BIOSAFETY WHY AND FOR WHOM? LATIN AMERICA ON TARGET

José Luis Ramírez

José Luis Ramírez. Biologist, Universidad Central de Venezuela. Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, USA. Professor, Instituto de Estudios Avanzados-MCT, UNU-BIOLAC. Dirección: Centro de Biotecnología, IDEA-MCT, Carretera Nacional Hoyo de la Puerta, Baruta, Caracas, 1080-A, Venezuela. e-mail: jramirez@reacciun.ve

Summary

Latin American countries (LAC), as never before face contrasting forces from economical, ecological and social sectors influencing their decision to embrace or not a modern biotechnology based agriculture. An unevenly scientifically educated general public, when challenged by economical and ecological lobbying groups, frequently overreacts, hampering clear sighted and knowledge based decision making. In this essay, several critical issues proper of LAC are addressed. A survey of the situation in three countries is presented and several recommendations are advanced. Finally the role of the United Nations University Programme Biotechnology for Latin America and the Caribbean in empowering LAC institutions to deal with the challenges of agri-biotechnology is highlighted.

Resumen

Los países latinoamericanos (PLA), como nunca antes, se encuentran en una encrucijada en cuanto a adoptar o no una agricultura basada en la biotecnología moderna. Un público general, con una educación científica poco sólida, cuando es expuesto a las contrastantes opiniones y presiones de grupos económicos y ecologistas, casi siempre toma posiciones que evitan la adopción de ideas claras. En este ensayo se discuten puntos críticos propios de los PLA haciendo una revisión breve de la situación de tres países, y finalmente se hacen algunas recomendaciones, destacando el trabajo desarrollado por el Programa de la Universidad de las Naciones Unidas "Biotecnología para Latino América y el Caribe" tratando de habilitar a instituciones regionales para enfrentar los retos impuestos por la agro-biotecnología moderna.

Resumo

Os países latino-americanos (PLA), como nunca antes, se encontram em uma encruzilhada em quanto a adotar ou não uma agricultura baseada na biotecnologia moderna. Um público geral, com uma educação científica pouco sólida, quando é exposto às contrastantes opiniões e pressões de grupos econômicos e ecologistas, quase sempre toma posições que evitam a adoção de idéias claras. Neste ensaio se discutem pontos críticos próprios dos PLA fazendo uma revisão breve da situação de três países, e finalmente se fazem algumas recomendações, destacando o trabalho desenvolvido pelo Programa da Universidade das Nações Unidas «Biotecnologia para Latino América e o Caribe» tratando de habilitar a instituições regionais para enfrentar os desafios impostos pela agro-biotecnologia moderna.

KEYWORDS / Agri-biotechnology / Biosafety / Genetically Modified Organisms /

Received: 07/14/2003. Modified: 10/09/2003. Accepted: 10/17/2003

The Latin American region, from Mexico to Argentina, stretches from 35ºN to 55ºS, occupying a territory of more than 7 million square miles. The sub-continent has more than 490 million people with a plethora of cultures. The region also hosts, at least, three out of the twelve centers of origin, and has been the source of such major staples of the human diet as potatoes, corn, tomatoes, tapioca, and peanuts (Artunduaga-Salas, 2000). Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as Asia and the Pacific, host together 80% of the ecological megadiversity of the world. This complexity helps us understand why achieving a consolidated approach or position on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is difficult.

Most commercial GMOs planted in the region fall into the category of "yield protecting" rather than "yield enhancing" manipulations, and their use is mostly restricted to countries with temperate weather. The most common transgenic crops are cereals (wheat, corn, rice), cotton containing Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Bt-toxin) genes, or weed killer resistant soybean. These GMOs were obtained by two rather simple gene technologies, piggybacking foreign genes on bacterial autonomous replicating plasmids from Agrobacterium tumefasciens that serve as vehicles, or blasting the plant cells with particles containing recombinant DNA in which viral promoters drive gene expression. Foreign genes insert at non-specific locations in the plant genome. Maize, cotton and rice have wild relatives in the region. Countless applications of GMOs being tested in the region have not reached so far the supermarket shelves.

