GMOs 101 Fact vs Fiction Dr Anita BrlBabel

GMOs 101: Fact vs. Fiction Dr. Anita Brûlé-Babel Department of Plant Science One University. Many Futures.

Outline • Why it is hard to get clear information on GMOs • Definitions • Comparison of methods • Examples of products being produced • Issues • Labelling • Moving Forward

Why the confusion? • Issues are complex and confused with other issues • Polarized view points • Nature of news reporting and information sources – Fear mongering & sensationalism – Sound-bites – Social media – Celebrity effect – Unqualified “experts” – Scientific literature inaccessible to general public • Lack of trust

Definition of “Trait” • A distinguishing quality or characteristic that is inherited – Examples • • Seed size Flower color Height Herbicide resistance

What is a Genetically Modified Organism? Canadian Food Inspection Agency definition: “An organism, such as a plant, animal or bacterium, is considered genetically modified if its genetic material has been altered through any method, including conventional breeding. A "GMO" is a genetically modified organism. ” http: //www. inspection. gc. ca/plants-with-novel-traits/general-public/overview/eng/1337827503752/1337827590597

Genetically Engineered/ Transgenic Organism An organism, such as a plant, animal or bacterium that has been modified using techniques that permit transfer or removal of genes through non-sexual techniques such as recombinant DNA technologies. This is what is being regulated in most countries. For clarity the rest of this discussion will be based on this definition.

Generating new combinations (recombinants) is the basis of plant breeding!!! Parent 1 Yellow Smooth Seed (Homozygous) X YYWW F 1 Yellow Smooth Seed (Heterozygous) yyww Parent 2 Green Wrinkled Seed (Homozygous) Yy. Ww Self Pollinate F 2 Segregation YW Yw y. W yw YW YYWw Yy. WW Yy. Ww Yw YYWw YYww Yyw. W Yyww y. W y. YWW Yy. Ww yy. WW yy. Ww yw y. Yw. W y. Yww yyw. W yyww 9 Yellow Smooth: 3 Yellow Wrinkled: 3 Smooth Green: 1 Green Wrinkled

How does GE differ from traditional plant breeding? Traditional Breeding Genetic Engineering • Restricted to gene pool of closely related species • Interspecific crosses can lead to relatively large blocks of DNA being transferred between species (> one hundred thousand to millions of base pairs) • Produces new combinations of existing traits • Not restricted to related species • Foreign DNA (if used) relatively small (a few hundred to tens of thousands of base pairs) • Produces traits that may not exist within the species Human genome – 3 Billion base pairs Wheat genome – 15 Billion base pairs Rice genome - 0. 4 Billion base pairs

Transgenic Plant Chromosome Cointegrate Ti plasmid Tobacco-plant Cell Transgenic Tobacco Plant Transformed Cell Plantlet Cultured Cells Images from Griffin et al. 1996. An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. 6 th Edition.

Many Genetic Engineering Techniques Old Technology New Technology • Required use of bacterial or viral vectors, or gene gun • Needed a selectable marker to identify transformed cells • Can target specific gene sequences – Antibiotic resistance or herbicide resistance markers common • Methods not very precise – Required a lot of follow-up testing – Make a single nucleotide change or delete or insert specific sequence • Do not require selectable markers – high throughput sequencing available • Does not always involve transfer of genes from another organism • Can be tissue specific

Regulatory Oversight Important • Varies between countries – Canada – regulates novel traits regardless of technology used to introduce the novel trait – USA – regulates the technology used to introduce the trait, not the trait – gene editing will not likely be regulated – EU - regulates the technology used to introduce the trait, not the trait – position on gene editing unclear Detection of gene editing products will be difficult if industry does not provide specific information.

What is current situation?

Genetically Engineered Crops • Main crops in commercial production are soybean, cotton, corn, canola, papaya, summer squash and alfalfa • Approvals made for many other crops but no significant commercialization has occurred (e. g. tomato, flax, rice) • Large number of experimental materials have been developed with no intent for commercial release

Types of Engineered Traits Crop Traits Corn Herbicide resistance, insect resistance, male sterility for hybrid seed production, high lysine, thermostable alpha amylase Soybean Herbicide resistance, insect resistance, oil quality modifications Cotton Herbicide resistance, insect resistance Canola Herbicide resistance Papaya Virus resistance Squash Virus resistance Alfalfa Herbicide resistance, reduced lignin Majority of these traits protect yield, with a few modifications to quality/nutritional factors

Herbicide Tolerant Crops Canola Glyphosate (Roundup™) Glufosinate (Liberty™) Imidazolinone Bromoxynil

Impact of HTC • Better weed control “in crop” – Protects yield – Reduces potential contaminants • More complex weed control and crop rotation • Initially reduced herbicide “load” – Volunteer control can be an issue • Gene flow • Herbicide resistant weeds

Herbicide Resistant Weeds • Existed long before introduction of GE crops • Natural variation in weed populations exists • Application of herbicide applies selection pressure that allows resistant variants to survive and reproduce • Application of repeated intense selection pressure leads to establishment of herbicide resistant weed populations

Heavy selection pressure leads to changes in population characteristics q Some biotypes of barnyard grass have developed biotypes that resemble the crop plant (resistant to hand weeding) q Plant on left is rice q Plant in middle is a barnyard grass mimic – differs by absence of ligule q Plant on right is barnyard grass that is easy to differentiate from rice Barrett, S. 1987. Mimicry in Plants. Scientific American 257: 76 -83.

