Days after 35 Nobel Laureates and over 1,000 scientists signed a letter to promote New GM Techniques (NGT), Prof Michael Antoniou, molecular geneticist and expert in genetic engineering technologies at the King’s College London, explains why it is wrong to promote NGT.
In an email interview with Jitendra Choubey, Prof Antoniou advises India to believe in basic science and not repeat the mistakes made by the European Union by ignoring the health and environmental implications of the NGT. Excerpts:
1. How is the New Genomic Technique (NGT) different from the Genetically Modified (GM) Technology?
NGT is another form of GM technology - an artificial laboratory method for altering the genetic makeup of a crop or animal. The main difference between NGT and older style transgenic genetic modification (GM) methods is that in NGT developers try to make a targeted genetic alteration of an existing gene or the targeted insertion of a foreign transgene. The technology claims ‘precision’ and only “mimics” what happens in nature. Hence, the argument goes, why regulate something that can occur naturally? All genes work as part of a network or ecosystem and therefore changing just one gene can have major ramifications to the biology/biochemistry of an organism. In the case of NGTs and old style transgenic GM methods, many gene functions will be altered. This will consequently lead to changes in global patterns of gene function, altered biochemistry and composition, including production of novel toxins and allergens. Thus, there is little difference in the end between NGTs and transgenic techniques; both use the same genetic modification processes (plant tissue culture, plant cell genetic transformation), which invariably result in genome-wide, large scale unintended mutations. The outcome from the application of NGTs is far from predictable and thus a comprehensive, in depth safety evaluation is required before marketing.
2. Are there any proper field trials to assess the negative impact of the New Genomic Technique, such as production of unexpected toxins or allergens or altered nutritional value?
Unfortunately, there are no studies published assessing the health and environmental impacts of any gene edited foods, including those already marketed (e.g. gene edited tomatoes in Japan). This is a shocking and dangerous knowledge gap that makes a mockery of any claims of gene edited product safety. Negligently, advocates of NGT deregulation use this absence of evidence as evidence of absence of health risks. This is totally unscientific as any position should be based on solid experimental evidence, not presumptions, assumptions and beliefs. What we do know is that there are numerous studies showing potentially health damaging effects, particularly with respect to kidney and liver function, stemming from the consumption of first generation transgenic foods.
3. Do we need to regulate the process of gene editing instead of the end products or both to guard against biodiversity loss and challenges to food security?
Process as well as end product regulation is essential. This is because taking into account the process of genetic modification informs of how things can go wrong as well as how you intend them to go. Coal or oil-fired power stations and solar panels produce the same electricity but you cannot claim that the environmental impact of fossil fuel power stations and solar panels is the same. Hence, governments enact different regulations for the “processes” of fossil fuel power stations and solar panel arrays to protect the environment. Product developers demand deregulation of end product but negligently ignore the genome-wide, large scale mutational effects of the gene editing process and thus put health and environment at risk.
4 A study shows gene editing produces more than the natural processes and can potentially end global hunger. How do you see this claim?
There is no scientific evidence that gene editing of crops either produces higher yields or robustly confers disease resistance, pathogen resistance or greater tolerance to environmental (abiotic) stresses such as heat, drought, salinity, etc. What we do know is that traits such as higher yields, and robust disease resistance, pathogen resistance and greater tolerance to environmental (abiotic) stresses are genetically complex traits; i.e., have the functioning of many gene families at their basis.
This type of massive, complex and balanced combinatorial gene function is far beyond what gene editing and NGTs in general can provide, which is the manipulation of one or a few genes. Only natural breeding can bring about the large combinations of genes to confer complex traits. Thus, claims by developers of gene editing of crops (and animals) that they can end global hunger are not supported by science and is nothing short of propaganda and even emotional blackmail to try and win support from governments. Indeed, we must bear in mind that problems of global hunger is not due to a lack of food but access to food. Producing more whilst not solving the problem of poverty is not going to help.
5. In India, the government has been trying to get the Supreme Court’s approval for cultivation of GM mustard despite the fact that the yield of non-GM crops is more. How is the EU’s NGT approval going to impact India?
I am not surprised that genetically modified mustard performs less well than natural non-GM mustard. This provides a real world example of what I mentioned previously about just how damaging the GM process can be to the organisms genome/DNA resulting in unexpected compromised performance, which has been observed since the launch of GM crops in 1996.
Basic principles of genomics and molecular genetics tell us that gene editing is doomed to fail on its promises to deliver complex traits such as higher yields, robust disease resistance, and greater tolerance to environmental stresses. Many nations look to the European Union (EU) as a guide for the regulation of novel products. Thus, the fear of those of us who harbour major concerns about the safety and environmental impact of NGT products is that if the EU passes legislation that deregulates the vast majority of NGT products, then many other nations, including India, will follow suit putting public health and the environment at risk.
My advice to India is be true to what basic science tells about the imprecision and unpredictability NGTs, particularly gene editing. India should put its money, time and energy into natural breeding programmes, which can be augmented with non-GM marker assisted selection biotechnology to produce new crop varieties as needed to meet agricultural challenges including those we face from climate change.