ISB RECEIVES SCIENCE MAGAZINE COMMENDATION

Montreal, 29 January 2000 - After five years of talks, ministers and senior officials from over 130 governments have finalized a legally binding agreement for protecting the environment from risks posed by the transboundary transport of living modified organisms (LMOs) created by modern biotechnology.

Under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, governments will signal whether or not they are willing to accept imports of agricultural commodities that include LMOs by communicating their decision to the world community via an Internet-based Biosafety Clearing House. In addition, shipments of these commodities that may contain LMOs are to be clearly labeled.

Stricter Advanced Informed Agreement procedures will apply to seeds, live fish, and other LMOs that are to be intentionally introduced into the environment. In these cases, the exporter must provide detailed information to each importing country in advance of the first shipment, and the importer must then authorize the shipment. The aim is to ensure that recipient countries have both the opportunity and the capacity to assess risks involving the products of modern biotechnology.

"This agreement goes a long way towards meeting the environmental concerns of the international community," said Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which administers the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, under whose auspices the talks took place.

One of the most contentious issues that negotiators had to resolve involved the relationship between the Protocol and other international agreements, notably those under the World Trade Organization. While environmental agreements are premised on the precautionary principle, decisions under trade law require "sufficient scientific evidence." Under the new agreement, the Protocol and the WTO are to be mutually supportive; at the same time, the Protocol is not to affect the rights and obligations of governments under any existing international agreements.

The meeting was attended by over 700 delegates from governments as well as from intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. Over 40 ministers attended during the final two days.The agreed text of the Biosafety Protocol will be opened for signature at UNEP headquarters in Nairobi from 15 - 26 May, on the occasion of the Fifth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 5). The Protocol will then enter into force for its members after 50 countries have ratified it.

EPA RESTRICTIONS ON Bt CORN ANNOUNCED

In response to concerns that Bt corn may be accelerating the evolution of pesticide resistant insects, the EPA has announced new restrictions on GE corn cultivation. The new restrictions, which became effective January 14th, require registrants to ensure that growers plant a minimum of 20 percent of their acreage in non-Bt corn refuges. For corn grown in cotton areas, the non-Bt refuge requirement is increased to at least 50 percent. In addition, registrants have been asked to expand monitoring for any potential insect resistance and communicate any voluntary measures taken to protect non-target insects, particularly the Monarch butterfly.

$180 MILLION DEDICATED TO USDA PROJECTS

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman unveiled plans for $180 million in new USDA investments in projects aimed at boosting the rural economy, promoting agricultural research, and developing new agricultural products and practices for the future.

Glickman awarded $60 million in Fund for Rural America research and economic development grants. The remaining $120 million will be distributed through a competitive grant process under the Secretary's new Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. The USDA will issue a request for proposals to solicit specific project proposals for the Initiative later this year. The Initiative will fund competitive research, education, and extension grants that focus on production agriculture, natural resource management, and consumer issues.

The Initiative's priorities include:
• Agricultural genomics and biotechnology risk assessment
• Food safety and the role of nutrition in health
• New uses for agricultural products, including biomass fuel sources
• Natural resources management, pest management, and precision agriculture
• Farm efficiency and profitability, with an emphasis on small- and mid-sized family farms

ROGER BEACHY NAMED R&D'S "SCIENTIST OF THE YEAR"

Roger Beachy, President of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, was selected by R&D magazine as "1999 Scientist of the Year" for his technology transfer achievements in plant genetics. R&D Magazine is a monthly trade journal serving commercial and governmental research and development scientists. Beachy has extensive academic and industrial experience in plant genetics and plant pathology and is credited with developing one of the earliest GM crops, a virus-resistant tomato, in a cooperative project with Monsanto. Much of Beachy's GMO work is aimed at agricultural technology transfer, and he is commended for his achievements in the commercialization of promising genetic technologies and products.

