed bearing plants evolved. For those using the marketing tool of producing 'organic' plant commodities, it is obviously a detriment to their maintenance of non-GM plant products since the organic rules in most locales/countries are unforgiving in this regard. As discussed in a post from Joe Cummins (message 28, June 8), secondary fertilization can result in detectable transgene products following gene expression in some fruits or grains pollinated by GM crops.

Although this matter has a biological basis, my feeling is that the matter will be settled in the courts in the U.S. and Canada, not through regulatory adjustment. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers a PIP (Plant-incorporated protectant) in the U.S., as long as the gene(s) of interest has/have a food tolerance in place, there is no violation of law from cross-pollination. Food containing this transgene is legal for sale as food or feed. If the transgene(s) did not have such a tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, any food resulting from this cross-pollination would be considered adulterated and unfit for sale. The Food and Drug Administration would then have the authority to remove any 'adulterated' foods from shelves or feed suppliers.

One aspect of this genetic 'pollution' that I have not seen addressed is the converse of the normal argument. Namely, what about growers or breeders who expend time and money to ensure a quality seed product, with or without transgenes, and are stuck tolerating gene flow from others growing open-pollinated (more heterozygous, less uniform, less characterized) or otherwise undesirable varieties? If one spends extra money on a technology fee for a certain type of GMO seed, what loss is there when it becomes 'contaminated' with pollen from unlike varieties, whether they be organic or otherwise? It seems to me that the argument is a plausible one in either direction, it is just that the answers are not easy.

Chris A. Wozniak, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 7511C
Washington, DC 20460
United States
703-605-0513
703-308-7026 - fax
wozniak.chris (at) epa.gov

(Food tolerance: all pesticides associated with application in or on crops intended for food or feed require a tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in order to be legally applied. A simple way to think of this is the amount of residue allowed on a finished crop or commodity. All PIPs to date have been granted an exemption from the requirement of a food tolerance.
PIP -Plant-incorporated protectant: a pesticidal substance expressed within a plant and the genetic material necessary for its production. Common examples of these are cotton, corn and potato engineered to express the endotoxin from B.t. to provide insect resistance. The trait is the PIP, not the plant itself.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 10 June 2002 17:58
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 34: Impacts of GM plants/animals on genetic diversity

This is from Professor Muir. I am a population geneticist who works in both molecular genetic and conventional breeding of poultry and fish, and development of methods to pre-determine environmental risk of GM plants and animals.

My message below is in response to Rajaratnam Muhunthan message 2 (June 3) and others relating to genetic diversity. The statement he made: "The million dollar question is whether gene flow from GM to non-GM populations will affect genetic diversity and pollute its purity?"

There are many different levels of genetic diversity. At the lowest level is
1) genetic variability within species, at the next level is
2) variability among species within a community, at the highest level is
3) variability among communities across geographic region.

GM plants or animals may affect all or none of the above based on the following reasoning.

Level 1. Maintenance of genetic variability within a species is what animal breeders are most concerned about and is vital to long term genetic improvement of domestic species. The same genetic variability is also vital to natural selection for continued improvements in fitness as environments or pathogens change. The impacts will be different for species in nature and those domesticated.

For those in nature, the question is how can a GM plant or animal which escapes into an ecosystem impact within species genetic diversity? A transgene should be thought of as a mega-mutation, and nothing more. Whether it spreads or not in an ecosystem through vertical gene transmission depends on how it impacts all components of fitness, including for example mating success (see Muir, WM and R.D. Howard 2002. Environmental Risk Assessment of Transgenic Fish With Implications for Other Diploid Organisms. Transgenic Research 11:101-114). The following assumes the GM plant or animal can mate with native species, i.e. vertical gene transmission (VGT). Otherwise the GM organism is simply an invasive exotic which will be dealt with at the next level (2) below. However, even if the transgene spreads, the transgene does not necessarily reduce variability at other loci because genetic recombination prevents this loss. This argument assumes the population size is large enough and fitness advantage (if any) of the transgene is small enough such that many generations of selection will occur before fixation of the transgene (this allows for the necessary recombination to occur and linkage disequilibrium to be dissipated).

If the population size into which the transgene spreads (through VGT) is small and the fitness advantage of the transgene is large (such as for viral resistance to a disease that is sweeping an island), then stochastic events will fix the transgene before linkage equilibrium can be established. In this case, genes closely linked to the transgene insertion site will be fixed along with the transgene and some genetic variability will be lost. If the number of chromosomes is large, the loss in genetic variability will be small (because those genes will not be linked to the transgene).

Impacts of a transgene on domesticated species is entirely different, this is because the breeder decides who reproduces, not the plants or animals. In this case, the transgene can have a major impact on loss of genetic diversity. If the GM plant or animals is so desirable (profitable) that one would be forced out of business if not used, the GM organism will replace the majority of all existing lines with tremendous loss of genetic variability. However, this is not unlike what is already occurring with conventional breeding. For example, there are millions of Holstein cows in the world, but the effective population size is less than a few hundred. This is a result of two factors, AI and competition. Everyone wants the highest producing cows, and sperm is readily available and for sale to everyone. This results in relatively few bulls fathering most of the cows. Thus, I really do not see that transgenes create any new threats to genetic variability that we have not already seen with conventional breeding (remember the male sterile corn of a few decades ago? That was non-GM but demonstrates this concern).

Level 2) variability among species within a community. If the transgene allows the species to expand its niche, then competitive exclusion may occur with loss of species from a community and cascading effect on other species and perhaps other communities (level 3 effects).

Level 3) If the GM organism is introduced into multiple communities, and level 2 loss occurs, then homogenation of communities will occur. This is exactly the same result as with introduction of exotic species, and with the same level of concern. Homogenation of species across communities results in lost opportunities for evolution to occur through co-adapted gene complexes, i.e. there will be no local adaptation or exploration of fitness surfaces through random genetic drift.

From all the above, I see the risk of GM plants or animals to level 1) genetic diversity mainly affecting domesticated species, but I do not think that risk is any greater than with domestic breeding, although that risk can be large. In nature, loss of genetic diversity through GM organisms will mainly be level 2 or 3.

William M. Muir, Ph.D.
Professor Genetics
1151 Lilly Hall
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47906
United States
bmuir (at) purdue.edu
http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~bmuir/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 11 June 2002 09:27
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 35: Gene flow in centers of origin and diversity

My name is Marc Ghislain, I am a molecular biologist working at the International Potato Center (CIP) Lima, Peru, one of the 16 CGIAR centers.

In our labs, we have developed over 1000 of transgenic events in more than 15 years of research. None of these events have been deployed yet in developing countries agriculture because we have been, and are, sensitive to public perception and careful in not imposing a new technology even when all safety concerns have been resolved.

The technologies we are using have been extensively tested for human and environmental safety in developed countries. But there are still 2 concerns / potential risks left:
i) the long-term effects both on human and environment and
ii) the impact of gene flow in centers of origin and diversity.
While the first one is currently addressed by monitoring human and environment exposed to GM crops, the second one needs more attention due to its complex mixture of scientific, social, and cultural issues.

My personal view is first to properly address the scientific issues of gene flow - such as conditions to be met for hybrid production and survival, estimated impact from previous experiences with modern varieties etc. Once the combination of a certain variety with a specific new trait in a particular environment is known to pose a threat for the biodiversity with a reasonable probability of occurrence, the country will have to develop policies considering the relevance of these threats for each region. By relevance, I mean in an area of intensive mining, deforestation or urban pollution, it is irrelevant to care about a remote event of gene flow in balance with all the other threats but in areas of extensive efforts to conserve and value the agro-biodiversity for the bio-market in the European Union for example, it is a relevant policy-decision whether or not to allow GM crop deployment with little risk of gene flow. This would impose an extra cost for these entrepreneurs.

This is probably a difficult thing for us, scientists, to do - to recognize that we have to pay attention, and respect, socio-cultural opinions, in particular when these are opposed to the deployment of GM crops. The problem is partly due to the confusion between policies and technical regulations for both proponent and opponent of GM crops. Hence, it is very important not to mix up scientific information with the other socio-cultural criteria and to recognize that these [presumably "the other socio-cultural criteria" ??...Moderator] can be considered to develop policies prohibiting undesirable GM material to be deployed in specific areas.

We are now at the International Potato Center discussing the following statement which I submit to your criticism: "The [center] will avoid compromising farmers' rights to have fair access to the latest technologies to improve their livelihoods by limiting the deployment of genetically engineered organisms in the crop's centers of diversity (wild species and land races), but will take measures to avoid the loss of biodiversity in those regions".

Marc Ghislain
International Potato Center (CIP),
Lima, Peru
M.GHISLAIN (at) CGIAR.ORG
http://www.cipotato.org/index2.asp

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 11 June 2002 09:34
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 36: Re: terminology - genetic pollution

My name is David Duthie - I work for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi, providing support to national biodiversity planners to meet their obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

To my knowledge, the first use of the term "genetic pollution" was in the following article: Dubois, A. M'orere, J.J. 1980. Pollution genetique et pollution culturelle. C. R. Soc. Biogeogr. 488: 5-22.

Thanks to Dan Cogalniceanu who brought this reference to my attention.

David Duthie
UNEP/GEF Biodiversity Enabling Activities
PO Box 30552
Gigiri
Nairobi
KENYA
Tel: +254-2-623717
Mobile: +254-722-786743 (NOTE NEW 722 CODE)
Fax: +254-2-624268
E-mail: david.duthie (at) unep.org

[As there is much interest in the term, it can be added that the definition of "genetic pollution" from the FAO Biotechnology Glossary (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2775E/Y2775E00.HTM) is "uncontrolled spread of genetic information (frequently referring to transgenes) into the genomes of organisms in which such genes are not present in nature"...Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 11 June 2002 09:36
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 37: Re: terminology - genetic pollution

Terminology is important in science as we need to share a common language. Definitely, the use of genetic pollution, contamination, is a fraud to scientific language in the issue of gene flow. It bears a judgement of values that has no scientific basis. I think this kind of terminology should be avoided if we want to communicate and share our concerns and ideas about this issue.

Marc Ghislain
International Potato Center (CIP),
Lima, Peru
e-mail: M.GHISLAIN (at) CGIAR.ORG
http://www.cipotato.org/index2.asp

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 11 June 2002 09:39
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 38: Re: terminology - genetic pollution

Reply to Tim Roberts (message 30, June 10) "Could I raise a question about terminology (always dear to the hearts of lawyers)? Some participants refer to 'genetic pollution'. Is this a scientific term, or a political one?"

The value-neutral population genetics terms are 'migration' or 'gene flow.'

Toby Bradshaw
College of Forest Resources & Department of Botany
University of Washington
United States
e-mail: toby (at) u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/toby

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 11 June 2002 09:54
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 39: terminology - organic

Tim Roberts (message 30, June 10) brought up the issue of terminology and he is correct that this is a political issue. Words are used as powerful weapons to prevail in debates about a controversy.

If you oppose genetic engineering and/or believe that approved transgenes are unwanted and potentially dangerous, then you use terms such as "genetic pollution" and "genetic contamination." Such terms convey your opposition or concern and are useful to incite fear in people.

If you support genetic engineering and believe that approved transgenes are safe and should be treated like any other plant genes, then you do not view pollen/gene flow as "pollution" or "contamination," but see it as a natural process which was considered during the safety assessments and is expected. However, laws and regulations in some countries now require special handling of approved biotech crops. As a consequence, supporters now use the terms "adventitious presence" or "unintended mixing."

As far as I am aware, organic farmers who use organic seeds do not consider gene flow into their crops from adjacent conventional fields to render their crop non-organic. Of course, there are no testing methods to show that this has happened, unlike the situation with gene flow with biotech crops (Note that I used the term "biotech," since this is a consumer-friendly term}.

It is useful to discuss terminology, but neither the opponents nor proponents will give in and adopt the terminology of the other side. But, if you can get people who are neutral to adopt your terminology, then you have succeeded in a significant victory. This is what happened with the term "genetically modified organism" or "GMO." It is commonly used by people who are neutral (and even by supporters of biotechnology), but was originally coined by opponents. An ironic twist is that "GMO" is not a term that the US Food and Drug Administration allows to be used on food labels because it is misleading (almost all crops have been genetically modified using one breeding method or another).

Dr. Keith Redenbaugh
Associate Director, Regulatory Affairs
Seminis Vegetable Seeds
Woodland, California 95695
United States,
e-mail: Keith.Redenbaugh (at) seminis.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 11 June 2002 13:47
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 40: Gene flow challenges - GM crops

Regarding the issue of gene flow:

There is much to learn about transgenic plants and their impact in the environment, micro- meso- and macro-fauna of developing countries. Transgenic plants may re-configure economical and social aspects of farmer that adopt this technology. Although improvement of agriculture in developing countries is needed, the application of genetic engineering to agricultural problems in least developed countries (LDCs) is not straightforward. Many of the models seen from developed countries regarding the use of transgenic plants will probably not be applicable in LDCs. If adopting this technology is positive, adapting transgenic crops to local crops is an important consideration.

Once the crops are identified, risk assessment should consider the fitness in a specific environment; gene flow based on characteristics of the inserted gene elements; distance of pollen movement; presence of pollinators; crop rotation; intercropping systems, as well as volunteer plants and their removal. However, this presents challenges regarding resources and time because, in the developing world, it is common to cultivate either several varieties and/or mix them with secondary crops. Under these conditions, hybridization between transgenic plants and their wild relatives can be reduced but not eliminated with the current technology. Therefore gene movement between transgenic crops to other crops and wild species should be examined on a case-by-case basis considering eco-geographical characteristics.

Efficient generation of transplastomic plants open the possibility to express agronomic traits and enhance gene containment because, in many crop plants, plastids are inherited maternally, preventing pollen-mediated gene flow. However this does not apply to all crops, regarding its effectively. Seed terminator technology offers the possibility to reduce gene flow. However, this technology represents a potential risk to subsistence farmers who lack the technology and resources to segregate infertile seed. [Transplastomic plants are plants with the foreign gene(s) inserted into plastids (e.g. chloroplasts) instead of the nuclear genome...Moderator].

National agricultural, environmental, health and natural resources ministries should address regulatory authority over environmental concerns and potential risks of transgenic plants. In addition, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and international research institutions will play an important role in the scientific assessment of the benefits and risks of the technology on a case-by-case basis, as well transferring it to the farmers. Biosafety guidelines should be implemented for regions based on the ecological characteristics of the region where transgenic plants will be released.

However the safe adoption of transgenic plants and their impact on the environment are dependent not only on the agricultural practices, but also on how efficiently agricultural extension services can provide proper farmer education regarding the technology. This represents a great challenge considering that many developing countries have partially deactivated agricultural extension services. This issue is complicated because, in many cases, developing countries officials are coming under growing pressure from various donor agencies, private business and NGOs to adopt one set of policies that fall in the line of precautionary or full adoption of transgenic plants.

Willy Valdivia Granda
Plant Stress Genomics and Bioinformatics Group
North Dakota State University
PO BOX 5130
Fargo,
United States,
e-mail: willy.valdivia (at) ndsu.nodak.edu
701 231-8440 (Lab)
701 231 8255 (Fax)
www.ndsu.edu/virtual-genomics

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 12 June 2002 12:44
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 41: Re: Gene flow in centers of origin and diversity

In answer to the comment of Marc Ghislain (message 35, June 11): "We are now at the International Potato Center discussing the following statement which I submit to your criticism: "The [center] will avoid compromising farmers' rights to have fair access to the latest technologies to improve their livelihoods by limiting the deployment of genetically engineered organisms in the crop's centers of diversity (wild species and land races), but will take measures to avoid the loss of biodiversity in those regions". "[end quote]

The statement, as it is, is very difficult to read for its logic, though to me its content basically means no limitation to transgenic deployment in crop's center of diversity.

What is more compromising to a farmer's future: risk of a concrete loss or risk of unknown benefit? Why "fair" access? Fair to whom? Is giving access to something not completely known to be safe for the heritage of a unique global resource (and thus a global community resource) fair to anybody? Is access to something that might compromise someone else's production fair? If nobody else might be compromised, there is no problem, then fairness comes into play as an economical factor. But here, access can hardly be determined fair at any moment. Therefore, the whole premise of fairness for a no control stand seems completely unjustifiable.

What advantage are those technologies to bring that might improve the local farmers' livelihood, i.e. including their social contacts and responsibilities? Does CIP really think someone that is part of a small community will risk his community members' livelihood to just follow promises of someone from outside if fairly presented with (informed about) the risks and benefits - assuming fair presentation of all aspects and not just sales pitches? Would not the CIP's first responsibility be to limit the deployment of such plant material to areas where risk is minimal due to climatic, biodiversity conditions and where there is sufficient economic potential to correct any potential contamination damage, or loss of other potential resources?

Would it not in principal be more desirable to safeguard the genetic geographical resources against any risk of damage or loss through both legal regulations and economic benefits i.e. a farmer in those areas should receive subsidies or other motivation for not using introduced or genetically modified material, but using local varieties. That should be, in my eyes, the primary function of CIP.

Would you really have the resources "to avoid loss of biodiversity", in case something went wrong, i.e. billions and billions of dollars, or even millions, to fix a potentially disastrous complication? If CIP has those resources and a scientifically and practically tested remediation programme in place, then the claim "to take measures to avoid the loss of biodiversity in those regions" would have credibility. Without that, isn't it just an empty promise against a not so empty risk? If one understands the promise of efforts to "avoid the loss of biodiversity.." as ignoring the transgenic issue and just concentrating on more and more limited areas of conservation, such a statement would be a contradiction in itself.

I don't think it is so much a problem of re-formulating the statement to make it more clear, but to rethink the concept of allowing transgenic varieties anywhere close to natural genetic resource centers and CIP's role in this. CIP should promote, in those biodiversity centers, cultivation and trade conditions that favour conservation of those resources, i.e. create a, if you want to, "fair" market for those products, i.e. one that can favourably compete against economic advantages that might be obtained using transgenic crops. Prevention is feasible, correction and remediation are just technical speculation and financial nightmares or improbabilities at this time and state of knowledge. Thus, why not embrace the precautionary principle rather than an undefinable concept of fairness.

Rainer Krell
Environment and Sustainable Development Officer
Regional Office for Europe,
FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla,
00100 Rome, Italy
e-mail: rainer.krell (at) fao.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 12 June 2002 13:03
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 42: Cytoplasmic male sterile GM plants

I am Peter Stamp, professor of crop sciences at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland.

We believe that the advent of GMOs cannot be turned back, therefore any potential risks linked to the release of pollen from GMOs should be reduced or prevented NOW. At least for some commercial crops like maize and rape seed it could and should be done immediately as both crops produce large amounts of pollen which can be transported over long distances by wind or insects. The release of GM pollen can be reduced or even eliminated by growing male sterile GM plants in a mixture with male fertile non-GM plants, which act as pollen donors for the GM plants. That this is already feasible now is demonstrated by the fact that male sterile varieties of rapeseed and maize are already being successfully cultivated in mixtures containing 20% or less male fertile pollinator varieties. The male sterile varieties are based on systems of cytoplasmic male sterility which were originally introduced for the production of cheap hybrid seed; for our proposed method they have to be used without fertility restoration. It seems that, so far, their potential for preventing or reducing the problems linked to the dispersal of GM pollen has not been noticed.

