GENETIC MISCONCEPTION and SUSTAINABLE PRACTICE



"The most important argument for convincing the public and decision-makers about the value of genetic engineering of food has been the claim that it will produce new, valuable crops that may contribute importantly to the solution of the world hunger. Does this have scientific support?

There is not any one single gene known to be responsible for such productivity enhancing properties as high yield, increased nitrogen fixation, increased hardiness, etc."

Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology

www.psrast.orghttp://www.psrast.org

Dr. David Bellamy, Biologist and Broadcaster, London, UK

called for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; and for patents on organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned [1].

1.Patents on life-forms are allowing corporations to plagiarise indigenous knowledge and plunder genetic resources from Third World communities, and at the same time, increasing corporate monopoly on food which is destroying livelihoods of family farmers all over the world.

2.It is becoming increasingly clear that the current GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous diversion from the real task of providing food and health around the world.

3. The promises to genetic engineer crops to fix nitrogen, resist drought, improve yield and to 'feed the world' have been around for at least 30 years. Such promises have built up a multibillion-dollar industry now controlled by a mere handful of corporate giants.

4.The miracle crops have not materialised. Instead, two simple characteristics account for all the GM crops in the world [2]. More than 70% are tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides, with companies engineering plants to be tolerant to their own brand of herbicide, while the rest are engineered with bt-toxins to kill insect pests. A total of 65 million acres were planted in 1998 within the US, Argentina and Canada. The latest surveys on GM crops in the US, the largest grower by far, showed no significant benefit. On the contrary, the most widely grown GM crops -herbicide-tolerant soya beans - yielded on average 6.7% less and required two to five times more herbicides than non-GM varieties [3].

10. The letter from UK MAFF to US FDA also mentions new findings that the human mouth contains bacteria capable of taking up and ??lt;/span>expressing naked DNA containing antibiotic resistance marker genes and similar transformable bacteria are also present in the respiratory tracts [23].

11. That both regulatory authorities have failed to consider is that transgenic pollens, which may have increased allergenicity and toxicity besides, will almost certainly spread far afield to the general public. Similarly, the current unregulated practice of feeding farm animals transgenic grain and plant remains, and transgenic wastes, both ensilaged and otherwise, is endangering the health of farm animals and of human beings in spreading antibiotic resistance marker genes and other transgenic DNA.

12. Serious health concerns are also raised by the cauliflower mosaic viral (CaMV) promoter in transgenic DNA. The CaMV promoter, widely used in expression cassettes of transgenes, is known to contain a 'recombination hotspot'. One usual mechanism of recombination involves the double-stranded DNA breaking and joining with other double-stranded DNA. This has been identified as the mechanism generating many different lines of transgenic rice during a routine transformation experiment. Extensive recombination at the hotspot has taken place in the absence of the viral recombinase, indicating that the host plant cell can catalyse such recombinations [24]. Thus, the CaMV promoter has an enhanced capability to transfer horizontally, with potentially dangerous consequences.

13. CaMV is closely related to human hepatitis B virus, and also has a reverse transcriptase gene related to that in retroviruses such as the AIDS-associated HIV [25]. Thus, the CaMV promoter not only enhances horizontal gene transfer, but has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses (which are in all genomes) and to generate new viruses by recombination.

[The British Medical Association, in their interim report (published May, 1999), called for an indefinite moratorium on the releases of GMOs pending further research on new allergies, the spread of antibiotic resistance genes and the effects of transgenic DNA. This position is fully in accord with the precautionary principle].

14.Contrary to the claims of the UK Government, no useful results can be obtained in the current massive 'farm scale' trials of transgenic herbicide-tolerant oil-seed rape and maize where the spread of transgenic pollens cannot be controlled, and which make no attempts to monitor for horizontal gene transfer or for impacts on health [26].

15. Research into sustainable, non-corporate agricultural systems which do not involve GM crops should be widely supported. Many of these systems have already resulted in increased yield and income for family farmers, diminished environmental impacts, and improvements in nutrition and health for all [27].

THE NATURE OF THE NEW POLLUTION

SILENT SPRING

"The most alarming of all man’s assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials" (6).

