modern biotechnology and environmental impact of genetic engineering · modern biotechnology and...
TRANSCRIPT
Modern Biotechnology and Environmental
Impact of Genetic Engineering
Martina Newell-McGloughlin
Director, University of California Systemwide
Biotechnology Research and Education Program
(UCBREP)
• High yielding affordable high quality food feed and fuel with minimum inputs
• 17% of land under cultivation degraded by human activity 1945 to 1990. Ag land shrinks by 20,000 ha yearly. (World Bank)
• Without yield increase land use will 2X by 2050.
• Latin America: greatest yield increase had lower land use (less deforestation)
• High yield “land sparing” better than “wildlife”-friendly inefficient land use farming
(Green, Royal Soc. Bird Protection 2005)
• EU pursuing 19th C technology, young scientists will flee. If the EU engages rational harmonized regulatory framework it will encourage a more rapid international diffusion of the technology.
• EU Commission "need to take urgent action to avoid negative implications for EU livestock production and agriculture overall".
1997 acreage
Reality check
Agriculture: A history of
Technology
8,000 BC
19thC
Ea 20th C
Md 20th C
1930s
1940s
1950s
1970s
1980
1990s
2000s
21st C
Cultivation
Selective Cross breeding
Cell culture
Somaclonal variation
Embryo rescue
Mutagenesis and selection
Anther culture
Recombinant DNA
Marker assisted selection
---omics - Bioinformatics
Epigenetics/RNAi/Paramutation
Adaptive technology/transgenomics
Systems Biology
Quality Traits - ($210B by 2015)
Improved post harvest characteristics
Shelf life, processing, taste
Improved Nutrition –Improved Functionality
Macro: protein, oils, carbs, fibre
Micro: Vitamins, minerals,
Phytochemicals – Antioxidants
Remove Antinutrients/allergens/ Toxins
CO2
Agronomic Traits – $30B Biotic-
pest/disease/weeds/ Abiotic Stress:
Drought salinity marginal soils,
Yield
Value
Renewable Resources
Biomass conversion,
feedstocks, biofuels,
phytoremediation
Concerns land/ water
use Perennials: Trees
Plants as Factories
Pharmaceuticals/ Industrial products
(Ventria – Rice Lactoferin Lysozyme
30% Diarrhea, recovery 3/6 days,
Concerns gene flow co-mingling
Opportunities/Challenges for Biotech
Crops
Given the impacts of climate change on agricultural productivity and
the part played by agriculture practices in global warming, agricultural
techniques must play a substantial part in the fight against climate
change. Green biotechnology offers a “toolbox” which can help
farmers limiting greenhouse gas emissions as well as adapting their
agricultural techniques to shifting climates.
The three major contributions of green biotechnology to the
mitigation of the impact of climate change are:
1. Greenhouse gas reduction
2. Crop adaptation ( Environmental stress, changing niches)
3. Protection and increase yield in less desirable and marginal
soils
Source: ISAAA
• 2009, 14 M farmers 134 M hac (330 M acres) of biotech crops in 25 countries,
• 13.3 M farmers/125 M hacs (7%) in 2008. 13 /14 M (90 %) resource-poor LDC.
• 46% global age of biotech crops LDC- Total 57 countries have reg approvals.
• 6 EU planted 94,750 hacs in 2009, down from 7 and 107,719 hacs 2008, Germany
discontinued. Spain planted 80 % Bt maize maintained record adoption 22%.
$44 billion 1996 to 2007, 44% yield gains, 56% reduction costs (including 359,000 tonne a.i. in pesticides); gains of 141 million tons, would require 43 M additional hectares
Environmental pesticide footprint down by 15.4 %. GM reduction in 286 million kg of CO2 emissions equivalent to removing 6 M cars from the roads (Barfoot and Brookes 2008)
Additional soil carbon sequestered since 1996 has been equivalent to 63,859 million tonnes of CO2 that has not been released into the global atmosphere.
