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