Carson singles out chemicals and radiation. A dangerous and unexpected vulnerability where we might least expect it -- in the triumphant use of new chemicals to expand the food supply -- inherent in the nature of techno-economic progress, in other words. Dangerous characteristics of this new pollution

:

1.They are capable of "changing the very nature of the world -- the very nature of its life" (6).

2."the chain of evil it initiates" in the world and in living tissues "is for the most part irreversible" (6).

3. A catastrophe may already have occurred -- the future may be foreclosed by what we have already done: "We all live under the haunting fear that something may corrupt the environment to the point where man joins the dinosaurs as an obsolete way of life . . .our fate could perhaps be sealed twenty or more years before the development of symptoms" (188)

Compare the entire worldview here to the fear of nuclear annihilation--many many parallels.

4. Dread (uncontrollable, unknown, mobile, mutable (a kind of perverse agency): They may strike anyone, anywhere, causing illnesses whose source will often be unknown. They show how interconnected with nature we are -- our poisons return to sicken and kill us. They may act "upon us directly and indirectly, separately and collectively" (188).

The poisons are "formless and obscure" (188). They circulate "mysteriously by underground streams until they emerge and, through the alchemy of air and sunlight, combine into new forms that kill vegetation, sicken cattle, and work unknown harm on those who drink from once pure wells" (6). They travel "from link to link of the food chain . . ." (190).

5. Ecological time overwhelmed by industrial time: Life adjusts to harm over millennia but "in the modern world there is no time.

6. A staggering stream of new chemicals "having no counterparts in nature" pour out of the laboratories: "500 new chemicals" each year, "to which the bodies of men and animals are required somehow to adapt" (7).

7. Exterminism: "nonselective chemicals that have the power to kill every insect, the ‘good?and the ‘bad,?to still the song of birds and the leaping of fish in the streams, to coat the leaves with a deadly film, and to linger on in the soil. . . . Can any believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life? They should not be called "insecticides" but "biocides" (7-8)

8. The insects are winning: We’re on a pesticide treadmill. The insects, "in a triumphant vindication of Darwin’s principle of the survival of the fittest, have evolved super races immune to the particular insecticide used . . ." forcing us to find ever more deadlier new ones. Heavier application is another result. "Thus the chemical war is never won, and all life is caught in its violent crossfire"

9. Uncontrolled genetic mutations: "many chemicals, like radiation, bring about gene mutations"

10. Many of these substances are persistent and bio-accumulative (8). Health effects depend on exposure over time. Effects are delayed. But this can lull us: "the danger is easily ignored. It is human nature to shrug off what may seem to us a vague threat of future disaster" (189).

11. Some of these substances have toxic effects in very small quantities. In the ecology of our bodies, "minute causes produce mighty effects" (189).

12. Violation of human rights: "We have subjected enormous numbers of people to contact with these poisons, without their consent and often without their knowledge" (12).

13. Self-endangerment: The chief public health threat has ceased to be disease; now it is "a hazard we ourselves have introduced into our world as our modern way of life has evolved" (187).

14. A new reliance on science to identify health effects: "to discover the agent of disease and death depends on a patient piecing together of many seemingly distinct and unrelated facts developed through a vast amount of research in widely separated fields. Think of Beck, Dewey, "popular epidemiology."

Indeed, we may be technically incapable of detecting the presence of some toxins. "The lack of sufficiently delicate methods to detect injury before symptoms appear is one of the great unsolved problems in medicine" (190)

.

15. We are the subjects of a massive uncontrolled experiment: "a human being, unlike a laboratory animal living under rigidly controlled conditions, is never exposed to one chemical alone" (194). Not only we subject to multiple exposures, "interactions" among chemicals can have "serious potentials" (194).

The underlying problem: "this is a problem of ecology, of interrelationships, of interdependence" (189).

Why have we done this? Carson dismisses the claim that increased farm production necessitates this; as far as that goes overproduction is the real problem. 

Rather, the source lies in our "modern way of life," specifically:
agricultural intensification and its use of large scale monoculture. Simplification destroys natures "checks and balances" (10). The migration of species with humans, both deliberately and accidentally. "Nearly half of the 180 or so major insect enemies of plants in the United States are accidental imports from abroad" (11).

