GM Sugar Beet Gone Sour

[Guest guest]

GM Sugar Beet Gone Sour

JoAnn Guest

Jan 16, 2005 21:22 PST

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

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. Details

here

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

_________________

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

DietaryTi-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Genes

 

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html