In 1994-95 farmers spent $78 Ha in herbicides; today they spend $37/Ha and insecticide use has decrease 90%.
HT- increase in no- till: reduction in erosion, soils much healthier, organic matter, less soil compaction, better H2O usage, fuel use down by 20 gals/acre (Fawcett & Towery 2005 )
Environmental Impact
China: Bt rice has the potential to increase yields up to 8 percent, decrease pesticide use by 80 percent (17 kg/ha) and generate US$4 billion in benefits annually (James, 2010). Significant decrease in adverse health effects – Lives saved
Organisms in “Bt crops” fields fared better in trials than those with insecticides Monarch butterflies increase (Marvier, 2007)
BT corn 90% reduction in mycotoxin fungal fumonisins - total US benefit estimated at $23m annually. (Wu, 2006)
Origin Agritech China also approved Phytase maize (2009)
CP papaya saved Hawaii papaya industry (and helped organic farmers!) may be the outcome for plum pox –C5 PTGS insurance against typhoid Mary in nurseries
Blight-resistant potato (BASF -Rpi-blb1 and Rpi-blb2 NBS-LRR) -UI study concluded for the major potato-producing regions of the world would be $4.3 billion.
ISAAA expects the number of biotech farmers globally to reach 20 million or more in 40 countries on 200 million hectares in just more than five years in 2015.
Genuity™ SmartStax™ Corn technology
Other key highlights approval of SmartStax, a novel biotech maize 8 different genes for insect and herbicide resistance
SmartStax protects crops from major corn pests, including European and southwestern corn borer, northern and western corn rootworm, western bean cutworm, black cutworm, corn earworm, and fall armyworm. SmartStax will also provide resistance to glyphosate and glufosinate herbicides. Dow AgroSciences field research trials conducted in 2007-2008 confirmed SmartStax provides a broader spectrum of insect protection in corn hybrids.
.
Roundup Ready 2 Yield
Cross licensing Monsanto Syngenta
Four years of field trials across six U.S. states showed 7 to 11% higher yields,
compared to the first generation of Roundup Ready soybeans.
“Roundup Ready 2 Yield did very well for me last season,” Jeff Barth, a farmer
from Illinois, said. “They were planted late and still performed five to six
bushels better than the first-generation Roundup Ready soybeans that were
planted earlier. I’m anticipating similar results this year, and that’s why I will
dedicate all of my 1,100 soybean acres to the product when they become
available.” This is also Barth’s second year growing Roundup Ready 2 Yield
soybeans.
Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans – the first product of a
new class of technology that allows more efficient, precise
gene insertion to directly impact yields.
+ Gene EControl+ Gene DControl
Abiotic Stress: Drought, ColdHeat, Salinity
Drought Stressed Rice
Abiotic stress limiting factor for crops
reaching genetic potential
Improved water conservation -Fewer crop
losses -Higher yields on all acres through
improved water utilization -Expand in
drylands - Nuclear Factor Y B subunit
Transcription factor (Tf) DREB2A water-
stress-responsive /heat-stress-responsive
Homeodomain-leucine zipper (HD-Zip)
transcription factors respond to H2O &
osmotic stress, exongenous abscisic acid
Cold: Engineering with COR15a Tf, role
in freezing tolerance.
Plants engineered with Choline oxidase
(codA) soil tolerated saline and cold
Transport protein. Grow and fruit even in
irrigation water that is > 50X saltier than
normal. > 1/3 salty as seawater.
Blumwald and Zhang)
Abiotic stress limiting factor for crops reaching genetic
potential
Drought Tolerant Oilseed Rape engineered to reduce the
levels PARP [poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase], a key stress-
related protein in plants. Survive drought than reference
plants. Show relative yield increases of up to +44%
compared to non-drought tolerant varieties.
Bayer CropScience conducting research work on maize,
cotton, oilseed rape and rice, to develop a new generation
of stress-tolerant, high-performance crop varieties.
