GM Sugar Beet Gone Sour

[Guest guest]

7 Dec 2004 14:55:27 -0000

 

GM Sugar Beet Gone Sour

press-release

 

 

 

The Institute of Science in Society Science Society

Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

========================================================

 

 

 

ISIS Press Release 07/12/04

 

GM Sugar Beet Gone Sour

**********************

 

A new GM sugar beet event has been deregulated in the United

States. But it is yet another story of poor assessment by

the regulators that seriously threaten organic crops. Prof.

Joe Cummins reports

 

References for this article are posted on ISIS members'

website http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/GMSBGSFull.php. Details

here http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php

 

In October 2004, Monsanto Company (St. Louis, Missouri) and

KWS SAAT AG (Einbeck, Germany) petitioned the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) for non-regulated status

for their genetically modified (GM) sugar beet H7-1 made

tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate [1].

 

Six years earlier, Novartis and Monsanto had already

obtained non-regulated status for a sugar beet plant

tolerant to glyphosate. The difference between H7-1 and the

earlier Novartis-Monsanto strain is in a simplification of

the genetic construction.

 

The earlier construction GTSB77 carried the gene coding for

CP4 EPSPS, the uidA gene and a modified gox gene. The CP4

epsps and gox genes confer tolerance to the herbicide

glyphosate and are derived from bacteria. The CP4 EPSPS is

an enzyme not sensitive to applications of glyphosate, while

the gox gene encodes the glyphosate oxidoreductase enzyme

that degrades the herbicide. However, the gox gene was

truncated during transformation and the 69% of the gene

remaining is fused to sugar beet DNA, resulting in a

chimeric gene. Although mRNA transcripts from this chimeric

gox sequence are present in the sugar beet, no novel protein

is translated (the gene does not make a protein) and the

sugar beet does not have GOX enzyme activity .The uidA gene

encodes beta-glucuronidase (GUS), which serves as a

selectable marker [2, 3]. The sugar beet containing this

bizarre patchwork of genes and inactive gene fragment was

approved for commercial use in the United States (1998) and

in Australia (2002) and has been widely grown.

 

Sugar beet H7-1 contains the CP4 epsps gene from the soil

bacterium Agrobacterium, the modified figwort mosaic virus,

chloroplast transit protein from Arabidopsis and the same

terminator signal from pea employed in GTSB77. The

difference between the two strains is that H7-1 does not

have the inactive gox gene marker that was added to the

earlier release [1].

 

The CP4 epsps gene has been used in a number of different

glyphosate tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops such as maize,

cotton soybean. Even though it is overtly stated in only a

few petitions, the CP4 epsps gene used in GM crops is a

synthetic approximation of the original bacterial gene,

obtained by altering codons to the usage preferred in plants

[4]. The synthetic genes bearing unique DNA sequences have

not been tested for recombination or toxicity even though

they are entirely new to evolution.

 

The petition for non-regulated status triggered an

environmental assessment by USDA/APHIS. That review dealt

with the spread of pollen from the transgenic crops to weedy

relatives of the sugar beet and to neighbouring beet crops,

and the danger of creating fertile weeds. As transgenic

pollen may spread by at least as much as a kilometre from

the production site (see following discussion), the matter

is of concern to organic producers who may be penalized if

their crop is contaminated by GM pollen. Even conventional

producers have concerns about oppressive lawsuits from the

patentee if their crop has been contaminated with

transgenes. But USDA/APHIS provided cold comfort for the

organic producers and barely mentioned conventional

producers.

 

The USDA/APHIS comments are revealing: " The National Organic

Program (NOP) administered by USDA's Agricultural Marketing

Service (AMS) requires organic production operations to have

distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones to prevent

unintended contact with prohibited substances from adjoining

land that is not under organic management. Organic

production operations must also develop and maintain an

organic production system plan…[that] enables the production

operation to achieve and document compliance with the

National Organic Standards, including the prohibition on the

use of excluded methods. Excluded methods include a variety

of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence

their growth and development by means that are not possible

under natural conditions or processes…. Although the

National Organic Standards prohibit the use of excluded

methods, they do not require testing of inputs or products

for the presence of excluded methods. The presence of a

detectable residue of a product of excluded methods alone

does not necessarily constitute a violation of the National

Organic Standards. The unintentional presence of the

products of excluded methods will not affect the status of

an organic product or operation when the operation has not

used excluded methods and has taken reasonable steps to

avoid contact with the products of excluded methods as

detailed in their approved organic system plan " [1].

 

USDA/APHIS seems to be saying that the responsibility for

avoiding transgenic contamination of organic products rests

solely with the organic producers and that it does not give

any protection for those producers. However, when transgenic

contamination is inevitable, as it is very likely to be the

case, the organic producers may still claim that the

contaminated crops are " organic " . USDA/APHIS seems to be

pushing for a declaration that transgenic contaminated crops

can nevertheless be labelled " certified organic " . Exporters

of transgene contaminated crops will probably come up

against a different viewpoint among their importers, where

market rejection of GM crops is high.

 

The extensive spread of sugar beet pollen has been

established in a number of studies. Using male-sterile test

plants, production of transgenic offspring was clearly

established at 200 metres beyond a hemp containment barrier

and pollen spread in wind was as great as 1 kilometre [5].

Recombinant DNA from the sugar beet pollen has been detected

in the soil at 50 meters from the test plot by PCR analysis

and by natural transformation of a soil bacterium,

Pseudomonas [6].

 

Recombinant DNA from transgenic sugar beet has also been

detected in soil and by horizontal gene transfer for at

least two years after planting the transgenic sugar beet

[7]. Wild beet fertilized with pollen from transgenic beets

stably inherited the transgenic trait [8]. Over-wintering of

transgenic sugar beet was found to be a source for dispersal

of transgenic pollen [9]. The problem of horizontal gene

transfer in sugar beet has been discussed for several years

[10] but is barely mentioned in USDA/APHIS reviews.

 

Finally, GM sugar beet was found to yield significantly less

than high yielding conventional varieties [11]. Results of

the UK Farm Scale Evaluations indicate that herbicide

tolerant GM beet had more impacts on biodiversity than

conventional beet [12].

 

In conclusion, USDA/APHIS seems to accept the widespread

escape of recombinant genes from test plots and production

facilities for GM sugar beet. Even though USDA has taken on

the responsibility of certifying and regulating organic food

production, it seems to be shedding that responsibility,

even to the extent of apparently encouraging the sale of

crops contaminated with transgenes under the organic label.

 

Clearly, USDA/APHIS cannot both promote GM crops and

regulate organic crops. An independent regulator of GM crops

is long overdue.

 

 

========================================================

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

 

If you like this original article from the Institute of

Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving

articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation

or purchase on our website

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/donations.

 

ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation

dedicated to providing critical public information on

cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability

and ecological sustainability in science.

 

 

========================================================

CONTACT DETAILS

 

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London

NW1 OXR

 

telephone: [44 20 8643 0681] [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20

7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

MATERIAL IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT

PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY

AND CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-sis.org.uk/