BIOTECH-ROOM2-L Archives

Moderated conference on GMOs in the pipeline, hosted by the FAO Biotechnology Forum in 2012

Biotech-Room2-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Biotech-Mod2 <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Biotech-Mod2 <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:27:20 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
This is Denis Murphy, Professor of Biotechnology at University of Glamorgan, UK. I recently worked with FAO on the report entitled 'Current Status and Options for Crop Biotechnologies in Developing Countries', in Biotechnologies for Agricultural Development (http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2300e/i2300e00.htm). This formed part of the background material for the FAO international technical conference dedicated to Agricultural Biotechnologies in Developing Countries (ABDC-10) that took place in Guadalajara, Mexico on 1-4 March 2010. I am currently working on the role of crop improvement in addressing global food security and have just returned from several high level meetings addressing this topic in China and Abu Dhabi.  
 
This conference is meant to be about GMOs in the pipeline but one of the problems I have with this is exactly how we define a GMO. I'll begin by paraphrasing a passage in my recent book: Plants, Biotechnology, & Agriculture, CABI Press, http://bookshop.cabi.org/?page=2633&pid=2263&site=191
 
"..by 2012, the global area of crops carrying GM traits had almost reached 160 Mha and was still rising. This is 10% of the global arable land area, which at first sight is an impressive achievement. But such statistics can be rather misleading unless taken in the context of the overall plant breeding process. This is because crop varieties labelled as 'GM' additionally carry many other trait combinations that are the result of other forms of breeding technology. In many cases it is the latter traits that are the most useful in the crop rather than the GM traits. 
 
For example, several agbiotech companies have used non-GM methods such as mutagenesis, wide crossing, and MAS to develop new oilseed varieties with higher levels of useful fatty acids such as oleic acid. These varieties are marketed for the improved nutritional or industrial qualities resulting from their altered fatty acid profiles. However, the varieties are also classified as transgenic because in one of the final stages of the breeding process they were crossed with older GM herbicide-tolerant (HT) and/or insect-resistant varieties. In another example, between 2009-2011, novel traits such as drought tolerance were produced in maize via non-GM methods. However, in many cases the subsequent incorporation of a transgenic trait such as herbicide-tolerance (with its stronger patent protection) caused the new varieties to be labelled as GM although their new traits were unrelated to GM technology. 
 
In the future this could lead to almost any new crop variety being classified as GM simply because a transgene from an older variety had been crossed in at some stage of the breeding programme. Clearly, this can lead to a misleading idea of the true impact of this technology. While it is true that the impact of GM technology has been very significant in the four crops where it has been widely applied, its impact has been relatively modest in terms of the bigger picture of global agriculture and the dozens of complex traits involved in crop performance. However, GM technology is still developing and may well have a much greater impact in future decades."
 
This is not meant as an anti-GM statement as I am in favour of the safe and appropriate application of modern biotechnologies. My point is that, due to existing patent regulations, biotech companies can more readily protect seeds via intellectual property rights (IPR) if they contain transgenes. Some of the traits (eg healthy oils) mentioned by Jonathon Shoham in his interesting message (nr. 56) were developed by non-GM breeding methods but the plants were crossed with old Bt or HT lines so that they could be labelled GM and thereby qualify for stronger IPR than would otherwise be the case. 
 
Therefore it may be the case that GMOs in the pipeline do not actually need to be GM at all!  
 
Professor Denis J Murphy, 
Division of Biology, 
University of Glamorgan, 
CF37 4AT, United Kingdom
email: dmurphy2 (at) glam.ac.uk 
website: http://staff.glam.ac.uk/users/184
Google Scholar outputs: http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=GQc6wQsu-BkC 

[Thanks to Denis for this interesting point regarding exactly what might be defined as a 'GMO in the pipeline' Another related issue, and relevant also to Messages 32 and 61 of this conference, is that of products developed using new techniques. For example, the European Commission established in 2007 a New Techniques Working Group (NTWG, http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/new_breeding_techniques/index_en.htm) to analyse a non-exhaustive list of techniques for which it is unclear whether they would result in a genetically modified organism or a genetically modified micro-organism as defined under European legislation. The NTWG considers the new biotechnological techniques applied in plant breeding and/or the modification of other organisms, looking at 8 technologies [oligonucleotide directed mutagenesis (ODM); zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) technology comprising ZFN-1, ZFN-2 and ZFN-3; cisgenesis comprising intragenesis; grafting; agro-infiltration; RNA-dependent DNA methylation (RdDM); reverse breeding; and synthetic genomics]. In January 2012, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) issued an opinion on the risks of cisgenesis and intragenesis (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2561.pdf). In October 2012, EFSA provided a scientific opinion about plants developed using zinc finger nuclease 3 and other site-directed nucleases with similar function (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2943.htm). For those interested in more information on the subject, a paper entitled 'Transgenic or not? No simple answer!', by N. Podevin, Y. Devos, H.V. Davies & K.M. Nielsen, was published earlier this month in EMBO reports and provides a good overview, noting that "New plant products (NPPs) blur the sharp distinction between genetically modified plants (GMP) and non-GMP, and introduce a new continuum between genetic engineering and conventional breeding"...Moderator].

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [log in to unmask] For further information on this FAO Biotechnology Forum, see http://www.fao.org/biotech/biotech-forum/]

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the Biotech-Room2-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=Biotech-Room2-L&A=1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2