Genetic contamination by a "jumping gene"
Contamination of a "weed" by transgenic rapeseed
August 22, 2005
Update of October 23: governmental omerta regarding tests on rats conducted with GMOs
Sources :
http://www.agronome.com/article.php?sid=356
and
It is known that genetic contamination (the theme of the "jumping gene") can occur. This is a phenomenon that already exists in nature. What is serious is when one imagines that humans, through the genetically modified organisms they create, could cause uncontrolled genetic transfers. They have created a transgenic rapeseed resistant to herbicides. The idea seems logical: to give a plant species a resistance that weeds will not have, thus increasing agricultural yields.
According to the sources above, the sequence that the transgenic rapeseed was equipped with would have been transmitted to mustard, a "weed," which would then itself have become resistant to herbicides.
I think humans do not realize that by generally practicing genetic manipulations, they are playing the role of an apprentice sorcerer by meddling with something they think they understand. Nature does not function like a Meccano set. The DNAs of different species are composed of genetic sequences, but also of "junk DNA," sequences that are not genes and whose function is not understood, neither how they work nor what they are for. Some think that this "junk DNA" (junk in English means "debris"!) has a crucial regulatory function. For example, it is this junk DNA that would regulate the acceptance or rejection of genetic sequences, or at least contribute to the control of genetic sequences.
One could say, for example, that if a genetic sequence could be transferred to the DNA of rapeseed, it was presumably relatively mobile, and therefore capable of contaminating another plant species. The same remark can be made about biological weapons, which are also based on modifications of the genetic heritage of bacteria. By creating new species through "genetic grafting," we circulate (when we experiment with them) strains carrying "mobile" sequences, which in turn could graft onto anything. It does not seem illogical.
In any case, living organisms do not function like a black box, with input and output. A well-known example is the genetic sequence associated with glaucoma, a genetic disease that causes blindness in children.
- If this sequence is present in his DNA, he will contract the disease
- If it is present ... twice, he will not contract it.
And we do not know why it is so. In these conditions, the precautionary principle suggests that we should refrain from meddling with something we do not understand well. However, behind the development of GMOs, there are mainly financial interests, dependencies on seed supplies, masked under humanitarian claims. Recent reports (which I no longer have the reference to) show that the introduction of GMOs in India not only did not increase yields, but actually reduced them, increasing poverty in these regions. This is not to our friend Koutchner's liking, a great defender of GMO technology.
In the references cited here, it is a phenomenon in which weeds may have recovered the genetic sequence making them resistant to herbicides, with the consequences that can be imagined for the agro-industry. This comes from the United Kingdom and here is the text:
| The first super weed mutant was discovered in the UK | Friday, August 12, 2005 - 16:40 | Source: frederic.prat@geyser.asso.fr on August 12, 2005. | SOME DOUBTED IT WOULD SURVIVE, BUT IN THE END, GENETIC CONTAMINATION OCCURRED. | Sky News | announcement in an article of 25/07/05 (in English): "The first super weed mutant was discovered in the UK - result of a cross between genetically modified rapeseed and an ordinary weed". | In the framework of an official study, researchers found, on one of the test sites, a genetically modified version of "mustard" (a common weed) one year after experiments with rapeseed made resistant to herbicides through genetic manipulation. | The plant studied was found to be resistant to the herbicide in question and to contain the gene that had been inserted into the transgenic rapeseed. | According to Sky News, this is the first known case of such an event and contradicts previous scientific claims that "mustard" was unlikely to cross with rapeseed [1]. | Some conclude that if the transgenic rapeseed were to be commercially exploited [2], the herbicide-resistant weed would spread. Emily Diamand, OGM coordinator for Friends of the Earth, said: "We see here the real possibility that transgenic super weeds are created, with serious consequences for farmers and the environment." | [1] In an article published on 25/07/05, BBC News, for its part, downplayed the information, explaining that only one mutant plant had been found. | [2] The company Bayer has submitted