|
||
|
THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE 20 October 2004
Dear friends and colleagues, Re: Greenpeace reports on threats of GE rice GE crops cannot be contained once they are released into the environment. The latest crop under commercialization pressure is rice, which has many wild and weedy relatives. Growing it will very likely contaminate conventional and organic rice and threaten the livelihoods of millions of farmers. This is the message of a recently released report by Greenpeace (Item 1). The report cited studies which show that cultivated GE rice has out-crossed to non-GE rice. Apart from cross-pollination, it also cited the numerous ways in which GE rice can contaminate non-GE varieties. The report also highlighted the danger of GE rice engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, to the food chain and its impact on the environment and health of animals and humans. In another report, Greenpeace in citing experiences of other GE crops, believe that GE rice could cause harm to the environment and could prove costly for farmers. GE rice threatens the endangered populations of wild rice in Asia and could cause long-term damage to rice diversity upon which rice consumers all over the world depend. (Item 2) There are intense efforts to push for the commercial growing of GE rice in various countries, with China being the major country. The Chinese government is reported to possibly start the planting of GE rice as early as 2005, amidst grave concerns that such a move would contaminate a centre of origin and diversity of rice, and pose environmental and health risks. Greenpeace China is currently on a road show in Yunnan Province of China, which is a key center of rice growing in the world, to bring attention to the dangers of GE rice. A report on this initiative is posted below (Item 3). This is the International Year of Rice launched by the United Nations to promote the sustainable future of rice. Extreme caution must be taken to prevent GE rice from threatening that goal. With best wishes, Lim
Li Lin and Chee Yoke Heong Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Website: www.twnside.org.sg REF: Doc.TWN/Biosafety/2004/G Item 1 RICE AT RISK: WILL THERE BE A CHOICE WITH GE RICE? Introduction Proponents of genetic engineering argue that “co-existence” of genetically engineered (GE, sometimes called genetic modified, GM or transgenic) and non-GE rice is possible.They argue that countries, and even neighbouring farmers, will be able to produce and keep separate GE rice, non-GE (conventional), and organic rice for export and/or domestic consumption. However, there is strong evidence that co-existence for rice is not possible - GE contamination will occur. i. GE rice can’t be contained Cultivated rice has many wild and weedy relatives with which GE rice can, and will, cross pollinate.The main cultivated rice species, Oryza sativa, cross pollinates (outcrosses) and produces viable offspring with close wild relatives, notably O. rufipogon(Lu et al.2003). O. rufipogon is thought to be the ancestor of cultivated rice and is an endangered species in China (Gao 2004). However, it is also regarded as a weed in rice cultivation. In addition, weedy strains of O. sativa such as “red rice” occur where O.sativa is cultivated.This includes southern Europe and the USA where it is an important agricultural weed (NAPPO 2003; Messeguer et al.2004). These wild and weedy relatives grow in close proximity to cultivated rice. Hence, there is a large overlap between the areas of cultivated rice and the wild and/or weedy relatives of rice in many parts of Asia and other rice growing areas (Lu et al.2003). Cultivation of GE rice will cause these wild and weedy relatives to become contaminated with the GE transgenes (the GE DNA insert). Numerous studies now provide a substantial amount of scientific evidence for cultivated rice outcrossing to non-GE rice (e.g., Langevin et al.1990; Lu et al.2003; Gealy et al.2003; Chen et al.2004; Messeguer et al.2004; Song et al.2002, 2003, 2004; and NAPPO 2003). Cultivated varieties of rice have been shown to outcross with both wild rice species ( O. rufipogon and O. nivara) and weedy rice (mostly O. sativa, or red rice). Cultivated rice pollen has been recorded at a distance of over 100 metres (Song et al. 2004) from the source plants and gene flow (outcrossing) has been observed at a distance of 43 metres (Song et al.2003). However, a separation distance of only 10 meters is required between GE and non-GE rice fields in the USA, which is wholly inadequate to prevent GE contamination. Song et al. (2004) suggest an isolation distance of 100 m between GE and non-GE rice or close wild relatives and suggest that sugar cane may be planted as a buffer to reduce GE pollen dispersal. But, it is unclear how practical or effective these measures would be in areas where there are many small-scale producers, where neighbouring rice fields can be much closer than 100 m. In any case, isolation distances will not prevent GE contamination as there are many other routes for contamination to occur (see “Other routes of GE contamination” below). Outcrossing rates of rice are lower than those of maize or canola (oilseed rape), but they are still significant. Measured outcrossing rates vary from 0.04 % (Messeguer et al. 2004) between cultivated rice and 0.005-0.01 % for cultivated rice to weedy rice and 1.2-2.2 % to wild rice (Chen et al.2004). However, the persistence of weedy rice varieties means that these unwanted populations will become reservoirs for the escaped genes from GE rice. Rice seed has varied dormancy, but weedy rice has a stronger seed dormancy than cultivated rice (Gu et al.2003), increasing the potential for weedy rice populations to persist as reservoirs of GE transgenes that could contaminate future non-GE rice crops. As Messeguer et al. (2004) state: “Although the gene flow values are relatively low, the shattering and dormancy of the