Environmental Assessment of SmartStax GM Corn

GM food crops raise 2 distinct set of ethical issues: 1) is the food safe to consume? and 2) do the crops themselves pose ecological hazards? This story is primarily about the latter. (For better or for worse, in Canada a single agency & The Canadian Food Inspection Agency & is in charge of both questions.)

Via the Regina Leader-Post: Quick, quiet genetic corn approval questioned

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has quietly approved a new genetically engineered corn with eight different insect- and weed-fighting traits, but farmer and environmental groups in Canada say the approval was rushed and environmental risks ignored.

Developed through a research agreement between Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, SmartStax corn is unique in that it “stacks” eight different genetically engineered traits that will allow corn to tolerate certain weed- and insect-killing products made by the two companies.

Each of the eight traits has been individually approved by the CFIA, but opponents are concerned there might be unintended consequences when the traits are combined....

Quick notes:
1) There's no good evidence that GM foods pose any risk to human health, but informed opinion (to the best of my ability to read the relevant literature) is that we do need to know more about the potential environmental impacts of GM crops. So, even for those of us who are generally optimistic about genetic modification, the concerns expressed about SmartStax are not silly.
2) The Greenpeace statement to the effect that expecting Monsanto and Dow to report on environmental impact is “like putting the wolf in charge of the sheep’s welfare” suggests an unrealistic expectation that government would participate actively in gathering such information. There are too many products out there (food, drugs, consumer goods, and so on) for government to do the testing itself. Like it or not, government for the most part has to rely on industry to submit data.
3) Stories that cast doubt, as this one seems to, on the rigour of the regulatory process are probably going to do damage to the prospects of GM food crops in general.
---
Here's Monsanto's page about SmartStax Corn.
Here's the website for the CFIA. Here's CFIA's approval of SmartStax corn.
And here's the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

Non-Native Bugs, Biotech, and Environmental Ethics

From The Guardian: Bug brings hope for fight against Japanese knotweed

It arrived quietly nearly 200 years ago and now threatens numerous British plants, allotments, gardens, pavements, buildings, railways and water courses.

Japanese knotweed - capable of growing 3 metres in as many months - costs a fortune to control and has so far resisted attempts to stem its relentless progress.

Now researchers are sending for help to Japan, the knotweed's homeland, for a tiny bug that depends on the plant for its lifecycle. They work for Cabi, an international agricultural research body, which has been studying how Aphalara itadori, named after its host plant, might provide a solution....

According to the Guardian, "Authorities in England and Wales are consulting the public" on whether the plan should go ahead. Clearly, introducing an alien species of bug is not a trivial matter...no one can say for sure just what the net ecological impact would be, though presumably the relevant scientists would have some idea, for example, whether there are other local plants that are likely to fall prey to this new bug. But still, caution is warranted.

Question: would it make a difference if this bug, rather than being introduced from Japan, were instead a genetically modified bug introduced from a British laboratory? That is, what if the solution were a biotech solution. Now, by some definitions, this already is a biotech solution. According to the Convention on Biological Diversity:

"Biotechnology" means any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use.

That's pretty broad, but it's not exactly a loony definition either. So this project could easily count as biotech. But what if this were more, shall we say, hardcore biotech? Would there be more, or less, reason to be worried about a GM version of a native British bug, than a "natural" version of a Japanese bug?

New Science Casts Doubt on Gene Tests

From the Calgary Herald: Canadian discovery raises questions about gene studies

Scientists in Montreal have discovered that not all human cells are identical, a surprising observation that could turn genetic research upside down.

For years, scientists have worked on the assumption that, when it comes to DNA, every cell in the body is essentially similar to every other cell.

But the results of a study published in the July issue of the journal Human Mutation show there are major genetic differences between blood and tissue cells....

My question: how will Personal Genomics companies like 23andMe, Navigenics, etc., respond to this news? This new discover seems to imply that the standard methods those companies use to gather genetic samples may be fundamentally flawed.

So, will they suspend service until they understand the issue better? Should they? Of course, I'm not a geneticist — so maybe I'm over-stating the significance of this new bit of science. But then the question is, will Personal Genomics companies (who do, after all, employ geneticists) explain to the purchasing public the extent to which this new finding is-or-isn't relevant to their services?

Monsanto Dives Into GM Wheat

I blogged last week about GM wheat: Biotech's Real Customer: Will GM Wheat Producers Repeat Monsanto's Error?

Now this week comes this press release, from Monsanto: Monsanto Company Invests in Developing New Technologies for Wheat With Acquisition of WestBred Business

Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) announced today it is expanding its strong seeds and traits portfolio to include wheat. The company has acquired the assets of WestBred, LLC, a Montana-based company that specializes in wheat germplasm, the crop's seed genetic material. The investment will bolster the future growth of Monsanto's seeds and traits platform and allow farmers to benefit from the company's experience in drought-, disease- and pest-tolerance innovations.