two requests to the European Commission for the cultivation of transgenic rapeseed. |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The first super weed mutant was discovered in the UK | Friday, August 12, 2005 - 16:40 | Source: frederic.prat@geyser.asso.fr on August 12, 2005. | SOME DOUBTED IT WOULD SURVIVE, BUT IN THE END, GENETIC CONTAMINATION OCCURRED. | Sky News | announcement in an article of 25/07/05 (in English): "The first super weed mutant was discovered in the UK - result of a cross between genetically modified rapeseed and an ordinary weed". | In the framework of an official study, researchers found, on one of the test sites, a genetically modified version of "mustard" (a common weed) one year after experiments with rapeseed made resistant to herbicides through genetic manipulation. | The plant studied was found to be resistant to the herbicide in question and to contain the gene that had been inserted into the transgenic rapeseed. | According to Sky News, this is the first known case of such an event and contradicts previous scientific claims that "mustard" was unlikely to cross with rapeseed [1]. | Some conclude that if the transgenic rapeseed were to be commercially exploited [2], the herbicide-resistant weed would spread. Emily Diamand, OGM coordinator for Friends of the Earth, said: "We see here the real possibility that transgenic super weeds are created, with serious consequences for farmers and the environment." | [1] In an article published on 25/07/05, BBC News, for its part, downplayed the information, explaining that only one mutant plant had been found. | [2] The company Bayer has submitted two requests to the European Commission for the cultivation of transgenic rapeseed. |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A reader, Frédéric Thomain, even goes as far as suggesting that plants might, in the face of an attack, practice a kind of "genetic solidarity" through the resources of their junk DNA. It is not a bad idea.
**October 23, 2005. An article published on October 12 in Le Canard Enchaîné. **
Genetically modified omerta
Industrial secrecy! This is the argument now used by the State to keep the results of studies on the health impact of GMOs secret. What reassures the consumer...
It has been eighteen months since the CRII-GEN, the committee bringing together independent experts on genetic engineering, around the former Minister of the Environment Corinne Lepage, noticed that some documents from the Biomolecular Genetics Commission (CGB), the body responsible for giving the green light to GMOs, which were usually made public, are now being kept secret: in particular, the results of tests conducted by Monsanto on rats fed with its Bt-11 corn have become untraceable.
The association immediately filed a request with the Commission for Access to Administrative Documents, the Cada for short, which ruled in its favor last April: "Toxicity studies conducted as part of the health risk assessment must be disclosed."
So what if the Minister of Agriculture, Dominique Bussereau, still refuses to release the results?
Is it because they are worrying? It is not impossible:
the CRII-GEN has indeed learned of the existence of three tests conducted on rats with other GMOs, which showed at least unpleasant effects: a "significant" increase in white blood cells in males, a decrease in red blood cells accompanied by an increase in blood sugar levels in females. Another study, conducted on MON 863 and which Monsanto had to make public in June last year under pressure from the German judiciary, is also alarming: it was found that by consuming for ninety days this corn designed to resist the Colorado beetle, a pest, the rats changed their blood composition and saw an increase in the weight of their liver and kidneys, with the added bonus of infections in these two organs.
One might have thought that the public authorities, who are great advocates of transparency, as we know, would take measures to ensure that consumers are properly informed. On the contrary...
Just before leaving, Raffarin issued an order prohibiting the disclosure of documents obtained by the Cada if they harm industrial secrecy.
As two precautions are better than one, France has just intervened to amend a European directive that allows the publication of information relating to the health effects of GMOs. Matignon sent a note to the Commission on September 19, with the following arguments:
"Such communications (...) are likely to damage public confidence in the risk management process but also to harm the competitive position of the company."
What a strange idea! Public confidence is flawless, of course, we would eat GMOs with our eyes closed...
Return to the beginning of this page devoted to GMOs
Return to Guide Return to Home Page
**Number of visits to this page since August 25, 2005: **