Frequently Asked Questions
What is “Biotechnology”?
Plant biotechnology is so new – can we determine any problems that might be associated with it?
Are genetically modified foods labelled?
Can genetically modified foods be placed on the market without proper testing?
Are there some unknown, dangerous aspects about transgenic plants that have not been considered?
Does biotechnology allow the large corporations to control food supply?
Will transgenic plants cross with wild relatives and cause environmental damage?
What is the terminator gene?
Is the terminator gene unfair to the farmer?
It is wrong for biotechnology companies to be able to patent new varieties of crop plants, charge a premium for the seeds and then prosecute farmers who save seeds?
Isn’t it true that there is plenty of food, and that the main problem is the distribution?
Why can’t “normal breeding” and organic farming supply the world needs for food?
Will biotechnology will increase the use of herbicides?
What are insect resistant crops?
Could insect resistant crops eliminate beneficial insects?
Since there is no control over where the transgene is inserted into the plant genome, could this cause unknown effects?
Can the use of antibiotic resistance in plants make harmful bacteria resistant to antibiotics?
Can transgenic plants become weeds in other crops if they are herbicide resistant?
Do herbicide resistant crop plants cause any environmental problems?
Will biotechnology eliminate traditional breeding methods?
Can you be 100% certain that GM foods are safe?
What is “Biotechnology”?
Sometimes, this word is used to refer to methods used by modern plant breeders. However, for the purposes of this section, we define biotechnology as the transfer of genes using the techniques of molecular biology to generate transgenic plants.
Plant biotechnology is so new – can we determine any problems that might be associated with it?
The transfer of genes to plants (plant transformation) became routine almost twenty years ago and since that time thousands of independent transgenic plants have been made using numerous genes and different species of plant. Problems should have shown up by now.
Field trials of transgenic crops started in Canada in 1988 and to date over 3,000 trials have occurred. A large percentage of the canola, soybean and potato crops are transgenic. So far, there have been no really unpleasant surprises.
Agriculture has changed dramatically over the last twenty to thirty years and will change even more as the new technologies take effect. It is moving from a low-tech commodity based economy to a high-tech specialty-based resource. New management strategies are being introduced as are new monitoring procedures. In this new agriculture, an essential role for government agencies such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will be to supervise and implement procedures as they are required.
Are genetically modified foods labelled?
It is a fundamental right that people should know what they are eating. However, there are some aspects of the labeling of ag-biotech generated foods that must be considered.
An important aspect of the labeling issue is the cost. Even when scientific evaluation suggests that there is no need to label GM (genetically modified) products, I believe in the right of the consumer to know their origin if this is deemed desirable. However, consumers need to realize that compulsory labeling will likely increase the cost of food substantially because of the need to keep GM and non-GM foods separate from the farmgate to the supermarket and to label some and not others. Whether consumers will be willing to pay this extra cost, even when there is no real need for it, has not been determined.
Some technologies aim to make an important change to the composition of the food. For example, we eat the storage organs of plants such as the seeds and tubers. These contain specialized storage proteins that have a restricted range of amino acids and cannot give us all the amino acids we require in our diet. For many years, first through breeding and now by biotechnology, attempts have been made to induce plants to produce products with a full range of amino acids in their proteins. This is why a Brazil nut protein was added to soybeans. The Brazil nut protein contained the amino acids the soybean lacked. Foods such as this must clearly be tested and labeled to avoid any allergic problems, as was the case for the Brazil nut protein.
Oil made from transgenic canola plants that are herbicide resistant contains no residue of the transgene or its products. The oil is identical with the oil from non-transgenic plants. Labelling would indicate a difference that is not the case. It might be suggested that people should have a chance to protest biotechnology by avoiding such foods. But do we need to cater to all special interest groups and where does this stop especially with prepared food that may contain components from multiple sources?
The level of the product of the transgene may be very small and have no effect on the properties of the food that contains it. An example of this would be herbicide resistance in plants where the level of the product of the bacterial gene is very small. Should these products be labeled even though they are almost identical to the non-transgenic plants? If there is any concern at all, they should be labelled to at least make consumers feel comfortable.
The simplest and cheapest way to deal with customer concerns is to label products that are free of GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) so that people who object to the technology or are concerned about its effect on the food they eat can avoid them. However, consumers choosing these products should be aware that they will have to pay a premium for them.
