A REALLY SCARY STORY FOR HALLOWEEN

Most people are aware that GM food (otherwise known as frankenfood) is one of the hottest topics around at the moment. Will genetically modified organisms save the world or tip us all over the edge into the abyss of corporate barbarism? Is frankenfood safe or will it transform us all into cancer-ridden hermaphrodites?
The answer depends on whom you ask. Anti GM campaigners want to see an end to the biotech revolution they perceive to be the most harmful conspiracy against Nature ever. Biotech companies gush about the advantages and safety of GM food and assure us that all safeguards are rigidly maintained to ensure that modified plant genes cannot possibly escape into the wild.

Who do you believe?

The following story may help you make up your mind.

New Scientist magazine recently reported on a court case in the US between a biotech company and a farmer. Unfortunately, I no longer have the article for direct reference but I can give you the general facts. I can’t remember the precise type of crop but for the sake of argument the farmer grew normal maize and the biotech company was cultivating experimental GM maize close by.
Biotech companies believe that a 100 metre exclusion zone around a field in which GM crops are being cultivated is sufficient to prevent cross pollination with unmodified wild and cultivated species. In this particular case the belief proved to be erroneous.
Somehow part of Farmer McNugget’s crop became cross pollinated. McNugget harvested his maize and kept seeds to produce his next crop. He would have been unaware that some of his seeds were hybrids (contaminated with modified genes through cross pollination) unless he had deliberately stolen pollen from the GM plants, which seems unlikely.
The timescale of the events that followed depends upon the nature of the modified genes involved. Were the modified genes dominant or recessive?* If the GM genes were dominant then every hybrid seed would have produced a first cross (Year 1) plant with a GM phenotype (outward appearance) which I assume is markedly different from that of the unmodified maize (bigger perhaps?). If the hybrid seeds contained recessive GM genes then the recognisable GM phenotype would not have appeared until Year 2, when the hybrid plants were pollinated with either pure GM pollen from the experimental crop and/or from other McNugget hybrids. A recessive gene would also mean that approximately 50% of the contaminated Year 2 crop would resemble unmodified maize even though it contained modified genes. Only “double recessive” strains would be recognisable GM plants. The contamination would grow exponentially with each generation (yearly crop).
I assume that the biotech company informed McNugget that part of his crop contained genetic material that was the intellectual property of the company and that he should not propagate the GM/natural hybrids. Whether he was aware of the situation or not, McNugget continued to propagate GM and hybrid maize along with normal stock. The biotech company must have been aware that part of McNugget’s crop had become GM contaminated after either year one or two. They could not be certain he was continuing to sow GM/hybrid seed until year two or three.
This is when the company called in the lawyers.
To cut a long story short, McNugget lost the case, was fined heavily and had his crop destroyed. The New Scientist report casts scepticism on biotech insistence of “safe” margins separating GM and non GM crops. NS believes the farmer was treated most unfairly. So do I.
NS did not, however, report the extent to which McNugget’s field was contaminated. Also, the NS article didn’t report whether or not the GM genes were dominant or recessive. Nor do I remember NS stating whether or not the experimental GM plants were removed from the environment after pollinating non GM crops.
What is certain is that McNugget was punished for “stealing” GM technology. He was not compensated for the contamination caused by a GM experiment that was neither contained nor adequately controlled. The most alarming aspect of the case is that the farmer was found guilty of GM theft but the biotech company was not held to be responsible for polluting the environment. A frighteningly blatant case of might is right!
Imagine what would happen if dominant modified genes escaped into the wild and spread. For all we know this process is already well under way. The biotech companies assure us that they have the problem under control, that they are producing “designer” genes that ensure modified genes have a built in “self destruct” that will switch them off and render them “safe”. The theory is sound but in practice it doesn’t yet work. McNugget’s hybrids certainly didn’t contain this “terminator” technology. Biotech companies are playing with fire. When will governments wake up to the serious possibility of conflagration and send for the fire brigade?

* Quick lesson in basic genetics. Genes can be dominant (D) or recessive (r). First cross hybridisation would produce genetic diversity such as DD, Dr, rD and rr. DD and rr are “pure” strains and would be different. (say DD produces large plants and rr produces small ones). Any plant containing the D gene would be large even if it contained a recessive gene too. Small plants would be “double recessive” i.e. contain two r genes. GM plants would possess either double dominant or double recessive genes therefore first cross hybridisation for double dominant plants with normal plants would produce DD Dr rD genotypes. All the plants would resemble the double dominant GM parent. A double recessive GM first cross hybrid would produce Dr and rD. Both plants would resemble their “normal” dominant parent. Year 2 pollination would produce DD, Dr, rD and rr offspring but only the rr plants would resemble the GM stock, leaving 50% of the transgenic crop with modified genes but a “normal” appearance. Hope you’re still with me after reading this!