ATTACKS ON GE RESEARCH FACILITIES HEAT UP

A deliberately set fire has damaged the offices of the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP) based in Agriculture Hall at Michigan State University (MSU). The office of Catherine Ives, Director of ABSP and visiting professor at MSU, was the alleged target of the December 31, 1999 fire. An underground activist group known as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) claimed credit for the property damage. The fire is currently under investigation by authorities including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Federal Bureau of Investigation. The press reported the damage estimate at approximately $400,000; however, "That's not official and is probably an underestimate," says Ives¹.

The stated goals of the ELF organization are to "End GE!" and " . . . stop the systematic exploitation and destruction of the natural environment," according to a News Advisory posted on an Internet listserver maintained by the Bioengineering Action Network². Actually, ELF only managed to set back progress on the USAID-funded project, which has been ongoing since 1991, by about a month. According to Ives, "Almost all the data was retrievable and we're back in business as usual in other offices."

In a communiqué issued by ELF and distributed by spokesperson Craig Rosebraugh, the group claimed Ives's offices were targeted in part because the ABSP project is funded by Monsanto and USAID. The communiqué states:

"On the eve of the new millenium [sic], the ELF struck back at one of the many threats to the natural world as we know it. On December 31, 1999 at approximately 9:00 pm, the ELF entered the Agricultural Hall at MSU in Lansing, Michigan. Our destination was room 324, the offices of Catherine Ives et al. The project being conducted through this office is funded by Monsanto and USAID and was designed to not only pursue research concerning genetically engineered sweet potatoes, corn and other crop vegetables, but to lobby developing countries to abandon their current agricultural practices and to rely on genetically engineered plants and thus corporations like Monsanto"³.

In fact, "We aren't funded by Monsanto," responds Ives. Of the approximately $20.8 million in funding the project has received over its life, 87.7% was from USAID and the rest obtained from matching MSU and private sector funds, and small grants. However, Monsanto is credited with giving the project a one-time sum of $2000 in travel money—not much, relative to $20.8 million, but enough, apparently, to incite the ire of ELF.

Ives also firmly rejects the claim that the USAID project encourages developing countries to ". . . abandon their current agricultural practices . . . ." Ives responds, "We do no such thing—we educate and train people in the use of molecular tools and the important regulatory issues that surround their safe and legal deployment. We recognize that biotechnology must be integrated into conventional, traditional systems. USAID is involved in the development and transfer of technologies that can assist in poverty alleviation, improved health, and promotion of a sustainable environment"¹.

The attack at the MSU campus is not an isolated incident; although, given the potential for loss of life, it is one of the most disturbing to date. Most anti-GE activists' actions have focused on the destruction of GE crops, primarily at research sites. For example, on January 20^th of this year, members of the Fragaria Freedom Fighters group claimed responsibility for the destruction of a field of genetically modified strawberries at Plant Sciences Inc. research facilities in California⁴. According to a statement released by the GenetiX Snowball Press Office, "This action is the 21^st known action taken against genetically engineered crops and multinational biotechnology corporations in the last year"⁵.

Catherine Ives suggests researchers take a common sense approach to protect research facilities from similar attacks. She said they have been told to maintain a general vigilance, keep doors locked, and be on the look out for strangers who don't seem to have a reason for being in the area. "And above all, back up all data from your hard drive on a regular basis and keep copies in separate locations," stressed Ives. She added that if they had stored important papers, such as passports and supporting documents for their foreign staff, in a fire proof safe, many hassles would have been avoided.

Sources

TANDEM CONSTRUCTS FOR SUPERWEED PREVENTION

Jonathan Gressel, of the Weizman Institute of Sciences in Israel, is well aware of one nightmare no farmer wants to encounter; he knows the bane of treating a field containing weeds not controllable with any available herbicide. Gessel's most recent paper, "Tandem constructs: Preventing the rise of superweeds," published in Trends in Biotechnology, brings some hope to prevention of superweed evolution¹.