red rice seeds, which ensure their persistence in the field, lead into an undesirable effect of durability of the transferred genes.” Rice outcrossing already causes problems in rice cultivation. Red rice is a problem weed in many rice-growing regions of the world, contributing to extensive yield losses in some areas. Because of the problems that already exist with red rice, the prospect of herbicide-tolerant red rice is a stated fear for the rice-growing agricultural community (Danley-Greiner 2001). There are concerns that if red rice becomes tolerant to the herbicide used in conjunction with a GE herbicide-tolerant rice, it will become more difficult to control, and of course, will make the herbicide-tolerant variety useless for farmers (Gealy et al.2003; Chen et al.2004). We can conclude with certainty that gene flow from GE rice to non-GE rice, wild and weedy relatives will occur.The GE contaminated populations of wild and weedy species of rice are likely to be persistent, becoming reservoirs of GE transgenes for further contamination. ii Traditional varieties of rice threatened by GE contamination Traditional varieties of rice in Asia could become contaminated with GE transgenes if GE rice is grown. Transgene contamination has already been found in local traditional varieties of maize in Mexico (Quist and Chapela 2001; CEC 2004). GE maize imported into Mexico from the USA for food is now inadvertently being grown in Mexico and has resulted in contamination of local traditional varieties through outcrossing. Farmers in Mexico traditionally save seed from one harvest to the next; sowing and seed exchange between farmers is common. This is in contrast to the hybrid system where seed is bought each year from a seed merchant. The GE contamination in the traditional maize varieties will be highly difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate. It will persist in these local traditional varieties and can spread by seed exchange or crosspollination. The tradition of locally bred varieties and seed exchange is very similar for rice in parts of Asia. Therefore, just as traditional varieties of maize have been contaminated in Mexico, traditional varieties of rice could become contaminated with GE in Asia. GE contamination of locally bred traditional varieties is a cultural violation. GE contamination could have adverse effects on biodiversity (for example, if the GE contamination is from an insecticidal GE rice, such as Btrice). Importantly, it will remove farmers’ choice to grow non-GE rice by producing widespread GE contamination. iii Other routes of GE contamination Cross-pollination (outcrossing) of rice in the field is an important route of contamination but it is not the only way that non-GE varieties of rice could become contaminated.The potential for contamination unfortunately exists at many points along both the production and distribution chains. For example: · Human error. GE and non-GE rice may become mixed when seed and plants are transferred, for example during sowing; transplanting; harvesting; moving seed or labelling or storing seed and grain. In seed plots there can be planting errors. · Ineffective segregation.The infrastructure requirements for segregation of GE and non-GE rice are very high, much greater than the infrastructure currently available in many parts of the world.This lack of segregation capacity can lead to contamination of food supplies and seed stocks. · Trucks transporting GE rice can be the source of GE grains that fall on fields or roadsides during transport and loading.This means that even if GE rice is not cultivated but only imported, contamination of non-GE rice and its wild and weedy relatives could still occur. · Many small farmers do not own farm machinery and hire someone with a machine to do seeding or harvesting for them.The machinery may operate on several farms during a day or week. GE seed or a GE rice crop could contaminate a non-GE rice farm if the machinery is not specially cleaned in between farms. · Farmers often sell their rice through middlemen who gather rice from several farms together in one truck for transportation to processing plants (mills). If the truck mixes a single crop of GE rice into a non-GE consignment, it will become contaminated. Similarly, a non-GE rice consignment may be contaminated if the truck was previously used for a GE consignment and not carefully cleaned. · In many parts of Asia, farmers will grow multiple crops of rice, sometimes as many as three and a half crops in a year. It means they continue to grow rice without a break. Rice seeds that fall in the field during harvesting can germinate during the next cropping cycle. If the first crop is GE, but not the next, there is potential for contamination in the second crop. GE rice cannot be contained - there are so many routes that can cause GE contamination of non-GE rice.These routes can spread GE rice contamination over long distances and will affect all types of non-GE rice, including hybrid rice. Even if there were rigorous controls placed on the distribution, planting and transport of GE rice, GE contamination would still occur because of human error. GE rice contamination would be highly difficult to eradicate and would probably increase because of the persistence of populations of wild and weedy relatives, which would also become GE contaminated. iv Pharmaceutcal GE rice - a special threat Some crop plants, including rice, have been genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals (GE “pharm” crops). Box 1 shows some of the wide variety of compounds that are currently being engineered into rice plants. These pharm crops are not intended to be eaten by humans and animals, but to be used by drug companies or in industrial processes. The compounds produced by these plants are often biologically active chemicals and all are potentially toxic to animals and humans.The genetic engineering industry insists that they can produce these compounds by genetically engineering crops such as maize and rice and keep them out of the human and animal food supply. However, many people, including scientists, doubt that these pharm crops can be kept out of animal and human food supplies and are concerned about the possible consequences (see, for example Anon 2004). “Contamination of human foods with plant-made pharmaceuticals can occur through dispersal of seed or pollen. Wildlife, especially waterfowl, can transport seed for long distances, as can extreme weather events such as floods or tornadoes. Harvesting equipment can carry seed residues to conventional fields, seeds can be spilled from trucks, or unharvested seeds can sprout as volunteers amid the following year’s crop. Cross-pollination occurs at considerable distances in high winds or by insect, even with self-pollinating crops such as rice.”