Drug Making Genes Added To Corn Jump To Soya

Anonymous Cowdog writes "Google News turned up a scary item today: Apparently, genetically altered corn, designed not to repel pests or withstand bad weather, but rather to grow pharmecuticals (for diabetes and diarrhea) has been accidentally mixed with soy plants in the field, resulting in 500,000 bushels of contaminated soybeans being quarantined by the US FDA. Ooops. Here's the story, and here's another story about the same case. The company who brought us this nice event is called ProdiGene. Looks like they're also working on an edible AIDS vaccine (kinda makes sense, eat Tofu, enjoy free love!) Now, I was thinking, will our government protect us from doom-by-hand-me-down-genes? and on a hunch (honest!) I did this google search for keywords ProdiGene and "george w bush". Result? A not so reassuring article."

Comments

Misleading headline

[mskfisher]

The headline on this story seems misleading - the genes did not jump to soybeans from the corn, the genetically-modified corn was accidentally added to some unmodified soybeans.
AFAIK, genes don't have the ability to do an inter-species jump like that...

Re:Misleading headline

[cybrpnk2]

I'm pro-genetic engineering, but we've gotta be careful while we tamper with the forces of nature. Genes CAN apparently jump species barriers, see for example this...

How is it possible?

[djkitsch]

How is it practically possible to completely isolate these new genetically "enhanced" strains anyway? Surely as long a they're being grown in the big wide world, the genetic changes will crep into the food chain anyway...?

Of course, I speak as a complete idjit when it comes to all things biological...

Amber mutations

[daniel_howell]

Whatever happened to 'amber mutations' for this sort of genetically engineered 'drugs factory'? An amber mutation is one which will not kill the plant/animal with it, provided it gets some substance not commonly available in the environment. But if the susbtance is not provided then the organism simply dies.

It was originally used with lab and sealed-vat based organisms to protect against accidental releases, but it could easilly be applied to farm based plants. Since the kind of farming that uses genetically modified organisms also tends to use a significant quantity of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers it would be simple to add one more non-toxic chemical to the mix, without which the plants would simply die (or fail to reproduce). You could then deal with any problems by withdrawing the supplement, and any escapees would quickly die. There would still be a slight risk of genetic 'contamination' of nearby crops, but it would be much lower than at present.

If I were a cynical type I would suspect that biotechnology companies are counting on accidental contamination to make it impossible to ever go back to a 'GMO free' state, thus safeguarding their business. Another (cynical) alternative is that to build in a safeguard is tantamount to admitting that you *need* a safeguard, which would adversly affect their sales.

Sometimes it's hard not to be a cynic.

Re:Amber mutations

[Tsu-na-mi]

Most GM seeds are hybrids, and thus are inherently infertile. There is no need for a 'suicide gene'.

On your cynical comment, you're more correct than you think. I believe the companies _want_ their patented genes to spread, so they can extort money out of people contaminated by their crops. There was a story a year or so ago about a farmer in Western Canada who had GM varieties growing on his farm (that he did not buy from the seed company). He argued that it must have blown off a passing seed truck, or something, but the court ordered him to destroy his entire crop (since it had the _unlicensed_ patented seeds mixed in. THAT is where the problem lies IMHO.

I work in the ag industry (data analysis), so we hear all about this stuff. The GM food itself isn't the problem, it's the associated patents, etc. that are the problem.

No biological equivalent to chroot

[SgtChaireBourne]

Genetically modified crops can be a real controversial issue. The research can be both interesting and useful, the trouble lies in the implementation and with the rush to get things to market.

Gene hacking is not the same as the gradual breeding proceses that have gone on for millenia. In the latter, each step is relatively stable, in the former, large potentially disruptive leaps can be made more or less overnight. Unfortunately, unlike with computers you don't have the comfort of chroot and/or virtual machines.

Re:No biological equivalent to chroot

[Oculus Habent]

You do, however, have test fields, laboratories, sampling, testing, et cetera.

It's not as though on Monday a scientist modifies a gene and on Friday it's being sold in 100,000 grocery stores.

There is a huge process of making sure there aren't any adverse changes to the plant, that you haven't accidentally made a super corn laced with cyanide...

If you think that scientists are just randomly changing genes in foods intended to be sold, you've lost your grip on reality. Experimentation happens, but no sane food/drug company would risk the impact of such a level of carelessness/unconcern.

Maroon carrots and golden rice made their way into the market - I didn't hear much screaming about genetically altered food then.

ever ehard of cross polinisation ?

[aepervius]

Maybe you are right, but the study on cross polinisation make a lot of people kinda warry in EU, and a lot of people there says that definitly 3 or 4 years was not enough to study the complete "life" cycle and possible jump a gene might make between plants, and the possible bad results of , say, a gene resisting desherbant into a wild specy.

And when such SLOPYNESS comes to light, I can certainly give reason to people asking for more study of impact.

Re:ever ehard of cross polinisation ?

[archeopterix]

Just because horizontal gene transfer is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it's likely. They are still looking for evidence of horizontal gene transfer between bacterial genomes in nature and, with the exception of plasmid transfer which plants don't really have, haven't found it.