Detractors of biotechnology claim that GMOs have contributed little to improve yields and applications are mostly restricted to crop protection. In grain-basket regions such as Argentina, South-Brazil and Uruguay, with a large mechanized agriculture and crop yields comparable to those in USA (7.7ton/ha), lack of government subsidies means that a mere 10 to 15% gain could be the difference between staying or going out of business. Argentinean agri-industry has rapidly adopted GMOS crops, and farmers in South-Brazil, where transgenics are prohibited, are smuggling soybean seeds across the border (Bonalume-Neto, 1999). Agriculture in countries like Argentina is strongly oriented towards exports and it is assumed that local needs are fulfilled. For the rest of LAC there is still a long way before GMOs can have a positive impact on basic agriculture oriented to feed their own population. However, recent developments in India must be considered. Field tests in areas under heavy pest pressure by bollworms showed that hybrid Bt cotton had 80% yield increase when compared with non-Bt counterparts (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003). According to these authors, pest resistant crops in agricultural lands of developing countries located at the tropics and sub-tropics, and subjected to high pest pressures, can register increases in crop yields. However, since these results have been challenged by other Indian researchers (Jayaraman, 2003) it should be better to wait for the clarification of these facts before deriving major conclusions.

In most LAC low yields have more to do with poor water management, poor soils and lack of integrated pest management, than with access to fertilizers or pesticides. Therefore, apart from better agriculture practices, stress resistant crops able to grow well in acid soils of the Amazon basin and the Llanos, or the dry soils of North East Brazil, North of Mexico and the Andean countries, are desirable. In this regard, promising results with drought-resistant wheat and acid-soil resistant corn have been achieved at CYMMIT (http://www. cimmyt.org/worldwide/cimmyt_ regions/cimmyt_latamer/acid_tolerant/acidtolerantmaize. htm; http://www.cimmyt.org/qpm/breeding/stress/drought/drought7.htm)

LAC Communities Have Expressed Environmental Concerns Regarding the Use of GMOs

In recent years the concept of DNA transfer among unrelated species has captured the attention of both the public and specialists in LAC. This topic, well treated by authors such as Bushman (2002), has been taken up by those who oppose GMOs as an evidence of how easily biological systems can incorporate foreign genes. Many adversaries of GMOs wrongly use the concept outside its population or evolutionary context. No doubt there are bacterial conjugation, transfection and transformation processes occurring more often among organisms of the same species. However, what is frequently overlooked is that any genetic material, in order to replicate and express itself in an unrelated organism, needs a period of adaptation or reprogramming. Large population size and selective forces play a crucial role in the readiness by which emerging phenotypes in bacteria are seen. The simple passing of genes by out-crossing with individuals of the same species, a common event for open pollinate plants such as corn, is rare in close pollinating species such as rice.

With respect to environmental risks, more concern has been shown regarding the possibility that foreign genes can transform crops into weeds. However, incorporation of a single trait does not necessarily convert a recipient plant into a weed. The "weedy" phenotype appears to be a complex trait and cannot be attributed to a single gene. However the issue is hotly debated (Williamson, 1993; Luby and McNichol, 1995).

Another frequent concern is the possibility of selecting weed killer-multiple resistant super-weeds that may displace local flora and cause genetic erosion. This event is more likely to occur when selective pressures applied are not high enough to cause weed overkilling. To minimize this threat strategies that include the development of multigene resistant crops and incorporate practices rotation of weed-killers have to be implemented.

Other GMOs detractors argue that indiscriminate use of Bt-GMOs can generate Bt resistant super-pests. As mentioned before, most insects and other plagues adapt quickly to selective forces. When low doses of a single selection element is continuously applied to large pest populations mutants can be selected for, and eventually outgrow the wild-type organisms. Mutants are protected from competition by the selection element. In the case of Cry1A toxin present in most transgenic corns used in LAC, expression levels are claimed to be high enough to cause pest over-killing (Tabashnik, 1994); this, combined with insect refuges, diminish chances of mutant selection. However this strategy is not foolproof and depends on the knowledge of the farmer and good handling of refuges. A different unintended consequence could be the annihilation of beneficial insects such as bees and butterflies (Losey et al., 1999). So far this claim has not been supported by field observations (Sears, 2001; Zangerl et al., 2001).

On the positive side, it is frequently quoted that the use of GMOs reduces exposure of farmers and environment to poisonous chemicals. According to experiences in China, this has been a major reason for the rapid adoption of GM cotton (Huang et al., 2002).

GMOs and Human Health

Can foreign genetic material be a hazard to human health?

After the famous Brazilian nut incident (Nordlee et al., 1996), allergicity has been a popular flag of GMOs opponents, to the point that it is included as an obliged consideration in all regulation protocols. Surprisingly though, similar regulations do no apply for non-GMOs equivalents.

A risk frequently invoked by GMOs enemies is the possibility that bacteria from the human intestinal track can incorporate antibiotic resistance markers used in DNA constructs. As discussed above, there are interspecies barriers for genetic material to be expressed, and in order to select for antibiotic resistant bacteria, the individual has to be taking this very same antibiotic at the moment of consuming the GMOs food. However, since the risk, though low, exists, efforts should be directed to skip the use of recombinants harboring this type of marker. In addition, consumers have the right to know the content of GMOs in the food they buy, therefore, if general public demands it, GMOs derived foods have to be labeled in the clearest and most informative way.