A positive side-effect of growing cytoplasmic male sterile maize plants is that they often produce higher yields than their isogenic male fertile counterparts. This benefit would facilitate the introduction of the proposed system for the prevention or reduction of GM pollen release. In cases like transgenic herbicide-resistance, male fertile GM plants could replace the non-GM pollen donors in the mixture. The dispersal of viable GM pollen from GM crop stands is not fully prevented by this approach, but it would be reduced by about 80 %. Mixtures of 80 % male sterile Bt-maize and 20 % male fertile non-GM maize may help avoid the formation of Bt-resistant insect populations.

For these reasons, we strongly recommend that GM varieties be grown in male sterile versions to prevent or reduce the release of viable GM pollen. Hopefully, this will contribute to a more rational public debate since some of the controversial problems associated with gene technology will be eliminated. Our proposed method can be applied to crop species that produce a sufficient surplus of pollen.

Prof. Dr. Peter Stamp
Institute of Plant Sciences
ETH Zurich
Universitätstrasse 2
CH-8092 Zurich
Switzerland
phone +41 1 632 3878
fax +41 1 632 1143
e-mail peter.stamp (at) ipw.agrl.ethz.ch
http://www.ab.ipw.agrl.ethz.ch

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 13 June 2002 09:37
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 43: Transgenes to render pollen infertile

I am rather depressed by the rhetoric of Rainer Krell (message 41, June 12) against the International Potato Center (CIP) statement [referred to in message 35, June 11...Moderator] and all of the polemics instead of science in his arguments. Instead, as a scientist interested in environmental protection he should have demanded to see, and then evaluate, the measures CIP intends to take to prevent gene flow from potatoes to its wild relatives.

With a vegetatively-propagated crop such as potato, it is easy to prevent gene flow. If the genes they insert are in tandem construct with genes that cause infertility (no pollen) then gene flow is a dead issue. This has been suggested in: {Gressel, J. (1999) Tandem constructs; preventing the rise of superweeds. Trends in Biotechnology 17:361-366} and updated and further elaborated in: {Gressel, J., Molecular Biology in Weed Control (2002). Taylor and Francis, London, 520pp}. Many transgenes are known that render pollen infertile. Additionally, they can put the transgenes in potato varieties that never flower. Either strategy would enhance farmer choice, and render gene introgression to other varieties, landraces and wild species nigh impossible.

There are a variety of other strategies described in the above references that would be advantageous to biennial as well as annual crops, and would prevent or mitigate gene movement to their relatives. The use of such strategies should be a requirement prior to release when there is a crop at risk, and they could even be used when the wild species is a harmful weed such as feral red rice, in rice. When the risk is great, they can be stacked, to further lower risk.

Prof. Jonathan Gressel
Plant Sciences
Weizmann Institute of Science
Rehovot IL76100, Israel
phone:+972-8-934-3481; fax:+972-8-934-4181
email: Jonathan.Gressel (at) weizmann.ac.iL

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 13 June 2002 13:33
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 44: Re: Terminology - organic

In agreement with Dr. Keith Redenbaugh (message 39, June 11) that "almost all crops have been genetically modified using one breeding method or another", I can add that:

"Adventitious presence" or "unintended mixing.": in GM plants, this sounds like open chance pollination in nature or research.
Pollution, contamination in GMOs: seems to be like uncontrolled cross-pollination
Effect of gene flow from or to GM plants: sounds like xenia and metaxenia or paternal and maternal effect on fruit and seed characteristics. [xenia is the immediate effect of pollen on some characters of the endosperm; metaxenia is the effect of pollen on maternal tissues of the fruit...Moderator]

All these were done in nature, so we can add the word GM for trusted products. We can generate a dictionary including old and new terminology to help new researchers.

On the other hand, using chemicals, hormones and some fertilizers can cause mutations that transfer from one generation to another without knowing that it happened one day. This is the most dangerous.

Dr Aisha, A. A. Badr
Tropical Fruit Division
Alexandria Horticultural Research Station
Alexandria
Egypt
momidic (at) hotmail.com

[Regarding Dr. Badr's comments about the need for a dictionary of biotechnology terms to help new researchers, a range of such glossaries exist. One of them is FAO Research and Technology Paper 9, entitled "Glossary of Biotechnology for Food and Agriculture", that was published a few months ago. The glossary is a revised, augmented version of the "Glossary of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering", published by FAO in 1999 and co-authored by A. Zaid, H.G. Hughes, E. Porceddu and F. Nicholas. This new publication is available at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2775E/Y2775E00.HTM or, as a searchable database, at http://www.fao.org/biotech/index_glossary.asp....Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 14 June 2002 09:42
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 45: Re: Gene flow in centers of origin and diversity

In response to the contribution by Rainer Krell (message 41, June 12):

The question: "What is more compromising to a farmer's future: risk of a concrete loss or risk of unkown benefit?".

What is the evidence that a concrete loss to biodiversity has been experienced by the deployment of the technology? I am not aware of any, but would like to be enlightened.

Secondly, the benefits are hardly unknown. One only has to point to the example of the benefit to poor farmers in Hawaii resulting from the deployment of PRSV papaya as a concrete example. [Transgenic papaya have been commercialised that are resistant to papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) in Hawaii and which contain the coat protein of a PRSV isolate...Moderator]. Also, one cannot ignore the concrete benefit that could be gained by the deployment of virus resistant cassava if it were to be developed. In 1994, 3,000 deaths in Uganda were attributed to famine-related illnesses caused by African Cassava Mosaic virus (see http://www.idrc.ca/reports/read_article_english.cfm?article_num=558).

Another concrete example of benefits: Bt cotton being grown by poor farmers in South Africa is providing added income and increasing their standard of living. Benefits of this same technology in China has also been shown.

Hector Quemada
Crop Technology Consulting, Inc.
2524 East G Avenue
Kalamazoo, MI 49004
United States
Phone: (616)387-5869
Fax: (616)387-5609
hdquemada (at) croptechnology.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 14 June 2002 09:48
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 46: Participants in developing nations

Now the conference has reached its half way mark.The focus of the ongoing conference is especially on the developing nations, but to my disappointment the number of participants from these countries are not that much. Because participants from these nations could give valuable messages to the conference on gene flow from GM to non-GM organisms, that would enable to address the issue in much broader spectrum.

Rajaratnam Muhunthan
M.Sc- in Biotechnology
Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture,
University of Peradeniya,
Peradeniya
Sri Lanka.
muhunthan_r (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 14 June 2002 10:24
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 47: Barbaric pollution

I am Glenn Ashton, an independent analyst and researcher of GMOs and related issues based in Cape Town, South Africa.

On the issue of semantics and emotive language, it seems there remains a great deal of sensitivity, especially from commercial, research and academic interests, toward anything perceived as negative, such as the term "genetic pollution". The Oxford dictionary defines pollute as; contaminate or defile, or destroy the purity or sanctity (of the environment). Under this definition it is clear that the term "genetic pollution" is neither emotive nor misleading, as demonstrated by the Mexican maize contamination saga. The centre of diversity has been polluted in exactly the terms that frame this discussion. Recognition of this pollution, coupled to an assumption of responsibility by corporate promoters of genetic engineering would be more than welcome at this late stage, as would be an attempt to curb the public relations spin and slanted language of which they are far more guilty than those they accuse of emotive cant.

In this light it is worrying to note the ambivalent and rather misleading posting about transgenic experimentation in the centre of potato diversity. This is precisely the sort of confused logic that led to the Mexican maize pollution. We must also be beware of the duplicity behind the suggestion that GMO pollution somehow improves the landraces it has polluted. This is biological barbarism, not enhancement.

Perhaps it would be useful to broaden this discussion away from the focus on existing recombinant technology. Much of the discussion about GURTs/terminator, male or female sterilisation and other mechanisms to deal with the inevitable problems of genetic pollution, ignore modalities that would be far more acceptable than the present crude and problematic genetic barbarism. [GURTS = Genetic Use Restriction Technology...Moderator]

The potential of marker assisted breeding (MAB) and other genomic mapping and tracing presents a preferable route of exploiting our expanding knowledge of genomics and proteomics. The genetic instability inherent in viral and "gene gun" transfer vectors is precisely the problem that needs to be controlled, with evidence of pleiotropy and other instability becoming problematic, despite denials from Monsanto and others (that will continue ad nauseam). If we instead concentrate on genetic enhancement mechanisms that are acceptable in terms of environmental pollution, health risks and stability, there is a far greater chance of not only success, but also of acceptance by farmers, the public and regulatory agencies.

The present crude forms of recombinant genetic transfer hold significant risk. With the examples of gene stacking in canola and other weedy relatives, the problem is real, denials notwithstanding. Many less developed nations have greater biodiversity coupled to inadequate monitoring that amplifies the risk of inadvertent gene flow. The concept of "botanical files" [referred to by Niels Louwaars in message 19 of June 6...Moderator] offers some solutions, but again, capacity is an issue.

Genetics does hold promise for food security. However, powerful corporate pressures threaten progress in an apparent determination to dismiss relevant social, scientific, environmental, economic and other concerns. Contrary to assumptions and postings on this list and elsewhere, these concerns extend far beyond the scientific arena. Genetic pollution/flow is only one of the things that can, has and will continue to go wrong with the present generation of GMOs. There are better, safer and proven ways to increase food security, as well as far more promising genetic methods, like proteomics and MAB. Unfortunately the present thrust risks much, simply for short-term profit at our collective long-term cost, with insufficient attendant responsibility.

Genetics is a nascent field of science. In the early days of this science, the public was promised consultation and inclusion. Instead marginalisation, ignoral and overridden concerns became the norm. This must change if this technology is to be accepted as truly beneficial. Gene flow is one aspect of concern that is primarily relevant to GMOs; moving beyond GMOs will result in a diminution of these concerns.

Glenn Ashton,
Cape Town,
South Africa.
ekogaia (at) iafrica.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 14 June 2002 13:21
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 48: Gene flow in Africa

I am Gurling Bothma, working for the Agricultural Research Council - Roodeplaat, South Africa.

With regard to Rajaratnam Muhunthan's message (46, June 14) regarding gene flow in the developing world, I think there is silence from the side of Africa because only South Africa grows GM crops commercially and Zimbabwe, Zambia, Kenya, Uganda, Mauritius and Egypt are doing GM trials.

In the case of South Africa, none of the crops have compatible weed crops, so the only gene flow consideration is that from the GM crop to a non-GM crop. At my institute, we are beginning field trials with sorghum to investigate gene flow of a crop in its centre of origin. I don't believe much research has specifically gone into gene flow in GM crops in Africa.

Gurling C Bothma
Biotechnology Division/Training
ARC-Roodeplaat,
Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute
P/Bag X293
Pretoria
0001
Gauteng
South Africa
e-mail: gbothma (at) vopi.agric.za
TEL: +27 (0)12 8419659 or 8419611
FAX: +27 (0)12 8081499

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 17 June 2002 08:28
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 49: GM Insects

My name is Kim Brooks, and I work for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology in Washington DC, United States. The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research project whose goal is to inform the public and policymakers on issues about genetically modified food and agricultural biotechnology, including its importance, as well as concerns about it and its regulation. It is funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to the University of Richmond.

My employer is doing some research regarding genetically modified insects and mites, and therefore, we are looking for information on gene flow as it relates to insects and other arthropods. Is there anyone who could be of help to us on this subject? Any resources or other information regarding this topic would be greatly appreciated.

Kimberly Brooks
Assistant Director of Science Policy
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology,
United States
Email: kbrooks (at) pewagbiotech.org

[Anyone who has resources or information about this subject, can contact Kimberly directly. In addition, anyone who wishes to share their views and/or experiences on gene flow aspects of GM insects and mites in food and agriculture, can post them to the conference.....Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 17 June 2002 08:49
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 50: Mexican maize issue

My name is Niels Louwaars, working in Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Now that we are midway the discussion, I think it is good to list a number of issues related to gene flow, that are quite often not clearly separated in the discussion so far.

First there is the issue of biological possibility of gene flow, mainly through cross fertilisation, which can be dealt with by the botanical files concept I mentioned earlier (message 19, June 6).

The second issue is the types of effect that such gene flow can lead to. In our discussion on the mexican maize issue (available for interested people at the address below) referred to by Glenn Ashton (in message 47, June 14) we identify the following:

* aspects of biodiversity (within the crop species and its relatives): which are not essentially different from introgression of genes from scientifically bred varieties into landraces and wild/weedy populations

* Philosophical/ethical considerations: genes from foreign species may be regarded by local communities as a threat to the natural integrity of the local crops

* Food safety aspects: when the introgressed genes have not been tested for food safety, e.g. when Starlink maize genes would introgress into local crops.

* Trade aspects: where farmers intend to sell their product at premium prices in certified non-GMO markets, unintended introgression of transgenes may pose a threat to the commercial position of these farmers.

* Rights aspects: introgression of patented genes may sooner or later lead to claims by the holder of the patent, even where the genes were introduced unintentionally.

I think that it would be helpful if contributors to the discussion identify the aspects that they want to contribute their views on. With several of the contributions, the comments are not very clear about the risks that are referred to.

Niels P. Louwaars
Plant Research International
POBox 16
6700 AA Wageningen,
The Netherlands
n.p.louwaars (at) plant.wag-ur.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 17 June 2002 09:08
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 51: Re: Impacts of GM plants/animals on genetic diversity

This is from Dr Wayne Knibb. I am a population geneticist working on aquacultured species, in Australia.

My note is a response to Bill Muir (message 34, June 10). Two of his comments caught my attention:
- "but I do not think that risk [of GM plants or animals to genetic variability within species...Moderator] is any greater than with domestic breeding"
- "A transgene should be thought of as a mega-mutation, and nothing more" [These 2 quotations are from the last and fifth paragraphs respectively of Bill Muir's message...Moderator]

Do these comments suggest that natural processes can generate risk? If so, it would be instructive to calculate the relative "risks" from natural and engineered mutations. For common and fecund species (e.g. scallops and many aquacultured species), we can calculate that some populations have spontaneous mutations in every loci every generation, and multiple mutations per quantitative trait. Can we then infer that the extra "risk" generated by a single engineered change is negligible/infinitesimal? (see Knibb 1997 and elsewhere). Moreover, if we view genetic engineering as a little risky, should we view natural evolution and spontaneous mutation as positively dangerous?

Dr Wayne Knibb
Principal Research Scientist
Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre
144 North Street, Woorim
PO Box 2066
Bribie Island Queensland 4507
Australia
Ph (07) 34002000 / 2052
Fax 34083535
Mobile: 0418732126
e-mail: wayne.knibb (at) dpi.qld.gov.au

Knibb, W. R. 1997. Risk from genetically engineered and modified marine fish. Transgenic Research. 6:59-67.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 17 June 2002 10:59
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 52: Chloroplast transgenes and gene flow

Some apparent fallacies in transgene containment by chloroplast genetic engineering:

Recently a number of projects have been launched based on the presumption that genetic modification of chloroplasts will prevent spread of transgenes, based on the assumption that chloroplast genes are strictly maternally inherited. [The topic of transplastomic plants, i.e. with the transgene(s) inserted into plastids (e.g. chloroplasts) instead of the nuclear genome, has previously been mentioned in message 40, June 11...Moderator]. In the majority of proposals and publications showing that some plants do inherit chloroplasts maternally and that pollen has a limited role in such transmission, little or no consideration has been given to pollination of chloroplast transgenic crops by weedy relatives to form hybrid plants that are weeds that transmit transgenes maternally (or possibly through both egg and pollen).

Pollination of a chloroplast transgenic crop by a variety lacking transgenes or by a variety containing nuclear transgenes may alter the nuclear-cytoplasmic balance, leading to altered chloroplast transmission. Plastids may be inherited strictly maternally, exclusively paternally, or biparentally. Gymnosperms have mainly paternal (pollen) transmission of plastid genes while most flowering plants seem to have maternal plastid inheritance. About one third of the flowering plants investigated have displayed biparental plastid inheritance to some degree (1). Among the flowering plants, rye shows paternal plastid inheritance (1). Predominantly paternal inheritance has been observed in chaparral (2). Alfalfa has predominantly paternal inheritance accompanied by both biparental and maternal variants(3,4). The medicinal herb damiana has clearly paternal inheritance (5) as does kiwi (6). Experiments with calla lilies showed that nuclear-cytoplasmic interactions determined the paternal, biparental or maternal transmission of plastids. Interspecific hybrids showed maternal chloroplast transmission in the F1 generation, but from either maternal or paternal parents in the backcross (7).

These studies show that individual crop plants and weeds need full analysis of the mode of chloroplast transmission before it could be concluded that the transgenic chloroplast modifications eliminate transgene transmission through pollen. Even plants that appear to have clear maternal plastid transmission may show leakage of pollen transmission (8), a frequency of one transgenic plastid containing pollen granule in 100 or 1000 could lead to significant transgenic pollution of nearby crops or weeds.

The results described above indicate that the claim that chloroplasts are maternally inherited and transgenic chloroplasts contain the release of polluting transgenic pollen is not always valid. The numerous crops or wild plants that show biparental or paternal inheritance of plastids means that each crop must be carefully studied. When a transgenic chloroplast crop plant is fertilized by weed pollen (for example Canola also has weedy relatives in Canada with which it could form hybrids - birdsrape mustard in eastern Canada, feral B. rapa canola in western Canada, and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.)), the crop forms a weed hybrid with maternal plastid inheritance but the nuclear cytoplasmic relationship has been altered which may result in weeds that show either paternal of biparental inheritance of plasmids. A few crop-weed hybrids can quickly establish transgenic weeds.

In conclusion, much has been written promoting chloroplast transgenes as a way of preventing spread of transgenes to crops or weed. I have not seen any discussion of the genetic consequences of weeds or crops pollinating chloroplast transgenic crops. Certainly, weed intrusion could easily establish transgenic weeds. Chloroplast transgenes offer the real advantage of producing multiple gene copies that are not much affected by gene silencing (neither pre-transcriptional nor post-transcriptional silencing) and a potential to transform the plastid genome using homologous recombination, which is not possible with nuclear transgenes. The use of plastid transgenes to prevent gene spread is still on rather shaky grounds until the plastid containment is fully proven by direct experiment.

