Against the Genomic Misconception a plea for the Canadian product - oriented regulation of novel crops

Klaus Ammann, Prof. emeritus University of Bern, SwitzerlandGatersleben, January 14, 2014

Help FundamentalistsDonate Brain

Forgot what we are protesting

http://www.nearlygood.com/

We are programmed inmillions of years of evolution to be alarmed and act accordingly

What helps: Constant framingAnd moral self-licensing

Merritt, A.C., Effron, D.A., & Monin, B. (2010)Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 5, pp 344-357 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Fundamentalists/Merritt-Moral-Self-Licensing-2010.pdf

Map of history of movement of crops around the globe

Dubock, A.C. (2009)Crop conundrum. Nutrition Reviews, 67, 1, pp 17-20 <Go to ISI>://WOS:000261881200002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Golden-Rice/Dubock-Crop-Conundrum-2009.pdf

For the major crops, there is no indigenous original center of landraces existing

Defense of the Motherland...

A list of reasons and behavior for the anxiety of the population on GMOs

1. Moral self licensing2. Power of protest and industrial corporates, conspiracy

theories: Seed companies and revolving doors3. Framing processes4. Tribal Life5. Science of Fear: Evil always fascinates, Goodness rarely

entertains6. Semiotic views about Nature7. Science, Ethics and Religion: Halal, Sharia, Vatican,

Kosher Food, Amish Farmers7. Professional discourse of the second Generation8. Need for New World Visions

Amish farmers in biotech-debate: subsequent partial adoptionof transgenic crops: 1999, see: http://www.ifpri.org/2020conference/PDF/summary_ammann.pdf

Urban Myth

Genetic Engineering is fundamentally different from Natural Mutation

Wrong:Natural Mutation and Transgenesis areidentical on the molecular level

Ammann, K. (20120706)Genomic Misconception: A fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops, a plea for a process agnostic regulation New Biotechnology, in press, pp 32 http://www.ask-force.org/web/NewBiotech/Genomic-Misconception-20120706-names-def.pdf

NAS National Academy of Sciences, Kelman, A., Anderson, W., Falkov, S., Fedoroff, N., & Levin, S. (1987) Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment: Key Issues. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA, pp 24http://www.ask-force.org/web/NAS/NAS-Introduction-Recombinant-DNA-Engineered-Environment-1987.pdf

NAS National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, & National Research Council (2000) Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation, Prepublication and IS: ISBN: 0-309-06930-0, def: 0-309-50467-8 pp 290http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9795.html AND prepublication: http://www.ask-force.org/web/NAS/National-Research-Council-GM-Pest-Protected-prepublication-2000.pdf http://www.ask-force.org/web/NAS/NAS-Introduction-Recombinant-DNA-Engineered-Environment-1987.pdf AND final copy: http://www.ask-force.org/web/NAS/National-Research-Council-GM-Pest-Protected-def-2000.pdf

Genomic MisconceptionClearly declared in 1987By the US National Academies

No difference betweenconventional and transgenic crops

“There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of R-DNA techniques or in the transfer of genes between unrelated organisms”, and:

“The risks associated with R-DNA engineered organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction into the environment of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other genetic techniques.” and:

“Assessment of the risks of introducing R-DNA-engineered organisms into the environment should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it will be introduced, not on the method by which it was modified.”

Pontifical Academy of Science, Vatican

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez – Sorondo, Secretary

Prof. Dr. Werner Arber, PresidentNobel Laureate 1978

Interestingly, naturally occurring molecular evolution,i.e. the spontaneous generation of genetic variants hasbeen seen to follow exactly the same three strategies as those used in genetic engineering14. These three strategies are (after W. Arber, Nobel Laureate 1978)

(a) small local changes in the nucleotide sequences,

(b) internal reshuffling of genomic DNA segments, and

(c) acquisition of usually rather small segments of DNAfrom another type of organism by horizontal gene

transfer.Arber, W. (2002) Roots, strategies and prospects of functional genomics. Current Science, 83, 7, pp 826-828 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Mutations/Arber-Comparison-2002.pdf

Arber, W. (2010)Genetic engineering compared to natural genetic variations. New Biotechnology, 27, 5, pp 517-521 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Vatican-PAS-Studyweek-Elsevier-publ-20101130/Arber-Werner-PAS-Genetic-Engineering-Compared-20101130-publ.pdf

However, there is a principal difference between the procedures of genetic engineering and those serving in nature for biological evolution. While the genetic engineer pre-reflects his alteration and verifies its results, nature places its genetic variations more randomly and largely independent of an identified goal.After ca. 15 years of testing the GM crops are brought to the field by millions in a few years

Arber, W. (2002) Roots, strategies and prospects of functional genomics. Current Science, 83, 7, pp 826-828 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Mutations/Arber-Comparison-2002.pdf

Bau

do,

M.M

., L

yons

, R

., P

ower

s, S

., P

asto

ri, G

.M.,

Edw

ards

, K

.J.,

Hol

dsw

orth

, M

.J.,

& S

hew

ry,

P.R

. (2

006)

Tra

nsge

nesi

s H

as L

ess

Impa

ct o

n th

e T

rans

crip

tom

e of

Whe

at G

rain

Tha

n C

onve

ntio

nal B

reed

ing.

