Assessment of GM Crops in Commercial Agriculture

  • E. Ann Clark
  • Hugh Lehman

Abstract

The caliber of recent discourse regarding geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) has suffered from a lack of consensuson terminology, from the scarcity of evidence upon which toassess risk to health and to the environment, and from valuedifferences between proponents and opponents of GMOs. Towardsaddressing these issues, we present the thesis that GM should bedefined as the forcible insertion of DNA into a host genome,irrespective of the source of the DNA, and exclusive ofconventional or mutation breeding.

Some defenders of the commercial use of GMOs have referred to thescientific work of GMO critics as ``junk science.'' Such a claim isfalse and misleading, given that many papers critical of both theutility and safety of GMOs have been published in peer reviewedjournals by respected scientists. In contrast, there is a dearthof peer reviewed work to substantiate the frequently heardassertions of either safety or utility in GMOs. The polarity,which now characterizes much of the public discourse on GMOs,reflects not simply scientific disagreement, but alsodisagreement in underlying value assumptions. Value differencesstrongly affect the assessment of both benefit and harm fromGMOs.

The concept of substantial equivalence occupies a pivotalposition in the GMO risk assessment process that is used in bothCanada and the US. A GMO judged to be substantially equivalent toa conventional product – as have all submissions to date – ispresumed to be safe enough for commercialization. The conclusionof safety – from both human health and environmental perspectives– should be based on scientific evidence, corroborated by actualexperimentation. However, regulators infer safety largely fromassumptions-based reasoning, with little or no experimentalvalidation. The judgement of safety because of substantialequivalence is a dubious argument by analogy.

biotechnology genetic engineering junk science risk assessment substantial equivalence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Altieri, M., “The Ecological Impacts of Transgenic Crops on Agroecosystem Health,” Ecosystem Health (2000, in press).Google Scholar
  2. Ammann, K., Y. Jacot, G. Kjellsson, and V. Simonsen (eds)., Methods for Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants. III. Ecological Risks and Prospects of Transgenic Plants (Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1999).Google Scholar
  3. Andow, D. A. and W. D. Hutchison, “Ch. 3 Bt-Corn Resistance Management,” in M. Mellon and J. Rissler (eds.), Now or Never (Union of Concerned Scientists, 1998).Google Scholar
  4. Arriola, P. E. and N. C. Ellstrand, “Crop-to-Weed Flow in the Genus Sorghum (Poaceae): Spontaneous Interspecific Hybridization between Johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense, and Crop Sorghum, S. bicolor,” Amer. J. Bot. 83(9) (1996), 1153-1160.Google Scholar
  5. Arriola, P. E. and N. C. Ellstrand, “Fitness of Interspecific Hybrids in the Genus Sorghum: Persistence of Crop Genes in Wild Populations,” Ecological Applications 7(2) (1997), 512-518.Google Scholar
  6. Benbrook, C., “Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998,” AgBioTech InfoNet Technical Paper No. 1 (13 July 1999) (http://www.biotech-info.net/RR_yield_ drag_98.pdf)Google Scholar
  7. Bergelson, J., C. B. Purrington, and G. Wichmann, “Promiscuity in Transgenic Plants,” Nature 395 (3 Sept. 1998), 25.Google Scholar
  8. Birch, A. N. E., I. E. Geoghegan, M. E. N. Majerus, J. W. McNicol, C. A. Hackett, A. M. R. Gatehouse, and J. A. Gatehouse, “Tri-Trophic Interactions Involving Pest Aphids, Predatory 2-Spot Ladybirds and Transgenic Potatoes Expressing Snowdrop Lectin for Aphid Resistance,” Molecular Breeding 5 (1999), 75-83.Google Scholar
  9. Bond, Christopher, “The Benefits and Politics of Biotechnology,” Speech to US Senate (January 26, 2000).Google Scholar