References
1. Mogensen,HL and Rusche,M "Occurrence of plastids in rye sperm cells" 2000 Am J. Bot. 87,1189-92
2.Yang,T,Yang,Y, and Xiong,Z "Paternal inheritance of chloroplast DNA in interspecific hybrids in the Genus Larrea" 2000 Am.J. Bot. 87,1458-2000
3. Schumann,C and Hamcock,J. "Paternal inheritance of plastids in Medicago sativa" 1991 Theor and Appl Genet 78, 863-66
4. Rusche,M,Mogensen,H.,Zhu,T. and Smith,T. "The zygote and prembryo of alfalfa" 1995 Protoplasma 189,88-100
5. Cipriani,G,Testolin,R and Morgante,M. "Paternal inheritance of plastids in interspecific hybrids of the genus Actinidia revealed by PCR-amplification of chloroplast DNA fragments" 1005 Mol and Gen Genet 247,693-97
6. Tustolin,R and Cipriani,G "Paternal inheritance of chloroplast DNA and maternal inheritance and maternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA in the genus Actinidia" 1997 Theor and Appl Genet 94,897-903
7. Yao, J. and Cohen,D. "Multiple gene control of pastime-genome incompatibility and plastid DNA inheritance in interspecific hybrids of Zantedeschia" 2000 Theor. Appl Genet. 101,400-6
8. Avri,A and Edelman,M. "Direct selection for paternal inheritance of paternal inheritance of chloroplasts in sexual crosses of Nicotiana 1991 Mol Gen Genet 225,273-7

Professor Joe Cummins,
University of Western Ontario.
Canada
jcummins (at) uwo.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 18 June 2002 08:56
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 53: Risk to biodiversity of gene transfer versus conventional breeding

This is from Dr. Irvin Mettler, Director of Biotechnology for Seminis Vegetable Seed in Woodland, California, USA.

I would like to add to the comments of Dr. Knibb (message 51, June 17) regarding the differences between the risk of transgenes to biodiversity and the risk of natural mutations or conventional breeding.

Dr. Knibb asks whether natural processes can also generate risks? If so, then how do these risks compare? I think that this is an important point that those who are against the "unknown risks" associated with transgenes fail to consider. A transgene represents, after all, a single genetic allele with a relatively well understood phenotypic effect. The background genetics of the host organism contains tens of thousands of genes - many of which are altered, rearranged, or mutated with each generation in ways that are completely unknown. Typical new varieties that are developed by conventional breeding for many crops include genomic regions that have been introgressed from wild relatives, recombined with the domestic variety through many generational selections, and finally released with essentially no information or testing for safety or potential impact on biodiversity. One only has to look at any catalogue or description of available varieties and new releases to see that all sorts of new traits are being developed and released currently from conventional breeding programs with essentially no regulatory oversight for safety or potential impact on biodiversity.

Dr. Knibb's question is logical and straightforward: if we hypothesize that use of transgenes is risky because we have incomplete knowledge and may miss some unintended hazard, then how much more dangerous should we consider conventional breeding which changes more genes but has essentially no information on the nature or even number of unknown changes? Fortunately, we already know much of the answer for conventional breeding and it is based on centuries of real observations -not speculation or "what ifs". Major problems have resulted from the introduction of new, invasive species into new environments, but specific genes in agricultural crops have not been, and are not likely to be, a threat to biodiversity. By far, the real threat to biodiversity is the extent of land that is devoted to agriculture and the simple displacement of existing ecosystems by farms. The identification of one gene as being a transgene (for example for disease resistance) is no more of a threat than the already common use of conventionally developed traits for disease resistance.

Increases in yield and quality by genetic improvements are, likely, the most effective and efficient way to improve food security and safety and at the same time reduce the potential for negative environmental impacts of agriculture. I submit that whether new genetic traits are identified by conventional breeding or developed through gene transfer is biologically unimportant. If one were to take a purely objective view, the increased molecular detail, knowledge, and understanding required to use transgenes means that the generally accepted low risk associated with the introduction of new traits by conventional breeding could be logically argued to be even lower in the case of regulated transgenes.

Irvin J. Mettler
Director, Biotechnology
Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc.
37437 State Highway 16
Woodland, CA 95695
United States
irvin.mettler (at) seminis.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 18 June 2002 14:17
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 54: Re: Risk to biodiversity of gene transfer versus
conventional breeding

This is Javier M. Claparols, Director of the Ecological Society of the Philippines.

Drs. Mettler (message 53, June 18) and Knibb (message 51, June 17) have put forward a most important point of who is monitoring conventional breeding and it's impact on biodiversity. Invasive alien species (IAS) have been documented to have costed billions of US dollars in economic losses (estimated approximately at $400 billion annually in agriculture and livestock). It has been confirmed that IAS are responsible for the extinction of 39% of the species disappearing in the planet since 1600, with habitat destruction ranking second at 36%. Information comes from the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

Knowing this, it may be proper to be more prudent in venturing into areas where the science, as this debate shows, has no conclusive answer to the risks of gene transfer. The Convention on Biological Diversity runs on the precautionary principle, though others look at it on a precautionary approach. Where do we stand?

Javier M. Claparols
Director
Ecological Society of the Philippines
Philippines
jmc1 (at) mozcom.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 18 June 2002 17:21
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 55: Evolutionary risks of transgenes

In response to Wayne Knibb's questions (message 51, June 17) regarding his response to Bill Muir (message 34, June 10) and further related correspondence:

It is unclear whether he is being serious or facetious but the difference between introduced, "for profit", genetic traits and altered traits through natural selection, through whatever form of spontaneous mutation, should be self-evident. The (externally) human-driven process of transgene insertion (genetic engineering (GE)) runs independently to the evolutionary process, in that a construct that can never naturally occur, has been introduced to the gene pool. To presume that there is little difference between a transgene mutation and a natural mutation is clearly flawed from an evolutionary perspective. Further, the nature of these mutations is intentionally advantageous for survival while they concurrently lack the natural checks and balances that naturally exist to correct evolutionary mistakes.

This dichotomy is the central reason for conflict between "hard" scientists who perform technical procedures because they can, and those who feel that genetic engineering is an ill-conceived act of biological barbarism in "soft", evolutionary terms. It is also the primary reason for the polarity in the debate around gene flow.

All species will naturally mutate to a greater or lesser extent. It is only when such natural mutations benefit the species as a whole that they are taken up. Contrastingly, GE traits operate against a completely different background of artificial stability. However, there may be hope as recent reports from China about Bt tolerance confirm that the effect of inserted transgenes may diminish over time. It is unclear whether this reduction is genetic or is manifested solely by other evolutionary biological feedback mechanisms. For it is when we interfere in the latter by forced transgenic transfer, that we are working outside the bounds of natural selection. The feedback loop is broken.

To suggest that "if we view genetic engineering as a little risky", that we should then "view natural evolution and spontaneous mutation as positively dangerous", is mischievous and misleading. It is correct and scientific to ask this question, but it can be refuted by examining the danger posed by externally imposed genetic alteration undertaken only for profit. We cannot in good conscience interfere in the evolutionary process for profit. Beside ethical and moral considerations, it is plain irresponsible in that incalculable risk is introduced. When risk is naturally introduced the changes are also incalculable in number but these risks are at least responsive to direct environmental factors that limit the changes to within sustainable parameters. In contrast, by allowing one "super fish" into the wild, we may initiate a fatally disruptive series of events with many potentially negative, and few potentially positive, outcomes, with no extant evolutionary controls. The risk exists at so many levels that such acts of GE should not allowed.

Real, transparent controls on GE have failed since Asilomar 1. [Asilomar-1 refers to the Conference on Biohazards in Biological Research held in Asilomar, California, United States in January 1973...Moderator]. Every act of GE incalculably increases the risks to naturally controlled environmental sustainability (ecological feedback loops). It took us hundreds of years to recognise the risks and costs of inter-continental transfer of invasive "alien" organisms. How long must it take us to realise the dangers in continuing with GE against a background of immeasurable ignorance as to what we are actually doing?

Gene flow should be a priority issue, yet it is so low on the agenda that it has not yet been meaningfully and openly discussed, as proposed at Asilomar and elsewhere. We have to ask ourselves honestly whether the corporate capitalist system can be trusted to redesign evolutionary biology, right down to genetic level. The only sane response to such an obscene suggestion can be strongly in the negative.

Glenn Ashton,
Cape Town,
South Africa.
ekogaia (at) iafrica.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 18 June 2002 17:38
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 56: Re: Fundamental considerations in hazard identification of GMOs

In response to Suzanne Wuerthele (message 1, 31 May) "Because GMOs are fundamentally different from conventionally-bred organisms, they raise novel concerns about their effects on ecosystems at the genetic level and about their behavior in ecosystems at the agricultural level.", Prof. Derek Burke (message 17, June 6) replies "I want to know what is the evidence for this broad statement?"

In reply to Prof. Burke's question, the evidence is clear and unequivocal. All of the transgenic plants now commercialised or being tested, originated from genetic transformation based on illegitimate (non-homologous) recombination, while all of the traits selected and manipulated in traditional breeding originated from homologous (legitimate) recombination. Plant genetic engineering has not yet achieved a genetic transformation that is based on homologous recombination. In a sense it is correct to say that transgenic plants are genetic "bastards". The publication below reviews the elementary concepts related to genetic engineering and the lack of a system for legitimate recombination.

Trends In Plant Sciences. Volume 6, Issue 4, 1 April 2001, Pages 155-159. Sandeep Kumar and Matthias Fladung. Controlling transgene integration in plants.

Professor Joe Cummins,
University of Western Ontario.
Canada
jcummins (at) uwo.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 19 June 2002 09:59
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 57: Re: Evolutionary risks of transgenes

Professor Muir again, in response to Wayne Knibb (message 51, June 18) and in support of Glenn Ashton (message 55, June 17).

Glenn is quite correct to question if Knibb's comments are serious or facetious. Wayne would have us believe that if risks of a technology are no greater than those found in nature we should allow those risks. This argument is flawed at several levels. At the most base level, for example, it is the fact that natural phenomenon, such as radon (a radioactive gas released from some rocky materials upon which some houses are built), causes cancer and kills thousands of people each year. Should we then allow manufacture of household products with radioactive materials in them as long as the risk of dying from those products is no greater than those found in nature, i.e. kills no more than a few thousand a year? This notion is clearly unacceptable.

Taking this analogy to ecological harm, it is true that natural mutations do occur which result in evolutionary divergence, the formation of new species, and elimination of others. This is a fact of evolution and is how it works. It also requires evolutionary time in millions of years for other species to adapt to these changes (disruptions) and that these disruptions do not occur too frequently, i.e. are rare. However, the creation of new mutations by man (transgenes) that result in formation of new species and elimination of others is clearly unacceptable, we do not have evolutionary time to adjust to the changes that we can bring upon ourselves through such actions. We can also bring about more changes too rapidly for any ecosystem to adapt to.

Secondly, extrapolation of natural mutation rates with associated environmental harms to engineered mutations and possible associated harms is not scientifically valid for a number of reasons. Firstly, natural mutations are primarily the result of single base changes and explore only a small subset of possibilities around a local fitness surface, they are entirely random, and the vast majority are lethal or reduce fitness. Engineered mutations, on the other hand, are the result of directed evolution by supposed intelligent beings, not at random, and the purpose of the engineered gene is to confer some advantage, or it would not have been developed or commercialized. For example, ask yourself, how long would it take for a natural mutation to occur for spider silk production in goats milk? [this reference is to the ongoing project of developing commercial quantities of spider silk from transgenic goats - see e.g. Alan Dove. "Milking the genome for profit", Nature Biotechnology (2000), 18, 1045-1048...Moderator]. This may not be a speciation event, but it is clearly an event impossible with natural mutations. Secondly, with gene breeding (random exon shuffling) entire chromosome segments across species can be recombined in ways not possible with natural mutations. In this way, the global fitness surface can be explored with engineered mutations. The result could be an organism that is shifted to a new higher fitness peak thus initiating a speciation event, an event with unpredictable harm and one we should not be allowed to do. See Muir and Howard (2001) for more detailed criticisms on these and other issues raised by Knibb (1997). [An exon is a segment of a eukaryotic gene that is transcribed as part of the primary transcript and is retained, after processing, with other exons to form a functional mRNA molecule. Many eukaryotic genes are composed of a mosaic of exons and introns...Moderator].

Bill Muir
Professor of Genetics
Department of Animal Sciences
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1151
United States
e-mail: bmuir (at) purdue.edu
http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~bmuir/

Muir, W.M. and R.D. Howard. 2001. Methods to Assess Ecological Risks of Transgenic Fish Releases. In Genetically Engineered Organisms: Assessing Environmental and Human Health Effects Eds. D.K. Letourneau and B. E. Burrows. CRC Press p 355-38

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 19 June 2002 11:55
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 58: Re: Evolutionary risks of transgenes

This is from Andrzej Aniol. I have a PhD in plant physiology and am Department Head, Plant Biochemistry and Physiology of Plant Breeding Institute, Radzikow, Poland, working on physiology and genetics of cereal plant response to abiotic stress, particularly aluminum toxicity/tolerance mechanism in cereals. During the last years, I have been involved in negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol, member of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP) Bureau from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) countries.

In response to Glenn Ashton's comments (massage 55, June 18):

The difference between introduced crop genetic characters "for profit" and "altered traits through natural selection" is nothing new and is not linked only to genetic engineering (GE). Since neolitic times, genetic characters were incorporated into plants "for profit", transforming them into cultivars during the process called domestication. Most characters introduced through artificial selection, and maintained by plant husbandry, were (and are) disadvantageous from the biological (and evolutionary) point of view. For illustration, just take a look at the cultivated corn (maize) plant, which is a biological "cripple", completely lacking seed dispersal mechanism, just to mention one character.

The characters introduced through GE methods, like those introduced during plant domestication "for profit", were not and are not "intentionally advantageous for survival" as Glenn Ashton claims. On the contrary, those traits must be advantageous for production of yield under artificial crop production systems in agriculture. Into the majority of cultivars, so many inadaptable characters were accumulated that when left unattended outside of the agrosystem they are not able to survive. Thus, dangers connected with trangene "escape" into wild flora, emergence of "super-weeds", genetic "contamination" are greatly exaggerated - at least as presently-used GM crops are concerned. It might change in the case of other transgenes - therefore "case by case" risk assessment is necessary.

To summarise, agriculture and plant husbandry were and are working since the beginning outside the bonus of natural selection and GE technology changes nothing in this respect. The most important change connected with GE technology is the increased possibility for utilization of genes, theoretically from all living organisms, and this implies much more work on evaluation and selection of products resulting from GE methods.

The statement by Glenn Ashton that "We cannot in good conscience interfere in the evolutionary process for profit" is not as self-evident as he claims. Why not? Actually we are interfering in this process since the beginning of our civilization - look not only at plants but also at dogs and horses, for example. Taking this statement seriously means that the opposition to GE technology is only one aspect of general anti-technological thinking. The last sentence of Glenn Ashton's message referring to "corporate capitalist system" seems to confirm that not a scientific argument is important in this dispute but ideological and political convictions. If so the dispute should take place in another forum and another place.

Andrzej Aniol
Radzikow
Poland
a.aniol (at) ihar.edu.pl

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 19 June 2002 16:30
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 59: Illegitimate vs. homologous recombination

I am Bruno Tinland, a scientist working for Monsanto Company in Brussels.

I would like to comment on Joe Cummins's statements (message 56, June 18). The statement in question is: "In reply to Prof. Burke's question, the evidence is clear and unequivocal. All of the transgenic plants now commercialised or being tested, originated from genetic transformation based on illegitimate (non-homologous) recombination, while all of the traits selected and manipulated in traditional breeding originated from homologous (legitimate) recombination. Plant genetic engineering has not yet achieved a genetic transformation that is based on homologous recombination. In a sense it is correct to say that transgenic plants are genetic "bastards"". [endquote]

As someone who has produced scientific research and publications in this area, I am concerned to read such a definite statement from Prof. Cummins. Homologous recombination is one of the mechanisms used in producing new traits in crops, but this is certainly not the only one. Studies performed on resistance genes families have shown that illegitimate events like transposition took place as well (Ronald (1998), Current Opinion Plant Biology 1: 294-298; Michelmore and Meyers (1998). Genome Research, 1113-1130).

More importantly, I would like to stress now that illegitimate recombination is a basic process (and not a "bastard" one) participating to the life of higher eucaryotic cells (among them plant cells). This process, which is used during DNA repair, occurs in somatic cells several orders of magnitude more frequently than homologous recombination. Also, it contributed to genome evolution. Transposition is a first example that everyone is aware of. As a second example, I would like to cite the presence in the Arabidopsis genome of mitochondrial DNA, which could be uptaken by the plant only following such a process (Lin et al. (1999), Nature 402: 761-768). As a third example, I would like to mention that some Nicotiana species, which are distributed over several world areas contain, in their nuclear genome, genes which have been naturally transferred by Agrobacterium (bacterial genes, integrated through illegitimate recombination) and might have contributed to their evolution (Aoki et al. (1994), Molecular and General Genetics 243: 706-710; Frundt et al. (1998), Molecular and General Genetics 259: 559-568).

The claim that GM plants are genetic "bastards" because illegitimate recombination took place, reflects a polemical attitude and not a scientific one. As has been noted by others in this conference, scientists have a personal responsibility to report their science fairly and objectively. Over-statement and imprecise use of language do little more than confuse the reader and misrepresent the current state of knowledge.

Bruno Tinland, Ph.D.
Monsanto Company
Brussels,
Belgium
e-mail: bruno.tinland (at) monsanto.com

[Some definitions may be useful at this stage. Recombination is defined as an exchange of nucleotide sequences between two nucleic acid molecules. Recombination results in heritable, permanent changes. The crossing over and exchange of chromosome fragments during meiosis is a classical example of recombination. Recombination is generally categorized as either homologous or nonhomologous. In homologous recombination, also referred to as legitimate or precise recombination, crossovers occur between two related DNA molecules at sites precisely matched. Sequence similarity between the two nucleic acids is required for homologous recombination to take place. Nonhomologous or illegitimate recombination occurs between two unrelated molecules at non-corresponding sites with no requirement for sequence homology. These above definitions are from Laurent Farinelli and Pia Malnoë (1996) http://www.bats.ch/data/english/k5titel.htm. Transposition is the process whereby a transposon or insertion sequence inserts itself into a new site on the same or another DNA molecule. The exact mechanism is not fully understood and different transposons may transpose by different mechanisms....Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 20 June 2002 09:51
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 60: Homologous recombination and gene replacement in plants

My name is Berthold Heinze. I am a research scientist in the Austrian Federal Office and Research Centre for Forests - Genetics Department, Vienna, Austria.

I would like to correct a statement that was made in this conference by Prof. Cummins (message 56, June 18): "All of the transgenic plants now commercialised or being tested, originated from genetic transformation based on illegitimate (non-homologous) recombination".

It gives a wrong impression. The following references report homologous recombination in plants. I also include an excerpt of an abstract of one of those:

- Carrer, H. and Maliga, P. Targeted insertion of foreign genes into the tobacco plastid genome without physical linkage to the selectable marker gene. BioTechnology [later became Nature Biotechnology] 13, 791-794. 1995.

- Morton, R. and Hooykas, P. J. J. Gene replacement. Molecular Breeding 1, 123-132. 1995.

Dix, P. J. and Kavanagh, T. A. Transforming the plastome: Genetic markers and DNA delivery systems. Euphytica 85, 29-34. 1995.
Excerpt from the abstract:
Stable chloroplast transformants were first obtained following particle bombardment of tobacco leaves, and later by PEG-mediated uptake of DNA by protoplasts. The transforming DNA in these studies was itself of plastid origin and carried double (streptomycin, spectinomycin) antibiotic resistance which was used to select transformants. Integration was by homologous recombination, and both donor and recipient were Nicotiana species. Recent characterisation of plastid mutants of Solanum nigrum has allowed the extension of this gene replacement approach to include NicotianaSolanum combinations. The introduction of functional heterologous genes into the plastome is an alternative approach based on the use of constructs in which a bacterial resistance gene is flanked by sequences homologous to a region of the recipient plastome. Thus homologous recombination in the flanking sequences allows introduction of a foreign gene.