The alternative: Develop ecological knowledge and use it wisely. ". .. we need the basic knowledge of animal populations and their relations to their surroundings that will ‘promote an even balance and damp down the explosive power of outbreaks and new invasions" (11).

But "We allow the chemical death to fall as though there were no alternative. . . . Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior and detrimental?" (12).

US Political Thought, Notes on Rachel Carson.htm

One of the mainstays of the chemical approach to SUSTAINABILITY and CONSERVATION has
arisen from the broad-spectrum herbicide known as Roundup. If the World Scientists, Physicians
and Rachel Carson are correct regards the instability of synthetic fertilisers, then this herbicide
should also exhibit non-sustainable properties. This appears to be now occurring:

Monsanto's Roundup herbicide contaminates Danish drinking water

By Anders Legarth Schmidt

July 15, 2003 -- CropChoice news -- , Politiken, 05/10/03: Denmark's most popular herbicide
Roundup is polluting the underground water far more than previously thought. Agriculture uses
yearly 800 tons of active glyphosate in herbicide. The Environment Minister is looking at taking
steps to address this.

The Danish drinking water resources are under attack from an unexpected quarter. The chemical
glyphosate that is in the popular herbicides Roundup and Touchdown is against all expectations
sieving down through the soil and polluting the ground water at a rate of five times more than the
allowed level for drinking water.

This has been shown from tests done by the Denmark and Greenland Geological Research
Institution (DGGRI) in an as yet unpublished article.

Believed Bacteria broke down glyphosate

"When we spray glyphosate on the fields by the rules it has been shown that it is washed
down into the upper ground water with a concentration of 0.54 micrograms per litre. This is
very surprising, because we had previously believed that bacteria in the soil broke down
the glyphosate before it reached the ground water."

It is the Environment Ministry that has given permission to use glyphosate - based on the
producers [Monsanto's] own research.



Used against Twitch and Thistles

Farmers spray glyphosate on their fields after the harvest to keep the soil free of twitch and thistles.
It had been earlier found in wells in Roskilde and Storstroms regions as well as the Copenhagen district
council area. Critics say glyphosate causes cancer, while its defenders call it a wonder herbicide.

Professor Mogens Henze the head of the Institute for Environment and Resources at Denmark's Technical
University, says that the consequence of the new knowledge is that water works in five to ten years will
need to clean the water before Danes can drink it.

"The results show that glyphosate is polluting our drinking water. And unfortunately we have only seen
the tip of the iceberg, because glyphosate and many other spray chemicals are on their way through
the soil at this point in time. Politicians need to look at agriculture in relation to clean drinking water
and decide what it is they are going to do." says Mogens Henze, who isn't blaming the farmers who
use something that the authorities have allowed.

Use Doubled

Statistics from the Environment Ministry show that the use of glyphosate has doubled in the last five years.
In 2001 800 tons was used and that made up a quarter of farmers total use of pesticides. This shows that
glyphosate is the most used herbicide by farmers.

As a result of the new research from DGGRI the Environment Minister Hans Christian Schmidt is
currently thinking about doing something about the use of glyphosate on Danish fields.

"It is simply not acceptable that this stuff is turning up in our groundwater in such a concentration so
high over the acceptable level. If this is the case then we must react quickly" says the Environment
Minister, who is awaiting a report from the Environment Ministry.

http://www.blackherbals.com/monsanto.htm

Despite the above, regulatory authorities in most western countries have decreed Roundup as friendly,
mainly on the assumption the absorption to soil prevents degradation. To reach that conclusion...
an immense amount of literature has to be disregarded-- some is included below:

glyphosate can
move into surface water when the soil particles to which it is bound are washed into streams or rivers.
4 How often this happens is not known, because routine monitoring for glyphosate in water is infrequent.1
When monitored, water contamination has been shown:

"Half-life in pond water is 10-12 weeks"

USDA Pesticide Background Statements. Vol I: Herbicides. Wash DC, 1987 pp 6-10.

US EPA Pesticide Tolerance for glyphosate. Fed. Reg. 57:873940. 1992 pp 10-98.

