Questions and Answers about GMO's
The following is excellent information presented by Emerson D. Nafziger, Professor of Crop Production Extension Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, October 28,1999.
1.What are GMO's (definition)?
The acronym GMO stands for "genetically modified organism", and was first used years ago to designate microorganisms that had had genes from other species transferred into their genetic material by the then-new techniques of "gene-splicing." Applied to crops, the term refers to any genetic plant type that has had a gene or genes from a different species transferred into its genetic material using accepted techniques of genetic engineering, and where such introduced genes have been shown to produce a gene product (a protein). This process of moving genes into a new species and getting them to function is known as transformation. In a real sense, all of the crop cultivars that we use are "genetically modified," in that they were bred to be more productive, more resistant, or produce better or different quality of product than did previous cultivars. Such changes, which have been going on ever since crops were domesticated, involve the addition of genes over time, but such additions are with few exceptions from the same species, or at least the same genus. Such changes also include such things as mutations, even those induced on purpose, as long as they were done within the genus.
Many would argue that the current use of the term "GMO" is much too narrowly constructed, in that it refers more to the process by which genes are introduced rather than to the product. For example, introduction of a truly harmful gene (such as one for a human toxin) into a crop would not result in a"GMO" provided the harmful gene had been found in that crop species. But when a gene is discovered in a microorganism, in another plant species, or in an animal and transferred into a crop plant, the resulting crop cultivar will be designated a "GMO" no matter how benign the transferred gene turns out to be. Some have taken to referring to "GM food" or "GM crops" or "Genetically Enhanced" crops, but most of the world still knows such crops as GMO's.
There is often more than one gene that can be found to produce the same effect in crops. Most transformations are made not using single genes, but rather small groups of associated genes that are included to help identify and control the action of the "target" gene. Such a group of genes is called an "event," and while events might both cause the plant to , for example, be tolerant to the same herbicide, they may act somewhat differently in the plant. For example,there are a number of Bt events that have been developed,and they may result in formation of the Bt protein (insecticide) in different concentrations, in different times during the life of the plant. Different events for the same target gene thus represent some "genetic diversity" for the trait, and this may be useful in making the trait better adapted and less subject to development of resistance by pests.
2. What GM crops are approved and grown at this point?
To date, the number of GM crops that have been released and grown commercially is actually quite small. Corn hybrids have been released that contain a Bt gene (a gene from a bacterium that produces an insecticidal protein, the Roundup Ready gene (first found in a microorganism and makes plants resistant to the herbicide Roundup) or another gene for resistance to Roundup, and the Liberty Link gene, which confers resistance to Liberty, herbicide. In soybean, the Roundup Ready gene is the only on widespread use, but Liberty resistance has also been developed. Canola (an oilseed grown mostly in Canada and Europe) cultivars with Roundup resistance and potatoes with Bt have been released as well. Most other crops grown in Illinois--wheat, grain sorghum, oats, alfalfa, and others--have no GM versions released at this point, though a number of these crops have such developments underway.
3. Why are GMO's an issue?
To many people, the technology that allows scientists to break down the "natural" barriers that speciation (the grouping of organisms into genetically similar types capable of interbreeding naturally) has meant up to now means entry into some real danger zones. For example, they might worry about what a corn plant with an animal or even a human gene will do and what it will produce, or what a bacterial gene will do when placed into an animal. Scientists see real promise in such developments, since the limitations imposed by needing to find genes within the same species are real. Without such limitations, it is possible to do things like inserting the gene for human insulin into a microorganism into a yeast cell, and to produce this lifesaving substance in a vat, more cheaply and with better quality control than is possible when this hormone is extracted from animals. Other hormones and medicinal products are being produced by genetically modified microbes,and genes for certain vaccines have been transferred successfully into crops like bananas, so that merely eating fresh fruit might inoculate people against diseases.