Kumar and Fladung [2001, referred to in message 56...Moderator] may have missed this in their Trends in Plant Science review paper (the papers above are not cited by them), maybe they were only referring to nuclear genes. However, genetic transformation can also affect chloroplast and mitochondrial genomes, as is nicely shown in the papers cited above.

Berthold Heinze
Institute of Forest Genetics
Austrian Federal Office and Research Centre for Forests
Hauptstrasse 7
A-1140 Vienna
AUSTRIA
Tel. +43 1 87838-2219 Fax -2250
e-mail: Berthold.Heinze (at) fbva.bmlf.gv.at
http://fbva.forvie.ac.at/db/personen.anzeige?person_id_in=1 changing pictures frequently - please call back!

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 20 June 2002 10:03
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 61: Re: gene flow risk assessment - plants

My name is Alan Raybould and I work for Syngenta. Before joining Syngenta, I was an ecologist in a public sector research institute in the UK.

I would like to comment on a point raised by Tom Nickson (message 24, June 7) and the response of Peter Jenkins (message 27, June 8). Tom described many of the suggested hazards of releasing transgenic plants as 'inoperative in terms of science based hypothesis testing'. [The hazards described by Tom Nickson in the 3rd-last paragraph of message 24 were "hazards associated with gene flow from GM crops such as: impacts on biodiversity, impacts on population dynamics, genetic swamping, and alterations of gene pools"...Moderator]. Peter thought that this was too broad, and what Tom had identified were the difficulties of scaling up from field trials to commercial-scale releases of GM crops.

I think Tom identified something more than problems of scale up. A scientific term is operational if most people can agree on which variables represent the phenomenon being studied. Tom's list includes several phenomena that are not operational because we are not agreed on the variables that specify them. Unless we can agree on the changes in measurable variables that constitute 'genetic swamping', 'impacts on biodiversity', 'alterations of gene pools' etc., even very large experiments will fail to advance scientific risk assessment.

The lack of operational end points is a serious problem for ecologists. In the short term, we can justify our existence to regulators, industry and the general public because we are seen to be collecting data that are essential for the risk assessment process. However, the process of collecting data is not an end in itself. Eventually we must produce quantitative predictions about how agreed variables will change after the release of a GM plant. If we fail to do this, ecologists will rightly be dismissed as having nothing scientific to offer GM risk assessment.

Alan Raybould
Syngenta
Jealott's Hill International Research Centre
Bracknell
Berkshire RG42 6EY
United Kingdom
alan.raybould (at) syngenta.com
direct line: +44 (0) 1344 414620
fax: +44 (0) 1344 413688

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 20 June 2002 10:24
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 62: Re: gene flow risk assessment - plants

This is Tom Nickson (Monsanto Co. in St. Louis, United States) responding to comments from Joe Cummins (message 12, June 5) and Peter Jenkins (message 27, June 8).

Both Peter and Joe cited volunteer canola with multiple tolerances produced under field conditions as evidence of "risk" associated with transgenic herbicide tolerant canola. Further, Peter noted that this observation is inconsistent with my comment that "the current biotech products have shown no measurable risks compared to the risks already present from their traditionally grown counterparts" (message 24, June 7).

I encourage the participants of this conference who wish to critically evaluate this matter to carefully read the authoritative paper: Hall, L. Topinka, K.; Huffman, J.; Davis, L.; Good, A. 2000. Pollen flow between herbicide resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Science, vol. 48, 688-694.

While the authors clearly state that herbicide resistant Brassica napus (canola in Canada) "has raised several weed management concerns", they also state: "The introduction of herbicide-resistant B. napus has offered producers a variety of new, safe and effective strategies for weed control. Despite rapid adoption, agronomic tribulations have been predictable and minor.". Hall et al. also note that the "circumstances leading to the discovery of cross-resistant volunteer B. napus were atypical" citing the producers' practices. If one reads a bit further, these authors acknowledge the common nature of gene flow and high probability of the formation of progeny with multiple tolerances; to which I add that this will be a function of acreage and spatial proximity of the different herbicide tolerant varieties. However, given that this study constituted one grower in Alberta, and that over 50% of the canola grown in Canada has been herbicide tolerant for the last 3 years, Hall et. al. state, "The lack of multiple resistant volunteers suggests multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers are being controlled by chemical and nonchemical management strategies and are therefore not an agronomic concern to most producers."

Part of the argument put forth by the Royal Society of Canada and cited by Peter is illogical. Specifically, " "gene stacking" represents a serious development because,....,farmers are forced to use older herbicides, some of which are less environmentally benign than newer products" is very odd. The older herbicides are the ones that farmers had available prior to the introduction of herbicide tolerant crops, and the newer environmentally superior products are those that are now possible to use because of genetic modification. I interpret the current situation as beneficial to both farmers in Canada and the environment. The farmers now have more tools to produce canola than they had prior to GM, and these tools are more environmentally benign. It is now a matter of good stewardship on the part of industry, academia and farmers to use this new technology sustainably.

Based on the available evidence and scientific fact and the expert opinion of those who have published scholarly works on this matter, I submit that this example does not constitute a measurable ecological risk. Rather, it is a good example of how agricultural systems have to adapt to new technology. New information is obtained based on observation followed by scientific inquiry as evident by the paper in Weed Science cited above.

Thomas E. Nickson, Ph.D.
Ecological Technology Center
Monsanto Company, V2B
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63141 USA
thomas.nickson (at) monsanto.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 20 June 2002 11:40
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 63: Re: Evolutionary risks of transgenes

[The discussion seems to be drifting away from the theme of this conference, which is the potential importance and impact of gene flow from genetically modified (GM) crops, forest trees, fish or animals to non-GM populations, with particular focus on developing countries. Thus, for example, differences between transgenes and genetic changes through conventional or natural selection per se should not be the focus, but rather the impacts or relevance of such differences on gene flow....Moderator]

This is from Dr Wayne Knibb. I am a geneticist (population and molecular biologist) working on aquacultured species.

I am trying to reconcile the two comments of Bill Muir (message 34, June 10) 1) "but I do not think that risk [of GM plants or animals to genetic variability within species...Moderator] is any greater than with domestic breeding" and 2) "A transgene should be thought of as a mega-mutation, and nothing more" [These 2 quotations are from the last and fifth paragraphs respectively of Bill Muir's message...Moderator], with those of Muir (message 57, June 19): "Secondly, extrapolation of natural mutation rates with associated environmental harms to engineered mutations and possible associated harms is not scientifically valid for a number of reasons...."

Muir seems to accept that there are risks from natural genetic processes. This advances the debate to one of relative risks. Muir embraces the (presently) speculative perspective that genetic engineering engenders extra risk. (Incidentally, Muir may have misread my message 51 (June 17). Using the scallop example, I posed the question not of equivalence but of negligible risk of genetic engineering compared with classical genetic changes, hence Muir's analogy with radon gas may be inappropriate in logic, and in biology).

Also, for balance, possibly scientific accuracy, I'd like to list the following points from the published literature that are somewhat at variance with Muir's perspectives of message 57:
1. There are no empirical data showing new species formation by genetic engineering.
2. Non-point mutations (translocations, transpositions) are common (and arguably pose orders of magnitude more risk than genetic engineering).
3. Point mutations can generate very large phenotypic changes - i.e. changes more dramatic than those conceivable from genetic engineering, such as a second set of wings in Drosophila. Indeed nature has put "wings" on fish and we shouldn't underestimate the potential and flexibility of natural genetic processes. Conversely, natural processes can manipulate whole genomes through ploidy, hybridisation and even genome "fusion" with mitochondrial and nuclear DNA.
4. The fitness of phenotypic change is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the change, not vice versa as suggested by Muir (see Knibb 1997, 2002).
5. There is no empirical evidence that genetically engineered changes are more likely (than natural mutations) to be fit in the wild. We have no knowledge of the blueprint or architecture of fitness of species, and without this knowledge any changes we make, no matter how deliberate in our minds, will be accidental with respect to fitness - i.e. one may have a perfectly fine and well designed spanner, but if you don't have the blueprint to say, a power plant, the chance of improving electrical output (read fitness) by random tinkering is negligible. This explains why we've failed in the past (in insect control programs) to deliberately construct classical changes with fitness advantages in the wild.
6. Issues of process (method and type of genetic change) and form (phenotype), and their similarities/differences between engineering and classical changes are quite secondary to the critical and central issue of wild fitness. Because of pleiotropy, genetic changes, however they are made, and whatever phenotypic class of change (notwithstanding neutral mutations), are likely to reduce wild fitness.

Such issues can be debated to and fro, and to break this cycle I attempted to establish a formal testable (i.e. scientific) hypothesis of negligible environmental risk from GMOs (Knibb 1994, 1997). It is for the scientific community to assess whether this hypothesis was falsified over the last decade using empirical data (setting aside hypothetical speculation). If not falsified, at some point (in 1, 10, 20 years?) this hypothesis should become dogma and guide regulators.

Knibb, W.R. 1994. Genetic improvement of warmwater fish and their environmental impact. 3rd International Marine Biotechnology Conference: Book of Abstracts, Tromsoe University. p 90.
Knibb, W. R. 1997. Risk from genetically engineered and modified marine fish. Transgenic Research. 6:59-67.
Knibb, W. R. 2002. Ecological risk from aquatic LMOs. Proceedings from "LMOs and the Environment: An International Conference". Raleigh-Durham, the United States, 27-30 November 2001. In press. (please contact author for copies)

Dr Wayne Knibb
Principal Research Scientist
Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre
144 North Street, Woorim
PO Box 2066
Bribie Island Queensland 4507
Australia
Ph (07) 34002000 / 2052
Fax 34083535
Mobile: 0418732126
e-mail: wayne.knibb (at) dpi.qld.gov.au

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 21 June 2002 09:12 To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 64: GM versus conventionally bred plants

I agree with the Moderator's latest comments (message 63, June 20) that it may seem off the main point of the debate, but if Professor Cummins' view of the difference between transgenic plants or those produced by traditional breeding (message 56, June 18) is accepted as correct, then it alters the nature of the debate about gene flow, since the hazard from GM plants then differs fundamentally from that from conventional crops, in both developed and developing countries.

I would therefore like to briefly respond to Professor Cummins' reply (message 56, June 18) to my earlier question (message 17, June 6). In framing my question -- which was a response to Suzanne Wuerthele (message 1, 31 May) who said:"Because GMOs are fundamentally different from conventionally-bred organisms, they raise novel concerns about their effects on ecosystems at the genetic level and about their behaviour in ecosystems at the agricultural level." -- I asked "What is the evidence for this broad statement?"

I am puzzled by the responses which assume that the nature of the recombinant product is so different that the GM plant cannot be compared with those derived by 'conventional' plant breeding, (which itself may well involve such unnatural procedures as chemical and X ray mutagenesis). The products of the initial transformation first go through a searching and prolonged selection process which starts in the growth chamber, proceeds to the greenhouse and finally to field plots. The great majority of the initial transformants are discarded en route. But before they can be considered for commercial use they then, after the completion of this screen, have to go though the same approval process as other potential cultivars which have been derived from 'conventional' plant breeding, and in the United Kingdom that means satisfying the DUS criteria (Distinctiveness, Uniformity and Stability) before they can be approved for Plant Varieties Rights regulations. This path has been followed by all transformed plants which came for regulatory approval.

So there is a double selection procedure and yet Professor Cummins maintains that the product is so fundamentally different that it cannot be compared. Is there any scientific evidence for this? Or has it come from a belief that insertion of a transgene is such an 'unnatural' process that the product must be different in kind, not even in degree. Are we not then sliding into a pseudo-philosophical use of the word 'natural' here? So that, in such a view, 'natural' is intrinsically a good and 'contamination' an evil.

My general point is made in a much more scholarly way in the review by Dale, Clarke and Fontes (Nature Biotechnology, June 2002, Vol 20, pp 567-574).

Professor Derek Burke
13,Pretoria Road
Cambridge CB4 1HD
United Kingdom
Tel/Fax 01223 301159
e-mail: dcb27 (at) cam.ac.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 21 June 2002 14:11
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 65: Re: GM versus conventionally bred plants

Prof. Joe Cummins, Prof. Emeritus, University of Western Ontario, Canada.

Prof. Derek Burke (message 64, June 21) says "Is there any scientific evidence for this? Or has it come from a belief that insertion of a transgene is such an 'unnatural' process that the product must be different in kind, not even in degree. Are we not then sliding into a pseudo-philosophical use of the word 'natural' here? So that, in such a view, 'natural' is intrinsically a good and 'contamination' an evil."

In reply, the discussion was about the fact that conventional plant breeding depends on homologous recombination, the normal process by which plant sexual generate recombinant forms, while plant nuclear transgenes are always inserted using illegitimate recombination, a process by which genes are inserted into chromosomes at DNA double strand breaks that are most frequently essentially random.

Professor Burke promotes the view that homologous and illegitimate recombination are equivalent, and the products of the two types of recombination are equivalent. That opinion is simply wrong and one that is so elementary that it will cause even beginning students of genetics to titter. Most seriously, Burke's views seem to dominate policy in plant genetic engineering and tend to discourage development of a system using meiotic recombination to produce high quality transgenic crops.

Professor Joe Cummins,
University of Western Ontario.
Canada
jcummins (at) uwo.ca

[1. Further messages on this subject will only be posted if dealing with the impact on, or relevance for, gene flow from GM to non-GM populations.
2. Definitions of homologous and illegitimate recombination were provided in message 59...Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 21 June 2002 15:21
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 66: Legitimacy of a GM cultivar

This is David Heaf, UK co-ordinator of Ifgene -- International Forum for Genetic Engineering

Professor Joe Cummins (message 56, June 18) portrays GM plants as genetic 'bastards'. His post is part of a thread, also addressed by others, which essentially concerns the naturalness of genetic engineering and any resulting gene flow. The philosophical core of this thread was portrayed nearly 400 years ago in Shakespeare's 'A Winter's Tale' (act IV Scene 4):[glossary appended]

"Perdita: .. the fairest flowers o' the season
Are our carnations, and streaked gillyflowers
Which some call nature's bastards: of that kind
Our rustic garden's barren; and I care not
To get slips of them
Polixenes: Wherefore gentle maiden, Do you neglect them?
Perdita: For I have heard it said
That is an art which in their piedness shares
With great creating nature.
Polixenes: Say there is;
Yet nature is made better by no means
But nature makes that mean: so over that art
Which you say adds to nature, is an art
That nature makes. You see, sweet maid, we marry
A gentler scion to the wildest stock
And make conceive a bark of baser kind
By bud of nobler race. This is an art
Which does mend nature - change it, rather - but
The art itself is nature
Perdita: So it is
Polixenes: Then make your garden rich in gillyflowers
And do not call them bastards
Perdita: I'll not put
The dibble in earth to set one slip of 'em!"

Although Professor Derek Burke's post (message 64, June 21) comes close to it, what the discussion seems to overlook so far is that the human being is part of evolution and what he does has natural consequences for evolution. The alternative is a somewhat unscientific form of dualism. Generalising Polixenes' sense then, we could say that any gene flow arising from GM cultivars in developing countries would be natural. This would mean that an appeal to the legitimacy (bastard status) of such cultivars is not valid and we would therefore need to find quite other moral intuitions to take as our motives in determining the future of agriculture in the developing countries. This issue of 'naturalness' will be addressed at a public workshop later this year on 'Genetic Engineering and the Intrinsic Value and Integrity of Animals and Plants' (www.anth.org/ifgene/2002.htm).

Glossary: gillyflower (gillivor) - wallflower
slip - cutting of plant
piedness - part one colour, part another
scion - cutting of plant
dibble - dibber, pointed wooden stick to make hole in ground for young plant

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 21 June 2002 17:20
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 67: Risks of genetic engineering

I am Roberto Verzola, former member of the National Biosafety Committee of the Philippines.

I find it hard to accept the claims that the risks of genetic engineering are not very different from the risks of conventional breeding for the following reason:

In conventional breeding, I would expect that the frequency of damaging mutation is much lower than 1 in a thousand, hence more than 99.9% of the results will be viable. The scientists here can probably supply the more accurate figure.

I've asked scientists the frequency of damaging mutations in a genetic engineering (GE) transformation and my impression is that more than 99% of transformed cells are considered damaged or unviable. Less than 1% actually survive "mega-mutation" as somebody here put it, and then, as the transformants grow into adults, more are even eliminated because of less obvious, and more subtle, problems that later show up. Again, those who actually do transformations can probably supply the more accurate figures. Have these genetically damaged results of transformation been analyzed statistically, as a whole? Apparently not. They represent the *real* risks of genetic engineering.

If conventional breeding results in a higher than 99.9% viability rate, while genetic engineering has a less than 1% viability rate, that's a world of difference in terms of risk, isn't it? That genetic engineers then have to resort again to conventional breeding to eliminate the genetically-damaged and reduce the risks created by GE clearly shows that conventional breeding reduces the risk, while GE increases it.

My own field is software. Making changes in the genome is very much like making changes in a complex software system. Such changes would obviously be tested if they accomplished the intended effect. However, they also introduce unintended side-effects, what we call "bugs". If, after testing, we discover a bug, then the possibility rises that a few more hidden bugs exist, which may surface only on rare occasions or under certain conditions. Even simple bugs can result in catastrophes. There's enough literature about this. Since the unintended side-effects of soya and corn transformation are now showing up in commercial products (higher lignin, allergenicities, etc.), the probability has also gone up that more hidden side-effects exist.

The difference between complex software systems and genomes is that we already have, theoretically, 100% knowledge of the entire software system, because it is, after all, human designed and constructed. Very often, the documentation is available, where the intentions of the designers are explicitly stated. Still, software changes invariably introduce bugs. How much more in a genome where we don't really know the design or the intentions of the designer, have no documentation and do not even know how the whole thing works in detail?

Roberto Verzola
Philippines
rverzola (at) gn.apc.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 22 June 2002 09:51
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 68: Re: Risks of genetic engineering

This is from Neal Stewart, Racheff Chair of Plant Molecular Genetics, University of Tennessee, United States.

Dr. Verzola (message 67, June 21) and others miss the point of transgenics when they bring up the unintended consequence argument based on collateral mutations.

Let's use the example of software. If mutations arise in software and there is no selection, then there will be problems indeed. But what if there were ways to breed and select acceptable software? That is what happens in the plant biotech world.

