Escaped genes - a risk assessment minefield

March 2022

While conventional breeding speeds up the evolution of plants and skews it gradually to fit human needs, genetic engineering forces abrupt and disruptive changes in genome structure and function. The artificial gene (or edit) functions as it's designed to within the highly uniform genetic and environmental context of a modern commercial crop. How does it function in any other genome and ecosystem?

Risk assessment of GM plants has always focused on the intended artificial trait coupled to an assumption that if the altered bit of DNA 'escaped' into other plant populations it would fizzle out over time unless it conferred a clear, identifiable, risk-assessable fitness advantage. Now that we've grown GM crops in various environments for over two decades and there's been time for gene contamination incidents to inform the science, this trait-centred risk assessment is proving shaky.

RNAi doesn't just disappear

October 2019

After ten years of development, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quietly approved the first 'SmartStax Pro' GM maize with an RNA interference gene to kill a major corn pest, western corn root worm [1].

The artificial RNA produced by this technique, 'RNAi', is designed to match precisely the active RNA produced by a vital gene specific to the pest. By high-jacking the pest's own mechanism for silencing that gene, RNAi destroys the expression of the gene and the pest dies.

*Note. RNAi crop sprays are also in use, but are less effective at killing pests than the GM plant version which the pests consume.
A few months after the EPA ushered in this first GM maize with RNAi, a study was published which raised doubts about the claimed specificity of such insecticides. Using the honey bee as a model, the scientists "identified 101 insecticidal RNAs sharing high sequence similarity with genes in honey bees (indicating a huge scope for off-target gene silencing). "Of concern is that gene groups active during vital honey bee embryo formation and development had a disproportionately high sequence similiarity with all these RNAi pesticides: the scope for defective bees seems very real" [2].

Rigging the regulations (and the science)

March 2019

New GMO blockbusters are predicted to include animals, algae and gene drives. These will be controversial, and the biotech industry knows it.

Before these new GM products can be moved forward, the priority is "a pacified regulatory environment" (Latham). And, what better way to achieve this than to take over GM regulation from the inside.

Populating GM assessment bodies with biotech industry employees and close collaborators is successfully hijacking the process from the start.

Natural excuses to avoid GM safety testing

March 2019

The biotech lobby is coming up with all sorts of fancy arguments to avoid regulation of new DNA-altering techniques which don't involve the insertion of novel genes (protein-coding DNA) into an organism.

Industry-led claims abound that small mutations are naturally present in all organisms, as is the presence of horizontal gene transfer between organisms. The story continues to say that because it is equivalent to 'natural', edited DNA is nothing to worry about. It goes on: organisms arising from intentional DNA-editing are similar to those produced by old, random mutagenesis techniques (such as irradiation). Since the latter have never been regulated, there's no reason to do so with the 'new' version. Moreover, DNA-edited organisms are so 'natural' that their identification is impossible and they are, therefore, untraceable, making regulation impossible to enforce. And, even if the changes are found, no one can tell if the mutation is a result of a natural DNA mutation or a deliberate one. In fact, in our Environment Secretary's view, since Mother Nature is already giving us genetic mutations and horizontal gene transfer, biotech scientists are merely giving Her a helping hand.

All this 'reasoning', however, seems to be more to do with commercial expediency than with science.

Gene-driven pollution

February 2019

When the notion that "site-specific selfish genes" (able to copy themselves into a particular target DNA sequence) suggested the possibility of gene drives, a technique to rid the world of malaria immediately presented itself. The author who described this warned that the technology "is not to be used lightly, and that containment issues and the desirability of eradicating or genetically modifying a wild species "ought to be addressed during development" with "wide-ranging discussions".

Then came CRISPR [1], which can be designed to target any desired section of host DNA to bring about any desired molecular alteration there, and can be coupled to a gene drive.

The future of potatoes

December 2018

GM potatoes with a little extra something for everyone are wending their way into American supermarkets. To please the potato processors, these wondrous spuds don't get black spots when bruised [1]. To satisfy French fry aficionados, they don't turn brown when they're old and fried.

To coax consumers, GM relieves them of the dread threat of 'acrylamide' carcinogen in their fries [2]. To suit farmers, they promise blight-free crops. These spuds are very novel and very uniform. They come at a cost, and with more than a few risks [3].