Mutation that changes the activity of farnesyltransferase.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International is developing hybrids and
varieties that use water sources more efficiently and
therefore perform better during water deficits.
Maintaining yields during water stress will help preserve
grower incomes and yield more grain for the food and
energy value chain as well as reducing the need for
irrigation.
- Improve Nitrogen Assimilation- Increase Sucrose hydrolysis,
Starch biosynthesis- Increase O2 availability - Modify photosynthesis
Yield Gene Control
Increased Yields
Forage Crops: This short-day
sorghum plant was used to map
the Ma-1 gene (genes which
modify photoperiodic behavior
and thus maturity). This gene
which works in other cereals
would offer particular benefits to
biomass and forage crops in
which flowering is undesirable
Concerns
Antibiotic Resistance Transposon tagging
Positive selection – exclusive energy source
Gene Flow- Space – Time
Trap border
Male sterility
GURT “Terminator” technology
Chloroplast transformation
Effect on non-target species Tissue specific expression
Chloroplast transformation
Cost/benefit
Loss of effectiveness – resistance management Refugia
Gene Pyramiding
Gene shuffling
Reduced diversity More sources of genetic diversity – rescue heritage
varieties and landraces
Co-existence
Co-ExistenceBut what of the context in which these crops are grown? Can all cropping systems co-exist in harmony?
According to European Commission 2003/556/EC ( paraphrased!)
Co-existence as an issue relates to ‘the economic consequences of adventitious presence of material from one crop within another and the principle that farmers should be able to cultivate freely the agricultural crops they choose, be it GM crops, conventional or organic crops’.
“No form of agriculture, be it conventional, organic, or agriculture using GMOs, should be excluded in the European Union”.
NOT about product/crop safety, but, about the economic impact of the production and marketing of crops cultivated for different markets.
Co-existence on the farm today: nothing new
Well-developed crop stewardship programs for all the co-existing systems are important. However, it has become routine for most EU farmers to work under specified crop quality assurance (QA) programs. A significant part of EU agricultural production today is produced under contract and under QA systems.
There are models from which to work, and a body of experience in the farming community with stewardship programs: for example, the quality management programs imposed by the food distribution companies.
Separation of space Separation of time Communication with neighbors Good farm practices
Co-existence in PracticeThe measures needed for segregated crop depend on the biology of
each and the standard agricultural practices in place.
Most important biological parameters are flowering biology (mainly the ability of pollen to move over distances) the ability of the crop to make fertile crosses with related wild relatives The survival ability of seed and other storage structures if left in field.
These biological parameters are influenced by the environment (eg. the windiness of the environment will affect the
probable spread of pollen from a wind-pollinated crop like maize).
Farming systems and traditions vary widely. Field size and crop rotation affect proximity and succession rate
Also affect the measures needed (e.g. collaboration between neighboring farmers) to achieve crop segregation.
Standards of purity needed for serving different markets with different types of the same crop strongly affect the possibility of growing them in the close proximity.
Maize and Oilseed Rape Considerations
GM maize: Cross pollination between non-GM crops and a neighboring GM
maize field through pollen transfer;
GM impurities in seed lots (cross-pollination during field production or admixture during post-harvest processing).
Oilseed rape Out-crossing species with very effective seed dispersal
mechanisms.
Estimated that 3000 seeds need to be tested to determine a 0.1% threshold at around 95% certainty. (technology, costs).
In oilseed rape, a threshold of 0.3% for certified seed is recommended in order for farmers to achieve below 0.9–1.0% threshold for crops.
Co-existence in Practice Existing legislation in North America and the EU is more than
adequate to protect all grower and consumer interests Methods for assessing and assigning liability for co-existence at the
farm level are required that take account of accepted agricultural practices and current law.
If new regulations are considered to address economic liability the same principle should apply to all farmers regardless of their chosen production methods.
Equal access to compensation for adventitious presence of material from conventional or organic crops (such as fungal contamination) as conventional and organic producers have from biotech growers.
No one sector should be able to unfairly prohibit another – access and choice work both ways.
All co-existence measures should be based on legal, practical and scientific realities and not on commercial or niche marketing objectives.
Co-existence in Germany
German GM study complete: Study organizers say the results show that GM corn fields can 'co-exist' with with neighbouring non-GM fields.
The tests, were performed in 28 GM corn fields surrounded by non-GM fields in seven states,
Eberhard Weber’s study, which measured GM contamination in corn harvested from surrounding non GM fields, shows that non-GM corn planted at least 20 meters from GM corn was not contaminated above the EU-allowed limit of 0.9%
"There is no doubt that if you keep a certain distance, then co-existence between GM and non GM fields is possible. And that 'certain distance' not less than 20 meters."
Green Peace insisted that the 0.9% contamination threshold mandated by the European Union is irrelevant, because many German corn processors and millers will not accept corn with GM contamination above 0.2% to 0.4%.
24 November, 2004 - The Scientist
Co-existence in UK
The Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC) stewardship system operated in the UK on the Farm Scale Evaluation program of GM crops was based on procedures for certified seed production and was largely supported by the farmers who used it.
Co-existence experience in SpainNo economic or commercial problems have occurred
Mainstream buyers of non GM (starch) have no problem in sourcing non GM even in main areas where GM is grown (including from co-ops with GM and non GM grower members)
Isolated instances of GM presence in organic crops cited in 2001 – lack of data to support claims –likely cause use of conventional seed (not tested)
Brookes and Barfoot, 2004
Conclusions Biotechnology holds much promise as useful tool to
improve qualitative and quantitative aspects of food, feed and fiber production,
reduce the dependency of ag on chemicals and fossil fuels
diminish over-cultivation and erosion
lower the cost of raw materials
all in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Co-existence is nothing new: farmers have been implementing effective measures for many years on specialist crops
GM & non GM crop co-existence has not been a problem
Tools exist to implement co-existence – no need for government involvement
Spain is a model of how co-existence works successfully –other member states should copy
Cooperation works
No
yellow
kernels
Organic Blue Cornfield near yellow non-organic field Fred Yoder Ohio
No cross
pollination
(no blue
kernels)
Biotech Corn Organic Corn
• Historically, worldwide the market adequately addressed economic liability
issues relating to trace presence of unwanted material in any agricultural crop.
• US organics cannot be (legally) downgraded or growers decertified by
unintentional presence when all required measures and best practices are
adhered to and no producer has been so impacted to date
• Every case brought for infringement has involved a claim that the farmer
charged with infringement was an intentional infringer (i.e. trace presence was
not the issue) To date, each of these cases was upheld by the courts.
Primum non nocere• Commercialization: 7 to 10 years -at least 9 review stages
• Biotech crops and foods more thoroughly tested than
conventional varieties ( “assumed” to be safe)- One
biotech soybean subjected to 1,800 separate analyses
• 23 feeding studies - dairy, beef, poultry, soy/corn
equivalent in composition, digestibility and feeding value
to non-GM. Clarke et al 2000
• Substantial equivalence with parent - Molecular
characterization (17) Toxicity studies (5) - marker genes
(4) - Nutritional content (7+)- Allergenicity potential -
Anti-nutritional effects - Protein digestibility
• Environmental aspects (5 items)- Ecological impact (5
items) OECD, CBD, CODEX
Omic studies
Wheat ( Baker 2006), Potato (Catchpole 2005)
Transcriptomic and Metabolomic studies show greater variation between
conventional bred cultivars and even growth locations than between GM and
parental variety (except of course for the intended modification!) - differences
between sites were generally greater than differences between lines
Greatest Challenges going forward
• Technical
• Intellectual Property: PIPRA - Specialty crops – FTO
• Liability
• Biosafety: so–called – LDCs – Specialty crops
• Acceptance: - countering fear and misinformation
(ethical) - moral imperative real need v. hypothetical risk
I hope that there is nothing
genetically modified in this