www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

There is no such thing as risk-free anything. However, this fact does not
stop some from demanding risk-free agricultural biotechnology, March 2006
by Robert Wager.

The controversies (mostly hypothetical) over genetically engineered (GE)
crops and food never seem to end. As soon as one scare story is demonstrated
to be false or highly unlikely, another floods the media. No doubt, this is
by design. Canada recently stirred up a hornets nest when its
representatives at the meeting of the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity in
Bangkok called for the end to a de facto moratorium on the research and
development of genetic use restriction technologies for genetically
engineered crops. Recently several other countries have joined Canada in
calling for an end to the ban.

Genetic use restriction technologies or GURTs are systems designed to
prevent the unwanted transfer of transgenes (the DNA engineered into GE
plants) to other plants or the unauthorized propagation of transgenic crops.
There are several different ways they work, but these systems have one thing
in common. They all block the possibility of the engineered genes and traits
from ending up elsewhere.

Some GURT-containing GE seeds will not germinate, for example, while other
GURT engineered plants will produce only sterile pollen. Either way, no
genetically engineered genes will spread to other plants. This is why
critics of GE crops call these terminator technologies. However, a more
appropriate and descriptive term would be coexistence crops, since they
would eliminate the possibility of two neighboring fields crossing with each
other. Perhaps more than any other aspects of genetically engineered crops,
these technologies have been the target of massive fear-generating campaigns
by critics.

Critics say coexistence crops threaten farmers in the developing world by
preventing the saving of seed from this year's crop for next years planting.
But coexistence crops are not designed for developing world farmers. They
are designed, in part, for farmers who already buy new seed each year. Most
farmers in the developed world buy hybrid, certified or transgenic seed each
year. These types of seed cost more, but produce far better yields, protect
the environment or cost far less to grow, so the farmer gains in the end.
Virtually all corn grown in North America is from hybrid seed with 50 per
cent transgenic. Better than 70 per cent of the canola grown in Canada is
transgenic. The benefits are well documented, including less pesticide use,
healthier corn with less fungal toxin contamination and healthy canola oils
that are trans-fat free.

The development and incorporation of coexistence crops would have several
advantages over today's transgenic crops. Along with ending illegal
propagation of transgenic crops, the issue of horizontal gene flow would
also be eliminated. Therefore, there would no longer be any issue of
cross-pollination between transgenic and organic crops.

Perhaps this is why certain groups are fighting the development of
coexistence crops so ferociously. In fact, pollen from transgenic crops does
not threaten organic crop certification at all. According to the
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), there
should not be any threshold of cross-pollination, and if it occurs it does
not necessarily threaten the organic status of the product. The IFOAM does
not even advocate mandatory testing for the cross-pollination of organically
grown crops from transgenic ones.

It has been suggested that coexistence crops will threaten biodiversity.
Critics claim the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, of which Canada is a
signature, prohibits the development of coexistence crops. However, Article
2 of the protocol states: "Parties shall ensure that the development,
handling, transport, use and release of any living modified organism
[international term for GE crops] are undertaken in a manner that prevents
or reduces the risks to biodiversity."

Since coexistence crops would block gene flow from transgenic crops to other
plants, their incorporation into biotechnology crops is actually in keeping
with the International Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety agreement. There are
approximately 60,000 seed varieties sold in North America each year. There
are approximately 100 transgenic varieties of crops. It seems very
far-fetched to suggest 100 transgenic varieties with sterile GURT
engineering are going to threaten 60,000 non-transgenic varieties.

Blocking gene flow is important in another area of agricultural
biotechnology. Up to now the production of most pharmaceuticals has required
very expensive laboratories and production facilities. This is all about to
change. Scientists have developed ways to make pharmaceuticals in plants.
This has tremendous health and economic benefits. Where once a particular
pharmaceutical might cost $100 per dose to produce, it can now be made in a
plant for pennies. Everything from vaccines to heart medicines will be
produced in genetically engineered plants. Of course, safety issues
surrounding the growing of "pharma crops" have been considered in detail.
There are very elaborate rules to maintain separation between food and
pharmaceutical producing crops, including dedicated fields, large isolation
distances, dedicated equipment, as well as separate storage and processing
facilities.

Adding GURT technology to pharma crops would further increase the safety
with the complete elimination of the possibility of pollen flow from pharma
crops to related plants.

The whole world stands to benefit from such developments. Soon the lack of
refrigeration that has hampered vaccine delivery in many parts of the world
will no longer be a problem, for example. Pharma crops containing edible
vaccines will be grown wherever they are needed. Two of the pharma crops
furthest along in development contain vaccines for Hepatitis and Norwalk
virus. Hundreds of millions of people stand to benefit from these advances
in agricultural biotechnology.

Almost 10 years of growing biotechnology crops has demonstrated huge
environmental benefits, better yields and healthier food with absolutely no
demonstrated harm from consumption. Canada should be applauded for its call
for a return of a science-based approach to continued research and
development of coexistence crops. It is clear there are many benefits to
incorporating coexistence crops into agricultural biotechnology.

Robert Wager is a Researcher at University of Guelph
[www.uoguelph.ca]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail