THE ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA VOICES ITS CONCERNS
Michelle Marvier
Almost every week, major newspapers carry some sort of story about
genetically engineered organisms (GEO's). The headlines range from promises of
feeding the world, to corporate malfeasance, to the mislabeling of food, or the
latest accidental release. With the media's propensity for sensationalism, it is hard
to sort through all of these stories and find a level-headed discussion of risks
and policy options. Into this hubbub comes a new position paper from the
Ecological Society of America (ESA) entitled "Genetically modified organisms and
the environment: current status and recommendations1." This paper was authored
by a team of well respected ecologistsAllison Snow, David Andow, Paul
Gepts, Eric Hallerman, Alison Power, James Tiedje, and LaReesa Wolfenbargereach of whom has expertise in some aspect of the environmental risk assessment of GEO's. As an official position paper, the manuscript underwent extensive peer-review and has received the approval of the ESA Governing Board. The paper (available at
http://www.esa.org/pao/esaPositions/Papers/geo_position.htm) is both a position statement, complete with direct recommendations regarding the development, risk assessment, and regulation of GEOs, and a thorough review that will help readers navigate the fast-paced developments regarding the environmental effects of GEOs and their risk assessment.
Although the environmental effects of GEOs have been reviewed
previously, most past reviews focus on either a subset of organisms (e.g., GE plants) or
a subset of GE traits (e.g., herbicide resistance). By reviewing both current
status and future prospects of all GEOs (plant, animal, virus, bacteria, etc.), the
authors provide the most comprehensive review to date. The literature cited
section alone, with over 170 cited references, is a tremendously valuable resource
for anyone interested in the environmental consequences of GEOs. This paper
will also help readers appreciate the amazing variety of applications to which
genetic engineering has been or will be applied. Indeed, the potential applications
of genetic engineering appear to be limited only by our imaginations, and the
ever-expanding breadth of these applications is highlighted in five text boxes within
the position paper.
In our fervor for progress, however, there are some important issues that tend to get overlooked. The ESA position statement does an excellent job of reminding us of the salient concerns. The review offers six clear and well-reasoned recommendations regarding the future and on-going evaluation of environmental effects associated with GEOs. Below, I quote and comment upon each of these six recommendations (italicized text is quoted directly
from the position paper):
1. Early planning in GEO
development GEOs should be designed to reduce unwanted environmental risks by incorporating specific genetic features, which might include sterility, reduced fitness, inducible rather than constitutive gene expression, and the absence of undesirable selectable markers.
Although early planning to avoid problems is obviously a
wise recommendation, a recent report from the National
Research Council cautioned that no means of biological containment will
be foolproof and that incorporating several distinct mechanisms
of biological containment into a GEO will help to delay, but
not entirely prevent, transgene escape2. Genetic mechanisms
for biological containment will help to reduce risk, but they are
no silver bullet solution. Recommendations to shift toward
inducible gene expression should be especially helpful in delaying the
evolution of resistance among pest species targeted by transgenic traits.
2. Analyses of environmental benefits and
risks Rigorous, well-designed studies of the benefits and risks associated with GEOs are needed.
It is worth reiterating here the authors' point that the
presumed benefits of GEOs are often taken for granted, but that
these benefits (especially the environmental benefits) have not been
well documented. To actually test whether the anticipated benefits
are materializing will require much better data on the
geographic patterns of GEO implementation than are currently available. But
it is not only the benefits that have been poorly quantified. The
risk assessment studies used to support decisions for
deregulation suffer almost universally from poor replication, short
duration, small scale, and other design flaws that greatly reduce
their chance of detecting an existing
problem3. Improving studies of both benefit and risk will require improved communication and cooperation among ecologists, molecular biologists, and
other scientists with diverse expertise.
3. Preventing the release of unwanted
GEOs Strict confinement of GEOs is often impossible after large-scale
field releases have occurred. Therefore, we recommend that
large-scale or commercial release of GEOs be prevented if
scientific knowledge about possible risks is inadequate or if
existing knowledge suggests the potential for serious unwanted
environmental (or human health) effects.
Here the authors make the often overlooked point that
some releases of GEOs may be irreversible, and that this potential
for irreversibility should invoke a precautionary approach. All
too often, the release of GEOs has been compared to the release of
an agrichemicale.g. 4. In fact, GEOs and agrichemicals
are fundamentally differentchemicals eventually degrade
and become diluted as they spread, whereas transgenes have
the potential to persist indefinitely and to spread without
dilution. Certainly, we should proceed more cautiously when we
may not be able to return the environment to its original state.
4. Monitoring of commercial
GEOs Well-designed monitoring will be crucial to identify, manage,
and mitigate environmental risks when there are reasons
to suspect possible problems. In some cases,
post-release monitoring may detect environmental risks that were
not evident in small-scale, pre-commercial risk
evaluations. Because environmental monitoring is expensive, a
clear system of adaptive management is needed so
that monitoring data can be used effectively in
environmental and regulatory decision-making.
The authors argue not only that risk assessment
studies should be made more rigorous, but also that no matter
how rigorous these pre-release studies become, they will
always fall short when it comes to detecting certain low
probability or low magnitude effects. Because of these problems,
post-release monitoring will be essential. Several
creative possibilities for initiating such a system are discussed
within the paper.
5. Regulatory
considerations Science-based regulation should: (a) subject all transgenic organisms to a similar risk assessment framework, (b) recognize
that many environmental risks are GEO- and site-specific, and therefore that risk analysis should be tailored to particular applications, and (c) incorporate a cautious approach to environmental risk analysis.
The timing of the release of this paper couldn't be better
as the USDA is currently considering modifying its regulations regarding GEOs5. Hopefully, federal regulators will take notice of these recommendations and incorporate many
of them into their new rules.
6. Multidisciplinary training Ecologists, agricultural scientists, molecular biologists, and others need broader training to address the above recommendations. We strongly encourage greater multidisciplinary training and collaborative, multidisciplinary research on the environmental risks and benefits of GEOs.
Given that the current trend in biological education is to move toward ever more specialized curricula, calls for multidisciplinary training seem to be falling on deaf
ears. But having a narrow background can lead to some highly undesirable consequences. For example, I recently met a scientist from India who was working to genetically engineer an endangered fish so that it might better tolerate waters that had become intensely polluted with
heavy metals. With just a little training in ecology, this molecular biologist would likely have recognized the foolishness of his research ambitionafter all, having one species of
fish tolerate heavy metals would only mean those metals could be accumulated and passed up the food chain, possibly even to humans. The need for breadth in biological training simply cannot be overstated. Ecology is a science that has documented numerous indirect linkages among species and environmental surprises following disturbancesthis is a perspective too often lacking in the training of molecular biologists. Conversely, ecologists often shun
biotechnology without appreciating the opportunities it offers.
Overall, the ESA position paper on GEOs provides balanced and concrete advice for scientists and regulators. The message of this paper, the scientific credentials of
its authors, and its rigorous peer-review combine to make it a must-read for anyone involved in the policy or science of GEO risk assessment. Sadly, when one considers recent mishaps with corn engineered to produce pharmaceuticals6, the gap between the recommendations made in the ESA position paper and reality is huge.
Literature Cited
1. Snow AA, Andow DA, Gepts P, Hallerman EM, Power A, Tiedje JM, Wolfenbarger LL. (2004) Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: current status and recommendations.
http://www.esa.org/pao/esaPositions/Papers/geo_position.htm
2. NRC (2004) Biological confinement of genetically engineered crops. The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.
3. Marvier MA. (2002) Improving risk assessment for nontarget safety of transgenic crops. Ecological Applications 12:1119-1124.