Transgenic plants are much the same way. Mutations are introduced through transgenesis and tissue culture. Dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of transgenic events are made, and then the resulting plants are selected based upon expression of the gene of interest, and then on fertility and "normal" phenotypes. Just as in wide-cross or mutation breeding (conventional techniques), the one-to-few accceptable events are chosen. In that case it is the same. But since only one-to-a-few genes are introduced in transgenesis, then the risk is lower than the other techniques because of certainty. Coupled with the subsequent breeding that occurs post-transgenesis in which the transgene can be selected in new genetic backgrounds quite precisely, the genetic-based risk would drop even further relative to mutation breeding. Still, after a number of breeding events, the position effects become quite predictable. This is what has occured as the glyphosate resistance gene has been bred into many lines and commercial varieties of Roundup Ready soybean-- the 3-5% yield drag as the results of the original genetics varies very little.

We can do posthoc analyses on transgenic varieties in much more detail and therefore, know more about them than conventional varieties in days past. Microarray analysis and metanomic techniques can yield quite precise data on substantial equivalence. [metanomics is the study of gene expression at the metabolite level...Moderator]. But why stop at transgenic products? If these assays are required, then they should be required for every new variety and even old varieties that are grown. Then what is the baseline? Big can of worms...

Professor Neal Stewart,
University of Tennessee,
United States.
e-mail: jstewar5 (at) utk.edu

[This line of discussion is now cut, unless messages consider the consequences/relevance for gene flow...Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 22 June 2002 10:09
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 69: Re: Gene flow risk assessment - plants

Professor Muir again. This is in response to Dr. Nickson (message 24, June 7). The discussion by Dr. Nickson on environmental risk assessment as a result of gene flow seems most reasonable and with some modification can be used in general for plants or animals. As he points out there are really two issues of gene flow:

1) probability the gene will spread into the environment (exposure) and 2) potential harms to the environment if the transgene spreads into the environment (i.e. harm given exposure).

The product of these probabilities results in risk. Addressing the second issue (harm given exposure) is very difficult (perhaps impossible) because all potential harms may not be known a priori. However, the first issue can be addressed by population genetics. Gene flow by pollen, seeds, or escaped animals, is only the first step. From there, natural selection will determine the fate of the transgene if the population size is large enough. The transgene may be eliminated resulting in no risk, or may increase in frequency, resulting in risk of the potential harms defined in step (2). A conservative method of risk assessment would be to address the issue of gene flow, which is something we can predetermine using science based methods, and only proceed with those products which suggest a low probability of spread. The second issue of potential harms then becomes mote. See http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2002/news02.feb.html#feb0201 for more detail on this method. [This links to an article by Professer Muir, entitled "Potential environmental risks and hazards of biotechnology. Part II: Methods to estimate risks and hazards", in the February 2002 version of the Information Systems for Biotechnology (ISB) News Report...Moderator].

However I disagree with his conclusion "the current biotech products have shown no measureable risks compared to the risks already present from their traditionally grown counterparts. However, the lack of detectable effects and measurable hazards seems to have left some of the scientific community with a sense of uncertainty, possibly due to dissatisfaction with negative results."

I point you to the abstract of Stewart et al (1997): "Rapeseed Brassica napus L. transgenic for a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) transgene was developed and was shown to be insecticidal towards certain caterpillars including the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella L. and the corn earworm Helicoverpa tea Boddie. To simulate an escape of the transgenics from cultivation, a field experiment was performed in which transgenic and nontransgenic rapeseed plants were planted in natural vegetation and cultivated plots and subjected to various selection pressures in the form of herbivory from insects. Only two plants, both transgenic, survived the winter to reproduce in the natural-vegetation plots which were dominated by grasses such as crabgrass. However, in plots that were initially cultivated then allowed to naturalize, medium to high levels of defoliation decreased survivorship of nontransgenic plants relative to Bt-transgenic plants and increased differential reproduction in favour of Bt plants. Thus, where suitable habitat is readily available, there is a likelihood of enhanced ecological risk associated with the release of certain transgene/crop combinations such as insecticidal rapeseed. This is the first report of a field study demonstrating the effect of a fitness-increasing transgene in plants." (Stewart CN, All JN, Raymer PL, Ramachandran S. 1997. Increased fitness of transgenic insecticidal rapeseed under insect selection pressure. Molecular Ecology 6:773-779).

This report is critical because it shows that it is possible to modify an organism in the laboratory to have an increased fitness in natural settings and refutes the notion that any man-made modification to an organism will always reduce fitness as has been suggested elsewhere.

William M. Muir, Ph.D.
Professor Genetics
1151 Lilly Hall
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47906
United States
bmuir (at) purdue.edu
http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~bmuir/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 24 June 2002 09:41
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 70: Putting hands together to fight hunger

[Thanks to Doctor Badr from Egypt for this message about the GM perspective in developing countries.
NB - We are now in the last week of this e-mail conference. In this last week, we especially encourage those who have not yet done so, to share your views and experiences with us on the potential importance and impact of gene flow from genetically modified (GM) crops, forest trees, fish or animals to non-GM populations (with particular focus on developing countries). The last day for sending messages to the conference is June 28th...Moderator]

In developing countries, the GM research has been done (1) individually (with the lowest facilities), so you can find great numbers of research needed to be applied (2) few supported projects. The second was better because of the presence of facilities and funds, in addition to the organized work which covers different research aspects. The disadvantage of supported research is the presence of some kind of stress to direct the research result for the benefit of the company or group. As an example, if a company produces a product, it may support research to say that it is good product. This is the danger of non ethical work (you can watch this in some TV advertisements to encourage a product). This is one of the points that people fears from foreign GM food.

In the case of my country (a fast growing country (FGC)) with great agricultural projects in the east (El-Owainat), west (Elwady and desert), south (toushky) turned the desert to green carpets, modern green houses supported with high technology. All this is accompanied with industrial projects. Most of these are private, companies can support its research and play a part in technology transfer and gene flow. The biotechnology research in universities and agricultural institutes is increasing, using available facilities (a US company bought a GM product for insects with more than hundred million dollar from the GE institute). This may reflect the progress. On the other hand, the individual researchers suffer from the lack of facilities and fund.

The desire of collecting money may stress some companies to close eyes and accept the non-examined GMOs or food, so there must be something to certificate GM products - similar to ISO. The researchers must put the needed limitations and tests. No GM research would be applied without this certification FROM INTERNATIONALLY TRUSTED PEOPLE INCLUDING REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SAME COUNTRY in different fields for supporting economical and ecological aspects. This may make people trust GM tested products and control research ethics.

The conference is about to end, but the voice of the developing and least developed countries is still low and non heard. This may due to the lack of computers, the expensive internet costs, the people are not announced or scientists are busy. (I mean that because a scientist in such a country is a scientist lover, he spends all his time in the laboratory and spends his own money on research, because this is the only way to complete). I hope to hear these voices which need support from developed countries. What confuses me, is their biotechnological research in countries that suffer hunger, where they have no food, no houses, no milk for kids. We are still away, but still can help putting hands together to fight hunger.

Dr Aisha, A. A. Badr
Tropical Fruit Division
Alexandria Horticultural Research Station
Alexandria
Egypt
momidic (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 24 June 2002 09:45
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 71: Gene flow risk assessment - plants

This is Tom Nickson with a quick response to Dr. Muir's comment in message 69 (June 22).

In message 24 (June 7), I was very careful to use the term "biotech products" in a precise manner. By product, I meant only the few biotech plants that have completed the regulatory process and are currently being marketed somewhere in the world. This term was carefully chose to avoid overstatement for the reason that Dr. Muir notes.

Work with Brassica napus, and newer work emerging with sunflowers, is showing in experimental field trials a potential for the Bt gene to confer a fitness advantage in wild relatives. A thorough risk assessment would have to carefully evaluate the potential for this altered property of the transgenic plant to confer a hazard. The hazard assessment would have to take into consideration the receiving environment.

Thomas E. Nickson, Ph.D.
Ecological Technology Center
Monsanto Company, V2B
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63141
USA
thomas.nickson (at) monsanto.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 24 June 2002 09:49
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 72: Population genetic mathematical models

This is from Dr Wayne Knibb. I am a geneticist (population and molecular biologist) working on aquacultured species.

There have been suggestions (message 69, and previous) that population genetic mathematical models can predict the probability that genes will spread into the environment. Unfortunately, because of simplifying assumptions required to operate population genetic models (e.g. assumptions of no evolution and selection of modifiers, no genetic by environment (GxE) interactions), these mathematical models inherently are of little or no predictive use in real world situations. Indeed, some question whether population genetic mathematical modelling can (ever) predict fitness and evolution (Barton and Turelli 1989).

Barton, N.H. and Turelli, M. 1989. Evolutionary quantitative genetics: How little do we know? Ann. Rev. Genet. 23, 337-370

Dr Wayne Knibb
Principal Research Scientist
Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre
144 North Street, Woorim
PO Box 2066
Bribie Island Queensland 4507
Australia
Ph (07) 34002000 / 2052
Fax 34083535
Mobile: 0418732126
e-mail: wayne.knibb (at) dpi.qld.gov.au

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 25 June 2002 09:13
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 73: Re: Population genetic mathematical models // Human intervention

Professor Muir again, this is in response to Dr. Wayne Knibb (message 72, June 24) and also to address the Background Document to this conference which states:

"Gene flow may also be facilitated unknowingly by human intervention. For example, for GM crops, this may occur through aid or relief agencies accidentally providing GM seeds in programmes to replenish a ravaged country or region's seed stocks or through farmers using transgenic material, intended as food aid, as seeding stock. In some other situations, GM crop material may be illegally introduced by farmers to non-GM populations because they see an economic advantage in using them."

Risk assessment method based on population genetics/mathematical models, as detailed in my message 69 (June 22), can be applied regardless of how the initial exposure occurs, i.e. whether by escape of the plant/animal, pollen drift, or intentional release by humans. The assumption is that the ultimate fate of the transgene can be predicted based on fitness components estimated in a secure setting. Wayne's message (72) challenges that assumption because (he claims) the models cannot incorporate genotype x environment interaction (GxE) or changes in the fitness components themselves and because earlier models were inadequate.

First, GxE can be incorporated by estimating the fitness components in a range of environments the GM organism may escape to. These are then fed into the model. If the predictions of fate remain the same regardless of which environment they were estimated in, the predictions are robust to that assumption. If not, the GM organism must be restricted from those environments which are shown to be a risk. Secondly, regarding changes in the fitness components themselves, the robustness of the predictions can also be examined by comparing fate of the transgene using a range of fitness components. If the same outcome is predicted over a wide range, the prediction is then robust to that assumption.

The only way to really resolve this argument is to verify the model in a natural setting. However, this is a catch 22 situation because we cannot release GM organisms before they are deemed safe. To address this issue, we used the model to determine if it could predict spread of the Africanized honey bee in the Americas. Based on estimates provided to me, the model predicted almost perfectly not only that the Africanized honey bee would spread but also the rate of spread. Secondly, a paper by Rejmanek and Richardson (1996) showed that using just 3 of my six fitness components they were able to perfectly predict spread of invasive plants. Using all 6 would allow an even more precise prediction.

Finally, if one accepts Wayne's conclusion that we cannot predict fate of a transgene in natural settings from population genetics, the conclusion would be that there is no science based method that can be used to predict spread (or lack of). Using the precautionary principle, the only logical conclusion based on that argument is that we should never release a GM organism because the risk can never be predetermined. I personally feel that is a very pessimistic view that would doom the industry. To be sure, no model is going to be 100% accurate, and there is no such thing as no risk, but this is extreme.

Reference: Rejmanek, M. and D.M. Richardson, 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive. Ecology 77:1655-1661.

William M. Muir, Ph.D.
Professor Genetics
1151 Lilly Hall
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47906
United States
bmuir (at) purdue.edu
http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~bmuir/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 25 June 2002 10:42
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 74: Models - Human intervention - Developing countries

This is Jane Morris from South Africa.

In the earlier phases of this conference (message 6, June 3), I pleaded for more research to enable scientists and regulators in developing countries to make informed decisions on GM release. I come back to this now.

Professor Muir's model [see message 73, June 25...Moderator] sounds great, but is it really going to be a help in a developing country situation? A model is only as good as the data available to populate it. In developing countries, the environmental information is often not well documented. Moreover, the spread of the GMO will often happen through human intervention (e.g. "brown bag" seed passed from hand to hand amongst small farmers) which cannot be easily documented or modelled. In many cases, it may be reasonable to assume that even if such "uncontrolled" spread occurs it will not pose any greater hazard than the spread of non-GMO seed - that is obviously part of the total risk assessment. But if we are going to resort to modelling, let's at least make sure
(a) that we understand the receiving environment adequately, and
(b) that we know how we are going to use the model to assist us in decision making (is an aid organization going to model the effects of distributing maize to the starving people in Africa? - seems somewhat unrealistic!)

E Jane Morris PhD
Director
African Centre for Gene Technologies
P O Box 75011
Lynnwood Ridge
Pretoria 0040
South Africa
Tel: +27 12 841 2642
Fax: +27 12 841 3105
Cellular: +27 82 566 2210
e-mail: jmorris (at) csir.co.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 26 June 2002 09:28
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 75: Gene flow in animals

My name is David Trus. I am a quantitative geneticist working for Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada on animal breeding issues. I haven't seen much reference to gene flow in animals during this forum so I would like to add a few thoughts. [Many thanks to David Trus for this message, the first one dealing specifically with the issue of gene flow in livestock populations. Remember there are 3 days left for sending messages, the conference closing on 28 June, so additional comments on the livestock situation as well as specific comments about gene flow and GM forest trees and fish are highly welcome...Moderator]

I will start from the issue of "genetic pollution" which was raised by several contributors [see e.g. messages 30 (June 10) and 39 (June 11)...Moderator], as it relates to the concept of purity. In Canada, we have federal legislation under which animal breeds are recognized and breed associations operate. The Act contains a minimum definition for "purebred" of 7/8ths inherited from foundation stock of the breed or from other purebreds. Many breeds impose more rigorous criteria for purebreds. However, in biological systems there is rarely such a thing as absolute purity. Similarly, the concept of "pollution" is a relative one only. Any apparent purity in a breeding population is really a function of the amount of time since the last novel genetic "migrations" (intentional or otherwise), the nature of the novel genetic contributions and the genetic stability of the resulting population. This can be true for conventional or, perhaps in the future, for transgenic animal introductions.

In order to recognize a distinct breed in the first place, we use criteria similar to the DUS mentioned by Derek Burke (message 64, June 21). A breed can only be recognized as distinct if it represents a viable population of animals with,
1. Common genetic origin and history
2. Distinct characteristics
3. Genetic stability

Once the breed is recognized, if a novel genetic contribution (i.e. outcross) is made to the population then the resulting progeny may only be recognized as "percentage" animals until such time as the purebred criterion is achieved, again through further breeding-up. But what happens when there is no formal system to help maintain segregated populations, as I am sure happens in many countries?

Here in Canada we generally do not have many indigenous animal populations that would be at risk from gene flows from domesticated animals (whether conventional or transgenic). Cross-species flows would also appear to be so low as to be insignificant. Nevertheless, breed to breed gene flows, which can compromise the viability and/or integrity of existing purebred populations, can take place as a result of the following;

1. Intentional crossing
2. Unintentional breedings due to isolation failures
3. Multiple breedings (e.g. due to use of bull batteries, clean-up bulls, double inseminations, pooled semen)
4. Registration, parentage verification and administrative errors
5. Fraud

Appropriate process controls need to be in place to limit any negative impact of the above. Ultimately, unintentional gene flow can be further limited by use of neutering, implementation of isolation and other biosafety measures, and through use of tracking systems with built-in monitoring and audit capability. This is the first aspect of risk, which quite likely has additional levels of complexity in developing and bio-diverse countries. In summary, gene flows can and do happen, but they can be limited.

The second aspect of risk is the potential harm that could come from unintentional gene flows, but which we know so little about. I would suggest that the black box that quantitative/population geneticists use to model population changes will remain black for a considerable time yet. However, risk assessment models such as proposed by W. Muir (message 69, June 22) are essential. Meanwhile, as with any good statistical modelling, all the assumptions should be stated up-front. If everyone did that, I wonder if the gene flow issue would look different?

David Trus, P.Ag.
Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada
Ottawa, Canada
TRUSD (at) agr.gc.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 26 June 2002 10:16
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 76: Fitness of lab modified organisms in natural settings

This is from Dr Wayne Knibb. I am a geneticist (population and molecular biologist) working on aquacultured species.

Though not theoretically impossible, it is an extraordinary claim to have empirical evidence of laboratory modified organisms with increased fitness in natural settings (Bill Muir, message 69, June 22), if natural settings are taken to mean the wild "natural" environments with natural selective forces including the presence of competitive conspecifics, and fitness is assumed to be Darwinian fitness.

Such novel claims should be examined closely, not only as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but as the conditions which satisfy such claims are stringent, namely, the demonstration of gene frequency increases across generations (to reflect the net fitness of the gene) in response to natural selection. Such claims have been mooted in the past (for bacteria), but have not withstood scrutiny.

[Bill Muir in message 69 referred to the paper by Stewart et al. (1997) in Molecular Ecology, in which they describe a field experiment they carried out "in which transgenic and nontransgenic rapeseed plants were planted in natural vegetation and cultivated plots and subjected to various selection pressures in the form of herbivory from insects.". Based on the results, they conclude "where suitable habitat is readily available, there is a likelihood of enhanced ecological risk associated with the release of certain transgene/crop combinations such as insecticidal rapeseed". Quotations are from the paper's abstract...Moderator]

Dr Wayne Knibb
Principal Research Scientist
Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre
144 North Street, Woorim
PO Box 2066
Bribie Island Queensland 4507
Australia
Ph (07) 34002000 / 2052
Fax 34083535
Mobile: 0418732126
e-mail: wayne.knibb (at) dpi.qld.gov.au

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 26 June 2002 10:27
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 77: Re: Models - Human intervention - Developing countries

Hi Professor Muir again (sorry to send in so many comments). This is in reply to Jane Morris (message 74, June 25) questions on utility of our model in developing countries.

Regarding use of the model in developing countries, there are three issues.

First, a model is only as good as the estimates of fitness components put into it. Our model is based on extensions of Prout's (1971a) paper. Prout's (1971b) paper shows the predictions of the model were accurate but attributes the success to the ability to measure fitness components in the environment in which the gene will be released. Thus, in order to get accurate estimates, facilities need to be developed which simultaneously 1) restrict the GM organism to those secure facilities and 2) provide a similar environment to that in which the transgene might escape. This type of facility could be exceedingly expensive to build, depending on the type of GM organism examined.

Second, there is the issue of the receiving population size and magnitude of the GM release (brown bag, etc.). The model as presently developed is deterministic, that is it assumes the receiving population size is infinite, in which case genetic drift (genetic sampling errors) and magnitude of release is not important (release of 1 is the same as 1000, the only difference is the time to fixation or loss). However, with small population sizes stochastic events can be more powerful than natural selection and fix poorly adapted genes which could result in extinction of the local population. See Lynch and O'Hely (2001) for a discussion of this hazard due to release of domesticated fish into natural populations. The model can be made stochastic to include these factors, I just have not had time to do that. Thus we can include impact of magnitude of release in release. However, we are never going to be able to do things on a fine scale. The assumption is that those fine scale deviations only add noise to the system but do not influence the final outcome.

