APPLICATION SUMMARY to ERMA to field test GE Brasssicas

Application Summary prepared by New Zealand Institute for Crop & Food Research Limited

Vegetables brassicas are widely grown in NZ for both the domestic and export market. Insect pests are a large problem on these crops with control requiring the use of 2.81 kg of active ingredient of insecticide per hectare. The most serious caterpillar pests are cabbage white butterfly and diamond back moth (DBM). While there are numerous chemical control methods available for these pests, there are problems particularly in DBM with the development of resistance to these chemicals. In addition there are concerns about the presence of chemical residues in the environment. As a result there is growing interest in the development of alternative control methods. The soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has been used for biological control of insects for over 30 years. In NZ commercial products containing this bacterium are available. As there are no Brassica cultivars or close relatives with caterpillar resistance the introduction of insecticidal genes from Bt into plants offers an alternative method for caterpillar control. In 2005 maize and cotton crops containing Bt genes were grown commercially on over 26M ha world wide, approximately three times the land area of NZ. Food products from these crops have been approved for human consumption in several countries including NZ.

We have used Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation to produce broccoli, kale, cabbage and cauliflower transgenic for a Bt gene and demonstrated excellent control of DBM, soybean looper and cabbage white butterfly larvae in laboratory and greenhouse assays. Bt-containing plants cause mortality of freshly hatched larvae within 48h with no visible damage to the plant. However, field-testing of these plants is required to confirm the extent of insect control under agronomic situations and to assess any unexpected environmental effects of these plants. We expect that the Bt-containing plants will require fewer insecticide applications compared with non-Bt containing plants. In addition, we expect no detrimental effects on non-target organisms.

This field test does not involve DNA from human genes or native and valued introduced flora and fauna. The sequence of the DNA to be used was originally derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis but the sequence has been modified to allow optimal expression in plant cells. This DNA was manufactured in a DNA synthesiser. The plant material to be used, vegetable and forage Brassicas, all belong to the Brassicaceae or Crucifer family. They are not native to NZ and are not closely related to other native members of this family occurring in a different taxonomic tribe. Therefore inter-crossing is not possible.

These plants will be grown in a secure contained field location near Lincoln. The field test will be small, occupying an area of up to 0.4 ha and is it expected that each plant will be in the ground for up to 5 months. The plants will be transplanted into the field as small seedlings or plantlets and their growth and development monitored until the formation of marketable heads. The plants will then be removed from the field and either destroyed by autoclaving or replanted in a contained PC2 greenhouse for flowering and seed collection. The field test site will be subjected to the normal agronomic practises associated with growing vegetable brassicas including control of insects, weeds and diseases by chemical application as required. The field test will be monitored carefully every 3-4 days to ensure that no caterpillars are surviving on transgenic plants and that no open flower buds are visible on the plants. Plants will be removed when they initiate bolting and therefore well before flowers open to ensure no dispersal of genetically modified pollen. The field test site will be monitored monthly for volunteer plants for one year after the completion of the trial. The personnel associated with this field test are experienced with conducting field tests of genetically modified plants and are trained in the procedures associated with such field tests.

The Scientific Facts, Myths and Reality of Genetically Engineered Food

The Scientific Facts

The global association of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST), has issued the following facts. These are that:

• GENETIC ENGINEERING IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM BREEDING. The artificial insertion of foreign genes represents a traumatic disturbance of the close genetic control in normal cells. It is completely different in nature from the combination of maternal and paternal chromosomes brought about by natural mating and breeding mechanisms.

• GENETIC ENGINEERING OF TODAY IS TECHNICALLY PRIMITIVE as it is impossible to guide the insertion of a new gene. Therefore it is impossible to foresee the effects of an inserted gene. But even if the position of a gene can be localised afterwards, the knowledge of DNA is far too incomplete to make it possible to predict the result. The claim by scientists in the field that they can is both arrogant and untrue.

• HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MAY BE GENERATED UNPREDICTABLY because of the artificial insertion of a foreign gene. These may, in the worst case, be toxic, allergenic or otherwise damaging to health. The knowledge of these risks is quite incomplete.

• NO SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODS ARE FULLY RELIABLE. Over ten percent of serious side effects have not been possible to detect in the case of new drugs in spite of rigorous safety assessment. The risk of not detecting a hazardous property of a new GE food is probably considerably greater than in the case of drugs.

• THE PRESENT RULES FOR SAFETY ASSESSMENT ARE SERIOUSLY INADEQUATE. They have been explicitly designed so as to simplify approval procedures. They accept very insensitive safety testing, therefore there is a considerable risk that foods harmful to health may pass undetected.

•  THE GE FOODS SO FAR DEVELOPED ARE OF NO SIGNIFICANT VALUE FOR MANKIND. The products mainly satisfy purely commercial interests.

• THE KNOWLEDGE OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS IS VERY INCOMPLETE regarding the release of genetically engineered organisms. It has not been positively proven that GE organisms may not cause environmental harm. Various potential ecological complications have been anticipated by ecological experts. For example, there are many routes for uncontrolled spread of engineered and potentially hazardous genes, including gene transfer by bacteria and viruses. Environmental complications will probably mostly be impossible to repair as the released genes cannot be retrieved.

• NEW AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS VIRUSES MAY EMERGE. It has been experimentally demonstrated that inserted virus genes may unite with genes from infecting viruses (so-called recombination). Such new viruses may be more aggressive than the original virus. Viruses may also become less species-specific. For example, a plant virus might become harmful to valuable insects, animals and to man.

• THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HEREDITARY SUBSTANCE, DNA, IS VERY LIMITED. It is risky to manipulate complicated systems that are incompletely known. Extensive experience from biology, ecology and medicine shows that this may cause serious unexpected problems and disturbances.

