Citation
Detail: Qian Ying-qian, Ma Keping, Wei Wei
and Pei Kequan. 1996.Biosafety Status and
Responses.
in: Conserving China's Biodiversity (II) (PETER Johan Schei, WANG Sung
and XIE Yan eds.). China Environmental Science Press. Beijing.182-187p.
Biosafety Status and Responses
Qian Ying-qian,
Ma Keping, Wei Wei and Pei Kequan
(Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093)
¡ïCompletely
different views to GMOs¡ïPotential
ecological risks of GM cropsv¡ïCountermeasure¡ïReferences
Since the US government first ratified the commercial cultivation of ripen delaying transgenic tomato in 1994, the cultivation of transgenic crops has developed rapidly. It occupied an area of 44.2 million ha by the year 2000; of which, the USA accounted for 63%, Argentina 23%, Canada 7%, and China approximately 1%. In the US, there are more than 11 kinds of ratified commercially cultivated transgenic crops, mainly including herbicide-tolerant soya, pest-resistant cotton, pest-resistant maize, and herbicide-tolerant rape. In 1999, in the United States the cultivation of transgenic soya covered an area of 55% in the areas where soya was grown, pest-resistant transgenic (mainly Bt) cotton occupied an area of approximately 50% of the total cotton field, and that of the pest-resistant transgenic maize covered an area of 30% of the whole maize field. In recent years, the cultivation of transgenic crops has not increased much or even decreased to some transgenic crops, due to problems in finding market for their products, and particularly the resistance by European countries.
Completely different views to GMOs
The term "GMO" refers
to genetically modified organism. Transgenic crops are one kind of GMO. Currently
there are different views concerning GMOs. The views endorsing the development
of GMOs have the reasons based on the following:
1. Economic benefit
In the US, 70% of the GM Bt cotton did not need pesticide in 1996 with an 70%
increase of yield and a reduced cost of $140-180 per ha.. Formerly, about half
of the corn crop (32,000,000 ha.) in USA suffered bollworms with a loss of 1
billion US Dollars. After GM Bt maize is planted, the yield increased by 9%,
and the economic benefit was 1.9 million US Dollars in 1996, up to 19 million
US Dollars in 1997. In Canada, since 12,000,000 ha. of herbicide tolerant transgenic
canola was planted in 1996, the yield has grown by 9% and the economic benefit
has reached 6 million US Dollars. After China planted pest-resistant GM cotton,
the total economic benefit of 4 years (during 1997-2001) reached 337 million
US Dollars. The world value of GM crops in 2000 was 3 billion US Dollars and
is expected to reach 30,000,000,000 US Dollars by 2010. Thus it can be seen
evident economic benefits of GM crops.
2. Famine
Developing countries have the highest population growth rate. Thus, how to increase
crop fields to meet the growing demand of increasing population is a serious
problem concerned by the whole world. Some have suggested that GMOs will be
the only approach to solve the problem in 21 century. At the international congress
on GMOs held by British Royal Society, a principal of an Academy of Sciences
in a developing country claimed: "Different from those European developed
countries with no need to develop GM technique in the conditions of a small
population and enough food, we developing countries need to develop GM technique
to solve our food problem in the conditions of a large population and deficient
food." GM technique can improve not only the yield but also the quality
of crops. Every year 500,000 people suffer from ablepsia and 1000,000 children
die from avitaminosis-A. Most of the events occur with the poor, with rice as
their staple food in developing countries, especially in Africa. Swiss scientist
Ingo Petrykus, conducted a research group to cultivate Golden Rice with gene
techniques. This rice has high quantities of vitamin A protoplast and can probably
solve the problem of avitaminosis-A.
3. Shortened growth period of
crops
Spanish scientists extracted a gene from arbidopsis and insert it into the Citrus
that formerly cannot mature until 5-6 years later and now can bloom and fructify
within a year (1). A kind of potato cultivated by a German scientist can be
reaped after 15 weeks, in advance of over 7 weeks compared with common potato.