Finally there is the issue of what harms the model can address. The model can only address ecological risk to native species due to spread of a transgene in the native population. It cannot be used to predict human health risks, changes in farming practices, or other such issues unless they result from secondary ecological impacts due to affected species.

Lynch, M. and M. O'Hely. 2001. Captive breeding and the genetic fitness of natural populations. Conservation Genetics 2:363-378.
Prout, T. 1971a. The relation between fitness components and population prediction in Drosophila. I: The estimation of fitness components. Genetics 68: 127-149.
Prout, T. 1971b. The relation between fitness components and population prediction in Drosophila. II. Population prediction. Genetics 68: 151-167.

William M. Muir, Ph.D.
Professor Genetics
1151 Lilly Hall
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47906
United States
bmuir (at) purdue.edu
http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~bmuir/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 26 June 2002 11:22
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 78: Re: Risks of genetic engineering

This is from Roberto Verzola, Secretary-general, Philippine Greens and former member of the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines.

I have earlier made the point (message 67, June 21) that genetic engineering (GE) increases the risk of damaging mutations. I've been asked by the moderator to relate this to gene flow. The connection is simple: the increased risk carried by a genetically-modified organism is passed on to other organisms of the same species (e.g. by cross-pollination) or of another species (e.g. horizontal gene transfer to fungi or bacteria). Because the carriers of the risk reproduce and multiply, then the risk itself will also be increasing over time. Furthermore, with horizontal gene transfer, the foreign DNA sequences will be operating under a totally new genetic and environmental context, creating new unpredictable risks.

These risks are objectionable for several reasons:
*Genetic privatization*: as the engineered genes flow around, ownership claims associated with them attach themselves to farmers' produce, causing contentious issues. This is especially true for developing countries because most biopatents belong to biotech firms from the developed world.
*genetic contamination*: enough has been said on this matter, where the higher risk associated with an engineered gene transfers itself to non-engineered varieties, creating new environmental and health concerns. Just to mention one: by increasing the level of Bt toxin in the fields, whether or not a major corn borer infestation occurs, Bt crops will hasten the development of Bt resistance, rendering useless an important tool of organic farmers for controlling this pest. Organic farming is an important alternative of the developing world to agrochemical dependence and foreign control.
*market rejection*: if the engineered genes are not wanted by consumers, gene flow creates marketing problems not only for farmers who used the gene on purpose, but also those who unknowingly got the genes into their fields through gene flow. U.S. and Canadian farmers, for instance, have lost major markets due to gene flow. The only market for engineered soya and corn today are countries where consumers are not informed about the presence of the engineered genes due to the absence of mandatory GMO labeling laws. Again, this is especially important to developing countries because most of the GM corn and soya rejected in Europe, Japan, Korea or elsewhere ends up being sold or "donated" in developing countries. Philippine scientists are now doing research on GM mangoes, papayas, bananas, etc. If their transgenes escaped into commercial farms - we could lose our markets for these major export products.

I would like to clarify further what these risks are:
* the risks associated with the foreign gene itself (e.g. allerginicity, toxicity, long-term side-effects, resistance development, etc.)
* the risks associated with the marker gene (e.g. antibiotic resistance)
* the risks associated with the promoters (eg, the recombination hotspot in the cauliflower mosaic virus promoter)
* the unpredictable risks associated with the randomness of the insertion process and pleiotrophic effects

I already cited the difference in *actual* damaging mutations in the first generation following conventional breeding (CB) (<0.1%) vs. GE transformation (>99%). That's at least 5 orders of magnitude difference. I do hope that others will post here the more accurate figures from actual industry results.

Here's another way of showing that GE risks are high not only in the first generation of transformed cells but in subsequent generations, using what may be called the input-output method: Introducing foreign genes (Bt gene, marker, etc.) makes the target organism produce proteins that it has not produced in the past. Consider an input-output table: columns represented by amino acids and rows by protein products, with weights as entries (representing amount of each amino acid needed to produce an x amount of a specific protein), with a final row and column of totals, representing the materials balance of all protein production in an organism. A GMO will produce one or more new proteins not found in the non-GM version. These new proteins will require extra amino acids for its production, thus less will be available for the production of other proteins, upsetting the entire material balance of the organism. We cannot possibly predict in advance how the remaining amino acids will be reallotted under the new material balance and how much less of which other proteins will be produced. We can only be certain that the balance has been upset and less of some other proteins will be produced. (Where a protein regulates the production of another substance, a reduction in that protein may very well result in overproduction of the substance it is regulating. This can explain why a side-effect can be *higher* rather than lower levels of another substance (like lignin, or an allergenic substance, for instance).

By introducing such uncertainty, we have added to the system's entropy and raised the risk of abnormal events in the system. Dr. Stewart (message 68, June 22) goes the opposite direction and claims that the risk is lower. How can it be lower when actual results (>99.9% viability in CB and <1% viability in GE) show at least 5 orders of magnitude higher risk for GE in the first generation after transformation? This also immediately falsifies Dr. Knibb's hypothesis (message 63, June 20) that GE is no riskier than CB.

Dr. Stewart claims greater certainty (and therefore lower risk) in GE because the transgenic cassette is known precisely. That may be true, but the insertion point is random, and much of the genome itself is not well-understood by genetic engineers. The risk of increasing the entropy of the genome is surely higher where the insertion point is random, and the system itself is not well-understood and much more complex.

Dr. Stewart says more selection is done after the transformation event, to reduce the risks associated with unpredictable GE effects. My response:
* The post-transformation selection is done using CB, not GE, supporting the contention that CB reduces risk, while GE increases it
* It is true that no transformed (and very high-risk) cell is immediately commercialized. The first generation engineered mutants go through further CB to eliminate the damaged sections of the genome. But if the side-effects are unpredictable or if they occur only under certain circumstances, perhaps rare, genetic engineers will not know what they are selecting against.
* The fact that unintended side-effects (e.g. higher lignin content, greater tendency to outcross) continue to show up in commercial GMO crops leads us to suspect that more side-effects remain undiscovered. That is, commercial GE organisms continue to carry higher risks.

It is this higher risk carried by GMOs which are transferred to non-GMOs in the process of gene flow. Over time, as the GMO reproduces and multiplies in the field, the risks associated with it also multiplies. The risks associated with GMOs do not have half-lifes; they have doubling times.

Roberto Verzola
Philippines
rverzola (at) gn.apc.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 26 June 2002 19:26
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 79: Re: Fitness of lab modified organisms in natural settings

Professor Muir again in reply to Wayne Knibb (message 76, June 26). Wayne's message contains a number of confuting points.

First my message (69, June 22), that he refers to, only used as it's example rapeseed in natural environments, certainly not a laboratory species. If the rapeseed example was not sufficient, transgenic papaya provides another excellent example (again, not a laboratory species). Because plants and microbes evolve at different rates owing to vastly different generation times, it is not unusual that a virus can destroy a population before a resistant plant is found. GM technology has allowed plants to speed up the evolutionary process. Ferreira et. al. (2002) note that Papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) destroyed nearly all of the papaya hectarage in the Puna district of Hawaii (the native plant in a natural environment). In contrast, these researchers observe that none of the current GM plants have PRSV infection. Again, a clear demonstration that GM organisms can be developed with a greatly enhanced fitness in a natural setting.

Wayne's (Knibb, 1996) position is that all human modifications to an organism will result in a reduced fitness in natural settings. Thus, because, historically, selective breeding and natural mutations have resulted in a reduced fitness of these organisms in natural environments, we should similarly conclude that GM organisms have no risk. As I discussed in message 57 (June 19), these ideas are old fashioned and do not hold up for GM organisms (and clearly refuted by the above example).

His statement that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a two edged sword. Do the claims of no risk requires the same extraordinary evidence as those of risk? Because it is impossible to prove a negative, while easy to disprove a positive (as demonstrated above), Wayne should rethink what evidence should be used to evaluate risk (in either direction). Historical example of risk of non GM organisms (laboratory or other) is not valid.

Ferreira SA, Pitz KY, Manshardt R, Zee F, Fitch M, Gonsalves D 2002. Virus coat protein Transgenic papaya provides practical control of Papaya ringspot virus in Hawaii. PLANT DISEASE 86:101-105

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 27 June 2002 18:18
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 80: Why the fundamental nature of GMOs is important

[NB NB NB NB NB NB NB NB...The last day for participants to send messages is 28th June. I will post the last messages on Saturday morning (Rome time) and the conference will then be closed. For those of you who have not yet participated in the conference with your views or experiences (or for those of you who have already contributed, but still have something you wish to say) our message is "Speak now, or forever hold your peace".........Moderator]

The moderator has suggested that the question of whether a GMO is fundamentally different from its non-engineered counterpart is tangential to the discussion of the implications of transgene for developing countries. [The Moderator has simply tried to suggest that participants focus on the theme of this conference, which is the potential importance and impact of gene flow from genetically modified (GM) crops, forest trees, fish or animals to non-GM populations...Moderator]. I believe this question is relevant to our topic. An understanding of the fundamental nature of GMOs is critical for rational and comprehensive risk assessment, which includes assessment of the risks from gene flow.

Risk assessment (estimating the probability that some adverse outcome will occur) first requires hazard identification - identifying what potential adverse outcomes we must consider. If GMOs are fundamentally different, (see my message 1, May 31), then it is wise to try to fully understand those differences, and use that understanding to consider what new hazards they might present before making conclusions about risk. (Of course it is also important to understand what "conventional" hazards they might present, such as soil residues of transgenic products).

Some of our most serious environmental problems (e.g., global spread of bioaccumulative, endocrine-disrupting compounds, effects of industrial scale agriculture on crop biodiversity and ecosystems in developing countries) stem from our failure to identify new hazards raised by new technologies. Developing countries are least able to afford additional environmental problems, whether new or conventional, so risk assessment of GMO technology as a whole, as well as risk assessment of specific GMOs they might be considering, is very important for them.

The assessment of physical and biological risks has its counterpart in the social sciences. Developing countries would also be wise to consider how GMOs are different from their non-engineered counterparts with respect to politics, economics, ethics/religion, effects on food security, and agrarian society.

Suzanne Wuerthele, PhD, toxicologist
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
United States
e-mail: Wuerthele.Suzanne (at) epamail.epa.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 27 June 2002 18:37
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 81: GM animals in New Zealand

I am Hugh Blair from Massey University in New Zealand. I am primarily a quantitative geneticist.

A brief statement about genetically modified animals in New Zealand. Since 14 June 2000, there has been a moratorium placed on the field release of genetically modified organisms in New Zealand. This was imposed by the government while a Royal Commission into Genetic Modification enquiry took place (see http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz/intro/index.html for a summary). This enquiry was put in place because of clear public disquiet about this science (much of which was aimed at the consequences of gene flow - even if it was not stated in that term). The moratorium does not extend to manipulations in containment, so research can continue. The definition of containment then becomes important for animals because if the science is perceived as having 'significant benefits' (as judged by a process established through the Environmental Risk Management Authority (see http://www.ermanz.govt.nz), genetically modified animals can be generated and farmed in the equivalent of quarantine conditions (double fencing, security surveillance, etc). In addition, no animals live or dead can leave the facility (this has caused several lengthy discussions as to whether it is better to bury or incinerate dead animals), so gene flow to the animal population at large should not occur. Although there is still discussion about the possible transfer of the 'new gene' via carrion-eating animals, birds, insects, worms and microbes. So far the security measures seemed to have succeeded - the only captures being 1 or 2 media people.

While not directly related to the current topic, it is my opinion that (for New Zealand), there is more danger that imported breeds/strains will impact negatively on the genetic constitution of our production animal population than will any genetically modified animal. This is not based on science but on market forces. Currently (this may of course change), the types of farm animal genetic modification that are being trialled in NZ are those that generate animals to produce high-value, human-use, proteins - the last thing the inventor wants is gene flow. In contrast, those who import new strains/breeds make their money by widely distributing the imported genes. Indeed, if we had been more cautious about gene flow, we might not have used the North American Holstein so widely through our dairy cow population. It is less well adapted to our extensive farming systems (than our original Friesian and Jersey breeds) and has caused significant headaches to our farmers and scientists!. [Bill Muir (message 34, June 10) also refers to the impacts of gene flow from conventionally bred "globalised" populations such as the Holstein cattle...Moderator]

Hugh T. Blair
Director of Research and Postgraduate Studies
Professor of Animal Science
Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences
Massey University
Private Bag 11-222
PALMERSTON NORTH
Phone: +64-6-350-5122
e-mail: H.Blair (at) massey.ac.nz
http://ivabs.massey.ac.nz

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 27 June 2002 18:56
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 82: Policy options when there is no consensus

This is Roberto Verzola from the Philippines.

It seems obvious from the discussions that no general consensus exists yet within the scientific community on important issues related to GMO safety and gene flow. The level of consensus I've seen in the GM debate is much lower than, say, the debate on the dangers of cigarette-smoking or of pesticides in food. The high level of consensus on these matters took decades. I imagine it will take as long, or more, with GE products.

The dilemma that policy-makers face (as I did, as a member of the Philippine National Biosafety Committee) is: what GMO policy to adopt while the scientific community debates the issues? It is worse in poor countries like the Philippines where the few scientists working on GM issues often also serve as consultants for biotech firms, blurring the line between scientific inquiry and corporate marketing.

Without a reasonable scientific consensus on the safety or non-safety of GM products, policy-makers can take one of two basic options:
* to assume that a GM product is safe unless shown otherwise, or
* to assume that a GM product is not safe unless shown otherwise.

The first option is based on the substantial equivalence principle (GE and non-GE versions are considered substantially equivalent and equally safe unless shown otherwise), which guides United States regulators. The second is based on the precautionary principle, which seems to have the upper hand in Europe. Developing countries like the Philippines have been under heavy pressure, by powerful countries that sell GE products, to also adopt the first option.

However, GE risks are carried by genes. And genes flow. There's enough evidence of vertical flow (Mexico's Bt corn case being one of the more recent), and some indications of horizontal flow (Katz: from pollen, to bees' gut, to fungi and bacteria). There's also a high level of scientific consensus that once released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences (whose safety or non-safety are still subject to scientific debate) will not be feasible. Thus, we want a higher level of consensus on safety issues. Unlike nicotine or pesticides, GM crops can pollinate non-GM fields; GM fish and animals can escape into the wild. They reproduce and multiply; the risks they carry therefore increase as the escaped genes reproduce themselves.

Beyond the safety/contamination issues, concerns remain about genetic privatization and market rejection, especially because developing countries are usually dependent on a few agricultural products for export. We can't afford still another level of foreign control of our resources and economy through biopatents, nor can we afford losing our markets through GMO contamination.

In GE, therefore, the precautionary principle is especially necessary. It can allow scientific inquiry and research, but not field releases of live GMOs. It will require traceability and mandatory labeling of GMO ingredients. These, rather than reckless releases, non-traceability, and non-labelling, are the better policy options for decision-makers, especially in developing countries. In fact, the best option is probably to go organic.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 10:09
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 83: GM Contamination of Maize in Mexico

[NB...A final reminder that the last day for participants to send messages is 28th June. I will post the last messages on Saturday morning (Rome time) and the conference will then be closed....Moderator]

I am Peter Rosset. I have a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology and have spent many years studying agricultural systems. I presently reside in Mexico, where the contamination of maize (see below, a new report from my Institute) is quite alarming, to say the least, and speaks eloquently to a moratorium on releases in centers of origin and centers of present-day diversity until we know far more than we do today.

According to a new report, "Genetic Pollution in Mexico's Center of Maize Diversity" (http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2002/sp02v8n2.html) released by Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, the Mexican government has verified the contamination of Mexico's traditional maize varieties in the states of Oaxaca and Puebla, with transgenic material coming from outlawed genetically modified (GM) varieties.

"Maize is one of the world's four major food crops," said Dr. Peter Rosset, co-director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, and an expert on this issue. "Farmers and crop breeders worldwide depend on the genetic diversity stored for all of humanity in the local maize races developed over 9,000 years by indigenous people and peasant farmers in Mesoamerica," he said. "Any threat that this contamination poses to those local varieties would be a threat to the future food security of all humankind."

According to the Action Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration (ETC group, http://www.etcgroup.org), which produced the report for Food First, the verification on genetic pollution confirms the peer-reviewed findings of University of California researchers David Quist and Ignacio Chapela, which were first published in the scientific journal Nature last year. The researchers faced a barrage of criticism from biotechnology proponents, who pressured Nature to disavow the article contrary to the recommendations of the journals' own scientific advisors.

"This is by far the world's worst case of contamination by genetically modified material because it happened in the place of origin of a major crop," said Dr. Jorge Soberon, Secretary of Mexico's National Biodiversity Commission, who is quoted in the report. "It is confirmed, there is no doubt about it." This comes despite Mexico having outlawed genetically modified (GM) maize in 1998 to protect the Mexican center of origin and center of present-day diversity of this crucial food crop.

According the authors of the report, "the location of the contamination is one of the world's most valuable reservoirs of genetic material for plant breeding and a foundation for global food security." The genetic pollution is believed to have come from the six million tons of unlabeled United States maize imported into Mexico every year.

The report demonstrates the inability of regulatory bodies or industry to manage and contain genetically modified organisms. This reflects a broader conflict over control of genetic resources and security of the food supply in a time when biotechnology is increasingly dominated by corporate interests.

The authors state that this genetic pollution poses "significant potential risks" that have not been fully and independently studied, such as genetic effects on local maize varieties as a result of cross-pollination by genetically modified plants, the largely unexplored health risks of eating GM foods, and potential ecological and crop management problems which may arise as modified traits pass from the GM crops to wild relatives.

The contamination could also potentially expose Mexican farmers to the risk of lawsuits for infringement of monopoly patents, and could threaten future opportunities to export untainted maize to GM-free markets in Europe and elsewhere.

In response to these threats, more than 144 farmer and civil society organizations from 40 countries recently signed a joint statement demanding that action be taken on a local, national, and international level to prevent GM contamination of centers of diversity; to help farmers restore their fields, and to ensure the costs for restoration and compensation are paid by the manufacturers of the offending GM products.

Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D., Co-Director
Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
e-mail: rosset (at) foodfirst.org
http://www.foodfirst.org

Street Address of Office in Mexico: (mail address below)
Diego Duguelay No. 38, Casa Mariposa
Colonia El Cerrillo
29220 San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
NEW Tel/fax: +52-967-678-9707
eFax: +1-253-295-5257 (USA fax number which automatically bounces to me at no extra charge)
For Mail and Courier service (DHL, FEDEX, UPS, etc.) in Mexico:
Peter Rosset
c/o Hotel Casavieja
María Adelina Flores No. 27
Barrio de Guadalupe
29230 San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas
MEXICO
NEW Telephone no. to give courier service: 011-52-967-678-6868

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 10:22
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 84: Gene flow from GE to non-GE populations, focusing on developing countries

Wally Menne, South Africa

Some observations:

The narrow approach taken to this topic by most of the participants has served little purpose. The debate around scientific theory has detracted from the pertinent issue - i.e. how developing countries will be affected. Gene flow contamination cannot be separated from the irresponsible deliberate act of introducing an unnatural organism into the environment before there is a thorough understanding of how to control or eliminate its unwanted side-effects. In my view, the conference has failed to address the broader implications of the release of genetically engineered (GE) crop plants into the environments of "developing" countries, and the subsequent genetic pollution that could arise as a result.