  10. Boyens, I., Unnatural Harvest. How Corporate Science is Secretly Altering Our Food (Doubleday, Canada, 1999).Google Scholar
  11. Brake, J. and D. Vlachos, Poultry Sci 77 (1998), 648 (cited in Domingo, 2000).Google Scholar
  12. Brown, P., “The Promise of Plant Biotechnology-the Threat of Genitically Modified Organisms,” (July 2000) Unpublished manuscript (http://www.lifesciencenz.com/repository/external news material/promise opponent.htm).Google Scholar
  13. Brunk, Conrad G., Lawrence L. Haworth, and Brendaand B. Lee, Value Assumptions in Risk Assessment: A Case Study of the Alachlor Controversy (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo, 1991).Google Scholar
  14. Chevre, Anne-Marie, F. Eber, A. Baranger, and M. Renard, “Gene Flow from Transgenic Crops,” Nature 389 (1997), 924.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, E. Ann, “Ten Reasons Why Farmers should Think Twice Before Growing GM Crops,” (1999) (http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/10reasons.htm).Google Scholar
  16. Clark, E. Ann, Food Safety of GM crops in Canada: Toxicity and Allergenicity (2000) (http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/safety.htm).Google Scholar
  17. Crecchio, C. and G. Stotzky, “Insecticidal Activity and Biodegradation of the Toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis,” Soil Biol. and Biochem. 30 (1998), 463-470.Google Scholar
  18. Dale, P. J., “Short-Term Effects, Long-Terms Effects and Standardization of Limits,” in K. Ammann, Y. Jacot, G. Kjellsson, and V. Simonsen (eds.), Methods for Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants. III. Ecological Risks and Prospects of Transgenic Plants (Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1999), pp. 57-62.Google Scholar
  19. Demeke, T., P. Huci, M. Baga, K. Cawell, N. Leung, and R. N. Chibbar, “Transgene Inheritance and Silencing in Hexaploid Spring Wheat.” Theor. Appl. Genet. 99 (1999), 947-953.Google Scholar
  20. De Neve, M., S. De Bock, C. De Wilde, H. Van Houdt, I. Strobbe, A. Jacobs, M. Van Montagu, and A. Dipicker, “Gene Silencing Results in Instability of Antibody Production in Transgenic Plants,” Mol. Gen. Genet. 260 (1999), 582-592.Google Scholar
  21. Di Giovanni, G. D., L. S. Watrud, R. J. Seidler, and F. Widmer, “Comparison of Parental and Transgenic Alfalfa Rhizosphere Bacterial Communities Using Biolog GN Metabolic Fingerprinting and Enterobacterial Repetitive Intergenic Consensus Sequence-PRC (ERIC-PCR),” Microb. Ecol. 37 (1999), 129-139.Google Scholar
  22. Doerfler, W. and R. Schubbert, “Uptake of Foreign DNA from the Environment: The Gastointestinal Tract and the Placenta as Portals of Entry,” Wien Klin Wochenschr 110/2 (1998), 40-44.Google Scholar
  23. Domingo, J. L., “Health Risks of GM Foods: Many Opinions but Few Data,” Science 288 (2000), 1748-1749.Google Scholar
  24. Donegan, K. K. and R. J. Seidler, “Effects of Transgenic Plants on Soil and Plant Microorganisms,” Recent Res. Devel. Microbiology 3 (1999), 415-424.Google Scholar
  25. Donegan, K. K., R. J. Seidler, V. J. Fieland, D. L. Schaller, C. J. Palm, L. M. Ganio, D. M. Cardwell, and Y. Steinberger, “Decomposition of Genetically Engineered Tobacco Under Field Conditions: Persistence of Proteinase Inhibitor I Product and Effects on Soil Microbial Respiration and Protozoa, Nematode and Microarthropod Populations,” J. Applied Ecology 34 (1997), 767-777.Google Scholar
  26. Doyle, J. D., G. Stotzky, G. McClung, and C. W. Hendricks, “Effects of Genetically Engineered Microorganisms on Microbial Populations and Processes in Natural Habitats,” Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 40 (1995), 237-287.Google Scholar
  27. Ellis, B. E., L. Erickson, A. Flanagan, R. Hill, K. Ko, P. McCourt, M. Moloney, D. Powell, and B. McKersie, “The Science is Sound,” The National Post (29 July 1999).Google Scholar
  28. Ellstrand, N. C., H. C. Prentice, and J. E. Hancock, “Gene Flow and Introgression from Domesticated Plants into Their Wild Relatives,” Ann. Rev. Ecol. Systematics 30 (1999), 539-563.Google Scholar