"The U.S. wheat industry has come together to call for new technology investment, and we believe we have game-changing technologies - like our drought-tolerance and improved-yield traits - that can meaningfully address major challenges wheat growers face every season," said Carl Casale, executive vice president of global strategy and operations for Monsanto. "Through WestBred, we'll be able to deliver advances in breeding and biotechnology to deliver a step-change in yield while creating a springboard for new partnerships and collaboration opportunities that create additional value for farmers...."

Two points worth noting:

1) Monsanto's plan seems to focus on engineering relatively-uncontroversial traits like drought-tolerance. According to the press release, "the company's plans do not include further development of the first-generation Roundup Ready® trait in wheat." (Roundup tolerance has been criticized for its potential to allow farmers to use more of the herbicide, something that raises obvious environmental worries.)

2) The press release is 100% focused on farmers and the wheat industry. Nothing in the press release shows any indication that Monsanto considers consumers — the people who will end up eating the wheat — to be a significant stakeholder. So maybe my question should be: Will Monsanto repeat Monsanto's error? Of course, it's possible that this isn't an error at all; maybe Monsanto is (now) powerful enough, and GM is well-enough established in North America, that Monsanto knows it can ignore consumers as stakeholders. But at very least you'd think they'd be careful about sending what might be an unpopular message.

California: New Regs for Gene Tests?

The popular assumption is that business hates regulation. That's not quite true. Like individual people, business likes laws and regulations — within reason, laws and regs protect us, and provide a degree of regularity to life. But of course, we'd also all like to have some input into the form those laws and regs take.

From the San Jose Mercury News: Online gene testers propose their own regulations

After gene-testing businesses were criticized by state regulators last year for marketing to California residents without a license to perform clinical laboratory tests, the industry decided it was time for new regulations — which it decided to write.
A bill drafted by 23andMe and introduced by state Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Van Nuys, would exempt gene-testing firms from requirements faced by other kinds of labs while adding new privacy protections for consumers....

Worth noting:

The bill amends the California Business and Professions Code to distinguish conventional lab services from "bioinformatics services," which use mathematical algorithms to identify ancestry and disease risk. That's appropriate, the companies say, because they don't actually perform the scans themselves — they are simply Web portals that disclose the results of tests performed by contract labs, which are licensed.

This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to fragment moral responsibility.
Also:

Additionally, SB 482 would not require physicians but rather experts with either a master's or a doctorate to approve the mathematical algorithms used to interpret genomic data. The tests are not diagnostic but merely educational, the companies say.

"Merely educational," eh? They why do company websites refer to things like "taking control of your health," etc.? And, company websites aside, given the buzz about genetic testing, how many customers are going to make the reasonable assumption that a genetic test must have some diagnostic significance?

Hawaiian GM Debate Mirrors Larger Debate

From Maui Weekly: Council Reviews Taro Bill

For those who arrived at the Maui County Council Chambers on Thursday, June 25, anticipating a consensus on a proposed ordinance to ban genetically engineered (GE) kalo, or taro, in Maui County, it soon became very clear that a decision may hang in the balance for some time.

After listening to hours of testimony Thursday afternoon, the council’s Economic Development, Agriculture and Recreation Committee reconvened on Monday, June 29. However, Monday’s hearing, which many hoped would yield a vote to push the bill to the full council, generated a flurry of uncertainties from several committee members.

Seems to me this small, local debate serves as a neat case-study, and presents many of the same issues that arise in the debate over GM more generally, including:

• Trouble defining what counts as "genetic modification;"


• Mistrust of science;


• Super-mistrust of corporate science;


• Questionable scientific competency on the part of relevant government authorities;


• Difference of opinion within the farming community;


• Commercial interests trying hard not to look like commercial interests (and hiding behind the public interest);


• The trading of silly rhetorical barbs (one side is "anti-science" and the other side is "patriarchal." Ug.)

Biotech's Real Customer: Will GM Wheat Producers Repeat Monsanto's Error?

Here's an interesting article about the history and future of GM wheat in the U.S.

From the High Plains Midwest AG Journal: Future of biotech wheat lies with growers, providers

As the wheat industry continues its long progress toward the development of a commercially viable biotech wheat seed, it's important to recognize where the industry has been, as well as where it hopes to end up.

U.S. Wheat Associates Vice President, Director West Coast Office John Oades said discussions over biotech wheat varieties have been going on in one way or another for more than a decade. Many segments in the industry have had differing opinions, he said, on just what the solution should be to the question of biotech wheat. The industry as a whole, though, has come a long way from the early days of biotech research....

Amazingly, there's practically no mention of consumers here. There's brief mention of "some resistance in the European Union and Japan to transgenic crops." But that's it.

"Biotech companies, the scientific community and governments need to work through problems together," Oades said. "Change is most often met with skepticism. We must continue to widen our communication to bring key customers to the table and share good solid refereed science."

Does anyone recall why Monsanto was caught off-guard with regard to resistance to GM crops? The standard account, at least, is that they made the mistake of focusing on making sure GM seeds would be acceptable to their customers — farmers — and didn't think enough about the end-users, namely the consumers who would end up eating GM foods — or refusing to.
_____
p.s., here's the "Biotechnology Principles for Commercialization" document referred to in the article.