These implications and their associated consequences can be broadly categorised into four headings: Economic, Ecological, Sociological, and Cultural.

Economic includes items such as:- loss of markets; the financial and regulatory costs associated with labelling and separation; additional inputs such as technology fees, licences and chemicals; the need to purchase new seed every season; effective control of community land by corporations.

Ecological embraces the threat to non-target organisms (Bt cotton & maize); the possibility that closely related wild species (such as Gossypium herbaceum by Bt cotton) may suffer contamination; the likelihood that new types of weeds might emerge in response to increased exposure to herbicides (herbicide resistant crops).

Sociological relates to the effects on communities sucked into debt incurred in the course of following the advice of GE seed companies; forced to abandon their lands and migrate to the cities in search of menial employment; suicide, prostitution and alcoholism; unemployment exacerbated by mechanisation.

Cultural takes in the loss of traditional plant varieties; loss of agricultural diversity; the end of close relationships with nature and the land, that have moulded peoples identities over centuries.

The technical ability to interfere with the intrinsic design of an organism does not justify its doing. I am not saying this on moral grounds although there is sufficient basis. Honest analysis of the costs, benefits, and potential impacts of all the GE experiments that have been let out of the lab prematurely is needed as a matter of urgency. It is my wish that the FAO will use its considerable resources to see that this is done, and that those responsible will be taken to task.

Wally Menne
PLANTNET - The Indigenous Plant Network
Durban
South Africa
plantnet (at) iafrica.com

P.S. Some guidance on word-usage: The word "modification" means: "a small change or adjustment" (Collins). For example, "modification", used correctly would refer to the type of changes that may be made to your computers desktop appearance - as opposed to the physical change involving exchanging your hard drive to increase data storage space. Modification of a living organism involves the slow process of sexual breeding and selection, whether natural or otherwise. It is therefore incorrect to refer to the deliberate or accidental alteration of a living organism by gene transfer or insertion as "modification". 'Transformation' would be more appropriate. I trust the FAO will take the necessary steps to rectify all incorrect word usage in their documentation, including "forest", where what is clearly meant is 'industrial timber plantation'.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 10:29
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 85: Explaining gene flow to 'the consumer'

I sat on the sidelines in this conference because, although I am an educator and scientist, I found my background in genetics to be insufficient to participate. However, my research arena is risk perception and consumer education and so I am concerned as to how we can explain gene flow and its implications or consequences (to use a more neutral term) to 'the consumer' whether it be in Northern Europe, Africa or the United States.

The disagreements over implications and terminology that emerged would make an interesting public issues factsheet for consumers. Would any of you be willing to work on an outline for such factsheet or pass on your ideas about what you think the public should know about this to me at the address below? Thanks for interesting reading.

J. Lynne Brown
Associate Professor, Food Science
Penn State University
205 A Borland
University Park, PA 16802
United States
814-863-3973,
email: f9a (at) psu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 10:44
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 86: An international committee to conduct evaluations on a case by case basis

I have followed this conference with considerable interest, not least of which is because the direction of the animal production and health sub-programme of the Joint FAO/IAEA Division is very much towards support for the use of gene-based technologies in the future; and because the dilemmas and debate that are now focussed on plant GMOs will soon focus on the livestock area (in fact this has already occurred!).

What is clear to me from the considerable diversity of the opinions given in this conference, is that there is no YES or NO to the development and use of GMOs. As things stand, and are likely to continue for the foreseeable future, each GMO must be considered on a case by case basis. To ban all GMOs is impossible, inappropriate and too late. But we do need to evaluate each new situation involving either the development, release or use of a GMO (of whatever form) in terms of safety and benefit. What is missing is an agreed format for this evaluation.

I, of course, appreciate that many countries have committees and procedures in place to carry out such a risk evaluation, but I am unaware of any agreed international guidelines and standards for this. Given that the risks cannot be limited by national boundaries, it would seem essential that we have a set of principles and procedures to provide for a transparent, open and informed evaluation. Clearly, the process will change over time as we become more knowledgeable, as GMO complexity changes and as new technologies become used. But I would see that what is now required is an international committee (or similar structure) that can conduct evaluations on a case by case basis. This will have to involve all key stakeholders including industry, government and research institutes and will require some innovative approaches to ensure that both those in industry, as well as the consumers, feel confident in the system. How we seek consensus on this approach will be key if it is to succeed.

This conference has been excellent but needs to achieve more than an airing of the dichotomy of views on GMOs. I would like to propose the formation of such a committee as a way forward.

Martyn Jeggo
Head, Animal Production & Health Section
Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture
Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications
International Atomic Energy Agency
Wagramerstrasse 5
P.O. Box 100
A-1400 Vienna Austria
Telephone: (+43 1) 2600-26052
Fax: (+43 1) 26007
Internet: http://www.iaea.org/programmes/nafa/d3/index.html
http://www.fao.org/
e-mail: M.H.Jeggo (at) iaea.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 11:24
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 87: Policy options when there is no consensus

This response to Roberto Verzola (message 82, June 27) is from Chris Wozniak, a regulator of plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs; pesticidal traits expressed in plants and the genetic material necessary for their production) in the United States with responsibility for gene flow analysis and product characterization.

In his message, Mr. Verzola implies that the regulation of GMO crops in the U.S. is guided by the principle that these genetically modified plants are treated as equivalent to conventional and therefore assumed to be safe i.e. "The first option is based on the substantial equivalence principle (GE and non-GE versions are considered substantially equivalent and equally safe unless shown otherwise), which guides United States regulators." Response: If this were the case, then why would so much effort, money and debate go into the regulation of these crops? As I mentioned in a previous message [number 25, June 7...Moderator], we look at numerous aspects of PIPs including mammalian toxicity, characterization of the gene product for homology to toxins and allergens, compositional analysis of the plants expressing the novel traits, molecular analysis of the insertion and heritability of the transgene, potential for gene flow to wild or feral relatives,etc... (for more detail please see http://www.ostp.gov/html/012201.html and the analysis of case studies (MON 810 maize; and http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/).

All of the PIPs are evaluated because they are not considered the same as conventional crops. The vast majority of their properties and basic biochemistry are identical to conventional or non-engineered crops, but the pesticidal trait(s) that it is transferred to the crop is evaluated because it is novel. While Mr. Verzola is not comfortable with the degree of consensus on GMO safety and thereby the potential risk presented by gene flow to wild relatives or other crops, my observations have been the opposite. The overwhelming majority of the scientists I interact with (and these are mostly plant molecular biologists, pathologists and toxicologists), do not have a safety issue with the PIPs released to date. A true consensus among all scientists is not likely to ever occur as the issue has become so polarized that I am not certain science is ultimately going to be the measure or determinant of the value of this technology. Performance over time of GMO crops and public perception will write the story for the history books.

"It is worse in poor countries like the Philippines where the few scientists working on GM issues often also serve as consultants for biotech firms, blurring the line between scientific inquiry and corporate marketing." Response: An equally contentious blurring is also occurring in the U.S. and most other countries where the debate over genetically engineered crops takes place. That is, the political, religious and 'philosophical' discussions/beliefs, which should never be confused with scientific debate, are being taken as the bases for assessment. They are different fora based upon different principles and criteria.

Chris A. Wozniak, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 7511C
Washington, DC 20460
United States
703-605-0513
703-308-7026 - fax
wozniak.chris (at) epa.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 12:43
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 88: Re: Gene flow from GE to non-GE populations, focusing on developing countries

This is from Keith Hammond, senior officer animal breeding, FAO, Rome.

Re Wally Menne's (message 84, June 28) useful partitioning into 4 categories the "broader implications of the release of genetically engineered (GE) crop plants [and animals] into the environments of "developing" countries," and his plea for "Honest analysis of the costs, benefits, and potential impacts of all the GE experiments..." and his "wish that the FAO will use its considerable resources to see that this is done," (my square brackets, for perhaps his comments are not kingdom-specific):

No doubt such analyses could be considered as an appropriate task for FAO in its "honest broker" role as the intergovernmental technical secretariat for food and agriculture. Wally rightly referred to "benefits" as well as costs but his list of elements in each of his 4 categories seemingly are only cost elements! It may be very useful if, before the conference ends, participants could identify all benefit elements in each of the 4 categories of "broad implications" to help ensure any such future analysis has balance. I copy below Wally's original 4 categories containing his list of elements for participants to develop:

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 12:54
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 89: Starting afresh with agricultural biotechnology

I am Denis Murphy, for 10 years a biotech researcher at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, UK and now a professor at University of Glamorgan, UK. More recently I have written several lengthy reviews (in press) & I am currently working on a book on agriculture biotechnology. I also run a schools outreach program on biotechnology for 15-18yr olds.

What has struck me most forcefully, both as an insider in biotech research and technology (R&D) and as a more detached observer of the general debate, is the way the whole of agbiotech has been overwhelmingly technology driven, rather than market led, over the past decade. Time after time, lab researchers have come up with new techniques that have then been commercialised "because they are there".

We should be honest enough to admit that there was no thought about feeding the world or improving stress tolerance in crops when we embarked on our research in the 1980s. In my own field, the emphasis was all on biodegradable plastics & other oil-based industrial products, all of which have proved to be a lot more difficult to achieve than we originally thought.

The modification of input traits (herbicide & pesticide tolerance) came a little later & turned out to be scientifically very easy and potentially quite profitable - so Monsanto et al commercialised the technology at breakneck speed (e.g. compared to the introduction of hybrid maize in the US in the 1920s & 30s). There was no thought about the long term consequences, e.g. did we really need such crops & how would global markets or the environment react. This is where we find ourselves today.

In my opinion, civil societies in developing & industrialised nations should not simply accept whatever the researchers & agbiotech companies come up with and then try to deal with the consequences. Rather, society, via bodies like FAO, should take a broader view & ask - "what do we really need from agriculture over the next 25 yrs?" Is it really more yield? Perhaps salt tolerance? Maybe enhanced vitamin contents in crops?

Next, we ask "how can we best achieve this?" can we improve existing crops by introgressing traits from land races or wild relatives? Can marker assisted selection (MAS) help here? Can we domesticate new crops (also using MAS)? Or do we absolutely have to go down the transgenic route? If the latter is the case (& I am far from against GM technology in principle), then there are new methods of plastid transformation, removal of selectable markers etc that should rule out the possibility of transgene spread in the future.

Personally, I'd like to see all the first generation of transgenic crops (that were produced by the early & rather primitive techniqes we had available in the late 1980s) thrown out & to start afresh with a consumer-led drive to agricultural improvement.

Professor Denis J Murphy
Biotechnology Unit
School of Applied Sciences
University of Glamorgan
Treforest
Cardiff CF37 1DL
United Kingdom
email: dmurphy2 (at) glam.ac.uk
phone: +44 1443 483 747
fax: +44 1443 483 554
http://web.glam.ac.uk/schools/saps/staff/MurphyDenis.php

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 13:47
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 90: Transgenic forest trees

This is from Rajaratnam Muhunthan in Sri Lanka.

The social discussion about risks versus benefits of GMOs must move from a generic consideration of GMOs to the merits of modifying trees with specific traits to be used in specific environments and management regimes. Similar to traditional breeding, genetic engineering can produce completely innocuous consequences or it can produce substantially modified organisms.

We all must look at the "Transgenic Forest Trees" phenomena in the context of the following FAO report. (The world's demand for renewable energy, fiber, and building materials from wood is growing rapidly. Plantation area in the developing world doubled from 1980 to 1995, and is expected to double again by 2010. World fiber production increased roughly 100% between 1970 and 1994, and per capita consumption increased 50% in the developed world and 300% in the developing world (FAO 1997: http://apps.fao.org).)

[The forest plantation area quotation seems to be from the 1997 edition of FAO's biennial publication State of the World's Forests (SOFO) (http://www.fao.org/docrep/W4345E/w4345e00.htm). This stated "In the developing world in 1995, the total 'net' forest plantation area (i.e., reported totals of annually planted areas adjusted by a survival coefficient) is estimated at some 81 million hectares (ha) out of a total forest area of 1961 million ha, i.e., 4.1 percent. In 1980, it was assessed at about 40 million ha." and "Many developing countries, provided updated information on their present and future plantation programmes to FAO in 1996. Most of the countries with large plantation estates indicated that they intended to double their plantation areas between 1995 and 2010". SOFO 2001 (http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y0900e/y0900e03.htm) indicates that forest plantations worldwide now total 187 million hectares, representing 5 percent of the global forest area, although forest plantation definitions and basis of deriving area differ between the various assessments. SOFO 2001 reports that Asia has by far the largest forest plantation estate of any region, accounting for 62 percent of the world's forest plantations. Plantations account for over one-fifth of all forests in Asia. About 60 percent of forest plantations are located in only four countries: China, India, the Russian Federation and the United States...Moderator]

Transgenic trees could grow faster and straighter and require fewer chemicals and less energy to pulp. Doing so, it could also reduce the industry's reliance on logging national forests and other treasured areas. Pest-resistant GM trees would also reduce the need for biocides, another environmental and cost-saving advantage to the industry. Trees could be engineered to grow in polluted landfills and absorb poisons, or even be designed to capture more carbon dioxide, diminishing global warming and also increasing the biomass, which could be the possible alterative to the fossil fuel in future. Also, using genetic-engineering techniques to help resurrect wild forest species that have been devastated by an exotic pest (e.g. American chestnut of eastern United States).

Plantations of genetically engineered trees could help to increase wood production, and thereby reduce pressure for exploitation of native forests. Because of population pressure and the imperative that large areas of native forests be set aside from intensive exploitation to preserve their environmental values, research is needed to identify scientifically prudent alternatives, including the use of GM trees, that improve wood quality and yield. (All these characters are desired and have to be addressed in the context of the above FAO report and also in terms of preservation of biodiversity)

Newton's third law of motion has been expressed: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". It would be applicable to all the reactions that have taken place on earth. Even from the days of old civilizations, man is interacting with his surroundings "nature". The man's interaction with nature is inevitable or else he has to die. Any form of human interaction with the surrounding will bring some good as well as some bad effects. Any practices that are "intensive" will be detrimental to the biodiversity and ecosystem. But, anything, that is "sustainable" or " integrated," sounds nice. In agriculture, "intensive" agricultural practices, irrespective of organic/chemical or transgenic in one way or the other, will be harmful to the ecosystem. Only the degree of damage to the ecosystem varies. In India in the late sixties, the "Green Revolution" enabled it to overcome hunger. But, in the meantime, it has also brought a new problem in the form of soil, water and air pollution and posing immense danger to the man's health and to biodiversity. Because it was "intensive".

Antibiotic resistance built up in gut micro flora well before the introduction GMOs. Gut E. coli acquired resistance to multiple antibiotics, not because of the introduction of antibiotic selection marker in GMOs, but because of the "intensive" use of antibiotics in medicine. "Integrated" has allowed doing agriculture while preserving ("with minimized damage") the ecosystem.

Why could GM crops and forest trees not be a part of "Integrated crop/forest management"? Yes, I feel it could be a part of it and also make it more effective (again in the context of the FAO report). In forestry, if GM trees are likely to be used primarily in "intensive", it will also do have the same effect like others.

Rajaratnam Muhunthan
M.Sc- in Biotechnology
Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture,
University of Peradeniya,
Peradeniya
Sri Lanka.
muhunthan_r (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 14:31
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 91: Consequences of geneflow for developing countries

My name is Wytze de Lange and I work for XminusY Solidarityfunds, a Dutch North-South funding NGO. Many of our contacts in the South are poor small farmer and indigenous peoples.

I have followed this debate with interest but unfortunately the focus of the debate has indeed been rather limited to some technical aspects. What seems to have been overlooked by many is the spiritual dimension which is very real for most, if not all, indigenous peoples. Maize, for example, is considered by Mexican and other meso-american indigenous peoples as Sacred. Apart from all other dimensions (food safety, environmental safety, patents etc.) the transgenic contamination of Mexican indigenous varieties is considered as Spiritual Pollution. Indigenous people's representatives who tried to raise this point at the recent COP6 and ICCCP conferences in The Hague (Netherlands) were not given the floor. [The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity held its 6th meeting in The Hague, 7-19 April 2002 while the 3rd Meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP) took place in The Hague, 22-26 April, 2002...Moderator].

Also, much of this conference (and also a new study on geneflow from canola in Australia, Science this week) seems to focus on pollen flow, whereas gene flow by GE seed dispersal may be a much more important way of geneflow. (For example, the Mexican findings of transgenes along roadsides or the spread of GE canola in Canada). Seed dispersal, not only through plants in the field, but especially also during transport.

Another question is what the effect of geneflow will be on the medicinal effects of the plants involved. For example, indigenous healers have expressed grave concern about the effects of transgenic papaya on the use of various parts of papaya in traditional healing practices. Similarly for many other foods, of which we in the North have long forgotten that they can be used medicinally.

It is obviously important what the spread of (parts of) GE constructs will mean for biodiversity, health, environment, socio-economics etc and there are indeed many unanswered question in these fields. In that respect the spread of GE corn kernels through US food aid is "showing who the real enemy is", as one commentator from Kenya recently said in an article.

However, with all this I hope we (and especially FAO) do not forget to take the Spiritual dimension into account, since in the North this may have been almost completely lost altogether; this is certainly not the case for most indigenous peoples in the South.

Wytze de Lange
XminusY Solidarityfunds
De Wittenstraat 43-45
1052 AL Amsterdam
Netherlands
tel: +31206279661
fax: +31206228229
http://www.xminy.nl
wdl(at)xminy.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 14:50
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 92: Re: Gene flow from GE to non-GE populations, focusing on developing countries

This is from Marco Toppino. I'm the responsible person for GMO analysis in Nestlè Regional Lab, Milan, Italy.

I'd like to contribute to this conference adding the "benefits" to Wally Menne's 4 categories (message 84, June 28):

1. Economic benefits could be: higher yelds, higher nutritious content, decreasing costs for production, less pesticides, less fuel cost, etc....
2. Ecological benefits could be: less tillage practice - and so less soil erosion, less water pollution by chemicals, less risk due to pesticide spraying for farmers, less deforestation, cultivation of salty soils, cultivation of semi-desertic soils.....
3. Sociological benefits could be: increased economical power (more money for the farmer) for example, and this leads to a huge amount of possible positive effects (better nutrition, health, medicines, education, etc...)
4. Cultural benefits could be: possibility to maintain varieties now attacked by viruses or other diseases, less deforestation to obtain more land to cultivate (and this is maintaining ecological variety), less impact on non-target organisms (insects and birds for example) due to reduced chemical use....and so on.

In my opinion a good science-based debate has to consider both positive and negative effects to obtain something useful. And nowadays this is not the case of GMOs. At the moment, the debate is too polarized, and (this is the worst part) not made by scientists, but by politicians and media. I agree with who says that GMOs can be a big problem, but I also think that they can be a possibility to take away some of the big problems we are facing in this millenium (hunger, desertification, soil impoverishment, etc...)