  29. Ewen, S. and A. Pusztai, “Effect of Diets Containing Genetically Modified Potatoes Expressing Galanthus nivalis Lectin on Rat Small Intestine,” The Lancet 354(9187) (1999).Google Scholar
  30. Fares, N. H. and A. K. El-Sayed, Nat. Toxins 6 (1998), 219 (cited in Domingo, 2000).Google Scholar
  31. Fenton, B., K. Stanley, S. Fenton, and C. Bolton-Smith, “Differential Binding of the Insecticidal Lectin GNA to Human Blood Cells,” Lancet 354(9187) (1999), 1354.Google Scholar
  32. Food Directorate, Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods Vol. I and II. Health Protection Branch, Health Canada (September 1994) (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/foodaliment/ english/subjects/novel_foods_and_ingredient/novel_foods_and_ingredient.html).Google Scholar
  33. Gidding, G. D., “The Role of Modelling in Risk Assessment for the release of genetically engineered plants,” in K. Ammann, Y. Jacot, G. Kjellsson, and V. Simonsen (eds.), Methods for Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants. III. Ecological Risks and Prospects of Transgenic Plants (Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1999), pp. 31-41.Google Scholar
  34. Hammond, G., J. Nutrition 126 (1996), 717 (cited in Domingo, 2000).Google Scholar
  35. Hansen, M., “Genetic Engineering is Not an Extension of Conventional Plant Breeding: How Genetic Engineering Differs from Conventional Breeding, Hybridization, Wide Crosses, and Horizontal Gene Transfer,” (1999) (http://www.biotech-info.net/wide crosses.html).Google Scholar
  36. Health Canada, Novel Food Information-Food Biotechnology. Colorado Beetle Beetle Resistant Potato Lines ATBT04-27, ATBT04-30, ATBT04-31, ATBT04-36, SPBT02-5, SPBT02-7 (8 November 1996) FD/OFB-096-313-A (httb://www.hc-sc.ca/food-aliment/english/subjects/novel foods and ingredient decisions1 1994.html and then click on the November 96 decision on Monsantos CPC potatoes).Google Scholar
  37. Health Canada, Novel Food Information-Food Biotechnology. Colorado Potato Beetle Resistant Potato Lines ATBT04-6, ATBT04-27, ATBT04-30, ATBT04-31, ATBT04-36, SPBT02-5, SPBT02-7 (8 November 1996) FD/OFB-096-313-A (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/english/subjects/novel_foods_and_ingredient/decisions1_1994.html and then click on the November 96 decision on Monsantos CPB potatoes.)Google Scholar
  38. Hilbeck, A., M. Baumgartner, P. M. Fried, and F. Bigler, “Effects of Transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis Corn-Fed Prey on Mortality and Development Time of Immature Chrysoperla carnea,” Environ. Entomol. 276 (1998), 480-487.Google Scholar
  39. Ho, M. W., A. Ryan, and J. Cummins., “Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter-a Recipe for Disaster?” Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 11(4) (1999).Google Scholar
  40. Ingratta, R. G., Compositional Analysis of Potato Tubers Derived from Colorado Potato Beetle Resistant cv. Atlantic Potatoes under Field Conditions (MSL#14652; Vol 1 of 1; compiled by Paul Lavrik, B. Werner and S. Love, Monsanto Co.) (2 July 1996); and Compositional Analysis of Potato Tubers Derived from Colorado Potato Beetle Resistant cv. Superior Potatoes under Field Conditions (MSL#14419); Vol 1 of 1; compiled by PaulGoogle Scholar
  41. Lavrik, B. Werner, and S. Love, Monsanto Co.) (1 Nov. 1995). Obtained through Access to Information Requests to the Government of Canada.Google Scholar
  42. Inose, T. and K. Murata, “Enhanced Accumulation of Toxic Compounds in Yeast Cells having High Glycolytic Activity: A Case Study on the Safety of Genetically Engineered Yeast,” Int'l J. Food Sci. and Tech. 30 (1995), 141-146.Google Scholar
  43. Kearns, Peter and P. Mayers, “Substantial Equivalence is a Useful Tool,” Nature 401 (October, 1999), 14.Google Scholar
  44. Klinger, T. and N. C. Ellstrand, “Engineered Genes in Wild Populations: Fitness of Weed-Crop Hybrids of Raphanus sativas,” Ecological Applications 4 (1994), 117-120.Google Scholar