Risk Assessment and the Dangers of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)

LAC need to train experts in risk assessment and regulators to implement field follow-ups. The number one technique for tracking foreign genes is the PCR, a wonderful research tool, but when operated by not well-trained hands can lead to erroneous conclusions and confusion. PCR power rests on its ability to exponentially increase minute amounts of DNA, including contaminations. When it is used out of the right context, or with lack of care, wrong results are produced. In this regard, it is advisable for any LAC center or laboratory interested in assessing the presence of recombinant DNA, first to seek counseling from experienced plant molecular biologists. It is not enough to obtain a positive amplification band for cauliflower promoter S35 or NOS terminator to declare the presence of GMOs.

LAC Position on GMOs. A Brief Survey

Most LAC signed the Cartagena Protocol (CP), a comprehensive document advising and regulating transborder transportation of live GMOs. The CP takes a precautionary approach to GMOs, highlighting their potential risks to biodiversity and human health, but at the same time, acknowledging the potential benefits of these organisms to palliate humanity food needs in the future. The ruling of the CP does not collide or overrule national legislation on GMOs, or country’s sovereignty.

In this brief survey, and as an example, the situation in three countries with large agriculture is presented.

Argentina was amply prepared to assume the CP and even before its approval, the Argentinean Government established the CONABIA, or Consejo Nacional de Biotecnología de Argentina (http://www.sagpya.mecon.ar/http-hsi/english/conabia/liuk.HTM). This body took swift action to implement a regulatory framework for GMOs. Argentina’s researchers rapidly reviewed the scientific basis of GMOs and implemented risk assessment laboratories and a biosafety committee. In addition, stringent selection of Committee members, and clear and transparent procedures, give CONABIA a highly positive public perception. Interestingly, GMOs regulation in this country does not have the form of laws but that of resolutions (SAGYP, 1991, 1993).

Until now seven GMOs have been approved, and the total surface planted by 2002 was 13.5 million ha (James, 2003). Relations with Green Peace and other NGOs are kept in good balance. Although it has been claimed that advantages for the farmers come in the way of savings in pesticide application, absence of tillage and exposure to dangerous chemicals, local GMOs detractors have pointed out that the massive adoption of "Round-up Ready" soybean is expanding the areas of arable land to the detriment of native woods, and concentrating farming in fewer hands with displacement of peasants to urban areas. This, is turn, results in lower world prices, and higher tributes have to be paid to seed transnational enterprises for the purchase of GMOs seeds and chemicals (http://www.lainsignia.org/abril/ibe_110.htm). If these negative viewpoint turns out to be true, the massive adoption of GMOs by this country could translate into big social and economical problems.

In Brazil, with comparable scientific capabilities, GMOs have been a contentious issue. After a propitious start, public opinion began to change, based on the highly publicized accidents that occurred with GMOs and reports of soybean being smuggled in from Argentina (Bonalume-Neto, 1999). For a while, word was passed around that some farmers in Brazil were considering the adoption of a green-market strategy to capture the Argentinean corn and soybean quota in the European market. Currently, there is a prohibition for growing GMOs, but the situation is unclear. Although this year a harvest of 6 million tons of apparently illegal GM soybean has been authorized, there are opposite views between the Brazilian Agriculture Secretary, who favors the use of GMOs, and the Environment Secretary, who opposes it. More recently the Brazilian government approved the continuation of soybean planting for year 2004. An excellent day to day view of biosafety in Brazil can be obtained on http://www.anbio. org.br/

The case in Mexico is one of the most interesting because this country counts with world class researchers in plant biotechnology, shares a big GMOs border with USA, and is the center of the origin of corn.

The main staple for Mexicans is corn, but Mexico is not self-sufficient in this crop. Due to NAFTA agreements the country is obliged to complete its corn deficit, importing one third (6 million tons) of its consumption from the USA (which is 50% GMOs; Chowdhury and Allen, 2003). A more serious problem is posed by unauthorized and uncontrolled transit of GMOs seeds by migratory workers. Traditionally, Mexican farmers have custom-bred their own corn landraces, which have been kept, maintained and improved through years. There are fears in the Mexican society that introduction of GMOs will cause genetic erosion and the succumbing of corn landraces.