Can genetically modified foods be placed on the market without proper testing?
It should be realized that it is no simple procedure to have a product accepted for the marketplace. Initially, all new transgenic plants have to be confined in either a greenhouse or a growth chamber. One has to receive permission from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to have even a limited field trial, and all aspects of the safety of the new varieties have to be assessed.
Even when a new variety has been assessed in limited field trials it takes six to seven years of further trials before the variety can be sold. During this time the company must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the regulatory bodies, that both the variety is safe in the field and will not cause environmental problems, and that the product is nutritionally safe for use. It has been estimated that the cost of moving a new product through the regulatory procedure can be as high as $10 million. This is a long term process to ensure consumer safety.
It has been suggested in various press reports that a large multinational might try to bypass some of the regulatory procedures or not perform them adequately. However, it would be considered a bad business strategy knowingly to poison or in any way damage ones customers. A company such as Monsanto has invested $12 billion in developing ag-biotech. It would be foolish to jeopardize this investment by inadequate regulatory trials that resulted in health problems for the consumer.
Are there some unknown, dangerous aspects about transgenic plants that have not been considered?
There is no conclusive answer to this. All technologies present us with possible risks that must be assessed as implementation proceeds. The critics of GM foods never suggest what so-called unknown aspects are that need to be tested. There is also no end to it. After a moratorium of five years for more testing, critics would call for more tests since there may still be something that they perceive to have been missed. All we can do in the business is to try to consider all the problems and attempt to determine if there might be an unknown risk and how much of a problem that risk might pose.
It must be realized that crops at present on the market have been extensively tested and shown to be safe. I have no doubt that this will also apply to new products. No evidence of major problems has been identified.
It has been suggested that, since the information on new products is from industry, the data presented to the government will be biased. However, this is the means by which all testing is dealt with by government bodies. The government dictates the information it requires and there is no evidence that it is ineffective. The cost to the taxpayer would be enormous if the government were to attempt to perform all the testing themselves and there is no evidence that the products would be safer. It is in the best interest of the manufacturer to be honest with the government and to provide accurate and complete information.
Everyone in the biotechnology industry obeys what is known as “good laboratory practice” (GLP). GLP has very strict guidelines which requires the company to keep accurate records, have laboratory books that are signed daily by the researcher and supervisor and prohibits the use of pencils and such accessories as correction fluid. Companies follow these guidelines not just to ensure consumer safety but also to protect their patents which are the most valuable resource a company possesses. Under these conditions, it is very difficult to cheat.
Essentially, the agricultural biotechnology industry follows procedures that have been established in the pharmacology industry.
Does biotechnology allow the large corporations to control food supply?
The patenting of plant varieties and technologies associated with the production of new varieties has made agriculture and food production attractive to multinational corporations since they can now protect their investments. They are indeed likely to dominate agriculture and food production.
Although it might be a cause of concern, agriculture is not unique in this regard. There are now only two North American owned automobile manufacturers. Earlier this century there were several hundred. Internationally there are now about ten in all. The same is true for other industries such as pharmaceuticals and even the media. The classical case of this is Microsoft and software. Whether such developments are good or bad is a matter for debate but it is clearly the way global commerce has developed in the 1990’s.
There must obviously be a means of ensuring a fair and equitable food supply for all nations and there must be international agreements to ensure this. Government control of agriculture and food supplies has not proven, in the past, to be an effective means of providing food and the experience of farms in Russia, Eastern Europe and China leaves little faith in the ability of government controlled agriculture to supply even the needs of their own citizens.
It should be noted that some companies have dominated some areas of agriculture long before the advent of biotechnology apparently without any major problems. Pioneer Hi-Bred has had almost 50 % of the corn seed market for many years because of the production of superior hybrid varieties. This seems not to have caused any major concerns and improvements in the corn crop have not been hindered.
Will transgenic plants cross with wild relatives and cause environmental damage?
It should be remembered that plants will only cross with the same species or very closely related species so that there must be a wild plant closely related to the crop plant with which the crop plant can breed. The concept that the gene in the closely related wild species can subsequently be transferred to a range of other wild species, as has sometimes been implied, will not occur. As in most cases with transgenic plants, each case must be treated separately considering the crop in question and the wild relative that could be a recipient of the gene that has been introduced.
