Topics

In their letter, UCCSNAL question the safety of CRISPR/Cas9 and other new biotechnologies as well as the influence of science in the decision-making process regarding the adoption of the new technologies. They fear that these technologies will further increase monopolistic powers over seeds, land grabbing and migration from the land and also have other, unanticipated impacts.

"The new technologies facilitate faster, more extensive changes in the genetic material of more organisms, and at lower cost", they argue. 

UCCSNAL demands a halt of all experimentation in this field. Rather, science should be based on acroecological techniques and local knowledges.

Open letter (English)
Open letter (Spanish)


 

The wild ancestor of commercial maize, teosinte, has been detected in Aragon, Catalonia and Navarra, Spain and is spreading as an invasive species in maize growing areas. In one region where growing maize is the main source of income for farmers, the teosinte population has already reached such a high density, that the local governments has issued and enacted a ban on maize cultivation to prevent teosinte from spreading further.

Since in Spain the transgenic maize MON810 is grown on more than 100’000 hectares, it is feared that teosinte could interbreed with MON810, potentially resulting in an invasive transgenic teosinte species. If the hybrids between MON810 and teosinte inherit the insect resistant trait from MON810 they are likely to show higher fitness compared to the native teosinte plants, thereby increasing the invasive potential. 

The fact that maize has no wild relatives in Europe to cross and interbreed with, was an important precondition for allowing genetically modified maize to be cultivated in the EU. Thirteen civil society organisations have now asked the EU Commission and the Spanish government to ban the cultivation of MON810 in 2016. 

Joint Media Release

Open letter to the Commission


 

 1) Roundup Ready crops increased the use of herbicides and triggered the development of glyphosate resistant crops
  • In the lead biotech countries, glyphosate use rose dramatically since the introduction of RR crops and also total herbicide use rose in those countries. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
  • Contrary in countries that do not cultivate RR crops, such as France, Germany and Switzerland a downward trend of pesticide use was observed. 8  
  • One of the main reasons for the increase in herbicide use in RR crop adopting countries is the widespread emergence of glyphosate resistant weeds, also referred to as ‘superweeds’, although Monsanto scientists originally rated such a development as ‘highly unlikely’.  1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

  • Superweeds not only force farmers to increase their herbicide application rates and apply additional herbicides but also to go back to the costly, time- and labour-intensive weed control measures, thereby increasing overall costs for weed management and eliminating the main advantage of RR crops.  1, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
  • Today there are 32 known weed species that have evolved resistance to glyphosate.  9
  • In 2012, one-third to fifty percent of the land planted to RR crops in the U.S. was infested with at least one glyphosate resistant weed and the trend is rising  21, 22
  • Glyphosate resistant weeds can lead to complete crop failure.  15
2) Increasing costs for seeds
  • In the U.S., overall seed prices rose rapidly since the introduction of GM crops  23 and this increase in seed price is not compensated with equally rising prices for crops.  21, 24
  • RR seeds are more expensive than conventional seeds  1, 21, 25
  • Biotech companies have implemented a ‘technology’ or ‘trait fee’, that is charged in addition to basic seed costs. This trait fee is also rising. 26
  • Non-GM seed prices are said to be artificially elevated to encourage farmers to continue buying GM crops.  27
  • Strict intellectual property rights prevent farmers from their customary habit of seed saving. Instead they have to purchase new seed every year from the biotech companies, which additionally results in higher costs for seed.  28
3) No clear yield increase
  • Herbicide tolerant crops are designed to kill weeds in order to approach the highest possible yield that the genetics of the crop allow. They do not have an increase yield potential compared to conventional varieties. Their value depends on pest pressure.  29, 20, 31, 32, 33
  • One of the most extensive literature reviews on yield contribution of GM corn, using 163,941 experimental trials conducted between 1997 and 2009 in the most important maize producing U.S. states, found no yield benefits for single herbicide tolerant traits.  32
  • Field studies conducted in the U.S. state Wisconsin from 1990-2010, show a lower average yield for glyphosate resistant maize compared to conventional maize.  34
  • In North America, yield benefits do neither in absolute numbers nor in their yield growth per year exceed those of Western Europe where as of today no RR crops are cultivated. This is also true for Spain, the only European country that grows herbicide resistant crops on a large scale.  8, 35, 36
  • The recorded increase of crop yields over the last 15 years is more likely to result from traditional breeding than from herbicide resistant crops and due to improvements of agricultural practices. 29, 30, 37, 38
  • Environmental parameters such as early season drought or reduced solar radiation at critical growth stages have a much bigger influence on yield than the type of hybrids used.  33
  • There is concern that the widespread use of glyphosate in RR cropping systems may impact crop growth, productivity and ultimately grain yield in that it decreases macro and micro nutrient uptake, translocation and accumulation, photosynthetic parameters and increases susceptability to certain fungal diseases such as Fusarium.  39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 Lower content of essential nutrients and altered seed composition can also have implications for animal and human health.
4) Adverse impact on farmland biodiversity
  • Results from the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE) of herbicide tolerant crops in the UK showed that management practices in herbicide resistant oilseed rape and beet compared to conventional oilseed rape and beet decrease overall weeds and weed seeds and can on the long term deplete seed stores beyond recovery. This was also shown to affect insects such as butterflies and bees and farmland birds that depend on weeds and weed seeds. 49, 50, 51, 52
  • The iconic Monarch butterfly that travels south to Mexico in fall to overwinter and back to North America in spring, producing multiple generations of new butterflies, is endangered. Named reasons for its vast decline of 90% in only 20 years are loss of overwintering sites due to illegal logging in Mexico, severe weather conditions and most importantly the loss of milkweed plants, the sole food of the larvae, associated with increased glyphosate use in RR crop fields.  53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
  • Sublethal effects of glyphosate on honeybees, key pollinators and extremely important for our food security, have been shown. 64, 65, 66 This demonstrates that only looking at lethal effects in environmental risk assessments is insufficient.
  • Glyphosate-based formulations have been shown to be toxic to many aquatic organisms such as algae, aquatic plants, protozoa, crustaceans, molluscs, amphibians and fish, each playing an important role for the functioning of an aquatic ecosystem. 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76
  • Adjuvants, whose function within herbicide formulations is to enhance the chemical and physical efficacy of the active ingredient, are more toxic to aquatic organisms than glyphosate alone. This shows that testing glyphosate alone in environmental risk assessments is insufficient. 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
5) Adverse impact on human health
  • In vitro, clinical and epidemiological studies have shown that glyphosate-based formulations possibly pose serious health hazards, including cell death, disruption of hormonal systems, DNA damage, cell cycle dysfunction and cancer, malformations and birth defects amongst others. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108
  • In 2015 the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) cancer agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”, citing different studies that reported increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other types of cancer such as skin tumours or the rare tumour renal tubule carcinoma 109, 110
References