33 resistant weed species

What is the real problem? Glyphosate (Round-Up™) Glufosinate (Liberty™) • Herbicide important for no-till • Use limited until GE crop system prior to the GE crop introduced • GE allowed use of herbicide in crop • Applied multiple times in • Mainly used with GE crop season = increased selection • Added new tool to weed pressure control • Multiple glyphosate resistant • Improved rotational options = crops means no rotation of reduced selection pressure for herbicide = increase selection other herbicides pressure • 2 resistant weed species • 23 resistant weed species (2012)GE can enhance When implemented correctly, (2012) crop production and reduce potential for development of herbicide resistant weeds.

Insect Resistant Crops • Bt toxin – Produced by Bacillus thuringiensis – Effective against specific insects (e. g. Colorado potato beetle, European corn borer) – Not toxic to humans or animals – Considered environmentally friendly http: //faculty. evansville. edu/ck 6/bstud/potato. html http: //www. ent. iastate. edu/imagegal/lepidoptera/ecb/46 ecblarva. html

Insect Resistance • Reduces application of more toxic pesticides • Protects non-target insects including beneficial insects • Non-adopters benefit from reduced insect populations • Evidence of reduced levels of mycotoxins in food and feed • Potential for development of insect resistance – Concern for organic farmers that use the Bt biocide (resistance to biocide observed before GE crop introduction) • Could be tissue specific Can have positive effects for environment and human health.

Gene Flow • Genes can move between GE and non-GE crops of the same species – Reproductive biology of the crop affects how much – Genes move between crops regardless of whether they are GE or not (reason for seed regulations) • Spread to wild relatives – possible if present in same area – Impact depends on trait • If trait has no selective advantage it can remain in population at low levels – Few wild relatives of many major crops • GE crops can become invasive if the trait has a selective advantage – Part of regulatory evaluation

Food Safety • Regulatory system evaluates GE crops for food safety based on concept of “substantial equivalence” – Composition, nutrition, toxins, allergens, etc. • North American vs. European concepts of safety – N. A. – “acceptable risk” – considered relative to non-GE equivalent – European – “absence of risk” – Impossible to prove • Traditional foods were never tested for safety – Selective breeding/domestication has made many crops safer (e. g. Canola)

Influence of GE Crops on Human Health • Several large-scale reviews published – Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects - http: //www. nap. edu/23395 – A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research (2001 -2010) https: //ec. europa. eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decad e_of_eu-funded_gmo_research. pdf – An Overview of the Last 10 Years of Genetically Engineered Crop Safety Research – Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 2013 DOI: 10. 3109/07388551. 2013. 823595

Study Conclusions • No credible evidence that GE crops/foods developed to date pose a threat to human health – Reviewed original peer-reviewed literature – Evaluated quality of the research including experimental design • Potential for harm exists if the regulatory system does not do its job – Trait-specific, not technology-specific

Comparison of Cancer Rates World Cancer Research Fund International Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Age-Standardised Rate per 100, 000 (World) Denmark 338. 1 France (metropolitan) 324. 6 Australia 323. 0 Belgium 321. 1 Norway 318. 3 United States of America 318. 0 Ireland 307. 9 Korea, Republic of 307. 8 The Netherlands 304. 8 New Caledonia 297. 9 Slovenia 296. 3 Canada 295. 7 Country http: //www. wcrf. org/int/cancer-facts-and-figures

Specific Cancers • Rates of 14 cancers monitored by country – Reported 20 countries with highest rates – Neither USA or Canada had the highest rates for any of the 14 cancers – Where USA or Canada ranked within the top 20, there was at least one European country with higher rates > 20 years of consuming GE crops in NA has not resulted in higher cancer rates than EU countries. http: //www. wcrf. org/int/cancer-facts-and-figures

Labelling • Push for labelling based on assumptions of potential risk • Unnecessary if have “substantial equivalence” • Form of labelling important – Must be informative – Specific gene alterations may be more important • Co-existence will require significant added expense • Consumers may be duped to pay http: //www. nongmoproject. org/wp-content/ more for products that were uploads/Non-GMO-Project-Standard. pdf never GE http: //sustainablepulse. com/wp-content/uploads/201 6/01/campbells-gmo-label-2 -644 x 363. jpg

Many Other Issues • • • Monoculture Multi-national control Seed sovereignty World hunger “Natural” or “Organic” Regulatory inadequacies and inconsistencies • General lack of science literacy • Associations vs cause and effect http: //boing. net/2013/01/01/correlation-between-autism-dia. html

Moving Forward • Technology is changing rapidly • Regulatory systems are not keeping up – Lack of consistent international standards causes further confusion and adds cost – Risks need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis • Separate out the issues • Potential to improve environmental sustainability, agricultural productivity, and human health • One of many tools available to “feed the world” • Decisions should be based on sound science – Information sources are critical • Public good should prevail over corporate good – Proper evaluation of products is crucial

Final Thoughts • GE technologies have great potential for both good and bad • Require strong regulatory system to evaluate • Risk/benefit ratio needs to be properly assessed • Alternatives should be part of evaluation • Accessibility of scientifically sound information critical