Transcript Slide 1
The Double Edged Sword GMO Experimentation Presentation by Andre Leu Chair, Organic Federation of Australia at the Food Safety and Sustainability Forum Sydney, March 2010 Slides By Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology How does Genetic Engineering work? 1. The perception - Only a single gene with a desired trait is inserted into a plant 2. The Reality – A transgenic construct of several gene sequences is inserted These include: • viral promoters genes • antibiotic marker genes • ‘junk’ DNA Gene construct Regulatory sequence: on/off switch often CaMV (virus) Coding sequence of a gene e.g. Bt toxin gene from soil bacterium Regulatory sequence: Termination signal Plasmid backbone DNA, superfluous genetic material e.g. from pea Identify cells with incorporated genes Test for markers Add antibiotic Only transformed cells survive Antibiotic Resistant Genes “IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.” US FDA Director, Division of Anti-infective Drug Products Horizontal Transfer of Antibiotic Resistant Genes Many scientists warned about the dangers of these genes transferring to other organisms through horizontal gene transfer GMO industry stated that this could not happen Transfer of transgenes to gut bacteria is optimized • Bacterial sequences are easier to transfer to bacteria • The gene’s promoter works in bacteria Promoter Antibiotic resistant marker Roundup Ready genes Viral genes Bt gene What can transfer? Horizontal Gene Transfer 1. Many Scientists are concerned about the horizontal transfer of the CaMV promoter virus into other virus – CaMV – Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 2. The potential to create new transgenic viruses of unknown consequences The swine flu virus H1N1 is an example of a natural transgenic construct with avian, swine and human virus sequences – this would have occurred through natural horizontal gene transfer Horizontal Gene Transfer 1. Many Scientists are concerned about the horizontal transfer of the CaMV promoter virus into other virus – CaMV – Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 2. The potential to create new transgenic viruses of unknown consequences The swine flu virus H1N1 is an example of a natural transgenic construct with avian, swine and human virus sequences – this would have occurred through natural horizontal gene transfer Horizontal Gene Transfer - CaMV • This CaMV promoter is also known to work for genes all across the living world: in plants, bacteria, fungi, and, as we discovered recently in the literature more than 10 years old, also in frog eggs and human cells. It is able to substitute, in part or in whole, for the promoter of many other viruses. • Viruses are not only everywhere in the environment, they also lie dormant in the genomes of all organisms, bacteria, plants and animals without exception. • And there is evidence that such dormant viruses can be reactivated as a result of genetic recombination. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho– Union of Concerned Scientists Horizontal Gene Transfer - CaMV • What is most concerning with this is that this viral promoter gene and other GM constructs have escaped into the wild relatives of GMO plants • also contaminated a sizeable proportion of non GMO crops like corn, canola and soybeans. • Transferred into gut bacteria • The potential danger is being completely ignored by regulatory authorities, with no ongoing research looking at these potential pathogenic transgenic viruses and bacteria. The process of creating a GM crop creates unpredicted changes in DNA and plant composition US FDA Agency scientists warned of: Allergens Toxins New diseases Nutritional problems Disruption of gene networks July 1, 2007, New York Times: • The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized. . . . It is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built. • Evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products. • Yet to date, every attempt to challenge safety claims for biotech products has been categorically dismissed, or derided as unscientific. First GM Crop FlavrSavr Tomato Rats refused to eat the tomato Yuk! After 28 days •7 of 20 rats developed stomach lesions •Another 7 of 40 died within 2 weeks Industry study GM potatoes damaged rats (10 or 110 days) Rats developed • Potentially pre-cancerous cell growth in the digestive tract • Smaller brains, livers and testicles • Partial atrophy of the liver, and • Immune system damage Lancet, 1999 & others Intestinal Wall Non-GM GM Stomach lining Non-GM GM Rats ate Bt corn (90 days) Indicators for Liver and kidney toxicity Blood pressure problems, allergies, infections or disease, higher blood sugar and anemia Monsanto study Mice had an immune response to GM pea protein Agricultural Food Chemistry, 2005 Chickens fed Liberty Link corn died at twice the rate Industry study Mice Fed GM SoyMice fed GM soy Pancreas Reduced digestive enzymes Altered cell structure Altered gene expression Journal of Anatomy, 2002 European Journal of Histochemistry, 2003 Mice fed GM soy Liver Cells damaged Altered gene expression Higher metabolic activity (suggesting toxic insult) Cell Structure and Function, 2002 Mice livers Hepatocyte Nuclei Control GM-fed Mice livers Hepatocyte Nuclei Control GM-fed Rat Livers А, B – control group C, D – GM-soy group A C B D Dr. Irina Ermakova Mice fed GM soy Testicular cells had altered structure and function European Journal of Histochemistry, 2004 Rat testicles Control GM soy fed Control GM-soy Offspring of Mice Fed GM Soy Young embryos from GM-fed parents had temporary decrease in gene expression In press First Generation Mortality of rat pups Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007 Control GM-soy Non-GM soy GM-soy group Mortality of rat offspring for one day Control Ermakova Irina, 2005-2007 NonGM soy GM-soy Rat litters at 9-days from mothers fed non-GM or GM soy. Non-GM soy group GM-soy group Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007 19-day old rats Larger rat is from control group; smaller from GM-soy group. Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007 Preliminary evidence Rat offspring did not conceive When the entire Russian facility began using GM soy-based feed, infant mortality for all rats hit 55.3%. L-tryptophan produced by GM bacteria Killed about 100 and caused 5,000-10,000 to fall sick The epidemic was discovered because the disease 1. Was new, with unique symptoms 2. Acute 3. Came on quickly Conclusion There is a need to do peer reviewed science on GM especially in the following areas . • Feeding trials • CaMV and other viral and bacterial gene segments and horizontal gene transfer • Systems approach – genes working as sequence – what happened when this is disrupted by inserting new DNA • Instability of the transgenes especially the promoters within the genome • Alterations to RNA sequences when coding proteins Acknowlegdements • Most of these Slides come from a comprehensive GMO presentation by Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology • http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/TakeAction/Po werPointPresentations/index.cfm • For more information on these issues, please read GM the Hidden Science on the OFA website • http://www.ofa.org.au/pages/Reports-%7B47%7D-IndustryPapers.html