(Freese et al.2004). Moreover, widespread contamination of the non-GE (conventional) crop seed supply in the US increases doubts that GE pharm crops can be contained. As Freese et al.(2004) conclude: “When certified and even breeder seeds, whose cultivation is subject to extraordinary gene confinement measures, become contaminated, it becomes impossible to believe in 100% containment of pharm genes, no matter how stringent the gene confinement measures that are applied (including geographic isolation).” Pharm rice could pose a special threat to farmers saving their seed. Ellstrand (2003) considers a hypothetical example of a pharm crop genetically engineered to produce a non-edible, commercial, biochemical compound.The GE transgene producing the chemical is passed to wild or weedy relatives of the crop, which then act as a reservoir for the escaped transgene.This “reservoir” can then return the GE transgene back to the crop at a different place and time, resulting in GE pharm contamination. This becomes especially problematic if farmers follow the tradition of saving seed from one harvest for planting for the next.The frequency of the GE transgene could increase year-to-year as the seed is saved. Eventually, the concentration of the commercial biochemical compound could reach toxic levels in the harvested seed and have an impact on human health. As Ellstrand (2003) states, the scenario is very unlikely, but none of the steps are unrealistic.Therefore, if GE pharm rice ever became mixed with, or contaminated, local varieties of rice where seed is saved, it has the potential to have serious impacts on human health. Conclusion - co-existence is not possible Proponents of GE argue that “co-existence” of GE and non-GE rice is possible. Lessons from Mexico show that GE contamination cannot be prevented. There are several routes that can lead to the contamination of non-GE rice, and preventing contamination all along the production and distribution chain is impractical and impossible. This contamination will threaten traditional varieties and remove farmers’ choice. Rice must be protected and kept GE-free. Anon. 2004. Drugs in crops - the unpalatable truth. (Editorial) Nature Biotechnology 22: 133. CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation of the North American Free Trade Agreement) 2004. Maize and biodiversity: the effects of transgenic maize in Mexico http://www.cec.org/maize/index.cfm?varlan=english. <Accessed 28th August 2004> Chen, L.J., Lee, D.S., Song, Z.P., Suh, H.S. and Lu, B-R. 2004. Gene flow from cultivated rice (Oryza sativa) to its weedy and wild relatives. Annals of Botany 93: 67-73. Danley-Greiner, K. 2001. Researchers study potential risk of herbicide-tolerant red rice. 6 April. www.agweb.com. <Accessed 5 August, 2004> Ellstrand, N.C. 2003. Dangerous liaisons? When cultivated plants mate with their wild relatives. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Freese, B. 2002. Manufacturing drugs and chemicals in crops.Washington, D.C.: Friends of the Earth. http://www.foe.org/ <Accessed 28th August 2004> Freese, B., Hansen, M. and Gurian-Sherman, D. 2004. Pharmaceutical rice in California. Comments submitted to California Department of Health Services, California Environmental Protection Agency, and California Department of Food and Agriculture.Washington, D.C.: Friends of the Earth. http://www.foe.org/ <Accessed 28th August 2004> Gao, L. 2004. Population structure and conservation genetics of wild rice Oryza rufipogon (Poaceae): a region-wide perspective from microsatellite variation. Molecular Ecology 13:1009-1024. Gealy, D.R., Mitten, D.H. and Rutger, J.N. 2003. Gene flow between red rice (Oryza sativa) and herbicide-resistant rice (O. sativa): implications for weed management.Weed Technology 17: 627-645. Gu, X.Y., Chen, Z.X. and Foley, M.E. 2003. Inheritance of seed dormancy in weedy rice. Crop Science 43: 835-843. Langevin, S.A., Clay K. and Grace, J.B. 1990.The incidence and effects of hybridization between cultivated rice and its related weed red rice (Oryza sativa L.). Evolution 44(4): 1000-1008. Lu, B-R., Song, Z. and Chen, J. 2003. Can transgenic rice cause ecological risks through transgene escape? Progress in Natural Science 13: 17-24. Messeguer, J., Marfa,V., Catala, M.M., Guiderdoni, E. and Mele, E. 2004. A field study of pollen-mediated gene flow from Mediterranean GM rice to conventional rice and the red rice weed. Molecular Breeding 13: 103-112. NAPPO (North American Plant Protection Organization). 2003. Pest fact sheet - Oryza rufipogon Griff.Washington, D.C.: NAPPO. http://www.nappo.org/PRA-sheets/Oryzarufipogon.pdf <Accessed 28th August 2004> Quist, D. and Chapela, I.H. 2001.Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414: 541-543. Song, Z.P., Lu, B-R., Zhu,Y.G. and Chen, J.K. 2003. Gene flow from cultivated rice to the wild species Oryza rufipogon under experimental field conditions. New Phytologist 157: 657-665. Song, Z.P., Lu, B-R., Zhu,Y.G. and Chen, J.K. 2004. Pollen flow of cultivated rice measured under experimental conditions. Biodiversity and Conservation 13(3): 579-90.