(1)    Benbrook, C. M. (2012). Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years. Environmental Sciences Europe, 24(1), 24. doi:10.1186/2190-4715-24-24. For the numbers of herbicides applied to conventional and HR crop acres see Additional file 1: Tables 8, 9 & 10.
(2)    Carneiro, F. F., Rigotto, R. M., Da Silva Augusto, L. G., Friedrich, K., Campos Búrigo, A. (2015). Dossiê ABRASCO: um alerta sobre os impactos dos agrotóxicos na saúde . Rio de Janeiro: EPSJV; São Paulo: Expressão Popular, 2015. http://aspta.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/DossieAbrasco_2015_web.pdf
(3)    CASAFE (2014). Estudio de Mercado de Fitosanitarios 2013.http://www.casafe.org.ar/pdf/EstudioFitosanitarios.pdf

Is it or isn't it?

Cisgenesis, zinc finger nuclease technology, reverse breeding, oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis etc – the field of new techniques is broad and complex. New techniques or adaptations of existing techniques are constantly being added. The current political discussion, and the debate within public authorities or critics of genetic engineering, mostly focus on whether a particular technique or the product derived from it should be classed as genetic engineering or not, using the definition of genetic engineering set out in Art. 2.2 of the Release Directive (2001/18/EC) as a basis. In order to avoid too much technical detail, it is helpful to offer an initial categorisation of techniques based on their respective approach.

Category 1: Despite all claims to the contrary: "Classic" genetic engineering

Many of the new techniques are not really new, but correspond to techniques that have been established for over 20 years. This applies to both the breeding process and end products. Presently, attempts are being made to describe these techniques and their resulting products as conventional forms of breeding. Sometimes this even employs arguments brought to bear by the critics of genetic engineering. It is argued, for example, that unlike transgenesis, cisgenesis does not cross the species barrier and that the same results could therefore also be achieved through conventional breeding. The methods of transformation, however, clearly do represent forms of genetic engineering (particle bombardment or Agrobacterium tumefaciens). Even if the new gene originates from a species compatible for cross-breeding, it is impossible to predict where it will be integrated in the genome. This is what constitutes the risk inherent in this technique, in contrast to conventional breeding.

This category particularly includes the following procedures: Cisgenesis, intragenesis, floral dip and the use of genetically modified scions. Grafting onto genetically modified rootstock for commercial growing (not just during the breeding process) also falls within this category. It is incorrect to claim that harvested products (such as apples) derived from a scion grafted onto a GM parent plant do not constitute GMO. It is possible, for example, that proteins from the GM rootstock are transported to the non-GM scion; the phenotype of the scion and its product could therefore be altered. We believe the position of the Central Commission for Biological Safety (Zentrale Kommission für die Biologische Sicherheit, ZKBS), as outlined in their statement, to be unjustified; this demands that only GM rootstock should be classified as GMO and not the resulting harvested products (ZKBS, 2012:10). Even if no traces of transgenic or cisgenic DNA are found in the product, the principle of process-based evaluation which currently prevails in Europe mandates that the entire organism should be regulated as GMO, both for the purpose of growing these organisms and for labelling the resulting harvested crops.