Regardless of the astounding possibilities that such developments hold, many people view this type of genetic manipulation as very dangerous. "They point to examples of "unintended consequences" stemming from the introduction of other technologies,and they feel that the infinite number of possible genetic transfers will, sooner or later, result in unforeseen consequences of devastating proportions. They would argue that just because this has not happened yet does not mean that it won't. Possibilities of such problems might range from such things as allergic reactions to environmental disasters based upon unanticipated changes in aggressiveness of disease organisms, etc.. there are no ethical concerns about interspecies gene transfers; for example, if a human gene is transferred into a corn plant, does eating the grain from such a plant constitute cannibalism? While there is no indication that scientists are being cavalier or sloppy in their approach to this type of genetic transfer, many people fear this technology will cause so many unknown changes that at least a few will result in problems that cannot be anticipated. Another segment of society sees the entire process of moving genes among species as "unnatural", and hence morally unjustifiable, no matter what the intention or possible benefit.
4. What GMO's are an issue, and why now?
The present answer to this question would probably have to be
"all of them", at least for some segment of the world society. All corn
and soybean cultivars that are commercially available in the United States have been
approved for production, sale, and use in this country by a rather rigorous protocol
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and, when the modification involves
pest management, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The European Union, or
some countries in that Union, also must approve the import and use of feed or food derived
from a number of these cultivars. Such approval was granted for a number of GM
crops, including corn with early versions of Bt (from the mid-1990's) and for soybean
cultivars, also released in the mid 1990's, that contain the Roundup Ready gene.
Newer versions of Bt in corn, some versions of Liberty Link used to
confer tolerance to Liberty herbicide in corn and soybean, and the use of the Roundup
resistance gene in corn, however, have not yet been approved by the EU, and this fact
became widely known to producers only in late March, 1999, at which time they were told
that certain elevators and processors might not accept such "unapproved" corn
from the 1999 crop. Even though the unexpected crop acreage and number of affected
farmers was not large,the news that some of the crop they were planning to grow
might not be able to enter some market channels came as a shock to farmers, and to seed
companies, many of which had not anticipated the delay in approval.
Following that news in the Spring of 19999 came the announcement in
August that not only did "unapproved" varieties need to be kept separate and
delivered where they would not enter the export market channels, but that several
processors were asking that all GMO corn and soybean be kept separate,and identified as to
type upon delivery to buying points. This meant that all Roundup Ready soybeans,
which occupied more than half of the soybean acreage in Illinois, and Bt corn, which
occupied more than a third of the corn acreage in the state in1999, also had to be
considered with regard to where they could be delivered. Because the great majority
of crop producers in Illinois had one or both of these GM crops in the field, almost every
farmer was now affected. Suddenly, the whole production and marketing system was cast
under a cloud of uncertainty.
Many elevators were able to accept corn and soybeans without
difficulty in 1999, even though some producers felt the burden of having to make sure that
GM and non-GM crops were kept separate and properly identified upon delivery. Now
there is the concern that, as buyers in different U.S. and world markets request more
non-GM crops, more attention will need to be paid to markets, and there could be some
market penalties for GM crops in the year 2000 and beyond.
Some of the loudest and most sustained attacks on GM crops have
been on the so-called "terminator gene" that was developed by a USDA
Agricultural Research Service scientist, with use rights sold to a cotton seed company
that was subsequently purchased by Monsanto. Seed produced by plants that contain
the gene will not germinate,and so could not be saved for planting the next crop.
The gene was the some years away from commercial application, and it is not
clear that its development was being actively persued. In the face of vocal and
ongoing criticism, most purportedly on behalf of farmers in developing countries who
depend on saving seed for thier next planting, Monsanto recently announced that it would
not pursue development of this technology. Even so, the name given to this gene and
the fact that it was seen as hurting subsistence farmers made it aprime target for
many anti-GM crop critics and activists,a nd even now it is raised as the sort of thing
that might be developed in the future as companies try to profit from the new
technology.