Box 1 PHARMACEUTICAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPOUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INTO RICE PLANTS Lactoferrin Lysozyme Alpha-1-antitrypsin Dirigent protein Laccase Pinoresinol reductase Pinoresinol-lariciresinol reductase Secoisolariciresinol reductase Antithrombin Serum albumin Aminoglycoside 3’-adenylyltransferase CBI (the identity of many compounds are not divulged in applications, claiming this information as “confidential business information”) source: Freese 2002. Item 2 Genetically Engineered Rice: Not Sustainable Agriculture <http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/multimedia/download/1/602876/0/% 5Brice_report%5D_not_sus.pdf> INTRODUCTION The genetic industry is trying to commercialise genetically engineered (GE, sometimes called genetically modified, GM, or transgenic) rice because they believe GE rice will open the Asian engineering market to other GE crops (Brookes and Barfoot 2003). In the near future, herbicide-tolerant, insect and blight resistant GE rice could be commercialised. 1 VARIETIES OF RICE UNDER DEVELOPMENT There is a great deal of active research on GE rice (see Box 1). Most of these varieties are only at the earliest stages of development. For example, “Golden rice,” genetically engineered to produce pro-vitamin A (betacarotene), is still at the “proof of concept” stage (Coffman et al.2004). Two GE varieties that are tolerant to herbicides, however, could be commercialised in the near future. Monsanto is developing GE glyphosate (Roundup) tolerant rice and the pharmaceutical and agro-chemical giant, Bayer, has developed GE ammonium glufosinate (Liberty or Basta) tolerant rice, or LibertyLink rice. LibertyLink rice can be grown and sold in the US but is not commercially grown, presumably because of concerns regarding exports. Bayer has initiated an application for marketing GE LibertyLink rice as food and feed in the EU (EC Joint Research Centre 2003/4). GE rice varieties that are toxic to certain insects are also being developed. These most often contain the Bacillus thuringiensis( Bt) endotoxin gene, which is also used in GE Bt corn and cotton. The principal target pest for Bt rice is the yellow stem borer ( Scirpophaga incertulas). Other GE varieties that are being developed include: GE rice resistant to other major pests (such as brown planthopper); GE rice resistant to pathogens (bacterial blight, rice blast); biofortified rice (beta-carotene, iron and zinc); and rice resistance to abiotic stresses (drought, salinity, submergence) (Sharma et al. 2003; Jia 2004). Researchers are also pyramiding (or stacking) multiple GE genes into rice, trying to make GE rice that is resistant to multiple insects, or both disease and insect-resistant (Jiang et al.2004; Maqbool et al.2001). The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) estimates that most of these traits will only be available for commercial use in five to eight years. The only applications predicted to be commercially available in the short term are herbicide tolerant varieties, Bt rice, and rice resistant to bacterial leaf blight (Brookes and Barfoot 2003). 2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF GE HERBICIDE TOLERANT CROPS There are now eight years of experience with the commercial growing of GE crops in the USA. “Roundup Ready” soybeans were introduced in the mid-1990s; proponents claimed pesticide use would fall and the environment would benefit. Recent data, however, proves otherwise. Pesticide use in the USA has increased overall with GE crops (Benbrook 2003).Whilst there has been a reduction in insecticide use in the USA on Bt crops, this is small in magnitude compared to the vast increase in herbicide use and does not include the amount of insecticide produced by the GE Bt plants (Benbrook 2003). Herbicide usage has increased in the USA for several reasons, but primarily because several weeds are becoming tolerant to the herbicides used with herbicide-tolerant crops, notably glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, used with Roundup Ready crops (Benbrook 2003). There have been numerous reports from across the USA of new glyphosate tolerant weeds developing in GE crop fields (ISHRW 2004). Glyphosate tolerant weeds are now also being found in Argentina, Chile, Malaysia, Australia and South Africa (ISHRW 2004; Branford 2004). Feral stands of oilseed rape in Canada are found to be resistant to three different herbicides, contaminated by two GE herbicide tolerant varieties (Hall et al.2000).These oilseed rape plants have to be controlled with alternative herbicides, such as the notorious 2,4-D (Orson 2002). Hence, the cultivation of GE herbicide tolerant crops leads to increased usage of herbicides and ultimately, to the use of more aggressive herbicides. The increase in herbicide usage is highly likely to lead to decreases in wild plant abundance and diversity with damaging consequences for insects, birds, mammals and even humans that depend on those plants and associated food webs. Importantly, increased herbicide use also has cost implications for farmers. Herbicide tolerant crops, including GE herbicide tolerant rice, pose serious threats to the environment. In the long-term, herbicide resistant weeds will make GE herbicide tolerant crops a problem for farmers as well. 3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC DANGERS OF GE INSECT RESISTANT AND OTHER GE PEST RESISTANT CROPS There has been a lot of controversy regarding the impact of GE insect resistant Bt crops (e.g., Bt maize) on the environment, as well as the longterm economics of GE Bt crops. These controversies will also apply to GE insect resistant and other GE pest (e.g., bacteria, viruses) resistant rice. GE insect resistant and other GE pest resistant rice could cause considerable harm to ecosystems, including agro-ecosystems, by harming non-target species and further endangering wild rice populations. GE insect and pest resistant rice will create additional economic costs through the evolution of pest resistance to GE rice and the creation of more aggressive weeds. Non-target species may be harmed GE crops that produce Bt protein are intentionally toxic to certain organisms. Other GE varieties may be unintentionally toxic. In either situation, important organisms such as natural enemies of pests or soil organisms could be harmed by exposure to GE organisms. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the potential impacts of some varieties of GE Bt maize on the iconic monarch butterfly in the USA. Of course, there are also less photogenic but more ecologically significant insects that could be affected by GE Btcrops in the USA and elsewhere in the world, including by Btrice. However, hardly any studies on potential Bt toxicity from GE plants have been conducted in rice growing areas. Many regions where rice is grown are tropical or sub tropical and these tend to be rich in biological diversity. In highly biodiverse areas, it may not be possible to test even a fraction of the insect species that may be threatened by Bttoxicity because there are so many species that may be at risk - some may not even have been identified yet. Recent evidence from China demonstrates that GE Btrice pollen found in sufficient quantities on mulberry trees, poses a hazard to silkworms (Fan et al.2003). Such findings should be cause for serious concern. Ecosystems are complex and poorly understood. Impacts on one insect could have significant effects elsewhere in the ecosystem (Snow et al. 2004; Knols and Dicke 2003). “Negative non-target effects on one species or a group of species may cause a cascade of ecological changes that result in the disruption of biotic communities or in the loss of species diversity or genetic diversity within species.”(Snow et al.2004) The GE Bt toxin is persistent. It is known to remain for nearly a year in some soils (Stotzky 2002; Saxena et al.2002; Zwahlen et al.2003). It is not known what the short or long-term effects of the persistence of Bt produced by GE Bt plants could be: for example, will it accumulate in the field under certain conditions and reach highly toxic concentrations? GE Bt rice will raise the same questions that currently puzzle ecological scientists regarding the effects and impacts of GE crops on non-target species and ecosystem soil health. Pests can evolve to overcome GE insect resistant crops Many of the GE varieties of rice under development confer resistance to some type of plant pest or pathogen, whether insects, weeds, fungi, viruses or bacteria. Past experience (see, for example, Hillier and Birch 2002) in chemical control of organisms would indicate that insects, weeds, or pathogens will also eventually develop resistance to GE varieties of rice: for example, the yellow stem borer developing resistance to GE Bt rice. Resistance development will bring about a range of consequences - from ecological impacts to economic losses. “It is widely assumed that resistance to transgenic Bt crops will occur. Loss of Bt-based controls because of the evolution of resistance would probably increase use of insecticides that are more harmful to the environment or human health in some crops.”(Ecological Society of America, Snow et al.2004) In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has complex requirements for planting of GE Bt refugia (areas of non Bt corn) to slow down the build up of insect resistance (USEPA 2001). However, there have been concerns that these requirements may not be enough (Knight 2003). In addition, refugia may not be practical on small farm holdings in Asia and elsewhere, which are very different to the large acreages planted in the USA, a problem identified with Btcotton in India (Jayaraman 2002). Evolution of resistance to Btin insects means that the GE Btcrop will stop being effective at controlling the insect pest and the GE crop will eventually require increased insecticides. Who will pay the price when these GE products fail? Unfortunately it will be farmers and the environment. More aggressive weeds can be created Outcrossing has been shown to occur between rice and wild and weedy relatives (e.g., Langevin et al.1990; Lu et al.2003; Gealy et al.2003; Chen et al.2004; Messeguer et al.2004; Song et al.2003). Some varieties of GE rice, for example, insect resistant ( Bt) or virus resistant rice, may have a fitness benefit compared to non-GE rice. If these GE varieties outcross with wild or weedy rice, they could create wild or weedy relatives with increased ecological fitness that then become more abundant and aggressive. “If the transgenes are responsible for resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses (such as disease and insect resistance, drought and salt tolerance, and herbicide resistance) that can significantly enhance the ecological fitness of weedy and wild populations, the escape of these transgenes will probably cause ecological problems, e.g., producing aggressive weeds. Such weeds might get out of human control, and result in unpredictable damage to local ecosystems.”(Chen et al.2004). Wild rice populations and crop genetic diversity could be further endangered GE rice could have an impact on populations of the wild ancestor of rice, Oryza rufipogon, which is an endangered species in China (Gao 2004). This could happen either by swamping of populations by GE contaminated rice with an ecological advantage (for example, GE Bt rice) or by integration of a gene that ultimately proves detrimental to the wild rice. According to Chen et al.