GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS POSITION PAPER

Genetically Modified Crops Position Paper John OConnor The Ohio State University

Author Note This paper was prepared for Agricultural Communications 2367, Wednesday-Friday lab, taught by Kyle Sharp and Todd Haery.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS POSITION PAPER In a Nature article titled US Regulation misses some GM crops, Heidi Ledford sheds light on the complexity of the United States policy regarding regulation of genetically modified

(GM) crops. The primary law used to determine what regulation a GM crop is subjected to dates back to 1986. Back then, almost all genes inserted into GM crops came from microorganisms, so the law is tailored to regulating the use of bacterial and viral genes in GM crops. As such, GM crops that only contain genes from other plants are in a hazy legal realm where their regulatory status is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. An apple crop that was modified through bacterial insertion of a plant gene was deemed to be worthy of GM crop regulation even though there was no bacterial DNA in the final apple crop. On the other hand, a genetic modification method based on shooting gold particles covered in plant DNA at cells was determined to be worthy of deregulation. Several other examples are given to further illustrate the unpredictable nature of federal GM crop regulation as a result of the relevant legal code being broad and decades old. Ms. Ledford wrote an article that was both neutral and scientifically rigorous. She covered the history that led to the current legal landscape regarding GM crops, and she quoted a variety of scientific and legal experts with varying opinions on the current policy. The factual content of the article went into sufficient scientific depth to be meaningful without being so technical that a layperson would be unable to get a basic understanding of the situation. Though I believe it was due to the reality of the situation rather than an agenda of Ms. Ledford, the article painted a picture of a government oversight organization that was struggling to keep up with the pace of change. I think that GM crops should be evaluated on the basis of their characteristics as a final product rather than the methods used to produce them. The apple regulation decision was a glaring example of the exact opposite being done. I hope that the federal government can allocate part of the budget to researching and assembling a bill aimed at

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS POSITION PAPER updating the policy of GM crop regulation because the current policy is too ambiguous to be effective.

US regulation misses some GM crops

It took scientists 85 years to breed a commercial apple that could fend off apple scab, a devastating disease caused by the fungus Venturia inaequalis. In 1999, they finally produced a tasty variety that contained the Vf defence gene, bred in from an unappetizing relative. Instead of dousing orchards with fungicides 30 times a season, farmers could spray the resistant crop just twice.

But five years later, V. inaequalis had evolved and apples trees were becoming infected again. Breeders were back to square one. Even armed with modern breeding techniques and 15 known defence genes in the apple family, it would take another 40 years to breed a resistant strain conventionally, says Henk Schouten, a plant scientist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

Related stories

Genetically modified crops pass benefits to weeds GM rice delivers antibodies against deadly rotavirus Monsanto drops GM in Europe
More related stories

So instead, Schouten has joined a small but growing pool of academics and companies hoping to taking advantage of the latest approaches in genetic engineering, while avoiding the lengthy and expensive burden of government regulation. Because he wants to insert DNA only from related apple varieties, Schouten argues that his product should not be regulated in the same way as genetically modified (GM) crops that are engineered with bacterial or viral DNA. Other pioneers argue that the techniques they are using to modify plants are safer than old technologies, and therefore do not need regulation. In some cases, US regulators have agreed.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS POSITION PAPER

Since 2010, the US Department of Agriculture has told at least 10 groups that their GM products would not require regulation (see Cropping out regulation) removing a substantial financial barrier and speeding up development. That has encouraged academic labs and small companies to pursue speciality crops, such as apples, that have so far been ignored by biotechnology giants. There are any number of companies exploring new techniques to produce crops that dont trigger regulatory oversight, says Scott Thenell, managing director of Thenell & Associates, a consulting firm in Walnut Creek, California, that helps researchers to navigate GM-plant regulations. And often, they are small or niche crops that cant support the escalating costs of regulatory approval.