4. Freckleton RP, Sutherland WJ, Watkinson AR. (2003) Deciding the future of GM crops in Europe. Science 302: 994-996.
5. Gewin V. (2004) New ways to regulate GMOs. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:60.
6. Gillis J. (2002) Soybeans mixed with altered corn; Suspect crop stopped from getting into food. The Washington Post November 13, 2002
Michelle Marvier
Biology Department and Environmental Studies Institute
Santa Clara University
mmarvier@scu.edu

GENE FLOW FROM CULTIVATED RICE: ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
Bao-Rong Lu
Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa) is one of the world's most important cereal crops, providing staple food for nearly one half of the population. In many developing countries, rice is
the main source of food security and is intimately associated with local lifestyles and culture. With the rapid increase of global population, much greater rice production is
demanded, leading to wide application of transgenic biotechnology to rice for genetic
improvement1. Although no GM rice has been officially approved yet for extensive
commercial cultivation in the world, genes conferring traits, such as high amounts of beta-carotene, high protein content, disease and insect resistance, herbicide resistance, and salt tolerance, have been successfully transferred into different rice varieties through transgenic techniques2, 3. Some of these GM rice breeding lines or varieties
have been released into the environment for testing. It is apparent that as an important world cereal crop, transgenic rice varieties will inevitably be released into environments for commercial production in the near future.
Undoubtedly, biotechnology and GM crops will provide new opportunities for global food security and development in life sciences. However, the uses of GM crops have also aroused tremendous concerns about their biosafety world wide. The potential ecological risks associated with transgene escape through gene flow are the foremost among these concerns4.
When alien transgenes escape to and express in weedy or wild relatives of GM rice, transgenes may persist and disseminate within the weedy or wild populations through sexual reproduction and/or vegetative propagation. Transgenes that are responsible for resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses (such as disease and insect resistance, drought and salt tolerance, and herbicide resistance) can significantly enhance the ecological fitness of weedy and wild populations. The escape of these transgenes may cause ecological problems, for instance, by producing aggressive weeds, the spread of which might result in unpredictable consequences to local ecosystems. On the other hand, when transgenes escape to and persist in
wild rice populations, the rapid dissemination of transgenic hybrid individuals (or progeny) might change the original wild rice populations. In some cases, the aggressive spreading of hybrid swarms with better ecological fitness could even lead to the extinction of endangered
wild species populations locally5. Therefore, knowledge of the likelihood of gene flow from rice to its weedy and wild relatives will help to predict the magnitude of the
potential ecological consequences caused by transgene escape. This knowledge will also facilitate the effective management and safe use of the transgenic crops.
Cultivated rice and its weedy and wild relatives
The first step in the assessment of gene flow and its consequences is to determine which weedy and wild species can hybridize with the crop to produce fertile offspring. Cultivated rice is included in the genus Oryza of the grass family (Poaceae). This genus includes
two cultivated species (Asian rice Oryza sativa, and African rice O. glaberrima) and more than 20 wild species with ten different genome types, i.e., AA, BB, CC,
BBCC, CCDD, EE, FF, GG, JJHH, and JJKK. The wild relatives of rice with different genome types usually have significant reproductive isolation, making them unlikely to hybridize under natural conditions. Therefore, the wild species of concern for transgene escape are only those containing the AA genome.
As close relatives of cultivated rice, some wild rice species such as O. rufipogon, O. nivara, O. longistaminata, and O. glumaepatula are commonly found or coexist in rice farming systems of many Asian, African, and American countries. The weedy rice (also referred to as red rice, Oryza spontanea) is frequently observed in rice fields as an accompanying weed, particularly in the rice fields with direct-seeding cultivation practices. These AA-genome weedy and wild relatives are highly compatible sexually with cultivated rice. Their interspecific F1 hybrids could form complete chromosome pairing in meiosis and have relatively high pollen and seed fertility to produce viable offspring. Thus, studying gene flow from rice to its weedy and wild relatives becomes an important component for the potential ecological risk assessment of GM rice, because gene flow is the primary step from which potential ecological consequences of transgene escape may follow.
Gene flow from cultivated rice to its weedy and
wild relatives
In order to estimate the pollen-mediated gene flow from cultivated rice to its weedy and wild relatives, experiments were conducted at two sites in Kyongsan of South Korea and Chaling of Hunan Province, China, respectively, under special field conditions mimicking the natural
occurrence of weedy and wild relatives in Asia. Two types of experimental designs were established by constructing different populations to examine gene flow from cultivated rice
to weedy and wild rice species.
Gene flow from transgenic rice to weedy rice was measured using a transgenic rice variety (Nam29/TR18, as a pollen donor) with herbicide resistance (bar) and 13 accessions of weedy rice collected from Asia and America. The experimental plot was designed as complete random blocks where Nam29/TR18 was planted and mixed with one of the 13 weedy rice accessions in each block, respectively (Fig. 1).
