MolecularFarming.com
|
|||||||||||||||
PROTEIN
PRODUCTS FOR FUTURE GLOBAL GOOD
|
|||||||||||||||
|
We have been saying it on this safety page for over 2 years. The UK's DEFRA sponsored trials have now proven us right. Oil seed rape [Canola] is currently too dangerous to be used as a Medical Molecular Crop in open field in open field Professor Joe Cummins has kindly submitted an article on Biosafety standards in Molecular Farming How can Environmental Safety in Molecular Crops be achieved ? - Our suggestions as to what we want to see happening. - { we don't want to see food crop contamination } When looking at the issue of Environmental Safety, it must also be realised that it is foolish to try to have have single legislation which would cover every crop, in every country, for every engineered protein. This is one industry where one size does not fit all. For example many of the newly engineered proteins in plants will occur anyway, naturally, in frequently eaten meat foodstuffs, and will pose little if any danger to the human food chain. Future legislation needs to be on a crop by crop, protein by protein basis. On September 29, 2005 The EU Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry, Günter Verheugen, reiterated the need for an open debate on the benefits of biotechnology and the ethical questions surrounding it, but insisted that such a dialogue must remain science-based. We fully agree. Having said this however, initially we see conventional production methods in 'open field' as being potentially dangerous, unless working with non-food crops like Tobacco or crops with minimal horizontal gene-flow risk, like Potato. We want to see the industry develop, but for the initial stages until potential environmental harm can be fully scientifically assessed, we would see crop isolation as being critical. Contained Greenhouses are ideal. Non-native locations, where the crop may have been grown historically but now is no longer grown, or has never been grown, should also be excellent, provided there are no related weeds When looking at
isolation distances self-pollination must be considered. We do not consider
800m or less as isolation for out-pollinators like maize, unlike some
Governments. [ e.g. the UK ] We would not feel happy at under 7 km distance
between related Molecular and Traditional food crops that could cross-pollinate
by wind or insect , or under 1 km for other crops, except Tobacco,
at this stage. Our view is changing as we see further scientific evidence
of the potential danger area surrounding certain crops, but we have not
yet seen any out pollinating crop contaminated at more than 3.5 km distance
by either insect, bird or wind, or a self pollinating crop at more than
80m. From our preliminary findings, we would not be happy to see Rape / Canola used as an ''open air'' Medical Molecular Crop at all. { It has too many weed relatives with which it can cross-pollinate at great distance} and would only be happy with Maize at a 7 km distance from related food crops..The latest research we have seen, done in late 2004 by the Research Institute for Biological Cultivation (FiBL) in Frick, Switzerland and a separate study by the Confederate Research Institute for Agro Ecology and Cultivation, (Agroscope FAL Reckenholz),reinforce this view We would also
like to see those companies who use maize using ''purple'' maize, as an
extra precaution, as this would give an easy visual marker for any cross
contamination. Molecular Farming can actually genetically engineer it's own safeguards into Molecular crops. It can [a]'make them different looking' [b] make them sterile [c] add 'reporter genes' [d] use nonfood crops to start with [e] engineer the proteins into the cloroplasts of plants [f] disclose DNA sequences or [g] - specifically with edible vaccine - legislate for administration. Safeguards. [a] Looking
different. - We see Bioluminescence as being a great way of distinguishing
Molecular Crops from others. Firefly Luciferase and Green Fluorescent
protein [ GFP] have both been engineered into plants, as far back as 1992.
Genetically engineering these as markers has two advantages. - There is
no destruction of plant tissue and no use of substrates involved in doing
this. [b] The
much discussed Monsanto "Terminator Gene" technology that they
intended for food-crop use could be beneficial in stopping contamination
of food crops in 'open field'. This technology would stop gene transfer
because hybridization relies on fertile gametes of each species - the
production of which is suppressed by this gene. Other sterility technologies
are in existance.Farmacule
Bioindustries is one company that has such technology.Pioneer
Hi-bred International 's ''Patent # US6248935: Reversible nuclear
genetic system for male sterility in transgenic plants'' describes similar.
[c] Reporter
genes, such as PCR { Polymerase Chain Reaction } could be spliced into
Molecular crops. These genes are relatively easy to test for at a later
stage if contamination is suspected. The only drawback here is the lack
of easily visible signs. We are not in favour of Antibiotic resistant
Markers, as we believe that these are potentially Environmentally dangerous.
[ see BMA WARNING
] Link to a 'New Scientist' article on the topic: [d] When we look at the amount of recombinant proteins that have been engineered into Tobacco, we are very excited about the potential of using nonfood, leafy plants instead of food crops. Tobacco poses little risk to the environment either, and can be grown in some of the poorest countries in the world. We also see Hemp as being ideal, as the byproduct could be put to constructive uses as Biofuels or Biofibres. It would indeed be ironic if in future Tobacco actually saved more lives than it presently destroys, and that Hemp/Cannabis would be grown as a viable farming crop after 50 years, with the non marijuana strains worth much more than growing pot !. [e] Technically
the most difficult to do, but if the actual proteins can be engineered
to locate only in the cloroplasts of plants, this is safe. See the article
below, and also the work and research of the Chlorogen
company and the work of professor Henry
Daniell, the pioneer of chloroplast engineering. [f] We
would like to see all companies which have Molecular Crops disclosing
the DNA sequences they have inserted. { so that others can monitor any
contamination } Lastly, [g] Consumers, given the choice, will want a pill of freeze dried tomato or banana to eat, rather than the pain of a vaccine injection. We want Edible Vaccines to be administered by health professionals, with qualifications recognised by that countries Government. |