The regulation of GM crops in the United States is based on laws that were not tailor-made for the technology. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the branch of the agriculture department responsible for overseeing GM crops, has so far stuck to a strict interpretation of a 1957 law designed to protect agriculture against plant pests that was co-opted in 1986 to regulate GM crops. At that time, GM crops were nearly always engineered using Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a bacterial pest that can insert DNA into plant genomes.

In 2011, APHIS regulators announced that a herbicide-tolerant Kentucky bluegrass would not fall under their purview, because the lawn-and-garden company developing it did not useAgrobacterium or any other plant-pest DNA to engineer the grass. The company, Scotts MiracleGro of Marysville, Ohio, instead used a gene gun to fire DNA-coated gold particles into plant cells. Some of that DNA is then incorporated into the genome.

For Greg Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group in Washington DC, the news highlighted the shortcomings of the US regulatory system for GM crops. The whole system is a fiction, he says.

And some are starting to test the regulation-free waters. Scotts Miracle-Gro, for its part, has said that its bluegrass was not meant to be commercialized, and was just a test case to see how APHIS would respond. That is not the case for other groups that have been told that their GM products would not be regulated. Some include academic researchers, who are eager to avoid field-trial permits and special containment measures, and who want to encourage corporate development of niche crops.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS POSITION PAPER

Dennis Gray, a developmental biologist at the University of Florida in Apopka, is trying to use genes from grape varieties to engineer a wine grape that is resistant to Pierces disease a condition caused by a bacterium that has made it difficult to grow wine grapes in the state. He says that the lack of regulation is encouraging researchers like him to pursue such small-market crops. Little agricultural labs just dont have access to the infrastructure and the money needed to move these forward.

Other emerging approaches may also escape regulation. Sally Mackenzie, a plant biologist at the University of NebraskaLincoln, contacted APHIS about the high-yield offspring of a transgenic sorghum grass plant even though these offspring no longer contain the engineered gene. Mackenzie thinks that the transgene triggered an epigenetic change: it altered the plants gene expression by changing the pattern of chemical groups added to its DNA rather than changing the DNA sequence itself. In 2012, APHIS regulators invited Mackenzie to the organizations headquarters in Riverdale, Maryland, and questioned her about this hypothesis. APHIS eventually notified her that it would not regulate her plants a decision that Mackenzie says has accelerated her research and may allow her to launch a company to develop her grass variety.

Agricultural giants Monsanto, based in St Louis, Missouri, and Syngenta, headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, are vying to license the technology. The first thing they asked me was, Have you been through APHIS? says Mackenzie.

Other companies are gauging their prospects with different DNA-modification tools, such as zincfinger nucleases enzymes that precisely target a region of the plant genome. In 2010, APHIS told Dow AgroSciences of Indianapolis, Indiana, that it would not regulate a herbicide-tolerant maize (corn) made using zinc-finger nucleases. Dow spokesman Garry Hamlin says that the company has since dropped the maize project, but is working with outside researchers to develop other crops using similar technology.

Jennifer Kuzma, a policy analyst at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, says that a lack of regulation for the latest approaches could fuel public suspicions about GM crops. One could argue that the technologies are more targeted and youre doing things in a smarter way, she says. The flip side is that they are so powerful you can engineer multiple genes at one time.

Not all companies are embracing the potential for freedom from regulation. Oliver Peoples, chief scientific officer at Metabolix, a plant-engineering company in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says that

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS POSITION PAPER

he would rather be regulated by APHIS to earn the publics trust. He notes that Agrobacteriuminserts genes more efficiently than the gene-gun method. Although zinc-fingers are appealing for their specificity and their ability to escape regulation, companies do not yet have much experience in working with the technique, or navigating the patents needed to use it.

Schouten, meanwhile, did not skirt regulation for his apples after all. In April 2012, APHIS told him that the agency would regulate his variety in spite of the fact that the genes he introduced came from other apples. This was because he used Agrobacterium to insert the genes it did not matter to regulators that no trace of Agrobacterium DNA remained in his plants.

Schouten is perplexed. If he had used a gene gun, he would have inserted DNA haphazardly and in a manner more likely to damage other sites in the genome yet this remains the unregulated method. To me, this is a very strange system, he says.