THE rules the US government is proposing for field tests of crops that have been genetically modified to produce pharmaceutical products are not strict enough to prevent the contamination of food crops, experts have told New Scientist.
They say the proposed rules are based on flawed science, that there are loopholes allowing them to be bypassed, and that companies do not even have to disclose what genes have been added. And they warn of severe environmental consequences if a drug-laced plant were to breed with other crops or wild relatives.
Biotech companies plan to produce a vast range of products, from drugs to vaccines, in plants. 鈥淭hese plants have the potential for more benefit than any other agribiotech product,鈥 says Jane Rissler of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC. 鈥淏ut to realise those benefits we have to be very careful about the risks.鈥 The US Department of Agriculture鈥檚 (USDA) plans don鈥檛 come close, she says.
Advertisement
What scares Rissler and others is that there could be a rerun of the Starlink debacle, in which GM corn strictly not intended for human consumption ended up on grocery shelves. If any contamination involved a crop producing a potent drug, the consequences could be far more serious, she says.
The proposed rules require the 鈥減harmed鈥 plants to be separated from other crops in time as well as space. For example, pharmed maize must be grown at least 400 metres away from other maize. It must also be planted two weeks before or after nearby crops, so that it isn鈥檛 fertile at the same time. Similar regulations have been outlined for other plants that have been engineered to make drugs, including barley, corn, rice and sugar cane. But when it comes to keeping harvested products separate, the rules are vague, talking only of 鈥渁dequate identification, packaging and segregation鈥.
Companies that violate these procedures can be fined $250,000, and individuals could face jail sentences of up to five years. James White, the USDA鈥檚 branch chief for biotech evaluations, is confident the rules will do their job:鈥漈he chance of gene flow is essentially zero.鈥
鈥淭hese rules are more stringent than prior recommendations, and I applaud that,鈥 says Norman Ellstrand of the University of California, Riverside, who sat on a National Academy of Sciences committee that reviewed the regulations for GM crops. 鈥淏ut there are big holes in the system.鈥
The NAS report points out that some of the USDA鈥檚 rules have no clear scientific rationale. For instance, the isolation distance for corn is simply double the 200 metres it recommends for the production of GM seeds. The assumption is that this spacing will reduce contamination to 0.1 per cent, but there is no evidence that the contamination risk drops off with this increase in distance. Only last week, Australian researchers reported that pollen from oilseed rape had contaminated fields up to 3 kilometres away, and that there was no obvious drop-off with distance (Science, vol 296, p 2386).
Another serious concern is that the USDA focuses on the intended use of a crop product and ignores its other possible impacts. For instance, the Texas-based company Prodigene applied to grow maize that produces a chicken-egg protein called avidin, which is known to kill or harm 26 species of insects. But because avidin is not classed as a drug, the crop doesn鈥檛 come under the pharming regulations. Nor did the USDA look at the maize鈥檚 environmental impact because the crop wasn鈥檛 being grown in order to kill insects. 鈥淚f they had used the same protein as an insecticide, they would have called in the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate it,鈥 says Ellstrand.
While avidin鈥檚 properties are well known, that is not the case with every drug that might end up being grown in crops. Ellstrand and his colleagues were disturbed to discover that the publicly available descriptions of genes spliced into some plants are incredibly vague.
White says the USDA will start posting fact sheets on genes in transgenic plants later this month. When a company wants to keep the identity of a gene secret, it will give it a code name and a general description, such as 鈥淕ene S is a hormone in humans. It is harmless to invertebrates,鈥 and so on.
He also says the only drugs so far being grown in crops are proteins that would simply be digested if accidentally eaten by humans or animals. 鈥淭he risks are minimal,鈥 White says. 鈥淣o one is making Viagra in a field.鈥 But there鈥檚 nothing to stop companies producing a Viagra crop if they want to. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a disaster waiting to happen,鈥 says Doreen Stabinsky, a science adviser for Greenpeace. 鈥淕row this stuff in a greenhouse or a cave, not in an open field where animals can grab the seeds.鈥
Ellstrand agrees that stricter containment is needed. Pharmed plants could be genetically engineered to prevent gene flow using methods such as the infamous Terminator technique, which makes seeds sterile, or a newly proposed one dubbed the Exorcist (see 鈥淏egone! evil genes鈥). And to be absolutely certain the food supply is safe, he argues that only plants that aren鈥檛 grown for food should be used to make drugs.
White points out that when the long-awaited regulations are finally published, the public will have 120 days to respond. 鈥淚 wouldn鈥檛 be surprised if we got thousands of letters telling us: not in food.鈥