GMO Myths and Truths

in the company’s proprietary genes, so that they
can patent and own the crop. This GM tweak,
often a herbicide-tolerant or insecticidal gene,
adds nothing to the agronomic performance of the
crop.
This process was mentioned in a news
broadcast about Monsanto’s 2010 buy-out of
part of a Western Australia cereal breeding
company, InterGrain. An InterGrain spokesman
explained Monsanto’s interest in his company: “A
really important concept is that biotech traits by
themselves are absolutely useless unless they can
be put into the very best germplasm.” 52
An example of a GM product developed in
this way is Monsanto’s VISTIVE® soybean, which
has been described as the first GM product with
benefits for consumers. These low linolenic
acid soybeans were designed to produce oil that
would reduce unhealthy trans fats in processed
food made from the oil. They were created by
conventional breeding. But Monsanto turned
them into a GM crop by adding a GM trait –
tolerance to its Roundup herbicide. 53
Interestingly, Iowa State University developed
some even lower linolenic acid soybean varieties
than the VISTIVE and did not add any GM traits
to them. 54 Very little has been heard about them,
compared with VISTIVE.
Another product of this type is Syngenta’s
Agrisure Artesian drought-tolerant maize. The
crop was developed using non-GM breeding, but
herbicide tolerant and insecticidal transgenes were
subsequently added through genetic engineering. 55
Conventionally bred crop without GM
tweak – GM used as lab tool
In some cases, a crop is developed using GM as
a lab research tool, but no GM genes are added.
Nevertheless, such crops have been claimed to be
GM successes. An example is flood-tolerant rice,
which the UK government’s former chief scientist,
Sir David King, has wrongly claimed as a triumph
of genetic engineering. 56,57
In fact, the two best-known flood-tolerant
rice varieties – one of which was almost certainly
the one that King referred to – are not GM at all.
One variety was developed by a research team
led by GM proponent Pamela Ronald. 58 Ronald’s
team developed the rice through marker assisted
selection (MAS). 58,59 They used genetic engineering
as a laboratory research tool to identify the desired
genes, but the resulting rice is not genetically
engineered. 60
However, the wording on the website of
UC Davis, where Ronald’s laboratory is based,
misleadingly implied that her rice was genetically
engineered, saying, “Her laboratory has genetically
engineered rice for resistance to diseases and
flooding, which are serious problems of rice crops
in Asia and Africa.” 61
Another flood-tolerant rice created with
“Snorkel” genes has also been claimed as a genetic
engineering success. But the rice, which adapts
to flooding by growing longer stems that prevent
the crop from drowning, was bred by conventional
methods and is entirely non-GM.
Laboratory-based genetic modification and
modern gene mapping methods were used to
study a deepwater rice variety and identify the
genes responsible for its flood tolerance trait.
Three gene regions were identified, including one
where the two “Snorkel” genes are located. MAS
was used to guide the conventional breeding
process by which all three flood tolerance
gene regions were successfully combined in a
commercial rice variety. 62
Only conventional breeding and MAS could
be used to generate the resulting flood-tolerant
rice line. This is because it is beyond the ability of
current genetic modification methods to transfer
the genes and control switches for the floodtolerance
trait in a way that enables them to work
properly.
Crop that has nothing to do with GM
In one high-profile case, a crop that had nothing to
do with GM at all was claimed as a GM success. In a
BBC radio interview, the UK government’s former
chief scientist, Sir David King, said that a big increase
in grain yields in Africa was due to GM, when in
fact it did not involve the use of GM technology. 63
Instead, the yield increase was due to a “push-pull”
management system, an agroecological method of
companion planting that aims to divert pests away
from crop plants. 64 King later admitted to what he
called an “honest mistake”. 65
GMO Myths and Truths 116