"Half-life of glyphosate (Accord) in forest pond sediments was 400 days"

Another study noticed that :

glyphosate has been found in both ground and surface water.: examples include two farm
ponds in Ontario, Canada, contaminated by run-off from an agricultural treatment (one pond) and
a spill (the other pond)30; the run-off from a watersheds treated with Roundup during production
of no-till corn and fescue31; contaminated surface water in the Netherlands1; and seven U.S.
wells (one in Texas, six in Virginia) contaminated with glyphosate.32

Glyphosate's persistence in water is shorter than its persistence in soils. Two Canadian studies
found glyphosate persisted 12 to 60 days in pond water following direct application.33,34

Glyphosate persists longer in sediments. For example, a study of Accord applied to forest ponds
found glyphosate residues in sediment 400 days after application.1 The half-life in pond sediments
in a Missouri study was 120 days; persistence was over a year in pond sediments in Michigan
and Oregon.4

ORGANIC FARMING FINISHES FIRST

The longest-running experiment in the U.S. comparing chemical and organic farming is the Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial.

For over 15 years, it has compared three farming systems side by side at the Rodale Institute Experimental Farm in Pennsylvania. One field has been farmed by conventional rotation of corn and soybeans, using chemical fertilizers and herbicides. Two other fields rotate corn, soybeans, grains, and hay - one using legumes for fertilizer, and the other manure, and both using mechanical weed controls. The organic fields produced the same yields as the chemical fields in normal years and greater yields in dry years. The soil quality of the organic fields was higher - holding more water and air, and suffering less erosion - enabling their organic fields to out-produce the chemical ones during years with low rainfall. In 1995, for example, the organic, legume-based system produced 148 bushels of corn per acre, compared to 115 bushels with the chemical system.

SOURCE: Spectrum: The Wholistic News Magazines, May/June 1997, p. 6. BASED ON INFO IN: Organic Gardening magazine, April 1997.

http://www.ibiblio.org/InterGarden/agriculture/forums/organic-agriculture/msg00033.html

Genetic Engineering - Its Potential and Limitations  

Dr Jim Peacock
Chief of Division, CSIRO Division of Plant Industry

In the last two decades molecular biology and genetic engineering have made some wonderful contributions to plant science and already to production agriculture. Genetic engineering places new or modified coded information into the biological software of an organism.

This technique and the powerful array of gene technologies associated with it have revolutionised our capabilities of asking questions as to how plants develop and how they function in the environment. For example, gene technology has identified the gene which Mendel followed in his seminal works in genetics. The wrinkled seed phenotype of the garden pea turns out to result from a mutation in the gene coding for starch branching enzyme. The normal version of the gene results in the smooth seed phenotype.

One other powerful demonstration of what this new biology has enabled us to do concerns the haemoglobin which is found in the root nodules of legumes. Even relatively recently it was thought that this gene, thoroughly animal to our way of thinking, must have been transferred from a worm or an insect into a progenitor legume plant which subsequently used it in the nitrogen fixation process carried out by the nodule. Gene technology has shown that this evolutionary pathway is not correct and that all plants have haemoglobin genes which are closely similar to the haemoglobin genes of animals, including man. The gene must have been present in the organism which was a common ancestor to all plants and to all animals. A more conservative evolutionary pathway!

Gene technologies have shown that the beautiful camellia flower with all its petals results from a modification of normal flower structure brought about by the operation of one mutant gene. We are now able to reproduce a camellia-like structure in the flower of any plant, even in Arabidopsis, the tiny weed that is now the principal experimental plant in laboratories around the world. Mind you, you need a magnifying glass to appreciate the beauty of the Arabidopsis camellia!

The first application of gene technology in crops in Australia has been in the cotton industry. Currently there are some 80,000 hectares of transgenic cotton growing in eastern Australia. Around the world in 1998 there are some 30 million hectares planted to transgenic crops, the area more than doubling each year. In our cotton the gene information that has been inserted protects the cotton plant against the attacks of the two Heliothis species which are the worst pests of cotton production in this country. This transgene, producing a few molecules of an insecticidal protein with specific action against Heliothis larvae has reduced the application of insecticides by more than 50%, a good environmental outcome as a consequence of the addition of one piece of genetic information. Applied to the whole cotton crop this would mean a saving of more than $100 million of insecticide inputs.