As far as I know there is some indirect evidence of horizontal gene transfer coming from phylogenetics. Scientists have found very similar pieces of DNA (introns) in different species that are phylogenetically far away. Moreover, their closer relatives do not have such pieces. One can consider several explanation of this phenomene:

1. Their common ancestor had this piece of DNA. This is not improbable, but we are talking about pieces of DNA that aren't expressed (that's what introns are), so there is little or no evolutionary pressure on them, so one must explain why the closer relatives dumped them.
2. They same piece of DNA evolved independently in both species. Not very probable, see 1 - no pressure on introns, so convergence not very probable.
3. Horizontal gene transfer occured.
4. The phylogenetical tree is wrong. Well, it seems that however we arrange the tree, some introns do stick out.

Of course, this is not an established scientific proof, but it seems that scientists find more and more of evidence supporting point 3. By the way, crossbreeding is not the only possibility of HGT - viruses are capable of transferring genetic material (at least their own) between organisms, so they may be responsible for HGT. Again, google for 'introns' 'horizontal gene transfer'.

PS. Feel free to point out oversimplifications in the above post.

Re:Caution...

[DAldredge]

That "leader" of that African country didn't refuse the food aid because it was genetically altered. It was refused because he is using food as a weapon to starve out his opponents.

Just do a google search on "Zimbabwe Food"

http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,50 13 2.jsp
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefreso urces/4 89432
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020605-231 50816.h tm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/215941 8.st m

From the first URL.

"The Zimbabwe government has told some non-governmental organisations involved in food distribution to stop operations. Aid workers have been told they could be arrested if they continue to distribute food without being registered with the government."

Big deal?

[jaredcoleman]

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand the huge fear about genetically altered food. Sure it would be bad if say, a large number of plants were altered to take in oxygen and release CO2, but why can't I eat such a plant? It's not like my body is going to absorb their DNA, actually my enzymes and acids will break the food down and absorb the nutrients, then get rid of the waste. As long as a company can show that any genetic alterations do not make the plant produce poisons, what's the big deal? I've been wondering this for a while, and help would be appreciated.

They do not ... (breathe in, exhale, repeat)

[JoeGee]

Read farther down in the posts. Some leftover GM corn kernels were allowed to mature in fields which had been replanted with non-GM soybeans. The resulting harvest had soybean seeds mixed with a tiny amount of GM corn kernels.

The soybeans did not acquire genetic material from the corn.

It is my (possibly flawed) understanding that such a transfer might, might, conceivably (we're talking one in several million odds or so) happen with a viral vector, but such a virus would be considerably more likely to glom onto a completely different corn gene and transpose it. Even if the modified gene did jump, the virus carying the gene would have to infect one of the soybean's sex cells to be present in the end food product, or to be passed on.

Re:Article doesn't mention gene jumping

[Idarubicin]

It might also be worrying if you were allergic to normal corn (if they still grow that in the USA) (and found it in your soy food).

Nobody eats normal corn these days. The original corn plant actually looked a lot like wheat. Tiny kernels. No supersweet peaches and cream. Corn has been bred and tweaked for centuries to give the product we describe in so cavalier a manner as 'corn'.

Fear and loathing of GMOs

[airuck]

Are GMOs really that scary? Hollywood and some environmental activists would have you believe that genetic engineering is a fusion of Frankenstein's monster and an out of control grass fire. The concepts of relative risk and benefits are rarely discussed. There is also the laughable notion that agriculture is a pristine environment which can only be tainted by GMOs.
Wake up. Most plants and animals associated with agriculture are

• not native to the region in which they are grown
• heavily inbred and hardly recognizable
• displacing the "natural" biota
• a huge source of pesticides, fertilizers, and waste products
• heavily dependent on fossil fuel

Modified crops can and will turn sunlight into complex molecules for industry and medicine. There is already an addressed need to monitor our food supply for chemicals and pathogens. So new tests and controls are now necessary. So what?

Jeffrey Bates - Pay Attention!

[djtack]

The headline isn't just misleading, it's just plain wrong. The story is less than an hour old and there are already a fistful of comments pointing this out.

If any of the editors are reading this thread, the headline needs to be corrected!

BTW, I reread the summary a few times, and it seems that the person who submitted the story got it right. The poster makes no mention of any sort of horizontal gene transfer between the corn and soy, but only claims the crops were "accidentally mixed", which is what happened. It's Hemos who fscked this one up.

Re:Why not put dangerous genes in non-food crops?

[airuck]

Large Scale Biology in Vacaville, California is doing just that. They use tobacco.

The reason that so many GMO efforts focus on food crops is that many of these crops have well understood genetics and are extremely productive in converting sunlight to biomass.

Greenhouses could be used, but the extreme expense could invalidate one of the main purposes of complex molecule production in plants: cost.

TNF in your gut would be digested into small, biologically inactive peptides. Nutritious and delicious!

Tactics: Scare-mongering

[gryf]

What part of 'science' includes a title like 'Drug Making Genes Added To Corn Jump To Soya' when referring to a story about a logistical mistake?
Here we have one crop, untested and whose long-term effects have never been fully studied, growing accidentially side-by-side with seed currently undergoing testing of the crop's potential long term effects.
It's these kinds of tactics that hide the weak underpinnings of the anti-GM rabble-rousing, which is not to be confused with informed debate. Posting this story in this fashion is as ethically valid as fighting corporatism by smashing a row of small shops. Such attempts to raise people's awareness of the problems undermines the very attempt to educate by clouding the issue with baseless accusations.