Subcategories

010116 DNA

In the past decade, various new GM techniques have been developed. These include Oligonucleotide Directed Mutagenesis (ODM), Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology (ZFN) types -1, -2 and -3, TALENs, CRISPR-Cas9, Meganucleases, Cisgenesis & Intragenesis, Grafting, Agro-infiltration, RNA-dependent DNA methylation (RdDM), Reverse breeding, and more recently base editing and prime editing.

It is often claimed by the industry, some public-private research institutes and in the media, that genome editing techniques are more precise and hence safer than common transgenesis and that the products resulting from these techniques contain no foreign DNA and are thus not to be considered GMOs. What has become more precise with genome editing techniques such as CRISPR-Cas is where in the genome a double-strand break is inserted. What happens after the cut, how the cell repairs the double-strand break, and how a gene of interest is inserted, remains, however, still inadequately understood.

Hence, the process has been prone to errors, including the insertion of unwanted DNA-fragments and large DNA deletions or rearrangements, which can ultimately lead to proteins that are altered in their structure as reported in the scientific literature (so called on-target effects). Moreover, a growing number of studies have reported additional DNA cuts at further unintended places (off-target effects), although only a fragment of studies looks for such off-target effects. Furthermore, rarely discussed is that while the techniques have changed, the process of plant transformation has remained largely the same – a gene construct is introduced into a cell using a vector (commonly agrobacterium tumefaciens) or by particle bombardment – the risks basically remain the same as well. (See major publication by CSS and others on the issue)


010116 RR crops

Roundup Ready (RR) crops, developed by Monsanto, are crops genetically modified to confer resistance to glyphosate, the declared active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. That means that farmers can spray their fields with a single herbicide – Roundup, or any other glyphosate-based herbicide, throughout the whole growing season in order to eradicate troublesome weeds and without risking to harm their crops.

The industry claims that this farming system requires less skills and knowledge than the conventional farming system because farmers do not have to select among a range of herbicide active ingredients, carefully time their herbicide application and apply other non-chemical control practices such as plowing, deep tillage or manual weeding. Further promoted advantages and promises by the industry include that RR crops create more yield than conventional crops, decrease farmers input costs by reducing the amount of herbicides sprayed and are safe for humans, animals and the environment.

Upon their commercialisation in the mid-1990s, Roundup ready crops were adopted very quickly and reach saturation today in countries with large-scale industrial agricultural production such as the U.S., Argentina and Brazil. Europe, where family farms prevail, is until today still free from RR crop cultivation and Switzerland has a moratorium on the use of genetically modified organism in agriculture that is valid until the end of 2021. Worldwide, herbicide resistant crops, of which the vast majority are resistant to glyphosate, account for about 84%, of all cultivated genetically modified (GM) crops.

Despite the extensive adoption of RR crops in some countries, the claims made by the industry proved to be short lived or false during the past 20 years.


200216 Corn

Bt crops are genetically modified to confer resistance against certain insect pests. The inserted genes were originally identified in the bacterial species Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt). These bacteria exhibit insecticidal activity by producing different δ-endotoxins (Cry and Cyt toxins). For that reason, Bacillus thuringiensis spp. have long been used in biopesticides. In Bt crops, the insecticides are produced inside the plant and can, unlike traditional insecticides, kill insect pests feeding inside of plant tissues. Moreover, the toxins are not washed off or degrade by UV radiation. This caused concern that eating the crops may have adverse health effects.

The first Bt crop commercially available was Bt potato, resistant against the Colorado potato beetle, in 1995. Commercialisation of Bt cotton and maize followed in 1996. Bt maize is mainly cultivated in the USA, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa. A small quantity is also grown in Europe, mainly in Spain. Bt cotton is most common in India and China where it is the only GM crop authorised for cultivation.

Today, insect resistance is the second most common trait used in genetically modified (GM) crops, after herbicide tolerance, with 43% of all cultivated GM-crops being insect resistant.

The industry promised that Bt crops would result in higher yields and decrease insecticide applications. However, pests with resistance against certain Bt toxins have become a huge problem today. Low crop yield, high seed prices and crop loss due to resistant insect pests have been associated with farmers’ suicides in India.


160817 golden rice

Rice (Oryza sativa) has been genetically modified to produce beta-carotene in order to improve the supply of vitamin A.  Carotenoids are a precursor of vitamin A and give the rice its yellowish color and the name Golden Rice. Naturally, peeled rice grains contain no carotenoids.

With rice as a staple food for over half the world's population, the so-called Golden Rice should help combat vitamin A deficiency, a serious problem in different developing countries. 

The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is currently reviewing the characteristics of the genetically modified rice, including its safety and suitability for human nutrition.

Despite 25 years of research and development, no Golden Rice-varieties are available today that are suitable for commercial cultivation.