The new breed can also produce a bacterial enzyme that can decompound pyrophosphate
which can promote germination to prevent the potato from germinating (2).
The 2001 report on human development (issue 12) released by UNDP in July 2001
adequately affirmed the feasibility of genetically modified technique and pointed
out that GMOs will possibly become a scientific breakthrough of developing countries.
While admitting the need of envisaging the risks of genetically modified technique
on environment and human health, we should also pay attention to the peculiar
potentials in creating antiviruses, fighting droughts and producing nutritious
crops that can largely reduce malnutrition suffered by 800,000,000 people in
the world. The report deemed that the risks brought about by GMOs could be controlled.
Another point of view is a completely negative attitude towards GMOs. In particular,
some NGOs such as the Green Peace Organization not only demonstrate and remonstrate
but also take actions. In August 28, 2001, 30 Minutes of News Programme in CCTV
broadcasted French people against GMOs cutting up mature GM maize with sickle.
The cause was that a report submitted by French Food Security Agency to the
government said: " About 41% samples in the tested maize seeds contain
GM ingredients. In addition, a small portion of canola and soybean seeds contains
GM ingredients." The report also pointed: " We have concluded that
according to some phenomena observed, the phenomenon of common food containing
GM ingredients is beyond the seed studied.
The possibility of common crops or seeds containing GM ingredients has become
true."
Green Peace also fights against Golden Rice. Certainly, members of the organization
are against any GM product for they deem the GM technique has the properties
of unpredictability, inexactitude and unreversablity. Like other gene project
techniques, Golden Rice hasn't solved essential security problems and potentially
can threaten the environment. They cite the nutritionist's opinion that the
absence of fat in the food structure of the poor prevents them from absorbing
vitamin A protoplast, therefore Golden Rice cannot solve avitaminosis-A. From
the angle of nutrrition, there is no sufficient evidence to prove GM technique
can solve famine. They even think it's impossible to solve complicated social
and economical problems only with a technique powered either in developed countries
or in developing countries.
Environment protectionists also strongly fight against the GM technique which
can shorten growth period. They claim the long-term impacts of these crops on
environment and health are unknown. Actually, under their strong opposition,
Western European countries have prohibited commercially planting GM crops until
now.
Potential ecological risks of GM crops
The issue concerned with potential ecological risks of GM crops has been definitely raised in the Convention on Biological Diversity published in 1992. The involved items in the CBD require that measures should be taken to supervise, manage or control the potential risks brought about by the use and release of LMO or GMO that are modified by bio-techniques and probably have harmful effects on environment, the conservation and sustainability of biodiversity, and human health. The deleterious impacts on environment include the effects on agro-ecosystem and natural ecosystem. The impacts are omnifarious and have been reported (3). The following is a table based on the report by Kjellsson (1997).