The Mexican government had an early favorable held to agri-biotechnology, but two important cases have caused continuous erosion of this support and the consequent strengthening of GMOs detractors. The first one was attributed to the mishandling by Aventis of StarLink corn (http://www.geo-pie.cornell. edu//issues/starlink. html). This crop was originally approved for animal consumption because manipulations of Cry9C toxin made it heat stable and resistant to human digestive proteases, but this corn eventually ended up in taco shells in USA (News in brief, 2000). The second case was the highly publicized Oaxaca corn contamination. A group of researchers from Berkeley (Quist and Chapela, 2001) detected foreign genetic material in Oaxaca corn landraces, miles away from the USA border. GM maize pollen spread across the border was blamed as the original source of this exotic genetic material. This work has been harshly contested (Kaplinsky et al., 2002) and there is not enough information and firm evidence to sustain it yet. However, the very bad publicity of this case, mixed with some ingredients of national pride, has deeply divided the Mexican community. As a reaction to these incidents, the Mexican Parliament proposed, on February 2002, a draconian law banning any work with GMOs that, if enforced, could impose up to nine-year imprisonment on anybody violating the law (Mann, 2003). More recently, the Mexican government has regulated and authorized field experimentation with GMOs.

What to Do?

According to FAO, LAC population will jump from the current 490 million to 680 million by 2020. This population increase will come along with an expansion of arable land, principally at the expense of forest reserves. Can today’s agriculture sustain this growth? There is still some room before LAC should fully embrace GMOs. In the mean time several issues have to be carefully studied.

The golden rule of the precautionary principle, or common sense, dictates that it does not seem advisable to grow GMOs in areas where wild relatives exist, at least until field studies determine what kind of impact on biodiversity or fitness of these species may have gene escape and introgression (Ellstrand et al., 1999). At the moment, even when this type of risk has not yet been fully assessed, the issue is very sensitive to the general public. Situations such as Mexican corn should be dealt with precaution. However, considering the threats of a still growing population in LAC, basic research carried out in laboratories and field studies with crops that do not have wild relatives in a given region should be stimulated.

For LAC, a balance between risk and benefits has to be achieved. Countries like Costa Rica and Chile adopted a strategy of propagating GMOs seeds but not allowing their cultivation. Others such as Colombia, Peru and Belize are carrying out field trials. However, if there is not an urgent need for planting GMOs, LAC should wait and work in the development of a second generation of these crops which, among other features, should have double or triple toxin genes expressed at high levels in an organ specific way, and devoid of antibiotic markers. As an example of things that can be done China, as mentioned above, has developed its own double Bt-Toxin transgenic cotton using novel gene transformation protocols. Paradoxically, China, despite investments of substantial funds to develop transgenic agriculture, has been slow in embracing applications to the market (Macilwain, 2003).

Current trends in agri-biotechnology are changing. GMOs are commodities and as such their prices have reached bottom low. Agri-industry is moving away from contentious issues and non-profitable markets to pharmaceuticals, new energy renewable sources, or new materials. In other words, using plants as reactors to produce those goods. The number of big agri-companies has continuously shrunk to the point that today just 4 or 5 major players survive (Burril, 2003). This re-direction can alleviate the pressure of big transnational agri-industry on developing countries agriculture, and leave room for local researchers to develop their own crops.

LAC have to learn and reflect over the huge GMOs experiments taking place in Argentina, Uruguay and elsewhere, where the impact of GMOs on environment and society will be assessed in a relatively short time.

Cultural, societal and demographic aspects of GMOs use deserve more attention; these topics frequently play second fiddle to the debate of the possible impact of GMOs on biodiversity.

Since LAC are host to the origin of many crops they should be particularly aware that over-growing of elite varieties (GMOs or not) is eroding genetic biodiversity and accelerating the loss of wild reserves. Thus, it is necessary to preserve the potentiality to generate new crops by enlarging biodiversity refuges or pockets where GMOs and non-GM crops should not be allowed.

A major push has to be done to prepare LAC human resources to deal with the issues of biosafety; unsubstantiated claims can erode institutions credibility and the trust of general public. Even worse, they can swing the pendulum in the opposite direction.

Within the United Nations several agencies such as United Nations Environmental Protection agency (UNEP), UNESCO, FAO and the United Nations University Biotechnology Programme for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNU-BIOLAC) are participating to help developing countries keep abreast with the challenges of agri-biotechnology and its potential risks. Avoiding overlap and looking for synergistic actions, UNU-BIOLAC has developed a South-South network strategy, by which some LAC receive expertise and advice from specialists coming from Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Chile, countries with more experience on biosafety issues. UNU-BIOLAC has launched the biosafety network RnBio (http://www.rnbio.net/) that focuses on capacity building for Andean and Caribbean countries. RnBio actions include public perception workshops and seminars for the general public, journalists, teachers and students; training courses for lawyers and officers, and the implementation of a capacity building component leading to the training of biosafety regulators. This later program includes training in legal and biological issues, public perception, risk assessment, and laboratory training for GMOs detection and tracking.

