Ignoring Complex Interactions in Natural Ecosystems: The Case of Terminator Technology

  • Manuela Giovannetti
Chapter

Abstract

Potential risks and benefits of genetically modified organisms (GMO) released into the environment have been largely debated within the political and scientific communities. Available studies on the ecological impact of transgenic crop plants have shown that risks and benefits are difficult to assess in field experiments where environmental complexity hinder absolute certainty and clearcut, yes/no responses. Nevertheless, some authors reported “previously unsuspected hazards”, stressing the need of further experimental work, both in the field and in the laboratory, to gather as many data as possible to evaluate environmental risks of GM crops. Since existing scientific literature reports contrasting results, the general view is to avoid generalisation and to make judgements on a case-by-case basis. Here I shall discuss available data concerning “unexpected events”, with the aim of pointing out the risks associated with the cultivation of “Terminator” plants. The unpredictability of genetic events due to transformation, such as horizontal gene transfer among different organisms and harmful effects of some gene products on non-target organisms, raises serious concerns about the cultivation of Terminator seeds in agriculture. Terminator seed technology is a paradigmatic case which may help us to point out potential environmental problems and envisage possible disasters, since the nature of the genes involved poses such a threat that fundamental genetic and biological questions should be answered before any environmental release of the modified seeds. In fact, plants modified through this technology contain the genes which will cause the death of second generation seeds, thus protecting patented genes introduced in a crop against further utilisation. The awareness that scientists and technologists do not know in advance all the possible interactions between transgenes and different components of complex ecosystems should foster long-term studies aimed at evaluating the environmental impact of particularly dangerous genes, such as Terminator, which interfere so heavily with fundamental life processes.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Butler D., Reichhardt T., Long-term effects of GM crops serves up food for thought, Nature 398 (1999), 651.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Courvalin P., Gene transfer from bacteria to mammalian cells,C. R. Acad. Sci. Ser. III Sci. Vie 318 (1995), 1207.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Crouch M.L., How the Terminator terminates: an explanation for nonscientists of a remarkable patent for killing second generation seeds of crop plants, The Edmonds Institute, Edmonds, Washington 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Doolittle R.F., Feng D.F., Anderson K.L., Alberro M.R., A naturally occurring horizontal gene transfer from a eukatyote to a prokaryote, J. Mol. Evol. 31 (1990), 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Ferber D., Superbugs on the hoof,Science 288 (2000), 792.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Firn R.D., Jones C.G., Secondary metabolism and the risks of CMOs, Nature 400 (1999), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Foster K.R., Vecchia P., Repacholi M.H., Science and the precautionary principle, Science 288 (2000), 979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Gebhard F., Smalla K., Transformation of Acinetobacter sp. strain BD413 by transgenic sugar beet DNA, Appl. Environ. Micriobiol. 64 (1998), 1550.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Giovannetti M., Piante transgeniche, ecosistemi e geni della morte,Il Ponte 40 (1999), 104.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Giovannetti M., Environmental impact of transgenic crops: potential risks associated with “Terminator” technology,in: “5th International Conference on Biotechnology, Science and Modern Agriculture: a New Industry at the Dawn of the Century”, Ravello, Italy, June 15–18th 2002, 47.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Gray A.J., Raybould A.F., Reducing transgene escape routes, Nature 392 (1998), 653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Heinemann J.A., Sprague G.F., Bacterial conjugative plasmids mobilize DNA transfer between bacteria and yeasts, Nature 340 (1989), 205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Hooykaas P.J.J., Transformation of plant cells via Agrobacterium,Plant Mol. Biol. 13 (1989), 327.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Losey J.E., Rayor L.S., Carter M.E., Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae, Nature 399 (1999), 214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Saxena D., Flores S., StotzkY G., Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn, Nature 402 (1999), 480.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Tweedie S., Bird A., Mutant weed breaks silence, Nature 405 (2000), 137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    WAKABAYASHI S., MATSUBARA H., WEBSTER D.A., Primary sequence of a dimeric bacterial haemoglobin from Vitreoscilla, Nature 322 (1986), 481–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Wolfenbarger L.L., Phifer P.R., The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants, Science 290 (2000), 2088.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Who, Health aspects of marker genes in genetically modified plants. Report of Who Workshop,Ginevra 1993, WHO/FNO/FOS 93, 6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuela Giovannetti
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Chimica e Biotecnologie AgrarieUniversità di PisaItaly
  2. 2.Center for Soil MicrobiologyC. N. R.PisaItaly

Personalised recommendations