Court rules: gene editing is genetic modification

September 2018

Concerns that the European Commission was getting itself in such a twist just trying to define new mutagenesis techniques that it would never get its head round how to regulate them [1] seem to have been straightened out by the European Court of Justice.

Court opinion on NBTs

April 2018

Just to add fuel to the fire of how to define 'new breeding techniques' in a way useful to their regulation or non-regulation [1], the European Court of Justice published a preliminary Opinion at the beginning of the year.

The Court was asked to clarify the scope of GMO Directive 2001 which was put in place before the plethora of new breeding techniques had emerged, plus the validity of the Directive's 'mutagensis exemption'. This exemption was designed to exclude from GM regulation the old fashioned random mutagenic techniques such as the use of radiation and toxins to induce DNA damage, probably because it would be a regulatory nightmare to treat the outcomes of old-fashioned random mutagenesis as GMOs after decades of use. Thus, at the time the Directive was drawn up, only those plant and animal breeding methods considered to have a long safety record were exempted. However, now that we have targeted mutagensis (gene editing techniques), the 2001 Directive has become blurry on the subject.

Five times removed from natural

December 2017

© Greenpeace / Statchett

A huge focus of GM development has been on crops which can generate their own insecticides against key pests. Such crops have added genes copied from the, seemingly ubiquitous, soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis ('Bt') which enable the plants to produce 'Bt' toxic proteins targeting specific insects.

'Bt' crops are promoted by industry and regulators as environmentally-friendly, farmer-friendly and consumer-friendly. After all, they target specific pests only, they breakdown quickly in the soil, they are designed to reduce the need for expensive chemical insecticide applications in the field and on our food. B. thuringiensis is a "naturally occurring" bacterium, producing natural protein toxins which will be naturally digested in the human gut and are, therefore, naturally safe to eat. Moreover, so the story goes, approved commercial Bt preparations have been "extensively" and safely used for "over half a century" in organic farming and in forestry, decades before the GM crop era.

This 'naturalness' and 'history of safe use' have been used by industry and regulators to justify the minimisation of actual testing.

Say stop to gene drives

May 2017

Our regulators are charged with ensuring the safety of an appalling array of invented substances and devices entering the market on a daily basis. These include nanoparticles, GMOs, rare metals, radiation, novel chemicals and all manner of devices.

This presents them with an appalling array of risk-related factors to consider, including exposure (who, when, how much), accidental-, off-label-, illegal-, or malicious-uses, disposal, recall, negative outcomes, diversity of harm, etc. Add to this, the need to monitor and react to any problems arising from new products.

Pakistan cotton crisis

January 2017

Photo credit  Håkan Löndahl on Flickr

Pakistan's economy is in trouble, mainly due to a major setback in its agriculture and textile industry. At the heart of the problem is a massive 27.8% drop in cotton production.

A multitude of factors has been implicated this decline.

February 2016 saw international cotton prices touch a six-year low.

Florida GM mosquitoes will not be released

January 2017

Photo Creative commons

The first ever mass release of GM mosquitoes in the U.S. will NOT go ahead.

Not wanting to be used as lab rats forced to swallow, breath and be bitten by biotech mozzies in their own homes, the Florida community chosen to be the subjects of this reckless, real-life experiment complained very loudly.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which had fast-tracked approval of the trial release of Oxitec's self-destruct GM mosquitoes, simply hadn't done its homework.  There have been no impact assessments on people, nor on threatened and endangered species, nor on the environment, nor even on the Zika virus and Dengue virus the high-tech decimation of the mosquito population is supposed to achieve [1].

Any future applications for GM mosquito release will require an 'Environmental Assessment' and a 'Finding of No Significant Impact'.

Ahh transparency

November 2016

Photo Creative Commons

'Transparency' - transmitting rays of light without diffusion ...(Oxford English Dictionary)

'Transparency', Monsanto-style, is interesting.

The illusion of safer substitution

July 2016

Plant biologist, Jonathan Latham, recounts how, as a "very young" scientist, he was busy creating GM plants as research tools, hardly imagining that they would ever come to be grown or eaten. Gradually it became clear, however, that commercial interests had other ideas.

