-Caveat Lector- DO WE WANT OUR SPUDS SPICED WITH TOAD GENES ? New Zealand Herald 3-12-98 Genetic engineers are about to learn whether they will be allowed to slip synthetic toad genes into potatoes. PETER WILLS says we should be concerned about these experimental programmes. Last month the new Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) held hearings in Wellington about a proposal from the Institute for Crop and Food Research to grow plots of potatoes containing a synthetic gene that encodes an antibiotic toxin from the African clawed toad. The experimental program is designed to discover whether production of the toad antibiotic in potatoes protects them against the troublesome soft rot that plagues growers and distributors. Most people are unaware of how easy genetic engineering has made it to mix and match genes from creatures belonging to completely different biological kingdoms. And when they are told about it they are assured that the process is really no different from the techniques of selective breeding which humans have been engaging in for thousands of years. Genetic engineering speeds up the process and is much more precise, we hear. Crop and Food scientists are sure that potatoes lack something very important and desirable - genes that confer resistance to soft rot. But not to worry, they have set that right using information that can be found on the internet about the gene from the African clawed toad, and now the genetic diversity of potatoes has been increased by the addition of a synthetic gene encoding the toad toxin. They even describe the synthetic gene as a new potato gene. ERMA has to decide whether Crop and Food should be allowed to grow plots containing 150 different lines of genetically modified potatoes during each of the next five years. Some of the spuds are to produce a toxin found in the giant silk moth rather than the toad, others an enzyme from a "phage", a sort of virus that attacks bacteria, and still others Bt insecticide toxins derived from the bacterium which was used to great effect in Auckland against the white-spotted tussock moth. The application from Crop and Food stated that all the transgenic potato lines were produced essentially following their standard transformation protocols, but it turns out that most of the potatoes, perhaps three or four hundred different varieties, have not yet been produced at all. The Institute's legal counsel argued that an application under the new Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act was like a request for a discharge under the Resource Management Act. You shouldn't have to specify every occasion on which you are going to discharge waste, or the exact composition of the waste, provided the levels of chemicals are within certain limits. So, they argue, you shouldn't be required to have already created all the modified potatoes you want to grow. One of the problems with currently available techniques for genetic engineering is that when you introduce a new gene into an organism, the DNA can become inserted at essentially any point in the organism's chromosomes. The genetic engineer lets this happen more or less at random and then looks for transformed organisms that seem to behave normally, those whose genetic structure has probably not been seriously disrupted by introduction of the new foreign gene. The Crop and Food application is designed to cover billions of such possibilities. It is not possible to test many important characteristics of transformed potatoes before they are field tested in open experimental plots. For one thing, potato plants don't usually flower when grown in a containment glasshouse. This means there is considerable uncertainty concerning the possible characteristics of modified potatoes even after they have been produced and grown in containment. However blanket approval is being sought to grow open plots of potato lines that haven't yet been created, let alone met the limited tests of normality that can be conducted in a glasshouse. No-one denies that the proposed experiments run a risk of "genetic escape" but the probability of the toxin genes being transferred into other organisms in the wild is claimed to be minuscule. It is up to ERMA to decide whether the benefits of the experiments outweigh the risks. In making their judgment, the HSNO Act directs them to "take into account the need for caution in managing adverse effects where there is scientific or technical uncertainty". This is an expression of the precautionary principle that was incorporated into the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. What approach would New Zealanders like to see ERMA adopt in reaching its decision? A special advisory group, Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao, has been set up to look after Maori interests and comment on Treaty issues. The group noted in its report that some of the general concerns about genetic engineering raised in public submissions to ERMA were similar to those likely to be raised by Maori, but tangata whenua cannot be lumbered with the task of acting as a conscience for the whole of society. The Maori attitude to indigenous flora and fauna obviously differs from the attitude of scientists to "biodiversity", as the living world is now called in official circles. If I sequenced the gene encoding the katipo toxin, inserted a modified version into kumara which I then wanted to grow in experimental plots with a view to testing the vegetables as possum bait, great weight would be given to the statutory role of Nga Kaihautu in protecting the status of katipo and kumara as taonga. However genetic engineers do not regard the provenance of evolution as a treasure, the integrity of which they have a responsibility to preserve. In New Zealand we allow the transfer of genetic information from the African clawed toad into potatoes to be carried out in an ethical void. We are all complicit. While tangata whenua act to protect and preserve the whakapapa of their valued taonga, we allow genetic engineers to reduce the evolutionary tree of life to a jumbled heap of broken twigs. In fact, the government is right behind such activity and foreign corporations are given liberal access to New Zealand as a testing ground for their genetically engineered products. When scientific and technological innovation produces applications with far-reaching social, political and economic consequences, all sorts of ethical questions that need careful consideration and debate come to the fore. At the very least, ERMA needs an Ethics Committee, analogous in its mode of function to Nga Kaihautu, which can advise on the attitude of New Zealanders to a range of questions concerning the effects of genetic engineering. More desirable, and in addition, we should have a full public enquiry, a Royal Commission, before whom members of the public can express their attitudes about modern biotechnology. In the meantime, as a precautionary measure, we should declare a moratorium on the release of all genetically modified organisms into the environment. * * * * Dr Peter Wills is an associate professor, Department of Physics, University of Auckland ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