Another striking and similar example in the final phases of field testing at present is the protection of the field pea against the depredations of the pea weevil. This is a devastating pest in Victoria and plant breeders have had no sources of genetic resistance. The transfer of a single gene coding for a -amylase inhibitor in the French bean to this pea has had dramatic effects in preventing damage to the crop. Understandably, farmers are keen that this be commercialised as soon as possible. The protease inhibitor which brings death to the weevil has no anti nutritional effects in animal feeds.

Probably one of the most important outcomes of gene technology research in plants is the isolation of natural resistance genes. Ever since Farrer, wheat breeders in Australia have had the task of protecting our wheat crop against the rust pathogen. This is a continuing process because the rust organism evolves around the resistance genes in the crop. The isolation of resistance genes means that we can now explore the interaction between the host and the pathogen. Resistance genes against rusts, viruses and even nematodes have similar features. Already we know which regions of the resistance gene proteins confer the specificity of action against the pathogens. In the future we may be able to develop a robust resistance gene which will hold the evolutionary strategies of the pathogens at bay.

We have been able to design synthetic resistance genes, providing the plant with a gene for a cell suicide protein which is only switched on when the plant is invaded by a pathogen. If a rust spore starts to grow into a leaf the plant recognises the invasion is taking place and will switch on the synthetic resistance gene leading to a localised area of cell death. The rust fungus thus loses its source of sustenance and the spread of infection is prevented. This mimics the natural hypersensitive response used by plants as one of the major mechanisms of protection against pathogens.

2. According to the FAO (2000), "Virulent strains of E. coli, such as E. coli 0 157:H7, develop in the digestive tract of cattle, which is mainly fed with starchy grain as research as Cornell University has demonstrated. Cows mainly fed with hay generate less than 1% of the E. coli found in the faeces of grain-fed animals..."



SYNTHETIC ACTIVE TOXIN rather than NATURAL.

But Bt is natural - not synthetic, right? Isn't a Bt-crop more environmentally friendly than chemical insecticides?

Wrong. It is fair to say that growing a Bt crop - particularly for crops which are highly dependent on deadly pesticides to control Bt-target pests - may reduce insecticide dependence (but see next section) - and hence, human health risk. But the ecological advantage of Bt crops, if any, remains to be seen.

Why? Because the "Bt" in genetically engineered crops is different from naturally occurring Bt. In effect, genetic engineering has transformed a highly selective, very short-lived foliar biocontrol agent imposing very little risk of resistance to a weakly selective, persistent, ecologically ramifying, bioaccumulating pesticide.

Background. The endotoxin in Bt crops consists of a crystal protein toxin ("Cry" toxin) coded for by genes which have been isolated from Bacillus thuringiensis, a soil organism. According to Andow and Hutchison (1998), over 100 Bt Cry toxin genes may have been patented, but those active against lepidopterans such as corn borer, for example, appear to be limited to Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac and a few others. Other Bt Cry genes are active against colepterans (beetles) such as Colorado potato beetle, and dipterans such as mosquitos. Thus, it was believed that one could insert the gene(s) coding for specific toxins into crop plants, and act selectively against the target group.

However, the selectivity of foliar-applied Bt arises from at least two critical steps which are bypassed entirely in Bt-crops. The Bt in soil microbes exists as a protoxin, a precursor which is not insecticidal. It becomes activated (and insecticidal) only when a) ingested by an insect with the proper, alkaline intestinal pH, and b) specific enzymes are present to cleave the precursor into the active form, which then c) binds with receptor sites in the gut, leading to the death of the insect. In GMO applications, it is active endotoxin - not the precursor molecule - which is synthesized in the plant cells. Thus, the first two screening steps are absent, and the potential for non-target effects is increased

http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/nz2020.htm

Gene technology will not only be used to improve the production aspects of plant agriculture. The quality of the products derived from the crops can also be improved by these techniques. One example with particular relevance to Western Australia is the insertion of a gene from the sunflower plant into the genetic information of lupin. This increases the sulphur amino acid content of the protein in lupin seed. Lupin seed is a valuable source of protein in animal feeds but is deficient in sulphur amino acid content. The methionine and cysteine-rich sunflower protein makes a significant adjustment to the nutritional value of the lupin seed meal and has given positive nutritional gains in both small and large animal trials.