Gressel is a vocal proponent of plant biotechnology, yet much of his research assails a large biotechnology market—herbicide resistant crops. His argument, however, is not for limiting biotechnology, but instead for encouraging responsible biotechnology geared to make GMOs safe. Continuous herbicide use may lead to artificial selection of herbicide resistant weeds due to the reproductive advantage conferred on weeds possessing natural herbicide resistant genes. Studies show that many weed plants in the natural population contain these traits^2,3.

NEW TROUBLES FOR Bt CORN?

A study reported in December in the journal Nature seems poised to add fuel to the fiery debate over the possible environmental impact of Bt corn. In a brief communication to the journal, Guenther Stotzky and his colleagues report preliminary findings from a study indicating that root exudates from Bt corn contain biologically active Bt toxin and that the toxin retains its activity long after its release from the plant¹.

There is increasing concern about the environmental impact of widespread cultivation of corn varieties engineered to constitutively express the insecticidal proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis. This is due largely to the publication of an article earlier this year, also in the journal Nature, that described how larvae of the Monarch butterfly were killed after feeding on milkweed leaves dusted with Bt corn pollen. The validity and relevance of this study has been hotly debated, but it has clearly stimulated greater interest in tracking the spread and persistence of Bt toxin in the environment as the result of the cultivation of these corn varieties.

Previous work by Dr. Stotzky and colleagues at New York University demonstrated that toxins from two separate strains of Bacillus thuringiensis are capable of persisting when introduced into a variety of soil types. By mixing Bt toxins with soils or soil components, they determined that the toxins bind to clays or humic acids in soils, and this binding process protects these compounds from microbial degradation, at least in a laboratory setting². They also found that the insecticidal activity of the toxins, as determined by bioassay, was not affected by being bound to the soil particles. In fact, in a couple of cases the insecticidal activity of the toxin increased after binding³. However, the stability of the toxin's insecticidal activity varied widely, depending largely on the properties of the soils used in the experiments. Soils with more neutral pH values displayed a significant decrease in toxin activity within as little as 14 days, whereas soils with a more acidic pH value retained insecticidal activity for as long as six months.

In their latest study, described in Nature, Stotzky and co-authors reported finding biologically active Bt toxin that was released from the roots of Bt corn into growth medium and the soil environment. When Bt corn was grown in sterile liquid medium, the presence of Bt toxin was detected in the medium by performing a commercial immunological assay and an insecticidal bioassay on tobacco hornworm larvae.

No such protein was found when the growth medium from the corresponding non-Bt corn variety was analyzed. When similar tests were performed on soil samples surrounding the rhizosphere of Bt corn seedlings, they found similar Bt toxin activity, which persisted in the soil for at least 25 days. They concluded that the toxin may accumulate in soil under continuous cultivation of Bt corn and suggested that this accumulation may lead to unanticipated impacts on non-target organisms in the soil.

At least one anti-biotechnology group is already using the results from this paper as evidence of the potential for Bt corn to create widespread environmental damage⁴. However, this article describes results that are preliminary at best, and, in the absence of hard data, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from this work. Ultimately, determining the impact, if any, of Bt corn on soil fertility will require additional and far more extensive research under field conditions before verifiable conclusions can be reached.

Sources

1. Saxena D, Flores S, and Stotzky G. 1999. Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn. Nature 402:480.

2. Crecchio C and Stotzky G. 1998. Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kuristaki bound to humic acids from soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30:463-470.

3. Tapp H and Stotzky G. 1998. Persistence of the insecticidal toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kuristaki in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30:471-476.

IN SEARCH OF HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER

"Critics of agricultural biotechnology have often been dismissed as modern-day Luddites," proclaims Michael Syvanen in his commentary published in Nature Biotechnology¹. Syvanen, a professor of medical microbiology and immunology at the University of California, Davis, defends the concerns of biotechnology opponents in his article titled, "In search of horizontal gene transfer." His commentary is offered in response to assertions made by several researchers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that horizontal gene transfer from plants to bacteria is not feasible. The FDA comment was referring to plant cells carrying antibiotic-resistance genes added to assist with the identification of transformed cells. These cells are eventually cultured into adult plants and released into the field.