(2004): “When transgenes escape to and persist in populations of wild relative species, the fast dissemination of the transgenic hybrid individuals might contaminate the original wild populations. Sometimes, the aggressive spreading of hybrids with better ecological fitness could even lead to the extinction of endangered wild species populations in local ecosystems.” As with all GE crops, there is a serious threat to crop diversity. Crop genetic diversity is important for food security. For example, if a disease sweeps through the rice population worldwide, locally bred traditional varieties could be of great importance to breed or locate resistant varieties. If GE rice were responsible for the extinction of traditional varieties, rice consumers all over the world would suffer the consequences. Therefore, the importance of GE contamination of centres of origin or diversity for crops cannot be underestimated. 4 IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO CROP DIVERSITY - LESSONS FROM MEXICO Gene flow from GE plants could affect the genetic diversity of traditional locally bred varieties or landraces of crop plants. One of the worst-case scenarios of genetic engineering contamination is already happening in Mexico, where local varieties of a major food crop, maize, have become contaminated with GE maize (Quist and Chapela 2001; CEC 2004).There are many parallels and similarities between the Mexico GE maize contamination case and the possible GE contamination of rice in Asia if GE rice is commercialised. “These issues that have emerged for maize in Mexico are likely to be relevant to other countries and food crops, including rice.” Bellon and Berthaud (2004) Mexico is a centre of origin and diversity for maize. Maize was first domesticated in Mexico and many locally bred varieties are grown. Similarly, rice was domesticated in Asia and many locally bred traditional varieties of rice are grown across Asia. Just as Mexico is a centre of origin and diversity for maize, so is Asia a centre of origin and diversity for rice. Mexico has a complete prohibition on the planting of GE maize in place because of the concerns about the danger GE maize poses to the maize centre of diversity. Despite this prohibition, GE maize has been found contaminating traditional farmer varieties of maize.The contamination probably occurred originally because GE maize imported from the USA for food and animal feed was unwittingly planted by farmers (Quist and Chapela 2001; CEC 2004). Growing the GE maize has now resulted in contamination of local traditional varieties through cross-pollination.This GE contamination will be extremely difficult, or maybe impossible, to eliminate. GE contamination of traditional varieties poses a particular threat to community seed supply systems. It is a traditional practice for farmers in Mexico to save seed from one harvest to the next sowing and seed exchange between farmers is common (in contrast to the hybrid system where seed is brought from a seed merchant each year). As the GE contamination case in Mexico has shown, once contaminated, farmers will inadvertently exchange GE contaminated seeds, which will enter supplies of saved seed. The tradition of locally bred varieties and seed exchange is very similar for rice in parts of Asia. Similar to Mexico, if GE rice is commercialised and traditional varieties of rice become GE contaminated, the contamination will be very difficult to eradicate and will persist and spread through traditional practices. “Given that farmers’ practices in some traditional rice systems encourage gene flow between different types of rice, it is very likely that if these farmers plant transgenic [GE] rice, some gene flow to other varieties and species can be expected.” Bellon and Berthaud (2004) CONCLUSION GE rice is not sustainable agriculture. The evidence demonstrates that GE crops cause harm to the environment and GE rice could prove costly for farmers. GE rice threatens the endangered populations of wild rice in Asia and could cause long-term damage to rice diversity upon which rice consumers all over the world depend. Therefore, GE rice should not be commercialised and all field trials should be discontinued. “Transgene escape from cultivated rice varieties to their weedy and wild relatives through gene flow has become an indisputable fact. There is, therefore, an urgent need for a thorough assessment of the ecological consequences of transgene escape, including such aspects as the ecological fitness of the hybrids and progeny of cultivated and wild rice, the density and establishment of escaped genes in wild populations, and their impact on general biodiversity.” (Chen et al. 2004) References Bellon, M.R. and Berthaud, J. 2004.Transgenic maize and the evolution of landrace diversity in Mexico: the importance of farmers’ behavior. Plant Physiology 134: 883-888. Benbrook, C.M. 2003. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the United States: the first eight years. AgBioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 6. www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper6.html. <Accessed 11 August 2004> Branford, S. 2004. Argentina’s bitter harvest. New Scientist (17 April): 40-43. Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. 2003. GM rice:Will this lead the way for global acceptance of GM technology? ISAAA Briefs No. 28. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation of the North American Free Trade Agreement) 2004. Maize and biodiversity: the effects of transgenic maize in Mexico. http://www.cec.org/maize/index.cfm?varlan=english. <Accessed August 28th 2004> Chen, L.J., Lee, D.S., Song, Z.P., Suh, H.S. and Lu, B-R. 2004. Gene flow from cultivated rice (Oryza sativa) to its weedy and wild relatives. Annals of Botany 93: 67-73. Coffman, R., McCouch, S.R. and Herdt, R.W. 2004. Potentials and limitations of biotechnology in rice. FAO rice conference, Rome, Italy, 12-13 February. http://www.fao.org/rice2004/en/pdf/coffman.pdf. <Accessed August 28th 2004> European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) 2003/4. Deliberate releases and placing on the EU market of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/. <Accessed 11 August 2004> Gao, L. 2004. Population structure and conservation genetics of wild rice Oryza rufipogon (Poaceae): a region-wide perspective from microsatellite variation. Molecular Ecology 13: 1009 -1024. Fan, L.J.,Wu,Y.Y., Pang, H.Q.,Wu, J.G., Shu, Q.Y., Xu, M.K. and Lu, J.F. 2003. Btrice pollen distribution on mulberry leaves near ricefields. Acta Ecologica Sinica 23(4): 826-833. Gealy, D.R., Mitten, D.H. and Rutger, J.N. 2003. Gene flow between red rice (Oryza sativa) and herbicide-resistant rice (O. sativa): implications for weed management.Weed Technology 17:627-645 Hall, L.,Topinka, K., Huffman, J., Davis, L. and Good, A. 2000. Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers.Weed Science 48: 88-694. Hillier, J.G. and Birch, A.N.E. 2002.Travelling waves of resistance in a bi-trophic pest adaptation model. Journal of Theoretical Biology 219: 507-519. ISHRW (International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds). 2004. http://www.weedscience.org/Case/Case.asp? ResistID=5192 <Accessed August 28th 2004> Jayaraman, K.S. 2002. Poor crop management plagues Btcotton experiment in India. Nature Biotechnology 20: 1069. Jia, H. 2004. China ramps up efforts to commercialise GM rice. Nature Biotechnology 22: 642. Jiang, G.H., Xu, C.G.,Tu, J.M., Li, X.H., He,Y.Q. and Zhang, Q.F. 2004. Pyramiding of insect-and disease-resistance genes into an elite indica, cytoplasm male sterile restorer line of rice, ‘Minghui 63.’ Plant Breeding 123(2): 112-116. Khush, G.S. and Brar, D.S. No date. Biotechnology for rice breeding: progress and impact. Rome, Italy: UN Food and Agriculture Organization, www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4751E/y4751e04.htm. <Accessed 5 August 2004> Knight, J. 2003. Agency “ignoring its advisors” over Btmaize. Nature 422: 5. Knols, B.G.J. and Dicke, M. 2003. Btcrop risk assessment in the Netherlands. Nature Biotechnology 21:973-974. Langevin, S.A., Clay K. and Grace, J.B. 1990.The incidence and effects of hybridization between cultivated rice and its related weed red rice (Oryza sativa L.). Evolution 44(4): 1000-1008. Lu, B-R., Song, Z. and Chen, J. 2003. Can transgenic rice cause ecological risks through transgene escape? Progress in Natural Science 13: 17-24. Maqbool, S.B., Riazuddin, S., Loc, N.T., Gatehouse, A.M.R., Gatehouse, J.A. and Christou, P. 2001. Expression of multiple insecticidal genes confers broad resistance against a range of different rice pests. Molecular Breeding 7: 85- 93. Messeguer, J., Marfa,V., Catala, M.M., Guiderdoni, E. and Mele, E. 2004. A field study of pollen-mediated gene flow from Mediterranean GM rice to conventional rice and the red rice weed. Molecular Breeding 13: 103-112. Orson, J. 2002. Gene stacking in herbicide tolerant oilseed rape: lessons from the Northern American experience. English Nature Research Reports no. 443. Peterborough, UK: English Nature. Available at <http://www.englishnature/> http://www.englishnature. org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/enrr443.pdf. <Accessed August 28th 2004> Quist, D. and Chapela, I.H. 2001.Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414: 541-543. Saxena, D., Flores, S. and Stotzky, G. 2002. Bttoxin is released in root exudates from 12 transgenic corn hybrids representing three transformation events. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 34: 133-137. Sharma, M., Charak, K.S. and Ramanaiah,T.V. 2003. Agricultural biotechnology research in India: status and policies. Current Science 84: 297-302. Snow, A.A., Andow, D.A., Gepts, P., Hallerman, E.M., Power, A.,Tiedje, J.M. and Wolfenbarger, L.L. 2004. Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: Current status and recommendations. Ecological Society of America Position Paper. Ecological Applications (in press) http://www.esa.org/pao/esaPositions/. <Accessed August 28th 2004> Song, Z.P., Lu, B-R., Zhu,Y.G. and Chen, J.K. 2003. Gene flow from cultivated rice to the wild species Oryza rufipogon under experimental field conditions. New Phytologist 157: 657-665. Stotzky, G. 2002. Release, persistence, and biological activity in soil of insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis. In: Letourneau, D.K. and Burrows, B.E. (eds.), Genetically engineered organisms: assessing environmental and human health effects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2001. Biopesticides Registration Action Document for the Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt) Plant-Incorporated Protectants.Washington, D.C.: Office of Pesticide Programs, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, EPA. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad.htm. <Accessed August 28th 2004> Zwahlen, C., Hilbeck, A., Gugerli, P. and Nentwig,W. 2003. Degradation of the Cry1Ab protein within transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn tissue in the field. Molecular Ecology 12: 765-775. greenpeace international Ottho Heldringstraat 5, 1066 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands t +31 20 514 8150 f +31 20 514 8151 © GREENPEACE/DANG NGO GENETICALLY ENGINEERED RICE - NOT SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE BOX 1: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED RICE VARIETIES IN DEVELOPMENT traits projected to be commercially available by 2005 Glyphosate tolerance Glufosinate tolerance Resistance to bacterial blight (Xa21 gene) Resistance to stem-borers (Bt genes) traits projected to be commercially available after 2009 Virus resistance Blast and sheath blight resistance (chitinase, PR5) Resistance to other insects such as brown plant hopper (protease inhibitors, lectins) Biofortification - beta-carotene, iron bioavailability, zinc Abiotic stresses - drought and salt tolerance, submergence Yield source: Brookes and Barfoot (2003); Khush and Brar (no date).
