Scientific Misconceptions, Barriers, and Opportunities for Wider Acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology

Transcription

1 Scientific Misconceptions, Barriers, and Opportunities for Wider Acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology Dr. Alan McHughen, Professor, Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California Riverside

2 Scientific Misconceptions, Barriers, and Opportunities for Wider Acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology Alan McHughen University of California, Riverside, Ca

3 What are GMOs? GMO = Genetically Modified Organism A.k.a. Genetically Engineered (GE), Transgenic, Bioengineered, Biotech, PNT, etc. No standard scientific OR political definition Process based: the use of recombinant DNA or other modern techniques, e.g. cell culture Product based: food contains foreign DNA, protein or other novel substances In general, a GMO is the result of using rdna Better to use Agricultural Biotechnology.

4 What IS a GMO? Differences in GM Definition EU (EFSA): Captures based on Process of rdna (genetic engineering) PLUS other un-natural techniques (!) Derived cultivars (combining GE events) are captured USA (FDA, USDA, EPA): Captures based on Process of rdna Derived cultivars (of approved events) are exempt Canada (CFIA, Health Canada): Captures based on Novelty of the Product (PNT).

5 The Barrier Non-standard definition of GMO among international trade partners Non-Standard definition within a trade bloc; Fallacy of process based definitions: Examples of uncertainty: Grafts of GE rootstock with non-gm scions Breeding and selection away from transgene Product lacking physical evidence (e.g. sugar, oil) Transgenic orthologs- are they really transgenic?

6 Refined sugar in the USA Cane sugar: ca. 50% Sugar beet: ca. 50% In both cases, refined sugar is sucrose: C 12 H 22 O 11 No GE sugar cane on the US market 97% sugar beet GE; so almost half sugar eaten is GE No current means to specify cane vs beet source Cannot verify GE sugar in foods Also true for vast majority of GE foods (oil, etc.).

7 More Barriers EU definition of GM remains unchanged from 1990 in spite of dramatic changes in technology And increased familiarity with rdna safety New Technologies coming on board Cisgenics, zinc finger, non-integrating DNA, etc. Old technologies remain exempt Traditional forms of breeding can produce hazardous crops and foods, e.g. Lenape potato Introductions, especially with the global village Food safety focus on GE distracts from real hazards.

8 Some AgBiotech Products Human insulin (since 1978, FDA 1982) Chymosin (since 1986, FDA 1990) Flavr-Savr Tomato (FDA ) Virus resistant Squash (FDA 1995) Virus resistant Papaya (1991, USDA-1998) Others (mostly purified, no GE ingredients in food): corn, soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet Also: A multitude of GE drugs, vitamins, additives.

9 Other + New AgBio Products GE Papaya in Hawaii GE Soy with enhanced oil profile Vistive, Plenish (GM and non-gm versions of oils) Non-GM: Canola, Linola, High Oleic Sunflower, etc. Golden Rice, β-carotene to combat VAD Non-browning Arctic Apples Innate potato Non-transgenic techniques, RNAi, gene editing, cisgenic, all = NO transgenes, NO foreign DNA.

10 Status of AgBio Crops USA Corn > 90% Cotton > 90% Soybean > 90% Argentina: Soybean > 90% Canada: Canola > 90% India: Cotton > 90%

11 Some Popular Misconceptions rdna (Genetic Engineering) may be unsafe GMOs are untested and unregulated GE violates Mother Nature s species barrier rdna is fundamentally different from traditional crossing, and so they must be more hazardous GE crops cause an increase in pesticide use GMO crops generate superweeds GMO crops and foods offer no benefit to farmers, consumers or the environment; it is unsustainable.

12 Assurance of Safety Scientific studies overwhelmingly show the safety of GM foods and crops Over 1,700 technical, peer reviewed studies in the literature, covering every aspect of GMO safety Nicolia et al., Crit Rev Biotechnol The few studies purporting to show hazard have ALL been rejected on scientific grounds by the professional scientific and medical community No adverse health effects attributed to GE have been documented NAS 2004, AAAS 2013.

13 Feeding GE feeds to Animals A. Van Eenennaam and Young, Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock population. J. Anim. Sci. 92: These field data sets, representing over 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops, did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in live - stock health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals.