Close interaction with Government agencies to promote the insertion and job stability of regulators is stressed. In its actions, RnBio respects local public perception and laws, and advises on the configuration of biosafety committees. During the first two years RnBio has contributed to the creation and implementation of biosafety committees of the Andean countries, particularly in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela.

The overall philosophy of RnBio follows the precautionary principle established by FAO, encouraging the critical study of the issues and keeping a plural discussion where all players have a place. What is at issue is too important to leave anybody out of the discussion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks Ivan Galindo for critical reading of the manuscript and Juan Dellacha for allowing assess to privileged information from UNU/RNBio network.

REFERENCES

1. Artunduaga-Salas R (2000) Biosafety Regulations Related with Transgenic Plants in Latin American and the Caribbean Region: The Andean Countries as a Model. 6th International Symposium on The Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms, July 8-13 (http://www.biotech-info.net/biosafety_regs.html).        [ Links ]

2. Bonalume-Neto R (1999) Smugglers aim to circumvent GM court ban in Brazil. Nature402: 344-345.        [ Links ]

3. Burril S (2003) Biotech 2003, 17^th Annual Report of the Industry, Life Sciences: Reevaluation and Restructuring. Ed. Burril and Company Merchant Bank. San Francisco, USA. 481 pp.        [ Links ]

4. Bushman F (2002) Lateral DNA Transfer: mechanisms and consequences. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. New York, USA. 448 pp.        [ Links ]

5. Chowdhury AAF, Allen AJ (2003) Impact of NAFTA on U.S. Corn Trade. Selected Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. Mobile, Alabama, USA. February 1-5, 2003.        [ Links ]

6. Ellstrand NC, Prentice, HC, Hancock J (1999) Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into wild relatives. Annu. Rev. Ecol. System 30: 539-563.        [ Links ]

7. Huang J, Rozelle S, Pray C, Wang Q (2002) Plant Biotechnology in China. Science 295: 674-677.        [ Links ]

8. James C (2003) Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 2002. ISAAA Briefs No. 27. ISAAA. Ithaca, New York, USA. (http://www.isaaa.org/)        [ Links ]

9. Jayaraman KS (2003) India debates results of its first transgenic cotton crop. Nature 421: 681.        [ Links ]

10. Kaplinsky N, Braun D, Lisch D, Hay A, Hake S, Freeling M (2001) Biodiversity (Communications arising): Maize transgene results in Mexico are artifacts. Nature 416: 601– 602.        [ Links ]

11. Losey J E, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature399: 214         [ Links ]

12. Luby JJ, McNichol RF (1995) Gene flow from cultivate to wild raspberry in Scotland: Developing a Basis for Risk Assessment for Testing and Deployment of Transgenic Cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 90: 1133-1137.        [ Links ]

13. Macilwain C (2003) Chinese agribiotech: Against the grain. Nature 422: 111-112.        [ Links ]

14. Mann CC (2003) New Law Could Turn Scientists Into Outlaws. Science 296: 1591.        [ Links ]

15. Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA, Bush R (1996) Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergene in Transgenic Soybeans. New England J. Med. 334: 688-692.        [ Links ]

16. News in brief (2000) US taco shells found to contain unlicensed modified corn. Nature 407: 438.        [ Links ]

17. Qaim M, Zilberman D (2003) Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries. Science 299: 900-902.        [ Links ]

18. Quist D, Chapela IH (2001) Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414: 541-543.        [ Links ]

19. SAGYP (1991) Resolution Nº 124 of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (SAGyP), October 24, 1991. Buenos Aires, Argentina.        [ Links ]

20. SAGYP (1993) Resolution Nº 669 of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (SAGyP), August 23, 1993. Buenos Aires, Argentina.        [ Links ]

21. Sears M K, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP (2001) Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:11937-11942.        [ Links ]

22. Tabashnik BE (1994) Evolution of Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 39: 47-79.        [ Links ]

23. Williamson M (1993) Invaders, weeds and the risk from genetically manipulated organisms. Experimentia 49: 219-224.        [ Links ]

24. Zangerl AR, McKenna D, Wraight CL, Carroll M, Ficarello P, Warner R, Berenbaum MR (2001) Effects of exposure to event 176 Bacillus thuringiensis corn pollen on monarch and black swallowtail caterpillars under field conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 11908-11912.        [ Links ]