Item 3 Rice at risk 16 October 2004 CHINA/Yunnan Province http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/features/details?item_id=616740 Rice has been a grown around the world for over 10,000 years, it is cultivated in 113 countries and 3000 million people rely on it as a staple food. All of this is in danger as the spectre of genetic engineering creeps up on the planet’s most important food crop. It appears the Chinese government could start the planting of genetically engineered (GE) rice as early as 2005. What is for sure is that the GE industry must be cheering on the Chinese Government on GE rice as this will no doubt encourage the rest of Asia to go GE. So why are they taking this risky step, are they tackling a major problem with their domestic rice crops? Not that we can see. Will it increase yields? Not if it follows the patterns of current lower yielding GE crops. Will it endanger the thousands of strains of non-GE rice in China? Certainly. China is home to rice and still possesses one of the richest genetic diversities of rice in the world - boasting some 75,000 strains. Not only is rice vital to China’s food supply but it is also at the heart of its culture - as with most of Asia. GE rice threatens all of this. So it seems ironic that while China develops GE rice, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is celebrating 2004 as ‘The International Year of Rice’ and World Food Day under the slogan that ‘Rice Is Life’. “No one, except a few GE scientists and government officials, knows that GE rice may reach their rice bowls soon,” said Sze Pang Cheung, Campaign Manager of Greenpeace China. “This is scandalous as rice is the staple diet for most Chinese people and it is the source of livelihood for more than 100 million farmers.” If GE rice is grown in the field, it will contaminate local varieties. Research by Chinese scientists has found that the pollen of GE rice may spread as far as 110 meters. “If rice is life, GE rice is a gamble with our life. Moreover, GE rice can multiply and spread once released into the environment. It is a gamble with no way back,” Sze commented. To make matters worse, under Chinese regulation, there is no requirement for the public to be informed and consulted before a GE crop is approved for commercialisation. Once an application reaches the Ministry of Agriculture, the ministry will commission research institutes to carry out environmental and safety assessments, which usually last from three to six months. Commercialisation of GE rice in China would have regional and global impact. It is widely believed that India, the second largest producer and consumer of rice, and other rice producing countries (Thailand and Vietnam), may follow China’s footsteps if it commercialises GE rice. The GE industry also hopes that commercialisation of GE rice will open up the gate to other GE crops in Asia, the most important global market for the GE industry.
The way ahead During this International Year of Rice the UN has called upon different stakeholders in the world to promote the sustainable future of rice. Here at Greenpeace we are taking this very seriously and have already organised a cyberaction sending letters to officials at the FAO to remind them that rice needs to be protected from GE at all costs - over 5400 letters have been sent. “The future of rice should stay in the hands of those for whom rice is life, not a few GE scientists and officials,” said Sze. “If we are to promote the sustainable future of rice farming, GE rice is simply not the answer.” As well as the cyberaction the “The Rice is Life Tour” in Yunnan province is taking place between 16-24 October, which has the richest diversity of rice in China. For eight days we are travelling the province with journalists, rice experts and people concerned about GE rice from Denmark, UK, Hong Kong and mainland China. During the tour we will be looking for the best ways to ensure the sustainable development of rice and safeguarding cultural traditions in the heart of one of the world’s homelands of rice. Rice farmers need to understand that the short-term productivity gains from new technologies - such as GE - are not sustainable and have will have a serious economic and cultural impact on their lives. Despite what the biotech cheerleaders say alleviating poverty and feeding the world requires more than a technological solution. GE rice does not solve these problems. The environmental release of artificial life forms into the environmental will lead to inevitable and irreversible damage, which will in turn undermine food security and sustainable agriculture in the future.
Find out more: Check out regular updates from the Yunnan Tour in Chinese and in English Learn more about the threat of GE rice in Asia, tell your friends. Read: Rice at Risk: Will there be a choice with GE Rice? Read: Genetically Engineered Rice: Not Sustainable Agriculture
|
||