In Canada, the crop of most concern for breeding with a wild relative is canola (oilseed rape in Europe). Canola is a strange plant in that it contains two genomes, one from the cabbage family and one from the mustard family. The cabbage family genome poses no problems because of the absence of wild relatives and if the gene is inserted in this genome it will not be transferred. However, the presence of the mustard genome might allow the plant to cross with wild mustard, in the process the cabbage genome is lost. This cross has been shown in the laboratory and may occur naturally in the field. Other crops in which outcrossing could be a possibility are oats and alfalfa. The rest of the major crops grown in Canada should not be a problem because of the absence of wild relatives. An analysis of possible wild relatives to crop plants is specific for each region of the world and a crop that has no wild relatives in Canada may have such relatives in a tropical climate, for example.
The transfer of a gene from canola to wild mustard growing at the edge of a canola field was measured in experiments described in Nature in 1998. It showed that, although gene transfer can occur, the frequency is low and the authors conclude that there is little risk of transfer of canola genes to wild populations.
It is proposed that the presence of a transgene in a wild variety could cause the development of a super weed. However, crop plants are not usually effective competitors in a natural environment and hybrids would also probably not be effective. This is being tested in canola. In addition, the pernicious weedy nature of a plant is not a single genetic trait but a complex series of attributes requiring multiple genes. The concept that a single gene could confer these properties is unlikely. Again, it is important to look at the gene involved and attempt to predict its impact on a possible weed plant.
What is the terminator gene?
The terminator gene, which was named by the media, is a technology designed to allow normal development of a seed but prevents the germination of the seed. It has two functions. First, it can be used to prevent the spread of transgenic plants. This is especially important for transgenic plants that have a transgene that should be contained, e.g. a plant containing a gene for a potent medicinal agent. Secondly, it can be used to protect intellectual property by preventing unauthorized use of the technology.
Is the terminator gene unfair to the farmer?
The concept that seeds saved by a farmer may not be viable is not new. All the corn grown in N. America is hybrid and many crops will be hybrids in the future. Although the seeds of hybrid plants will germinate they will not breed true and will produce inferior offspring. Farmers choose to buy new seeds each year because the increased value of the crop makes this worthwhile.
There should be a requirement that open pollinated varieties (i.e.those in which the seed can be saved) will always be available so that farmers will always be able to grow crops and save the seeds for a subsequent planting. However, the advantages of a transgenic or hybrid crop may be too great and will make in some cases open pollinated varieties obsolete.
It is wrong for biotechnology companies to be able to patent new varieties of crop plants, charge a premium for the seeds and then prosecute farmers who save seeds?
The development of new crop varieties by any means, but especially by biotechnology, is a costly exercise to the tune of tens to hundred of millions of dollars.
The premium on prices for seeds is to defray this cost and ultimately make a profit for the company involved. The cost of developing a new plant variety is large so the premium for seeds of transgenic seeds has to be spread over a number of years. Farmers could not afford to buy the seeds if the costs were to be recovered in a single season. This does, however, raise the problem of monitoring the use of seeds to prevent illegal storage of seeds by farmers for planting the following year. This can be the source of problems for the company involved as well as for the farming community.
When a farmer buys patented seeds there is an agreement not to save the seeds and use them for a subsequent crop, since it will take many years for a company to recoup development costs. The breaking of such a legal agreement as with any other legal agreement could lead to court action. A farmer who saves seeds is in effect stealing the technology.
The only alternative to this is government development of new crops and this was the situation not too long ago. However, it is very expensive and probably less efficient than using the private sector. Government labs should now concentrate on monitoring the industry.
The aims of a biotechnology company are not unique in that their objective is to make a profit for their shareholders and to develop new products to maintain their position in the marketplace.
Isn’t it true that there is plenty of food, and that the main problem is the distribution?
This may be true now but projections suggest that it will probably not be the case as we move into the twenty-first century. If we are not to risk a scenario of serious food shortages, it is time to start developing new crops as this takes many years to accomplish.