The impact of horizontal gene transfer concerns agricultural biotechnology critics who claim that novel genes inserted into domesticated organisms might be transferred to wild organisms_an example would be the transfer of antibiotic resistance marker genes to soil bacteria. Studies supporting this argument are based on in vitro experiments, comparative gene frequency studies, and investigations of reproductive strategies².

Syvanen's studies of bacterial and plant phylogeny indicate horizontal gene transfer is involved in evolutionary change. His work consists of numerous genetic studies dating back to the early 1980's, including recent genomic investigations on Archaea. Other researchers have reported evidence that functional chunks of DNA persist in the environment, and that significant quantities of plasmid DNA survived passage through a mouse digestive system and even stayed intact after macrophage ingestion. Although Syvanen concedes there are no confirmed studies of this type of gene transmission occurring in nature, he cautions that laboratory studies are evidence enough to warrant concern.

A disturbing consequence of horizontal gene transfer in bacteria is the potential for antibiotic resistance and other traits carried on plasmids to migrate from one type of bacterium to another. Evidence suggests genomic DNA is transmitted in nature. In bacteria, conjugation is the most likely mechanism responsible for gene transfer. Also, evidence of transfer of genetic material between unrelated prokaryotes and between Archaea and prokaryotes early in the evolution of prokaryotes may be explained by conjugation and the uptake of environmental DNA. In the introduction to Horizontal Gene Transfer, a book co-authored by Syvanen and Clarence Kado, reference is made to experimental evidence for plasmid transfer between E. coli and actinomycetes, Agrobacterium, and cyanobacteria². The rapid diversification of eucaryotic evolution may have been accompanied by extensive gene transfer.

The possibility that gene transfer occurs between distantly related organisms such as bacteria and plants, or animals and plants, is the subject of speculation and debate. The most extensively studied mechanism of gene transfer from bacteria to plants is found in Agrobacterium, which readily transmits a plasmid that induces tumor development when incorporated into plants. Laboratory studies show that the bacteria are capable of transcribing and translating plant genes as well².

Transposon-like elements are likely vehicles for cutting and pasting genomic DNA from one organism to another. Jeffrey Palmer of Indiana University suggests that a genetic parasite resembling a transposon can carry or "jump" a segment of yeast DNA into higher plants. Clarence Kado, a plant pathologist who has collaborated with Syvanen, believes viruses may be responsible for transmitting genes between eucaryotes. Also, a few scientists suspect that viral transmission of regulatory genes was involved in the macroevolution of metazoa. It is also believed that viruses may be responsible for the origin of introns in eucaryotic DNA. In fact, the theory that viruses are responsible for transmitting traits between unrelated organisms suggests that horizontal gene transfer could be a common event.

Molecular evolution estimates indicate that horizontal gene transmission is more likely to occur in microorganisms and plants. However, animal studies also provide evidence of the horizontal transmission of Drosophila P-elements. Syvanen likewise believes that gene transfer is probable, though not common, in humans and other animals.

Syvanen argues that some of the gene frequency studies, such as those examining neomycin phosphotransferase, provide weak evidence of the dangers of gene transfer because, "This gene is already ubiquitous, so it is far from clear that its presence in genetically engineered plants will add substantially to the existing danger." Though biotechnology opponents may use the implications from Syvanen's work to justify limiting the employment of GMOs, Syvanen himself does not condemn using GMOs in the field. He states, "If horizontal transfer is found out to occur naturally, perhaps the most significant outcome would be the reshaping of our evolutionary paradigms." However, Syvanen does argue, "If and when experiments prove that horizontal transfer occurs, the implications will be debatable. In such a scenario, some vectors might indeed create an unacceptable risk."

Sources

1. Syvanen M. 1999. In search of horizontal gene transfer. Nature Biotechnology, 17(9): 833.

2. Syvanen M and Kado CI. 1998. Horizontal gene transfer. London: Chapman & Hall.

3. Syvanen M. 1994. Horizontal gene transfer: Evidence and possible consequences. Annual Review of Genetics 28:237-261.