Table 1 Potential risks of the release of GMO plants on environment
| Deleterious impacts on environment | Influencing process | |
| Agro-ecosystem | increase the use of pesticide | selection for resistance and transport to compatible plants |
| produce new agricultural weeds | gene flow and intercross | |
| GMO plants convert into weed | competition of inserted characters | |
| bring about new viruses | recombination of different virus genome and virus coat protein of GM crops | |
| bring about new crop pests | pathogen-interaction
between plants herbivores-interaction between plants |
|
| do harm to the non-target organisms | mistakenly eaten by herbivores | |
| Natural ecosystem | invade into new habitats | diffusion of pollen
and seeds disturbance competition |
| loss of gene diversity of species | gene flow and intercrosscompetition | |
| do harm to the non-target species | altered multualistic relations | |
| loss of biodiversity | competition compelled by environment increasing impacts (gene, population, species) |
|
| changes of nutrient cycles and geochemical processes | interaction with
non-ecosystems (eg. GMO plants and N2 fixed system) |
|
| changes of elementary productivity | change the composition of species | |
| increase loss of soil | increasing impacts (interaction with environment and composition of species) | |
Many
risks in Table 1 are ecological. GM crops can be regarded as exotic species
not originally existed in the nature because they are artificially made. Generally
speaking, it takes an age (10 years or more) for exotic species to threaten
or endanger environment or biodiversity. But actually, commercialized planting
of GM crops began only 5-6 years ago and some potential risks cannot be visible
in such a short period. However, some risks have been testified at the level
of laboratory. For example, Mikkelsen, et al. has testified that herbicide tolerant
gene of herbicide tolerant transgenic canola can transfer into wild relatives
in an intercross and a backcross by gene flow (4). This is the potential new
agricultural weed in the agro-ecosystem mentioned in the above table. Unexpectedly,
the conversion of GM crops into weeds is also fast. According to the report
of August 2001, the main GMO crop in Canada is the herbicide tolerant GM canola
that is converting into a kind of weed. Farmers are fighting with a new deleterious
plant in their farmlands, because the never-planted GM canola that can resist
the normal herbicide is hard to kill. Martin Entz, botanist in Manitoba University,
said: " The diffusion speed of GM canola is much faster than we expected,
therefore, it's definitely impossible to control it." Canada Food Inspection
Agency has persuaded farmers to use other chemicals to kill them. But these
chemicals can also kill other crops. And in some circumstances, GM canola has
resistance to the chemicals and really becomes the so-called "super weed".
We take another example to show the impact of GMOs on biodiversity. The publication
of the experimental result by Losey, et al. (5)(1999) on Nature
aroused an explosive reaction. They fed monarch larvae with Asclepias curassavica
mixed with Bt maize pollen in the laboratory. And compared them to monarch larvae
fed with Asclepias curassavica with no maize pollen. The death rate of
monarch in the former group was 10% the next day and rose to 44% by 4 days later.
However, the whole control group survived. In addition, the monarch larvae that
ingested little of the Bt Asclepias curassavica grew slowly and were
half the size of the control group. Additionally, there is still yet another
threat to the survival of the monarch larvae. Before herbicide resistant GM
crops came into being, herbicide could be only used for one time before crop
seeds bourgeoned. Since the herbicide resistant GM crops were planted, herbicide
can be used for many times during the crop growth period and can only kill weeds
but not threaten crops. With many applications of the herbicide, Asclepias
curassavica (the only food for the monarch larvae) was reduced in large
quantities, which threatened the survival of the monarch larvae. But the monarch
larva is a kind of very beautiful butterfly and loved by Americans. Several
other examples of threatening biodiversity have been reported in other articles
(6). Also we have reported other impacts of GMOs on environment (7). With more
and more attention to the bio-security research, new reports will be presented
continuously.
There are also human health concerns with GMOs. It has been reported that over
a thousand kinds of food on US market are derived from GM crops. As of yet,
there is no experimental evidence that any GM crop ratified by the government
as a commercial crop does harm to human health. Even though, some GM crops are
still not permitted to be food for human but can be for livestock. In 2000,
USA Department of Agriculture only permitted the pest-resistant Bt maize cultivated
by StarLink Company as a feed for animals, because the ministry feared some
people would possibly be sensitive to Cry9C protein contained in this kind of
maize. However, StarLink Company sold them to food factory, and then fried maize
rolls, maize snacks and other maize food contained with GM maize appeared all
food shelves in groceries. Discovered by the USA Department of Agriculture,
not only these 'contaminated' foods but also all maize produced last year by
StarLink were disposed as GM maize, because the price of GM maize was lower
than common maize, which would incur loss of farmers who plant common maize
and middlemen, as well as the incline in the export of entire maize.
As above mentioned, French Food Security Agency has found less than 0.1% GM
substance in common maize. The principal of FFSA claimed: "There seems
to be little probability of eating such food produced by these crops."