The concept of abundant food also depends upon from where it is viewed. The developed countries have more than adequate food whereas there are areas in which the food available does not meet minimal nutritional levels and other areas where it is totally inadequate. I have no idea how one could go about equalizing food availability throughout the world and one can only forecast major disruption if it were tried. It should also be noted that as less developed nations improve their living standards, they tend to change their eating habits towards those of developed countries. If all countries lived at the level of N. Americans, there would be a severe shortage of food right now.
It has been estimated that about 42% of crop productivity is lost each year to competition with weeds and to pests and pathogens. It is believed that crop varieties are nearing their natural limits of productivity. Biotechnology is one means by which these problems can be alleviated.
The technologies being developed, especially those such as drought and salt tolerance for improved nutritional quality and quantity, have the potential to have the most impact on under-developed countries. In addition, a large percentage of the crops in less developed nations are lost through diseases and pests which biotechnology will be able to substantially reduce.
Over the last 35 years, global population has doubled. World food production, through the green revolution, has kept pace with this increase. It has however, been at a cost since the use of irrigated land has also doubled and we are now facing salinization of land and inadequate water supply. In addition, the use of synthetic fertilizers especially those containing nitrogen and phosphorous has increased several fold. There has also been a marked increase in the use of pesticides, all of which have been necessary to allow this increase in food production to occur. It has been estimated that global population could double again in another 35 years although there has been a slowing trend. Whatever the final number, there will have to be a major increase in food production if we are to feed everyone adequately. Biotechnology is one means by which these problems can be addressed.
The supply of fertilizer and its impact on the environment is another problem of traditional agriculture. Most of the pollution of rivers and lakes results from agricultural use of fertilizer. This is particularly the case for phosphate fertilizer. Conversely, there are estimates that the world supply of rock phosphate to make fertilizer is limited and may only last for 30 to 50 years. Lack of phosphate would have a catastrophic effect on world food production.
At the moment we can just about feed the world population using most of the land suitable for cultivation. There is little unused land that could be brought into cultivation. It would however, be preferable if marginal land could be left as a wild refuge rather than be for substandard crop production. The intensive use of smaller amounts of land to produce the world food supply would have a marked positive environmental impact.
Why can’t “normal breeding” and organic farming supply the world needs for food?
Although organic farming may have many admirable attributes, there is no evidence that it can be used on the immense scale and intensity that would be required to produce the quantity of food to sustain a global population.
Plant breeders using modern techniques have managed to annually increase world food production by about 1.5 per cent per year required to match population growth. The annual increase has been smaller each year and there are now doubts that an increase of this magnitude can be achieved with the narrow genetic variability available in modern crop plants. Breeders now use mutagens to modify genes and wide crossings with wild species to try to increase variability but this appears to be reaching its limits. An alternative is to introduce genes from other species to confer the needed diversity required by breeders. This is the role of agricultural biotechnology.
Organic farming cannot control loss of crops through insects or other pests when crops are grown on the large scale found on modern farms. Nor can organic farming effectively deal with adverse environment conditions such as drought, which is one of the aims of biotechnology.
In the past, traditional methods of agriculture required large numbers of workers. Modern agriculture has allowed food to be produced by a very small percentage of the population (2% in Canada) allowing people to have a much wider spectrum of careers required for a mixed economy that ensures a high standard of living for the majority of Canadians.
Will biotechnology will increase the use of herbicides?
Weeds are a major problem in agricultural crops. They reduce yield and can contaminate the crop with their seeds which may be toxic. This is especially a problem in a crop like canola.
Herbicides have been intensely used for a number of years as pre-planting, pre-emergence and post emergence sprays or as crop sprays that kill weeds in preference to the crop plants.
In the past, some of the pre-planting herbicides were a problem because some were quite unpleasant compounds and resided in the soil for long periods (e.g. atrazine) but were essential for weed control (e.g. in corn). They were also used as a matter of routine in anticipation of a weed problem that often did not occur.
Many of the common modern herbicides inhibit the formation of essential components required for the growth of the plant. The most commonly used herbicide is glyphosate (Roundup) which inhibits the formation of a class of amino acids called aromatic amino acids. When a plant is sprayed with glyphosate it literally starves because it cannot make these essential amino acids. These amino acids cannot be made by animals including humans. The herbicide glyphosate is therefore non-toxic to animals; we have to obtain our aromatic amino acids from our diet. Bacteria can also make aromatic amino acids but unlike plants they are insensitive to glyphosate. If the gene that allows bacteria to make aromatic amino acids is moved to plants, the plants, like the bacteria, can make aromatic amino acids in the presence of glyphosate and become resistant to the herbicide. Because bacteria are resistant to glyphosate, they readily break it down in the soil and its effect is lost within a few days of its application.