Each block consisted of eight weedy rice plants. For identification of hybrids between Nam29/TR18 and weedy rice, seedlings generated from different weedy rice plants were sprayed with herbicide Basta at the 34-leaf stage. The surviving seedlings with resistance to herbicide Basta were considered hybrids and were subject to PCR detection of the herbicide resistance bar gene to confirm their hybridity. Gene flow frequencies were estimated by calculating the number of hybrids against the total number of seedlings germinated. The average frequencies of weedy rice seedlings with herbicide resistance were very low and varied among different blocks, but
with no significant differences among the replications. The experimental results indicated that the detectable rate of herbicide resistance gene flow from the transgenic rice to weedy rice plants varied between 0.011~0.046%.
Gene flow from cultivated rice to perennial common wild rice was measured using the Minghui-63 rice variety, and wild rice O. rufipogon (as pollen recipient)
was planted in different models to allow outcrossing to occur naturally. Co-dominant simple sequence repeats (SSRs) were used as molecular markers for accurate identification of hybrids between cultivated rice and O. rufipogon. The selected SSR primer pair amplified polymorphic alleles from the two species, which were easily distinguishable with electrophoresis in agarose gels. O. rufipogon presented a consistent fast-migrating allele (F) and Minghui-63 a slow-migrating allele (S) in the gels. The hybrids between the two species displayed stable heterozygous (FS) alleles. Leaf samples of germinated seeds from O. rufipogon populations were collected from individual seedlings
for SSR examination. Gene flow frequencies were estimated by calculating the number of seedlings with the FS heterozygote SSR pattern against the total number of seedlings examined. As a result, the frequencies of detected interspecific hybrids varied from 1.21~2.94% in different planting models. Gene flow frequency from cultivated rice to O. rufipogon was therefore expectedly high, up to ca. 3%, although humidity and wind strength and direction significantly affected the rate of gene flow.
Potential consequences of transgene escape from GM rice to its weedy and wild relatives
With current concerns over weed problems caused by wild rice, and particularly the weedy rice in rice farming ecosystems, one of the major fears is whether the transgenes in GM rice varieties will escape to their wild and weedy relatives through gene flow, and enhance the fitness of the wild relatives. This could increase the weediness of
wild and weedy rice that invade rice fields, causing serious weed problems. Our experimental data clearly indicate the likelihood of gene flow from cultivated rice to its wild and weedy species, although with different frequencies. The gene flow frequency from cultivated Minghui-63 to wild O. rufipogon in different planting models varied between 1.1~2.94%. These frequencies are significantly high in terms of transgene escape if the cultivated GM
rice varieties are grown in the vicinity of wild rice species. Therefore, for the purpose of preventing or minimizing transgene escape to wild relatives, it is recommended that isolation zones with a sufficient space or with trap plants between GM rice and O. rufipogon should be established, until more effective methods are available. Effective isolation from GM rice will benefit the genetic integrity of in situ conserved wild rice populations.
The detected gene flow frequencies from GM rice line Nam29/TR18 to various weedy rice accessions were very low, ranging from 0.011~0.046% in one generation, when a weedy rice strain occurred simultaneously in a rice field. However, the gene flow frequency from cultivated to weedy rice in large populations might be more significant than the data observed in this experiment. Actually, rice cultivars cross easily with their related weedy forms
(red rice) found in direct-seeded paddy fields and produce viable and fertile hybrids with a reasonable rate. In addition, when weedy rice consistently occurs simultaneously with a cultivated rice variety in the same field, the number of hybrids resulting from gene flow could accumulate and increase through generations. If GM rice varieties are released to environments where weedy rice occurs abundantly, the transferred alien genes could spread and accumulate in weedy populations. This may pose a severe problem for weedy rice control and management in
rice production. Therefore, release of transgenic rice with genes that can significantly increase weediness and can resist weed control measures is not recommended in regions where weedy rice is already a serious weed problem.
References
1. Huang JK, Rozelle S, Pray C, and Wang QF. (2002) Plant Biotechnology in China. Science 295: 674-677.
2. Matsuda T. (1998) Application of transgenic techniques for hypo-allergenic rice. Proc. Intern. Symp. on Novel Foods Regulation in The European Union Integrity of The Process of Safety Evaluation. Berlin, Germany 1998, p. 311-314.