  45. Kohli, A., S. Griffiths, N. Palacios, R. M. Twyman, P. Vain, D. A. Laurie, and P. Christou, “Molecular Characterization of Transfoming Plasmid Rearrangements in Transgenic Rice Reveals a Recombination Hotspot in the CaMV 35S Promoter and Confirms the Predominance of Microhomology Mediated Recombination,” The Plant Journal 17 (1999), 591-601.Google Scholar
  46. Kumpatia, S. P., M. B. Chandrasekharan, L. M. Iyer, G. Li, and T. C. Hall, “Genome Intruder Scanning and Modulation Systems and Transgene Silencing,” Trends Plant Sci. 3(3) (1998), 97-104.Google Scholar
  47. Lehman, Hugh, Rationality and Ethics in Agriculture (University of Idaho Press, Moscow, 1995).Google Scholar
  48. Liu, Young-Biao, B. E. Tabashnik, T. J. Denney, A. L. Patin, and A. C. Bartlett, “Development Time and Resistance to Bt Crops,” Nature 400 (1999), 519.Google Scholar
  49. Losey, J. E., L. S. Rayor, and M. E. Carter, “Transgenic Pollen Harms Monarch Larvae,” Nature 399 (1999), 214.Google Scholar
  50. Madsen, K. H. and G. S. Poulsen, “Ch. 9. Inserted Traits for Transgenic Plants,” in G. Kjellsson, V. Simonsen, and K. Ammann (eds.), Methods for Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants. II. Pollination, Gene-Transfer, and Population Impacts (Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1997), pp. 203-219.Google Scholar
  51. Meyer, P., “Inactivation of Gene Expression in Transgenic Plants,” in J. Tomiuk, K. Wohrmann, and A. Sentker (eds.), Transgenic Organisms: Biological and Social Implications (Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1996), pp. 5-19.Google Scholar
  52. Mikkelson, T. R., B. Anderson, and R. B. Jorgensen, “The Risk of Crop Transgene Spread,” Nature 380 (1996), 31.Google Scholar
  53. Millstone, Eric, Erid Brunner, and Sue Mayer, “Beyond 'Substantial Equivalence',” Nature 401 (1999), 525-526.Google Scholar
  54. Muir, W. M. and R. D. Howard, “Possible Ecological Risks of Transgenic Organism Release when Transgenes Affect Mating Success: Sexual Selection and the Trojan Gene Hypothesis,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 96 (1999), 13853-13856.Google Scholar
  55. Nader, C., M. R. Herbert, P. R. Billings, P. L. Bereano, R. Hubbard, J. King, S. Krimsky, S. A. Newman, and D. Strabinsky, “Letter to the Editor: Redesigning Evolution?” Science 285 (3 September 1999), 1489.Google Scholar
  56. Napoli, C., C. Lemieux, and R. Jorgensen, “Introduction of a Chimeric Chalcone Synthese Gene into Petunia Results in Reversible Cosuppression of Homologous Genes in Trans,” The Plant Cell 2 (1990), 279-289.Google Scholar
  57. OECD Working Group on Food Safety and Biotechnology, Safety Evaluation of foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1993).Google Scholar
  58. Onishchenko, G. G., Vopr. Pitan. 68 (1999), 3 (cited in Domingo, 2000).Google Scholar
  59. Padgette, S. R., N. Biest Taylor, D. L. Nida, M. R. Bailey, J. JacDonald, L. R. Holden, and R. L. Fuchs, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds is Equivalent to that of Conventional Soybeans,” J. Nutrition 126 (1996), 702-716.Google Scholar
  60. Powell, D., “Memo to Monsanto,” National Post (7 Sept 1999).Google Scholar
  61. Purrington, C. B. and J. Bergelson, “Assessing Weediness of Transgenic Crops: Industry Plays Plant Ecologist,” TREE 10(8) (1995), 340-342.Google Scholar
  62. Rescher, Nicholas, Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management (New York University Press of America, 1983).Google Scholar
  63. Rissler, J. and M. Mellon, The Ecological Risks of Engineered Organisms (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996).Google Scholar
  64. Saxena, D., S. Flores, and G. Stotzky, “Insecticidal Toxin in Root Exudates from Bt Corn,” Nature 402 (1999), 480.Google Scholar