Now much more experienced, Latham appreciates just how much all the knowledge and understanding available to scientists is dwarfed by the complexities of biological and natural systems.

After wide reading of the chemical and GM risk assessments used to 'prove' safety*, he has concluded the assessments provide nothing more than a false certainty, a carefully crafted, complex illusion of protection.

What else would you expect when the assessments themselves are performed by those seeking to profit from finding their product safe? 

GM pollution by invasion

April 2016

America is just beginning out to find out the hard way that growing GM crops with no wild relatives to share their genes with doesn't actually mean they'll stay in the field and under control.  Even after very few years' cultivation, GM alfalfa is now flourishing on US road verges and spreading its genes far and wide [1].

Europe has an interestingly different version of the same problem.

A new GM maize with questions

January 2015

A summary of a scientific opinion on an entirely new GM maize was published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2015. Under scrutiny was Syngenta's Maize 5307 for food and feed use (not cultivation). The maize has two novel genes.

Even in summary form, the EFSA assessment raises some interesting questions.

Smart breeding tools, or hidden GM?

January 2016

The major GM issue for 2016 is certainly going to be the 'New Breeding Techniques' (NBTs) now pouring out of labs.  These are designed to impose "deeper and more complex changes in the genetic makeup and metabolic pathways of living organisms" than good, old-fashioned genetic modification [Steinbrecher]. 

'NBT' is a catch-all phrase for a plethora of molecular spanners, nuts and bolts to change life.  They are described by names and abbreviations which wouldn't immediately suggest GM, even the ones which are, in fact, just new versions of the old (see below).

RNAi - lite GM bug busters

December 2015

By 2020, Monsanto plans to have the first two 'RNAi' insecticidal products on the market: one is an 'RNAi' spray to  kill potato beetles, the other is an 'RNAi'-enhanced corn to kill corn rootworm.

RNA is produced by DNA and has chemical similarities.  It's role is to regulate all aspects of gene function and protein formation.  The 'i' in RNAi stands for 'interference, because the synthetic RNA molecules being developed by Monsanto  are designed to prevent the creation of proteins.  In pests, Monsanto's RNAi kills by interfering with the activity of one of the target pest's vital genes.  RNAi is also referred to as 'dsRNA' where 'ds' means 'double-stranded' and is a biotech trick used to confer stability on the normally short-lived, single-stranded RNA.  All such RNA is collectively referred to as regulatory RNA.

Monsanto's RNAi spray will be formulated to enable the pesticide to penetrate into the plant tissue, while RNAi-enhanced GM maize will produce its own RNAi pesticide.  Either way, the bugs will eat the plant plus the toxic RNAi, and get killed.

The culture of neatly simple science

July 2015

A book has just been published which describes the whole, sorry, history of "How the Venture to Genetic Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public".

Lawyer, Steve Druker, has cast a critical, analytical eye over the handling of GM by regulators, corporations, the media, prestigious institutions, and respected scientists, and has produced a very disturbing account.

In the conclusion of his investigation he asks the question who was ultimately responsible for the delinquencies and associated problems of the whole GM enterprise. His surprising answer is scientists.

Back in the 1970s, the public were already voicing concerns about the safety of GMOs. Anticipating that their research would become tied up in red tape, scientists convened three conferences ostensibly to evaluate the safety of GM. These meetings have since been used as proof of how responsible scientists are, and as a reassurance that scientists can safely be left to regulate themselves.

However, transcripts and interviews with participants of these meetings reveal a careful control over who attended them, how issues were discussed, and what information was disseminated. The focus was on how to persuade the "guys out there" that "there is nothing to worry about". Safety issues "tended to be factored out of consideration rather than confronted".

Herbicides may promote superbugs

June 2015

Photo Creative Commons

Evidence of another insidiously harmful effect of Roundup herbicide has been published. Scientists in New Zealand presented findings which extend to Roundup and two other common commercial herbicides (Dicamba and 2,4-D) which, like Roundup, are sprayed on crops genetically transformed to tolerate them and are used in parks, roadways and gardens.

It seems antibiotics and herbicides don't mix.