[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[SANET-MG] GM sugar beets gone sour



November 2, 2004

Prof. Joe Cummins

“Genetically modified sugar beets gone sour”

This October Monsanto Company (St. Louis, MO) 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 sugar beet designated event
H7-1(1). The sugar beet plant was modified to confer tolerance to the
herbicide glyphosate. Novartis Corporation and Monsanto Corporation six
years earlier had obtained un-regulated status for a sugar beet plant
resistant to glyphosate. The difference between H7-1 and the earlier
Novartis-Monsanto strain was in a simplification of the genetic
construction. Event H7-1 was engineered to be glyphosate tolerant by
inserting a gene for the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate
synthase (EPSPS) into the sugar beet genome. The earlier construction
GTSB77 the cp4-epsps gene, the uidA gene and a modified gox gene. Two of
the transferred genes - the CP4 EPSPS and gox genes confer tolerance to
the herbicide glyphosate. Both genes are bacterially-derived. The CP4
EPSPS gene encodes an enzyme that is not sensitive to applications of
glyphosate. The gox gene encodes the glyphosate oxidoreductase enzyme
that can degrade the herbicide however it was truncated during
transformation and 69% of the gene is fused to sugarbeet DNA resulting
in a chimeric gene. Although mRNA transcripts from this chimeric gox
sequence are present in the sugarbeet, no novel protein is translated
(the gene does not make a protein) and the sugarbeet does not have GOX
enzyme activity .The uidA gene encodes beta glucuronidase (GUS) which
serves as a marker(2,3). That 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 employed.

Sugar beet H7-1 contains the CP4 EPSPS gene from the soil bacterium,
Agrobacterium., and the modified figwort mosaic virus, chloroplast
transit protein from Arabidopsis and the message polyadenylation signal
from pea that was employed in GTSB77. The difference between the two
strains is that H7-1 does not have the inactive gene and marker added to
the earlier release(1). CP4 EPSPS gene has been used in a number of
different glyphosare tolerant (roundup ready) crops such as maize,
cotton soybean. Even though it is overtly stated in only a few petition
the CP4 EPSPS used in the genetically modified (gm) crops is a synthetic
approximation of the original bacterial gene by altering codon usage to
the usage in plants(4). Such synthetic genes function poorly in bacteria
but well in higher plants. The synthetic genes bear unique DNA sequences
that have not been tested specifically for recombination and DNA
toxicity even though they have not been subject to the forces of
evolution and natural selection.

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 beets and to
neighboring beet crops along wit the danger of creating ferile weeds.
Since transgenic pollen may be spread for as much as a kilometer from
the production site (see following discussion) the matter is of concern
to organic producers who may be penalized if their crop is polluted by
GM pollen and even conventional producers have concern about oppressive
lawsuits from the pantentee even though their crop has been polluted.
with transgenes. 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 approved by their accredited certifying agent. This plan 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.
Organic certification involves oversight by an accredited certifying
agent of the materials and practices used to produce or handle an
organic agricultural product. This oversight includes an annual review
of the certified operation’s organic system plan and on-site inspections
of the certified operation and its records. 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. Organic certification
of a production or handling operation is a process claim, not a product
claim”(1). USDA/APHIS seems to be saying that avoiding transgenic
pollution of organic products rests solely with the organic producers
and USDA/APHIS does not give a darn for those producers. However, when
transgenic pollution is inevitable, as it is in sugar beet production,
the organic producers may claim that the polluted crops are “organic”.
USDA/APHIS seem to be pushing for a declaration that transgenic crops
can bear the “certified organic” label. Exporters of transgene polluted
crops will probably experience a viewpoint different from USDA/APHIS
among importers.

The extensive spread of sugar beet pollen has been established in a
number of studies. Using male-sterile bait plants production of
transgenic off-springs was clearly established at 200meters beyond a a
hemp containment barrier and that pollen spread in wind was a s great as
1 kilometer (5). Recombinant DNA from the sugar beet pollen was detected
in the soil a 50 meters from the test plot by PCR analysis and
transformation of a soil bacterium, Psuedomonas (6). The recombinant DNA
from transgenic sugar beet was detected in soil and by horizontal gene
transfer for at least two years after planting the transgenic sugar beet
(7). Wild beets fertilized with pollen from transgenic beets stabely
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).

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
regulation organic food production they seem to be prostituting that
responsibility, even to the extent of trying to encourage recognition of
sale of gm crops under organic labels. Clearly, USDA/APHIS cannot both
promote GM crops and at the same time regulate organic crops . An
independent regulator of GM crops is long overdue.

References

1. USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment Monsanto Company and KWS SAAT AG
Petition 03-323-01p for Determination of Non-regulated Status for
Roundup Ready® Sugar Beet Event H7-1 October 2004
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/03_32301p_pea.pdf

2. Department of Agriculture Novartis Seeds and Mondsanto company
petition 98-173-01p for determination of deregulated status for
transgenic glyphosate tolerant sugar beet line GTSB77
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs2/98_17301p_com.pdf

3. Australian New Zealand Food Authority Draft Risk Analysis Report

Application A378 Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77

(GTSB77) http://www.foodstandards.gov.au <http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/>

4. Department of Agriculture Response to Monsanto Company Petition
95-045-01p For a Determination of Nonregulated Status for Glyphosate
Tolerant (Roundup ReadyTM)Cotton Lines 1445 and 1698 1995
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/dec_docs/9504501p__det.htm

5.Saeglitz,C. Pohl,M.† and Bartsch,D. Monitoring gene flow from
transgenic sugar beet using cytoplasmic male-sterile bait plants 2000
Moclecular Ecology 9,2035-40

6. Meier,P. and Wackernagel,W. Monitoring the spread of recombinant DNA
from field plots with transgenic sugar beet plants by PCR and natural
transformation of Pseudomonas stutzeri 2003 Transgenic Research 12,293-304

7. Gebhard,F. and Smalla,K. Monitoring field releases of genetically
modified sugar beets for persistence of transgenic plant DNA and
horizontal gene transfer 1999 FEMS Microbiology Ecology 28,261-72

8.Dietz-Pfeistetter and Kirchner,M. Analysis of gene inheritance and
expression in hybrids between transgenic sugar beet and wild beets 1998
Molecualr Ecology 7,1693-1700

9.Pohl- Orf,M,Brand1,U,Drießen,S,Ren´eHesse,P,Lehnen,M,Morak,C,
Mücher,T, Saeglitz,C,von Soosten,C. and Bartsch,D. Overwintering of
genetically modified sugar beet, Beta vulgaris L. subsp.vulgaris, as a
source for dispersal of transgenic pollen 1999 Euphytica 108,181-6

10.Ho,M. Report on horizontal gene transfer - Department of Public
Prosecution versus Gavin Harte and others, New Ross, Ireland 1999
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

11. Ching,L. and Matthews,J. GM crops failed 2003 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.