Similar adjustments are being made to our major food plants. Many other aspects of quality will be able to be specifically adjusted to health and other market requirements. For example we are modifying the seed proteins of wheat so that they are optimal for particular end uses. It is now possible to take a gene coding for one of the many proteins of the wheat seed, produce quantities of that protein with bacterial or yeast fermentation systems and, by adding the protein to wheat flour, determine exactly what effect it has on the properties of the dough ?for example whether it changes the dough to be more or less suited for high rise bread manufacture. This has never been possible before and is indicative of the power and precision of gene technology.

Consumers are the ultimate judge of what is needed and I suspect they might be in favour of potatoes that do not undergo the browning and bruising that develops in cut potato slices and chips. In this case, in potato, the insertion of genetic information does not produce a new protein but stops the action of an existing enzyme, polyphenol oxidase. We might prefer to be without this kind of browning in many other fruits and vegetables.

All of the examples I have given you so far relate to the addition of single pieces of genetic information - an addition of one gene construct into the total genetic tape which contains some 25,000 genes in any plant. Even this minute adjustment can have a significant effect in the specialised conditions and requirements of our agriculture and food supply.

An exciting outcome of transgenic research is the identification of Master Genes whose products control the action of many other genes in a coordinated way.

THIS MASTER GENE IS THEORY ONLY...(see PSRAST explanations;also compare with Nobel Prize recipient Szent-Gyorgyi claim that above do not function in isolation,hence their manipulation value is dubious,even before risk criteria is considered).

This can happen in the response of a plant to an environmental challenge, for example when the roots of a plant are flooded a whole new carbohydrate metabolic pathway is switched on to maintain an energy supply. It is now possible to aim to improve tolerance to waterlogging, a major problem in many crops - in Western Australia in the wheat crop ?by altering the action of the master gene which controls all of the enzymes involved in the alternate metabolic pathway.

NOTED:MANIPULATION shows that genetic substance does not break-down over time,during storage,or by normal heating as in cooking.

The same principle applies to major developmental events in the life of a plant. The decision as to when the growing point of the stem changes from making leaves to making flowers and reproductive tissue is a major developmental decision. The control of flowering induction is important in many plants in both horticulture and agriculture.

NOTED: in food crops, a corresponding drop in overall nutritional value has always occurred.

Breeders have managed in many crops to manipulate flowering time to some extent but a much greater control is now in prospect.

Another spectacular example of a master gene effect is in the control of seed development. Seed development normally depends upon pollination and fertilisation but in nature many plants have learned to switch on seed development without pollination. This is called apomixis and we often see it in action in the very successful weed species. In many segments of agriculture, especially in developing countries, it would be highly desirable to be able to switch on an apomictic seed development program in our food plants so that the seed grains would develop irrespective of whether the climatic conditions were appropriate for high levels of pollination. Genes controlling the cascade of events involved in seed development are already beginning to be isolated and studied.

We should be able to modify the architecture of plants to suit our different production systems. The green revolution depended upon the use of dwarfing genes in wheat and rice. There are going to be many other changes possible in both the above and below ground parts of plants. We are now identifying many of the genes which will bring about such architectural changes.

New genes will increase the roles of agriculture. In recent years we changed the linseed plant, which was largely used for industrial purposes of paint manufacture, into an edible oil plant, Linola, now grown in hundreds of thousands of hectares in North America and Europe. We are now changing Linola in another way to generate another valuable industrial plant. We have taken a gene from a dandelion-type plant and inserted it into Linola so that a new type of fatty acid, valuable as a specialised chemical feed stock, is being produced.

NOTED: the same inability of the genetic insert to digest/breakdown occurs in animals. This is simply food chain contamination being masked as an "economic" imperative.

We are likely to see many of our agricultural plants being used as biological factories in the future, providing valuable proteins and other natural products in clean, green and sustainable factories.

NOTE:Nature, for her own reasons has never responded that kindly to factory bosses.

So far I have discussed the positive prospects of gene technology in agriculture with the potential of increasing the efficiency of food production, with providing a greater level of care for natural resources and the environment and to produce new products better fitting our requirements, especially in regard to human health.

