GMO Myths and Truths
GMO Myths and Truths
GMO Myths and Truths
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
een found to be unreliable <strong>and</strong> incomplete:<br />
● A study on GM brassicas, potato <strong>and</strong> blackberry<br />
found that the use of three antibiotics<br />
failed to completely remove A. tumefaciens.<br />
Instead, the A. tumefaciens contamination<br />
levels increased from 12 to 16 weeks after<br />
the GM transformation process <strong>and</strong> the A.<br />
tumefaciens was still detected 6 months after<br />
transformation. 180<br />
● A study on GM conifers found that residual A.<br />
tumefaciens remained in the trees 12 months<br />
after the genetic transformation but were not<br />
detected after this time in the same plants. 181<br />
However, these experiments only examined the<br />
first GM plant clones. In the GM development<br />
process, such GM clones go through a long process<br />
of back-crossing <strong>and</strong> propagation with the bestperforming<br />
non-GM or GM plant relatives in order<br />
to try to produce a GM plant that performs well<br />
in the field <strong>and</strong> expresses the desired traits. The<br />
important question is whether A. tumefaciens<br />
carrying GM genes survives this back-crossing <strong>and</strong><br />
propagation process <strong>and</strong> remains in the final GM<br />
plant that is commercialised.<br />
To the best of our knowledge there have been<br />
no studies to assess whether any A. tumefaciens<br />
remains in the final commercialised GM plant.<br />
The study on GM conifers examined the initial<br />
GM clones that were grown on, not plants that<br />
had been cross-bred <strong>and</strong> propagated over several<br />
generations, as GM crops are before they are<br />
commercialised, so it does not provide an answer<br />
to this question.<br />
However, this question should be answered<br />
before a GM variety is commercialised, in order<br />
to avoid unwanted consequences that could be<br />
caused by residual A. tumefaciens in the final GM<br />
plant. Examples of consequences that should be<br />
excluded are the transfer of insecticidal properties<br />
to bacteria, or of herbicide tolerance to other<br />
crops or wild plants. The study discussed above<br />
(5.12.3) shows that the introduction of GM genes<br />
into crop plants could have consequences to<br />
organisms outside the plant kingdom, through<br />
the mechanism of infection by fungi carrying A.<br />
tumefaciens, which in turn carry GM genes. 177<br />
The consequences of such HGT for human<br />
<strong>and</strong> animal health <strong>and</strong> the environment are not<br />
predictable, but are potentially serious. The health<br />
<strong>and</strong> environmental risk assessment for any GM<br />
variety must demonstrate that the GM plants have<br />
been completely cleared of GM A. tumefaciens<br />
before they are approved for commercialisation.<br />
5.12.4. Gene transfer by viruses<br />
Viruses are efficient at transferring genes from<br />
one organism to another <strong>and</strong> in effect are able to<br />
carry out HGT. Scientists have made use of this<br />
capacity to create viral gene transfer vectors that<br />
are frequently used in research to introduce GM<br />
genes into other organisms. Such vectors based on<br />
plant viruses have also been developed to generate<br />
GM crops, though no crops produced with this<br />
approach have been commercialised to date. 182 183<br />
The viral vectors that are used to generate GM<br />
crops are designed to prevent the uncontrolled<br />
transfer of genetic material. However, because the<br />
long time period during which virally engineered<br />
crops would be propagated in the environment,<br />
<strong>and</strong> the large number of humans <strong>and</strong> livestock<br />
that would be exposed to this GM genetic material,<br />
there is a real, though small, risk that unintended<br />
modifications could occur that could lead to virusmediated<br />
HGT – with unpredictable effects.<br />
Another potential risk of virus-mediated<br />
HGT comes from GM crops engineered to<br />
contain a virus gene, in particular those carrying<br />
information for a viral “coat” protein. This is done<br />
in an attempt to confer resistance of the crop from<br />
actual infection <strong>and</strong> damage by the family of ‘wild’<br />
virus from which the viral GM gene was derived.<br />
However, it has been suggested that if a GM crop<br />
containing a viral gene of this type was infected<br />
by the viruses, it may result in exchange of genetic<br />
material between the GM viral gene in the plant<br />
<strong>and</strong> the infecting virus, through a process known<br />
as recombination. This can potentially result in a<br />
new more potent (“virulent”) strain of virus. 184,185<br />
The reasons for these concerns are as follows.<br />
The GM viral gene will be present in every single<br />
cell of the crop. As a result, the large-scale<br />
cultivation of such a viral GM gene-containing<br />
crop will result in an extremely high concentration<br />
of particular viral genes in fields. It has been<br />
suggested that this provides an unprecedented<br />
opportunity for genetic material recombination<br />
<strong>GMO</strong> <strong>Myths</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Truths</strong> 93