Dr. Marco Toppino
Nestlè Italia S.p.A.
Laboratorio Regionale
Via Bergognone, 46 20143 Milano
Tel. 02 - 81817181
Fax. 02 - 47710740
e-mail. marco.toppino (at) it.nestle.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 17:11
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 93: Gene flow from GM canola

This is from Peter Jenkins, International Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, DC, in response to Tom Nickson's (message 24, June 7) statement that "the current biotech products have shown no measurable risks compared to the risks already present from their traditionally grown counterparts" and his later defense of that statement.

An Agriculture Canada study suggests that more than half of the canola seed samples tested showed some level of genetically modified presence. The study's authors conclude that means almost every canola field planted with conventional seed will contain some genetically modified plants. (see a recent report from the Canadian Broadcasting Company on this subject - http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/06/27/gncanola020627 )

Peter T. Jenkins, Policy Analyst
International Center for Technology Assessment
660 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20003
United States
Tel: 202.547.9359 ext. 13
Fax: 202.547.9429
Email: peterjenkins (at) icta.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 28 June 2002 17:17
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 94: Gene flow is a natural phenomenon even in so-called self-pollinating plants

My name is Dr. Hyoji NAMAI, and I am interested in plant breeding and pollination biology.

According to the messages contributed to the conference, transgene flow problems of GMOs seem to be understood to not happen in autogamous (self-fertilising) species by most contributers. However, even in cultivated rice plants, some crossed seeds are obtained under natural condition. Moreover, sexual reproductive systems in plants are very variable depending upon the inner and outer conditions of plants.

Dr. Hyoji Namai
15-18 Nakaarakawaoki, Tsuchiura, 300-1175
Japan
e-mail: hyohyon (at) jcom.home.ne.jpm

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 29 June 2002 09:37
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 95: Traditionally bred organisms vs. GMOs

This is Kaare M. Nielsen. I am associate professor of microbiology at the University of Tromso, Norway. I also hold a part-time position at the Norwegian Institute for Gene Ecology, Tromso, Norway. I have studied and published on horizontal gene transfer processes and how they relate to the safe use of GMOs during the last 9 years.

Do traditionally bred organisms and those derived through genetic engineering contribute the same in gene flow?

From my perspective, Dr. Suzanne Wuerthele´s opening statement (message 1, May 31) in this email conference identifies the essential issue regarding the consequences of gene flow from GM organisms. Namely, do transgenic organisms differ fundamentally in their genetic make-up from other traditionally bred organisms? If the answer to this question is no, then no particular concerns are to be raised that would separate the assessment of GMOs as compared to traditionally bred organisms. If the answer is yes, then the unique features should be identified and the consequences of their dispersal by gene flow evaluated.

I believe the answer to the question is dependent on the specific genetic changes introduced into the GMO in focus. Thus, GMOs with simple intra-chromosomal changes are likely to produce few concerns beyond those present for traditionally bred counterparts. By traditional breeding, I refer to processes where selection (of naturally-arising or induced spontaneous genetic variation) is the major mechanism to obtain the desired genetic variation. However, as more species-foreign genes, novel genes, and other genetic changes are introduced into GMOs, they will deviate substantially from what can be achieved by traditional, selection based breeding. These latter organisms have a genetic composition that does not arise from naturally occurring evolutionary processes alone. Thus, they have the potential to introduce previously inaccessible genetic variation (functionally enhanced by different promoters etc.) into wild populations. [This question of whether the nature of the genetic modification (i.e. wide transfer, close transfer or tweaking - see Section 2 of the Background Document) should be considered when evaluating the potential impacts of gene flow from GM populations is something we definitely wished to see raised in this conference. Thus, are the gene flow questions or potential consequences different if we intend to release, for example, a tilapia fish containing a tilapia growth hormone gene genetically modified to alter its level or pattern of expression or containing a gene from a bacteria...Moderator].

Thus, unintended gene flow from GMOs has the potential to significantly change the evolutionary trajectories of their wild relatives. Whereas traditional breeding is largely based on artificial selection, modern gene technology introduces novel genetic variation that is naturally unachievable in the organism in question. Mechanisms providing genetic variability in higher eukaryotes do not combine DNA sequences from several organisms into a compact functional unit within the time scale achieved by genetic engineering. Thus, the argument that genetic engineering is a naturally occurring process cannot be used when the genetic novelty introduced by the transgenes extends beyond simple modifications.

In most cases, engineered genes are unlikely to be positively selected in wild relatives. However, it cannot be assumed that this will always be the case. An awareness of this potential for selection is important as more novel gene constructs are prepared for environmental release. Moreover, I argue (in support of Dr. Muir [see e.g. message 73, June 25...Moderator]) that population genetics methods are the best tools available today to evaluate the consequences of such gene flow into wild relatives. Most crucial parameters needed for the models can be derived from field experiments and improved further (along with the models) after collection of data from focused monitoring efforts. Unfortunately, most field release experiments published so far have been concerned with cultivar performance in a commercial perspective rather than generating and communicating data for enhancing risk assessment.

The important thing to consider in a eukaryotic gene flow perspective (often missed in the debate) is not the rate of transfer but the strength of selection on those individuals who carry the transgene. This is because purifying selection will remove those individuals carrying the transgene(s) from the wild populations if the introduced genetic changes from gene flow do not provide an advantage. However, if selection is positive, even very rare gene flow events may have a major impact as the receiving organisms then may out-compete its neighbors.

Which characteristics would make the consequences of potential transgene flow differ from the consequences of gene flow seen from traditionally grown counterparts? At least the following characteristics may be relevant to consider:

1. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) to bacteria: Transgenes often contain DNA sequence homology to prokaryotes, thereby significantly increasing their likelihood of integration in bacteria. Many studies have shown that DNA homology is the main barrier to HGT of chromosomal DNA (such as transgenes) in bacteria. Moreover, they are often inserted as a compact genetic unit making transmission a single step process, as compared to host-indigenous quantitative traits they may substitute.

2. Transgenes are often modified to allow broad expression in a variety of hosts; they often lack introns, contain promoters active across a broad range of hosts (e.g. viral or bacterial in origin), and seldom require extensive interactions with other proteins in the host cytoplasm for functionality. Genes from distantly related species are less likely to be retained and to function in the recipient organism due to differences in nucleotide sequence, gene expression, codon usage, and possibly post-translational modification and protein interactions. However, transgenes are often modified to allow broad expression and often require few interactions with the host cytoplasm for activity. Thus, transgenes may have an increased likelihood of expression if transferred by gene flow to wild relatives.

3. The transgenes may represent novel genetic variability due to the use of synthetic genes with new protein domains or encoding novel biochemical pathways that have not been subject to natural selection in their new host environment.

The effect of such genes must be addressed in a population genetics perspective. Thus, when compared to any native gene of related organisms, transgenes may possibly differ with respect to their likelihood of gene flow, expression in the new host, and selection. The relevance of the above characteristics has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

[Eukaryotes (eukaryotic organisms) include animals, plants, fungi and some algae, while prokaryotes include bacteria and blue-green algae...Moderator]

Kaare M. Nielsen
Department of Pharmacy
School of Medicine
University of Tromso
N9037 Tromso, Norway
Email: knielsen (at) pharmacy.uit.no
http://www.farmasi.uit.no/~knielsen/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 29 June 2002 09:43
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 96: Re: Policy options when there is no consensus

Mr. Wozniak (message 87, June 28) seems to deny that U.S. regulators use the concept of substantial equivalence in evaluating GMOs. I've heard this term so often from U.S. regulators visiting the Philippines that I am stunned that this is denied.

Mr. Wozniak asks for an example of a "reckless release". He says the overwhelming majority of scientists he interacts with do not have a safety issue with the Bt crops released to date. He seems to deny the lack of a reasonable consensus on the safety or non-safety of GM crops.

My response: U.S. regulators refused to approve Starlink for human consumption due to a safety issue (potential allergenicity). Yet, they allowed its commercial release anyway. Given the scientific consensus that contamination is inevitable after commercialization, this was clearly a reckless release, as was, in fact, borne out by subsequent events and the expensive $1-billion recall.

The British Medical Association has called for a phase out of antibiotic resistance genes. The safety or non-safety of using such genes clearly remains a matter of scientific debate. So is the use of the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) promoter, which some scientists have also questioned on safety grounds.

I think the lack of scientific consensus is understandable because the current batch of GM crops have not been tested at all on human volunteers. If controversies occur even with medicines which have undergone thorough testing on human volunteers, how much more with novel foods which have not yet gone through such tests?

The question is valid: what policy should decision-makers adopt, while their scientists could not yet come to a reasonable agreement on the safety or non-safety of GM products? I've given my answer in an earlier message (82, June 27).

It's a pity we are closing when the debate is just getting to be interesting.

Roberto Verzola
Secretary-general, Philippine Greens
Philippines
rverzola (at) gn.apc.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 29 June 2002 09:59
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 97: Transgenic Fish

Prof. Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics University of Western Ontario, Canada.

Transgenic fish have been launched with optimistic hopes that the fish will grow rapidly, use food efficiently and pose little threat to the native stocks. To insure that patented fish are prevented from spreading their traits to native stocks, "sterile" triploid stocks are a preferred genetic manipulation. Triploids have been produced in a wide variety of fish and the use of triploid grass carp to control lake vegetation has had wide application in North America.

Triploids are frequently produced by suppressing the second meiotic division using a shock such as heat, cold or pressure.(1). A related technique, gynogenesis, employs irradiated sperm to fertilize normal eggs followed by inhibition of the first or second meiotic division of the egg. Triploid embryos are identified by the large cell size, sometimes assisted by rapid identification of nucleolar organizing regions with occasional full karyotypes to verify the chromosome counts(1). Gynogenic embryos are identified using genetic marker. The aim of triploid production or triploid with gynogenesis is to produce sterile fish that can be produced in mass and easily verified (2).

In many instances the use of sterile triploids to contain the transgene while allowing the modified fish to grow in the natural environment has been put forward as if the sterile triploids were "fool proof" while, in reality, a number of studies suggest that sterile triploids may be "leaky" and allow some fertile gametes to be produced. Even though sterile triploid grass carp are used extensively in North America to control lake vegetation there have been few studies on the fertility of feral grass carp. Feral grass carp recovered from the Chesapeake Bay waterway observed gonadal development in two female and one male triplods (3). A study of transgenic Tilapia found that triploid females had no gamete development while males had poorly developed gonads with spermatozoa (4). Anueploids were recovered from among triploid oysters (5) [Aneuploidy is when an organism or cell has a number of chromosomes which is not an exact multiple of the haploid number...Moderator]. Extensive studies on sterile triploid leakiness to produce gametes should be done before any transgenic fish are exposed to the environment.

Triploids may pose special problems. For example, triploid Atlantic salmon had a high prevalence of skeletal deformity and reduced gill surface area (6). Families of triploid salmon were found to have much greater variability in growth than fertile diploids(7). Ocean migration and recoveries of triploid Atlantic salmon were between 12% and 24% of diploid siblings (8).

Turning to transgenic fish, a number of studies suggest that release of such fish to the environment is presently premature. For example, growth-enhanced transgenic Atlantic salmon were found to be negligent in predator avoidance in comparison to normal counterparts (9). The likelihood of growth-enhanced Atlantic salmon achieving maximum growth or even surviving outside intensive culture conditions was lower than non-transgenic salmon (10). Growth-enhanced transgenic Arctic charr were found to partition nutrients in a manner that resembled domestic rather than wild rainbow trout (11). The use of fish that are growth-enhanced using human growth hormone has been attempted frequently, for example, human growth hormone enhanced carp achieved higher growth rates and food utilization efficiency than non-transgenic carp (12). However, the use of human genes to modify animals meant for human consumption bears special scrutiny. Finally, the impact of fertile transgenic salmon, or other transgenic organisms, on natural populations has been found to have conditions for invasion of the natural population that are very broad and if the transgene reduces viability the release can lead to extinction of the natural population (13).

In conclusion, peer reviewed studies on induced triploidy in fish and on transgenic fish indicate that the technology is fraught with uncertainties and problems that have not yet been resolved. The evidence currently available indicates that the risks to the natural fish stocks is far too great to allow transgenic fish to be released to the environment. However, production of transgenic fish can be considered so long as that production is undertaken in inland facilities rather than fish pens. From the point of view of genetics, conditional dominant lethal mutations might achieve a higher level of safety and transgene containment than that achieved by sterile triploids. However, biology seems amazingly resilient in the way that organisms circumvent obstacles to passing on their genes and great caution should be employed in introducing potentially lethal transgenes. Transgenic fish should not be deemed "substantially equivalent" to facilitate their rapid commercialization.

References
1.Felip,A,Zanuy,S,Carillo,M and Piferrer,F. "Induction of triploidy and gynogenesis in teleost fish with emphasis on marine species" 2001 Genetica 111,175-95
2.Pandian,T and Koteeswaran,R "Ploidy induction and sex control in fish" 1998 Hydrobiologia 384,167-243
3.Summer,S,Steinoening,E and Brown,B "Ploidy of feral grass carp in the Chesapeake Bay watershed" 2000 North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21, 96-101
4.Razak,S,Hwang,G,Rahman,M and Maclean,N "Growth performance and gonadal development of growth enhanced transgenic Tilapia following heat-shock-induced triploidy" 1999 Mar.Biotechnol. 1,533-44
5.Wang,Z,Guo,X,Standish,K,Allen,R and Wang,R. "Anueploid Pacific oyster as incidental from triploid production" 1999 Aquaculture 173,347-57
6.Sadler,J,Pankhurst,P and King,H. "High prevalence of skeletal deformity and reduced gill surface area in triploid Atlantic salmon" 2001 Aquaculture 198,369-86
7.Friars,G,McMilan,I,Quinton,M,O'Flynn,McGeachy,A and Benfey,T "Family differences in relative growth of diploid and triploid Atlantic salmon" 2001 Aquaculture 192,23-9
8. Wilkins,N,Cotter,D and Maileidigh,N "Ocean migration and recapture of tagged, triploid,mixed-sex and female Atlantic salmon released from rivers in Ireland" 2001 Genetica 111,197-212
9. Abrahams,M and Sutterlin,A "The foraging and antipredator behavior of growth enhanced transgenic Atlantic salmon" 1999 Animal Behaviour 58,933-42
10. Cook,J,Sutterlin,A and McNiven,M " Effect of food deprivation on oxygen consumption and body composition of growth-enhanced transgenic Atlantic salmon" 2000 Aquaculture 188,47-63
11.Krasnov,A,Agren,J,Pitkanen and Molsa,H "Transfer of growth hormone transgenes into Arctic charr II. Nutrient partitioning in rapidly growing fish" 1999 Genetic Analysis:Biomolecular Engineering 15,99-105
12.Fu,C,Cui,Y,Hung,S and Zhu,Z "Growth and feed utilization by F4 human growth hormone transgenic carp fed diets with different protein levels" 1998 J Fish Biol 53,115-29
13. Hederick,P "Invasion of transgenes from salmon or other genetically modified organisms into natural populations" 2001 Can.J.Fish.Aquat, Sci. 58,841-4

Professor Joe Cummins,
University of Western Ontario.
Canada
jcummins (at) uwo.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 29 June 2002 10:09
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 98: Managing gene flow in the South.

From Glenn Ashton, Cape Town, South Africa.

It is clear this conference remains polarised and that consensus is unlikely in the immediate future. This is unfortunate, especially given the proven genetic pollution in Mexico and Canada as well as pollution of conventional and organic farms in the USA and Canada. Supporters of transgenics have shown remarkable reluctance to accept responsibility. This reinforces concerns raised in this conference, relevant to gene flow in developing nations.

In developing nations, the major issue that needs to be addressed is the paucity of oversight, both commercial and institutional, based on political and economic will and reality. Genetic pollution has only come to light in North America due to legal challenges or from comprehensive scientific oversight. These are absent in Africa and in other developing nations.

The present drought in Southern Africa is a prime example of the risks of inadvertent pollution. It is highly likely that much of the whole-grain food aid contains GE contaminants from a wide variety of sources. The potential for contamination for the entire region is significant and there is little possibility of containment or oversight in monitoring this problem.

Scientific investigation struggles to interrogate multiple simultaneous hypotheses and events that have random and unpredictable permutations. We must look beyond the narrow scientific perspectives that clearly limit our investigation of these simultaneous events in the matter of unconfined gene flow.

Wally Menne's suggestions (message 84, June 28) on four criteria on which to base our investigations, namely ecological, economic, social and cultural would form a good starting point to broaden our perspectives on how gene flow is manifested and monitored. We cannot depend on science to investigate issues that are driven by economic needs rather than by scientific or social need. A recent report out of Zambia* (see below) emphasises the above by showing that there is a complete lack of capacity to even grow GE crops efficiently, not to mention manage them.

Laboratory theory and practice is all good and well and must be continued. However we will need a far broader perspective to determine the practicalities behind GE crops. More urgent are the far more complex challenges raised by gene flow from transgenic animals, fish and insects.

It is strange for me, as a non-scientist, that some scientists can remain so robustly confident about the safety of transgenic organisms yet simultaneously discount the multiple concerns outside their disciplines. The song "blinded by the science, servant of technology" springs to mind.

We must be cautious about using technology just because we can; it must be needs driven and not profit driven. It must also be judged against a far wider, multidisciplinary background. Sustainable development, particularly of the south, should encourage tested and sustainable agricultural modalities that are predominantly advantageous with minimal risk. Transgenics cannot yet be placed in this category. We need to learn a lot more before we foist transgenic organisms on the south.

Furthermore, if risks are to be taken with food and crops by the introduction of transgenic organisms, let them take place in developed nations where capacity, oversight and tort can deal with the consequences and where starvation is not a daily reality. We cannot further risk the fragile fabric of existence in the South by introducing the risks of GMOs into completely unregulated environments.

Before we use questionable technological innovations that carry incalculable risk, we must first deal with political, economic, environmental and social challenges of the South, not exacerbate them.

Glenn Ashton,
Cape Town,
South Africa.
ekogaia (at) iafrica.com

*Chiluba's ASIP Was A Total Failure - FAO
TITLE: UN works on emergency food appeal for Zambia
SOURCE: The Post, Zambia, by Bivan Saluseki
http://www.zamnet.zm/zamnet/post/post.html
DATE: June 19, 2002
Chiluba's ASIP Was A Total Failure - FAO
Richard Fuller, Zambia's representative to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, asserts that the Agriculture Sector Investment Program (ASIP), initiated by the Zambia government and funded by international donors, "was a total failure." He cites mismanagement of funds and the inability to address small-scale farmers' needs as factors contributing to ASIP's poor performance. Fuller explains that due to the donor community's experience with ASIP, direct funds to the Ministry of Agriculture are being withdrawn. However, donors will support communities or community based organizations directly to include small-scale farmers in planning and implementing programs. Fuller asserts that agricultural biotechnology is not an appropriate method for improving the agricultural sector in Zambia, because the low national agricultural production is due to lack of political will, not poor production technologies. He adds that agricultural biotechnology is suited for countries with well-developed agricultural systems, which includes a regulatory framework for biotechnology.