But what about the limitations?

If we do not manage the transgenic technologies in an appropriate way we could remove its potential for future generations. The value of application of pesticides in agriculture has been time after time substantially reduced by the development of resistance in the threat organisms.

Will we be able to manage gene technology so that we can avoid this same problem and develop long-term sustainable systems?

We believe we can. In cotton in Australia the proportion of transgenic crop permissible will be strictly limited until we have two independent insecticide genes operating in each plant. This is a condition which should prevent the build-up of resistance in any pests and will make it possible for the technology to be used on a wide scale. We must have, in all of our transgenic technologies a well based regulatory system.

NOTE: Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute was dismissed when he raised the issue that the genetic residues of this process created bacterial spread when modified cotton was utilised in medical surgery.

The current consumer reaction to transgenics is mixed and may provide a limitation to use of the technology, at least in the short term. In the United States there is widespread acceptance of the applications of gene engineering in the food chain whereas there is a far more conservative reaction in Europe. Until the public at large have a good understanding of exactly what is being done and can evaluate the benefits and perceived risks then there may be hesitation in accepting this as the positive technology it is.

NOTE:663 professors apparently still seek evidence for the above claim.

Although we can see already much of what can and needs to be done with the small numbers of genes and master genes currently available, the new developments in genomics, where we will have complete knowledge of the genetic makeup of an organism, is opening up horizons almost beyond our vision. By the year 2000 we will have the complete genetic sequence of Arabidopsis. Already we know the sequence of some 40% of its 25,000 genes. Rice, now the major cereal in the laboratory, is not far behind Arabidopsis. The knowledge of the genes of these two plants, one a dicotyledon and one a monocotyledon, opens up a huge array of possibilities in all plants. This major opportunity is also our major challenge.

NOTE: see G.Monbiot,the Guardian article

What do all these genes do? How can we adjust their operation to provide us a better agriculture, a more reliable food supply, better quality foods and enough food for the fast growing global population?

Another limitation is associated with intellectual property considerations. Let me remind you of what a gene is. It is not just a segment of genetic code for a protein product. It comes equipped with a whole series of coded controls, making a unit with complete instructions for where, when and how much a gene should operate in the plant. Each one of the coded components and the related technologies of insertion and selection may be under intellectual property control held by a number of different organisations.

The major agri-chemical companies saw quite early how important gene technology was going to be in agriculture. They invested heavily in research and obtained intellectual property positions in a number of generic and enabling technologies. Public investment in research, unfortunately, was not as rapid nor as great but it still is significant. In Australia we are coming up against situations where we have the knowledge to do something beneficial to a crop but we do not have the freedom to operate because a critical piece of technology is controlled by one of the major multinationals and may be withheld from our use.

These companies, now life science companies rather than agrichemical companies, have been aggressively repositioning themselves in agribusiness. They realised their profits would be increased by ownership, not only of the technologies, but by acquisition of the seed production companies which produce the delivery system of the gene technologies. They also acquired food processing companies that are able to take advantage of the new properties of the products and are now acquiring smaller biotech and genomics companies, further increasing their portfolios of intellectual property.

NOTE:this has been described as "giving half the story"; it allays the concerns of the un-informed,who arent aware the testing and trials are deliberately falsified. For further, see chairman and shareholder of exact same multi-nationals,that Dr. Peacock represents.

Billions of dollars have been involved in the erection of this small number of vertically integrated systems. We in public research laboratories are needing to reassess the ways in which we can operate effectively within this rapidly changing environment. This is of particular importance to Australia.

What do we do so that our agricultural industries can still be effective players in global agribusiness and not become pawns of the major multinationals?

Obviously we need to maintain the highest possible capacities in research. We need to invest in research that will generate intellectual property of such value that others, such as the major multinationals, will want to have access to it. It is also important for us to maintain our highly skilled plant breeding operations which produce some of the best germplasm in the world. Genetic engineering must be integrated with plant breeding programs to be effective.

Even if we do all these things we will need to find ways of creating suitable business relationships with the multinationals and with other national programs so that Australian companies will not be disadvantaged and will be able to actively participate rather than be marginalised in world agriculture

http://www.atse.org.au/publications/symposia/proc-1998p13.htm