14 Scientific Consensus on Safety? Generally positive * US National Academies * US Institute of Medicine * American Medical Association * British Royal Society * Royal Society of Medicine * EFSA * EU Economic Commission * World Health Organization * AAAS * International Seed Foundation Etc, etc Generally negative

15 USA New Crop Requirements: Agricultural Biotechnology USDA (APHIS) - environmental issues HHS (FDA)- food and feed safety EPA- pesticide usage issues

16

17 Are GMOs Unnatural? Sweet potato has never been subject to genetic modification using rdna Recent study* shows cultivated sweet potatoes carry active bacterial genes from naturally occurring HGT, from Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Natural sweet potato is, according to EU definition in 2001/18/EC, GM There are many examples of natural transgenes * Kyndt et al The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains A. tumefaciens T-DNAs with expressed genes: An example of a naturally transgenic food crop. PNAS 2015,

18 GE and traditional breeding are different Xa21 confers bacterial blight resistance in rice Recent study into Xa21 rice lines bred using either rdna or traditional breeding* The lines were compared for phenotype, agronomic performance, transciptome (gene expression) and other comparisons There were NO meaningful differences between GE and traditionally bred lines. *Gao et al., BMC Genomics, 14:738.

19 GE corn and pesticide usage USA

20 World pesticide use, USDA data; graphic from Washington Post,

21 Another popular misconception GM Crops lead to herbicide resistant Superweeds! Roundup Ready crops allow the farmers to douse the crops with massive quantities of glyphosate Weeds evolve resistance to the herbicides, forcing the farmer into a vicious cycle of ever-increasing herbicide applications Until the weeds cannot be controlled at all, as has happened in the US with RR pigweed.

22 Herbicide resistant weeds

23 USDA-ERS (2014) Insecticide use has decreased with the adoption of insect-resistant crops Herbicide-tolerant crops have enabled the substitution of glyphosate for more toxic and persistent herbicides Overreliance on glyphosate and a reduction in the diversity of weed management practices have contributed to the evolution of glyphosate resistance in some weed species.

24 No yield increase with GE crops?

25 Klumper, W. & Qaim, M. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS One 9, e (2014)

26 Benefits of AgBiotech Farmers Net economic benefit, $133,000,000,000 Farmers in both industrialized and developing countries benefit approx. equally Highest yield gains recorded by poorer farmers Environmental benefits include Less fuel burnt for farming operations Reduced tillage saves topsoil and reduces GH gas Total reduction in pesticide impact = 19% * Brookes, G

27 Documented benefits of GE crops Consumers Safer food (e.g. mycotoxins in corn) Safer food (greater regulatory scrutiny) Less pesticide No change in nutritional composition Except as intended, e.g. Golden Rice Various Environmental benefits.

28 Is AgBiotech farming sustainable? US: NAS, Impact of GE crops on farm sustainability in the US Also see: Brookes and Barfoot, 2014 Bonny, 2011 Qaim, 2009

29 Sustainability Impacts in the USA NAS Conclusions: Planting GE crops generally : Is better for the environment than conventional crops Uses less pesticide Uses safer pesticides than those used in conventional cropping systems Reduces tillage, leading to improvements in Soil Water BUT: may lead to reliance on a single pesticide.

30 Misconceptions lead to policies that are humorous or symbolic Mendocino County, California bans GE crops and reclassifies DNA as protein GMO foods cause sterility in 350K couples in Serbia ( Philippine judge rules Bt Corn responsible for marriage breakdown and grants divorce Because the husband walked through a Bt cornfield And turned gay.

31 Or Tragic Zambia 2002 GM food: poison Terminator gene in Indian Bt Brinjal B-Carotene enhanced Golden rice.

32 AgBiotech Opportunities More food on less land, produced sustainably Nutrient enriched foods to help malnourished Removal of antinutrients, e.g. allergens, toxins Fight HLB and other diseases that cannot be controlled using other means Healthier oils, sugars and other food components Crops with better water use efficiency; droughts Esthetically appealing foods, less waste (non browning apples for snacks, potatoes).

33 Crop/Food Perspectives Wherever farmers have been allowed to grow Ag Biotech crops, they have been successful There is NO verified documentation of any harm, to either health or environment, due to Biotech crops and foods Agricultural biotechnology is a proven valuable tool in providing safe, sustainable food, feed and industrial products By 2050, when >9 Billion people inhabit Earth, we need 70% more food than is produced today This means using every available tool, including Ag Biotech!