• GENETIC ENGINEERING WILL NOT HELP SOLVE THE WORLD HUNGER PROBLEM. The claim that genetic engineering may contribute importantly to reduced world hunger is a scientifically unsubstantiated myth. WHO, and other figures show that we are currently generating one and a half times the amount of food necessary to feed every man woman and child on Earth with a nutritious diet. The problem is distribution, not shortage.

These are the facts as scientists, not usually involved in the industry, see them.

The Myths & Reality of Genentically Engineered Foods

Don’t even be tempted to believe the good news stories being chanted religiously by the biotech PR machine. Nearly every supposed advantage of GE foods turns out to be non-existent. Dr Paul Butler exposes the realities behind the myths.

MYTH: The new techniques give more control than conventional breeding allowing specific genes to be “cut out” and “pasted” into new organisms.
REALITY: The process of transferring genes this way is highly experimental and uncertain. It can create new and unimagined toxins for which tests have yet to be found.

MYTH: Fields containing weed-killer resistant crops can now be sprayed, killing weeds with no crop damage, resulting in less chemical spraying.
REALITY: Plants engineered to survive spraying will absorb some of these chemicals. Food Authorities are allowing a 200 times increase in residues of Roundup  weed-killer in our food.

MYTH: Plants genetically engineered to produce their own insecticide (e.g. “Bt” Bacillus thuringiensis) will reduce the use of chemical insecticides needed to control pests, and will not affect beneficial insects.
REALITY: Pests are already becoming resistant to this insecticide. Bt is the only allowed insecticide in organic farming as it is safe for humans used in this way, so insect resistance to Bt threatens organic methods. Studies have shown detrimental effects can be experienced by bees and ladybirds eating Bt crops. Recent laboratory tests on Monarch butterflies showed that 40 per cent of caterpillars died having eaten pollen from Bt plants.

MYTH: Feeding the world’s growing population will only be possible with crops engineered for higher yields.
REALITY: The causes of hunger are linked to economics and distribution, rather than food shortages. This is made clear by a recent “Christian Aid” report. Control of the world’s seeds and agri-chemicals by a few huge companies will reduce diversity and may increase the risk of crops failing. The sale of seeds with “Terminator” genes that make them infertile after the first crop, will end the age-old tradition of poorer farmers saving seeds to replant next season. Organic production methods have been shown to be capable of feeding the world’s growing population sustainably –  non organic methods such as GE have not.

MYTH: Antibiotic “marker-genes” are a safe way to identify if the gene transfer process has worked.
REALITY: These genes risk the increase of the serious problem of antibiotic resistance which makes some diseases potentially untreatable.

MYTH: GE foods have been thoroughly tested before being sold as foods.
REALITY: GE foods are not thoroughly tested on humans before being sold as foods or even thoroughly tested on animals. The reason for this is that the GE food manufacturers and the regulatory agencies have deemed them to be substantially equivalent to non GE foods and non GE foods require minimal testing.

MYTH: GE foods are essentially the same as non GE foods and as such do not need to be labelled or, if labelling occurs, it can safely exclude foods which contain no DNA (genetic material).
REALITY: The process of genetically engineering organisms leads to altered chemicals in the cells, not all of which are predictable. There is always a real possibility of unexpected toxin formation, of allergies and of damaging effects on the immune system. These effects can occur even with minute amounts of genetically engineered, DNA-free, derivatives e.g. sugars and oils. Despite GE proponents’ claims to the contrary, this risk is not just hypothetical, it has been dramatically demonstrated in the past by a toxin in a genetically engineered supplement called Tryptophan, leading to over 30 dead and hundreds disabled from a novel immune system disease. (see p.56)

MYTH: The fact that health and even birth defects can result from non GE food toxins justifies the additional and novel health risks that GE foods convey.
REALITY: Two wrongs do not make a right. The health risks from eating non GE foods are not accepted as unavoidable and there are health regulations which seek to minimise such risks. Forcing further risks onto the public for reasons that solely benefit the biotech industry is unjustifiable.

MYTH: Advances since the toxic GE tryptophan catastrophe mean that a similar disaster could not happen again, in the same way that advances since thalidomide have led to safe drugs in pregnancy.
REALITY: Even now the current testing of GE foods would not detect a similar toxin to that found in tryptophan. Furthermore if a health effect did occur, we would not be able to link it to the cause, as unlike tryptophan and thalidomide, GE foods are unlabelled. Thalidomide taught scientists that there was no safe way of testing for drug side effects in early pregnancy. As a result no drugs are considered to be absolutely safe during this period. How ethical is it to force the unavoidable consumption of untested GE foods on pregnant women? Scientists have no way of knowing if birth defects are being caused by this practice.

MYTH: If there was a health problem with GE foods it would have shown up by now.
REALITY: Firstly, we the public are the only humans that this food has been used on and so any adverse effects have to be looked for in public health. However, the mixing of non GE and GE foods and the lack of labelling of GE foods means that it is impossible to separate exposed and non-exposed groups. This makes it impossible to trace any rise in public cancer rates, birth defects, immune system diseases, allergies or other health effects back to GE food.

MYTH: Lack of scientific proof of detrimental health effects of GE food means that it is safe.
REALITY: If you do not look you will not find and “scientific proof” of harm requires scientific research looking for harm. There are virtually no animal or human research studies involving GE food reported in scientific literature despite claims that these foods have been thoroughly tested. Where is the evidence of safety? Adverse health effects can take decades to become evident. Tobacco smoking, which is now acknowledged to be directly responsible for up to a third of all cancer deaths in New Zealand, was claimed up until recently by its manufacturers, to have no scientific evidence of harm.