It's unassailable that bio-technique,
as a new complicated technique, is an important approach to solve problems in
medicine, agriculture, environment, etc. and will bring about enormous economical
and social benefits. However, the security of GMOs on environment and human
health cannot be ignored. 2001 Report on Human Development by UNDP appealed
to further study the long-term impacts of genetically modified organisms and
advocated to mark those genetically modified products so that customers could
make perceptive choices. The report also pointed that the problems of bio-technique
and food security usually was the result of improper policies, unsuitable law
regulations and absence of transparency.
Therefore, we recommend the following countermeasures:
1. No. 304 China State Council Decree was subscribed by Premier Zhu Rongji
in May 23, 2001. Management Regulations on Bio-security of Agricultural GMOs,
which prescribes Agricultural Administration of State Council in charge of supervision
and management of national bio-security of agricultural GMOs, to establish International
Congress System of Agricultural GMOs Bio-security Department, to prohibit selling
those agricultural GMOs listed in Agricultural GMOs Catalogue and identified
by manufacturer or loading units or individuals, was released. The label of
agricultural GMOs should be recorded the names of main GM ingredients. The release
of the regulations laid the foundations of safely using GM crops and their products.
Another two jobs should also be emphasized. On one hand, the corporation and
coordination of so many sections involved in bio-security of GM crops is a significant
and complicated problem. On the other hand, we should pay attention to propaganda,
education and execution, because many farmers involved GM crops don't know what
GM crops are, nor what potential risks the GM crops will bring about, nor why
the label system should be established, etc.
2. Enhance scientific research on bio-security. Developed countries--especially
some European countries--have engaged in research on bio-security earlier, while
China is in preliminary stages. How to start and enter the research on a series
of ecological risks in croplands and physical ecosystems? How to analyze the
results including both positive effects and negative impacts? Further studies
are needed to solve these questions. Like the problems on ecological effects,
it takes time to find out the influence on human health. We probably cannot
find the answer in a short time. All these questions should be taken into account
when considering scientific research on bio-security.
3. Innovation in improving the crop yields and solving famine problems.
We have affirmed that GM technique is an important approach to solve scarcity
of foodstuff, but it is not the only approach. The "super rice" cultivated
by Chinese agriculturist Yuan Longping has the highest yield of 1139kg/mu. The
elevated yield of his hybrid rice can solve the food problem of 50,000,000 people.
So it's very necessary to research new approaches to improve crop fields and
quality.
4. Improve national awareness, especially through reports by media. In
December 2000, a Beijing media with a large circulation gave a report titled
with "Our Reporter Drive Hundreds of Li to Seek GM Grass". The reporter
propagandized a series of advantages of a kind of GM grass introduced by an
agricultural Sciences and techniques Limit Company from USA when he found 100
Mu land of GM grass on the outskirts of Beijing. Moreover, his last word is
"GMOs even drive grass crazy." Here are at least two problems. One
is that the report didn't mention that GM plants should not be planted in such
a large area without the sanction of the government. On the other hand, we don't
know what kind of species the GM grass is and whether there are kindred plants
on the outskirts of Beijing. Once the grass really becomes established, the
problem of GM canola in Canada mentioned above will soon occur on the outskirts
of Beijing. It's possible to spread over large quantities of cropland and become
a weed by seed dissemination. If kindred plants are present, they probably can
become established as a weed by crossbreeding.
5. China cannot become an experimental place of some developed countries.
At present some developed countries prohibit commercial planting GMOs, through
they are researching plenty of bio-techniques including GMOs. In some European
countries such as Norway, commercial planting of GMOs must be sanctioned by
the King or the Parliament. Presently, many GM crops are successfully produced
in experiment internationally, however, only the extreme minority are sanctioned
to be commercially planted. Evidences indicate some developed countries test
their experimental products and even plant in large areas on Chinese cropland
by various ways. However, most of us lack the knowledge on these. The above
"GM grass" probably is a good example with acceptance of both sides.
The aftermath of planting GMOs in a large area is irremediable when serious
negative effects do occur.
References