3. Potrykus I. (2002) Golden rice: concept, development, and its availability in developing countries. In: Abstracts of International Rice Congress, Beijing, China, p. 46.
4. Snow A. (2002) Transgenic cropswhy gene flow matters. Nature Biotechnology 20: 542.
5. Kiang YT, Antonvics J, and Wu L. (1979) The extinction of wild rice (Oryza perennis formosa) in Taiwan. Journal of Asian Ecology 1: 1-9.
Bao-Rong Lu
Professor and Deputy Director
Institute of Biodiversity Science, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433 China
brlu@fudan.edu.cn
GENETICALLY MODIFIED MAMMALS PRODUCE HEART-HEALTHY FATS
Jing X. Kang
Both omega-6 (n-6) and omega-3 (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) are essential lipids for good health, but they are metabolically and functionally distinct and often have important opposing physiological functions1. Their balance is important for homeostasis and normal development. During the period when our genetic patterns were established, the ratio of n-6/n-3 PUFA in the diet was around 12. Deviation began ~10,00015,000 years ago (too short a time to affect genetic adaptation significantly) with adoption of agriculture and animal husbandry, mainly of ruminants. Modern agriculture, with its dependence
on grain diets, led to an increase in total saturated fatty acids and in the n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, linoleic and arachidonic acids. In the past century, the industrial revolution, with the emergence of agribusiness with processed foods, grain fattened livestock, and hydrogenation of vegetable fats, has further reduced the content of n-3
fatty acids and increased n-6 fatty acids (the ratio of n-6 to n-3 essential fatty acids in today's Western diets is around 1520:1)2-3. Recent studies suggest that excessive amounts of n-6 PUFA and a very high n-6/n-3 ratio promotes the pathogenesis of many modern diseases (e.g., heart disease, cancer, etc.), while balancing or reducing the ratio of
n-6/n-3 fatty acids may decrease the risk of these diseases1. Thus, for good health it is necessary to have a balance of n-6/n-3 fatty acids in the diet and in our bodies. To
overcome this modern nutritional problem, there is a need to test if return of a missing fat-1 gene encoding an enzyme found in C. elegans4-5, n-3 fatty acid desaturase, which catalyzes conversion of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids, to mammals enables them to produce n-3 from n-6 fatty acids.
To heterologously express the C. elegans n-3 fatty acid desaturase in mice, the fat-1 gene encoding this protein was modified from the original by optimization of codon usage for mammalian cells and coupled to a chicken beta-actin promoter and cytomegalovirus enhancer, which are highly active in a wide range of cell types and
therefore allow high-level and broad expression of the transgene in mice6.
The expression of the fat-1 in F1 pups from
transgenic founder mice and their offspring was examined by
Real-Time PCR of tail DNA and by analysis of tail lipids.
The transgenic mice appear to be normal and healthy.
Both transgenic and wild type mice are maintained on a diet
high in omega-6 fatty acids (mainly linoleic acid) with very
little omega-3 fatty acids (~0.1% of total fat supplied).
Feeding this n-3 fatty acid-deficient diet allows us to identify
the phenotype readily. Under this dietary regime, wild type
mice have little or no n-3 fatty acid in their tissues because
the animals naturally cannot produce n-3 from n-6 fatty
acids, whereas the fat-1 transgenic mice should have
appreciable amounts of n-3 fatty acids (derived from n-6 fatty acids)
in their tissues if the transgene is functional
in vivo7.
Since the phenotype of the transgenic mouse lines is
mainly reflected by lipid profiles, we analyzed the fatty acid composition of various organs of the transgenic mice at different ages by gas chromatographymass spectrometer. Figure 1 shows the differential fatty acid profiles of total lipids extracted from skeletal muscles of age- and sex-matched wild type and transgenic mice. In the wild type animals, the polyunsaturated fatty acids found in the tissues are mainly (98%) n-6 linoleic acid (LA, 18:n-6) and arachidonic acid (AA, 20:4n-6) with a trace (or undetectable) amount of n-3 fatty acids.