Herbicide resistant plants will allow the use of broad spectrum herbicides that tend to be readily broken down in the soil. These sprays can be used once the crop is established to eliminate all weeds with one application of herbicide instead of several that are often used now. Weeds are most problematic at this seedling stage when they compete with the crop plants. The early application of herbicides to herbicide resistant crops allows crops to fill in the space preventing light from penetrating and inhibiting weed growth. The same or less herbicide may ultimately be used but there is also the prospect of increased yields.
Herbicide resistant crops have encouraged the evolution of new types of farming that could prove to be very beneficial for the environment. In particular, the use of no-till agriculture is becoming very popular. This involves the direct seeding into the remains of the previous years crop without plowing or in some cases even tilling the soil. This reduces costs to the farmer but also helps reduce the erosion of the soil. This method of farming has dramatically increased with the advent of herbicide resistant crops since they allow the used of broad spectrum herbicides once the crop has become established as the most effective means of weed control.
What are insect resistant crops?
Insect resistant plants are created by inserting a gene that produces a protein toxic to insects. The most common gene of this type is from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. This gene codes for a protein called the Bt toxin that binds to the gut of the insect and prevents it digesting the food it eats. Several types of Bt exist each one specific to a group of insect species. The insect gut is sufficiently different from the animal digestive tract that Bt has no effect on animals including humans. It is produced as an inactive protoxin which is activated in the gut of the insect by the alkaline conditions that are found there. If it is eaten in human food, it first encounters the acid in the stomach which not only will not activate the protoxin to active Bt but will make it permanently inactive and it is then rapidly broken down in the intestine.
Could insect resistant crops eliminate beneficial insects?
Insect resistant crops could indeed have a negative impact on beneficial insect populations. It all comes down to an evaluation of the risks as opposed to the benefits.
Some crops require constant spraying with insecticides (e.g. potatoes for Colorado beetle and cotton for the boll weevil). In these crops, use of insecticide has been dramatically reduced by the introduction of insect resistant varieties. This has reduced the impact of insecticides on useful insects and lessened the effect on animals and humans. It is, therefore, important to determine the impact of spraying against the impact of the insect resistant plants. Studies so far, have suggested that the impact on beneficial insects of the insect resistant plants is minimal. In addition, many insects, e.g. the Colorado beetle are becoming insecticide resistant and this is leading to use of more toxic or multiple insecticides. The use of Bt containing plants could overcome this problem.
Insects may become resistant to the Bt toxin and crops will again have to be sprayed. This is a genuine concern although insect resistance has not been as much of a problem as was feared. It is fundamentally a management problem. Farmers are required to leave twenty per cent of their crops as non-insect resistant varieties as a haven for the insect pest. Any resistant insect is likely to breed with a non-resistant form and the resistant trait will be lost. A second strategy is to constantly modify the Bt toxin to overcome any resistance. Insect resistance to Bt is a recognized problem for the companies that sell insect resistant crops.
The pollen or other plant parts can kill beneficial insects. This is correct; monarch butterflies that are forced to eat milk weeds coated with pollen from Bt corn plants are damaged. This is not surprising since the monarch and the European corn borer moth are related insects. However, there is no evidence that this occurs in nature and if it does it is unlikely to have a major impact on the monarch population. It is something that should be monitored. However, there are varieties of Bt corn in which the Bt toxin is not in the pollen and these will not have the problem of poisoning monarch butterflies. In addition, milkweed is eradicated from corn fields and is regarded as a noxious weed. Most of the butterflies feed on milkweed that is found in waste land or other non-cultivated land free from corn pollen.
It should be noted that there is a significant loss in the yield of the corn crop each year amounting to a loss of revenue to American farmers of about $1.2 billion because of the European corn borer. Since the insect is buried in the stem of the corn, it is difficult to kill with insecticides. It is however, well controlled by Bt expression in the plant.
If the Bt gene