Pla

nt

Bio

tech

nolo

gy J

ourn

al,

4, 4

, pp

36

9-38

0ht

tp:/

/ww

w.b

otan

isch

erga

rten

.ch/

Org

anic

/Bau

do-I

mpa

ct-2

006.

pdf

Sh

ew

ry,

P.R

. &

Jo

ne

s, H

.D.

(20

05

) T

ran

sge

nic

Wh

ea

t: W

he

re D

o W

e S

tan

d a

fte

r th

e F

irst

12

Ye

ars

? A

nn

als

of A

pp

lied

Bio

log

y, 1

47

, 1

, p

p

1-1

4

htt

p:/

/ww

w.b

ota

nis

che

rga

rte

n.c

h/O

rga

nic

/Sh

ew

ry-P

erf

orm

an

ce-2

00

6.p

df

Baudo: comparison in genomic disturbance: GM crops are less disturbed (black dots) than classic breeds

Scatter plot representation of transcriptome comparisons, Baudo et al. 2006transgenic vs. controlendosperm 14 dpa

28 dpa 8 dpg

2 conventionallinesEndosperm14 dpa

28 dpa leaf at 8 dpg

transgenic vs. conventional Endosperm14 dpa

28 dpa leaf at 8 dpg

Institute of Radiation Breeding Ibaraki-ken, JAPAN http://www.irb.affrc.go.jp/

100m radius

89 TBqCo-60

source at the centerShielding dike 8m

high

Gamma Field for radiation

breeding

Better

spaghettis, whisky

1800 new plants

Radiation breeding as field experiments

Gamma Field for Radiation Breeding Radiation site for mutation breeding, Co-60 radioactivity source of 89 TBq in the center,

Radius of 100m.

In this radiation field a human being would receive 3 deadly Sievers units of radiation after the exposure times given below

89 TBq represents the 140-fold of all Radioactivity of material stored in the German permanent storage site of Morsleben insgesamt eingelagerten Radioaktivität.

3,5 min60 min

Was muss man sich darunter vorstellen?

Reuters, May 10, 2010

UN's International Atomic Energy Agency since 1963, 2,252 new plant varieties, including Italian durum wheat, have been created using radioactive substances such as cobalt and X-rays.

70% of the crops under cultivation worldwide are radiation mutation varieties

Charles Margulis of Greenpeace USA: "But now they tell us that scientists have been artificially hybridizing plants since the 1960s.That's, like, really uncool."

Activists, supported by Jane Rissler, called for a ban, since those irradiated varieties have never been tested for food safety, which would have wiped out 70% of the food products on shelfs.

Rissler:“Compared to these plants, genetically modified food is about as dangerous as a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.”

But excellent repair mechanisms working like zippers are reducing radiation damage considerablyAnd worldwide there has been no correlation established between radiation mutation and negative food safety facts. (Reuters 2001 continued)

Durum Wheat, Triticum durum: all major breedshave gone thoughmassive and inprecise radiation breeding, but withImportant successunnecessary fearmongering

FRANKENSTEIN

European Biosafety and the Cartagena ProtocolThe biosafety protocol is based on the wrong Premises: See Genomic Misconception in this slides: Natural Mutationand transgenesis are the same on the molecular level.

www.strangevehicles.com

In the European Union decision making process

is too complex, obscure and politically inefficient

System map of the principal issues, challenges and feedback loops in the risk management component of the legislation

EPEC-SANCO (2011)Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products under Directive 2001/18/EC Final Report, pp. 137. European Commission DG Sanco

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf

Innovation in agbiotech. (a) Location and sector of organizations conducting R&D for the 558 transgenic product quality innovations identified. Private sector consists of corporate and privately held firms. Public sector consists of government research laboratories, universities and nonprofit research institutes. (b) Annual entry, exit and the numbers of innovations active in the R&D pipeline were calculated from observations of the 558 innovations tracked in the primary survey. The number of active innovations stopped growing in 1998, after which those new innovations that entered were more likely to be published and less likely to move toward commercialization. Fig.1 from (Graff et al., 2009b).

Graff, G.D., Zilberman, D., & Bennett, A.B. (2009)The contraction of agbiotech product quality innovation. Nature Biotechnology, 27, 8, pp 702-704 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Graff-Contraction-Agbiotech-Innovation-2009.pdf

But the world has seldom seen a greater discrepancy between the inherent hazard of a product and the level of regulatory burdenimposed on it than exists today for crops improved through biotech. It is important, here, to be very clear: there is no basis in science for regulation specific to crops and foods improvedthrough biotech or ‘GMOs’

Giddings, V., Potrykus, I., Ammann K., & Fedoroff, N. (2012)Confronting the Gordian knot, Opinion. Nature Biotechnology, 30, 3, pp 208-209 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Giddings-Confronting-Gordian-Knot-2012.pdf

http://www.europabio.org/sites/default/files/position/120601_gm_approvals_status_may_2012.pdf#overlay-context=agricultural/positions/undue-delays-eu-approval-safe-gm-products

Genepeace,

Not Greenpeace

Seasons Greetings with a smile from AllahAttribution: Photo Courtesy of Faye Adams Copyright ©2010 Leona. All Rights Reserved http://eliot.stlwritersguild.org/wordpress/?cat=188

Genepeace,

Not Greenpeace

Seasons Greetings with a smile from AllahAttribution: Photo Courtesy of Faye Adams Copyright ©2010 Leona. All Rights Reserved http://eliot.stlwritersguild.org/wordpress/?cat=188