  65. Schubbert, R., D. Renz, B. Schmitz, and W. Doerfler, “Foreign (M13) DNA Ingested by Mice Reaches Peripheral Leucocytes, Spleen, and Liver via the Intestinal Wall Mucosa and Can be Covalently Linked to Mouse DNA,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 94 (1997), 961-966.Google Scholar
  66. Schubbert, R., U. Hohlweg, D. Renz, and W. Doerfler, “On the Fate of Orally Ingested Foreign DNA in Mice: Chromosomal Association and Placental Transmission to the Fetus,” Mol. Gen. Genet. 259 (1998), 569-576.Google Scholar
  67. Shrader-Frechette, K. S., Risk Analysis and Scientific Method (D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1985a).Google Scholar
  68. Shrader-Frechette, K. S., Science Policy, Ethics and Economic Methodology: Some Problems of Technology Assessment and Environmental-Impact Analysis (Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1985b).Google Scholar
  69. Snow, A. A. and P. M. Palma. 1997. “Commercialization of Transgenic Plants: Potential Ecological Risks,” BioScience 47 (1997), 86-96.Google Scholar
  70. Snow, A. A., B. Andersen, and R. B. Jorgensen, “Costs of Transgenic Herbicide Resistance Introgressed from Brassica napus into Weedy B. rapa,” Molecular Ecol. 8 (1999), 605-615.Google Scholar
  71. Tabashnik, B. E., Y-B. Liu, N. Finson, L. Masoson, and D. G. Heckel, “One Gene in Diamondback Moth Confers Resistance to Four Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 94 (1997), 1640-1644.Google Scholar
  72. Tansey, G., “Words of Warning: When Scientists Talk of 'Absence of Evidence' of Risk, Take Cover,” The Guardian (London, 5 Jan. 2000), p. 5.Google Scholar
  73. Tapp, H. and G. Stotzky, “Persistence of the Insecticidal Toxin from Bt Subspecies Kurstaki in Soil,” Soil Biol. and Biochem. 30 (1998), 471-476.Google Scholar
  74. Teuber, M., “Genetically Modified Food and Its Safety Assessment,” in J. Tomiuk, K. Wohrmann, and A. Sentker (eds.), Transgenic Organisms: Biological and Social Implications (Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1996), pp. 181-195.Google Scholar
  75. Tommeras, B. A. and K. Hindar, “Assessment of Long-Term Environmental Impacts of Transgenic Trees: Norway Spruce as a Case Study,” in K. Ammann, Y. Jacot, G. Kjellsson, and V. Simonsen (eds.), Methods for Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants. III. Ecological Risks and Prospects of Transgenic Plants (Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1999), pp. 69-75.Google Scholar
  76. Thompson, Paul, “Agricultural Biotechnology and the Rhetoric of Risk: Some Conceptual Issues,” The Environmental Professional 9 (1987a), 316-326.Google Scholar
  77. Thompson, Paul, “Collective Action and the Analysis of Risk,” Public Affairs Quarterly 1(3) (1987b), 23-42.Google Scholar
  78. Thompson, Paul B., “Risk: Ethical Issues and Values,” in June Fessenden McDonald (ed.), Agricultural Biotechnology, Food Safety and Nutritional Quality for the Consumer (National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Report 2, 1990a).Google Scholar
  79. Thompson, Paul B., “Risk Objectivism and Risk Subjectivism: When are Risks Real?” Risk: Issues in Health and Safety 3 (1990b).Google Scholar
  80. Traynor, P. L. and J. H. Westwood (eds.), Ecological Effects of Pest Resistance Genes in Managed Ecosystems (Information Systems for Biotechnology, Blacksburg, VA, 1999).Google Scholar
  81. Trewavas, T. and C. J. Leaver, “Conventional Crops are the Test of GM Prejudice,” Nature 401 (October 1999), 14.Google Scholar
  82. Trewavas, T., Can Agricultural Biotechnology Live with Organic Farming?-Public Debate at the Royal Agricultural College, Clrencester on 2 June, sponsored by the Royal Agricultural College and the Embassy of the United States of America (2000).Google Scholar
  83. Tutelian, V. A., Vopr. Pitan. 68 (1999), 9 (cited in Domingo, 2000).Google Scholar
  84. Wargo, J., Our Children's Toxic Legacy (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Ann Clark
    • 1
  • Hugh Lehman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant AgricultureUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations