Enjeux - GMOs, a stormy debate

GMOs, a stormy debate

Sowing, harvesting and exchanging are fundamental rights of countries and individuals. After more than 15 years of controversy over GMOs, scientists, farming professionals, associations and consumer groups continue to debate an ever-stormy topic: can we modify the genome of plants, animals or any living organism, and in which conditions?

THE CONCEPT

Definition

A GMO, short for genetically modified organism, is a living animal, plant or micro-organism produced through a new selection technique called transgenesis. Using this technology, pioneered roughly 30 years ago, breeders first succeeded in identifying genes that are advantageous for the species they are seeking to improve – corn and soya bean, for example. They then managed to isolate this gene and, using several techniques, introduce it in the genome of the species concerned , thus creating a new variety. The added gene, which can come from the same species or another species, gives the variety a new characteristic, referred to as “genetically improved”. Man has always sought to improve varieties and species by crossing “improvement” genes. Older methods were simply a great deal more empirical.

Not to be confused: OGMs and biotechnology

Simply put, a GM variety features a new characteristic carried by a new gene introduced into its genome. Scientists refer to this gene as a “trait”. Gene building is not about assembling; rather, it is an ongoing flux of modifications, insertions and transfers. We now talk about the “fluidity” of the genome, which becomes a part of a wider ecosystem extending to the population of individuals and to relationships with the environment.  This is the systemic vision of genomics that dominates today, with its different layers of organisation and exchanges.

More generally, biotechnologies group an entire set of recent technologies,  one of which is the creation of GM varieties, alongside molecular marking, knowledge of the genome, and so on. The purpose of these new tools is to facilitate and accelerate the work of breeders using conventional selection methods.

Advantages of GMOs

So why are scientists and seed manufacturers so interested by GMO technology? Conventional selection consists essentially in crossing two varieties, A and B, through several generations to obtain a third variety that retains the main characteristics of A but with a very precise trait from B (disease resistance or higher protein content, for example). The problem is that it takes a long time to obtain the sought-after result (ten years to create a new variety of wheat) and that a high number of individuals have to be crossed. Also, the trait-bearing gene from variety B that the breeder wants to introduce is often accompanied by unwanted traits.

Creating GM varieties enables us to precisely identify and isolate the sought-after gene without the unwanted gene cocktail in tow. GM engineering is also faster to implement and can be used to introduce a gene from another species. For example, a gene from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium used in insect control in organic farming was introduced into corn to make it resistant to predatory moths, a serious pest for corn farmers.

PROGRESS REPORT

Crop protection

Initial GMO research focused on the production of therapeutic substances like insulin and treatments for cystic fibrosis. While the interest of using GMOs in drug production is easy to understand, it is harder to grasp in the development of insect-resistant plants or herbicides. The first GM varieties strengthened plant resistance to pests and parasites. The main advantage touted at the time was that they reduced the number of crop protection treatments in fields. Moth-resistant GM corn, for example, eliminates the need to use foliar insecticide, while the cultivation of varieties of herbicide-resistant beets in the USA has enabled farmers there to reduce herbicide treatments from four to five times a year to once or twice.     

A vast range of possibilities

Work has also begun on creating GM varieties that are resistant to disease and viruses, and to drought, salinity and cold. Teams are working to improve crops by enhancing the way plants absorb fertilisers. It is also possible to “stack” a single variety with several resistances.
Breeders are also looking to increase the starch, protein and vitamin content of plants. With potatoes, for example, scientists are trying to alter the proportion of different starches in the tubers to reduce the amount of oil absorbed by French fries in the cooking process.

Other work in progress

Researchers have started work on programmes aimed at enhancing the way animals absorb plant proteins. They hope to reduce the quantity of protein-rich plants used to make one kilo of meat and thus respond to growing food needs in the coming years. Other work in progress concerns the improvement of wood pulp production. The goal is to significantly reduce the wooded area needed to produce the same amount of paper.

PROBLEMS POSED BY GMOs

A plethora of questions

Despite the benefits they may offer, GMOs raise a plethora of questions, particularly concerning ethics, technological dependence and interspecies rights. Do we have the right to blend the genes of one species with those of another? Do we need to make legislation on these aspects and impose limits? Should companies be allowed to patent living matter like manufacturers patent inventions? Is it right that these companies take and appropriate genes naturally present in plants, bacteria and other living organisms? Couldn’t this legitimately be considered as ‘bio-piracy’? In the long-term, isn’t it likely that variety innovation/selection will be concentrated in the hands of a few multinationals? That the majority of the planet’s agricultural production will depend on a handful of private corporations? These are just some of the questions posed by anti-GM movements.

Gene dissemination in the environment

GMO cultivation also raises environmental issues, in particular on the risk of gene dissemination in farmland bordering GM crops. The pollen of GM varieties can be transported by the wind or by insects over considerable distances and come into contact with non-GM plants of the same species, weeds bordering fields, and cultivated plants. The seeds resulting from this cross-pollination can themselves carry the gene of the GM variety. Anti-GM movements have long been fighting this risk in France, occasionally destroying GM crops and trials.

Moratorium on GM cultivation in France…

Under the pressure of anti-GM movements and in response to the fears of French society, the French government introduced a moratorium in early 2008 that led to a complete ban on GM cultivation in the country. This decision was seen as a victory by anti-GMs but provoked great disappointment in pro-GM circles. This political stance also conflicted with the viewpoint of European scientists. The cultivation of GM varieties is still authorised in other European countries, notably Spain, where nearly 40,000 ha of moth-resistant GM corn hybrids are cultivated.   
In 2009, for the first time since the mid-1980s and the first work on GMOs, no GMO trials were authorised in France.
    
… but GM imports are still allowed

The cultivation of GM varieties is banned today in France. But imports are still allowed, and the EU and France import large amounts, particularly soya bean used in animal feed. Pro-GMO farmers find this paradox unfair and incoherent.

OUTLOOK AND SOLUTIONS

Research falling behind?

Seed researchers and professionals deplore the fact that France has arrived at this deadlock because they see it as a threat to the future of French research and expertise in plant biotechnology. Researchers have also been shocked to see their trials destroyed by anti-GM groups. They consider it indispensable to maintain GMO experiments to keep France from falling behind laboratories and companies in other countries, especially the USA. From their point of view, preventing European breeders from using these technologies could result in variety innovation and selection being concentrated in the hands of a highly limited number of private firms or multinational capital.

Competitive distortion

For their part, pro-GM farmers in France see themselves as victims of competitive distortion compared with farmers in countries authorising GMO cultivation. Reducing the number of crop protection products and obtaining more productive varieties, those for example that use available water or fertilisers better, cut production costs. French producers are afraid that they will become far less competitive than their counterparts in other countries. 

A clear framework for GMO cultivation?

European and French authorities have for some time been discussing an acceptable threshold of GMOs in non-GMO seeds and non-GMO crops. But a conclusion has yet to be reached. A limit of 0.9% has been suggested (the proportion adopted for foodstuff labelling) but is contested by anti-OGM movements. And despite numerous studies, neither has a decision been taken on rules for producing GM and non-GM varieties (for example, the distance between fields) and avoiding the risk of cross-pollination.

Setting such a threshold and establishing precise rules on the “co-existence” of GM and non-GM crops would be seen as a great step forward by the farming world, enabling them to produce GMOs trouble-free. Anti-GM groups are holding their positions, however, and think that cultivating GM varieties is quite simply too risky for the time being.

To calm things down and clarify the situation, the French government set up a High Council of Biotechnology in April 2009. One of the Council's first asks will be to rule on the definition of what is and what isn't a GMO.
  
Meanwhile, researchers and breeders are coming up with new ideas that could be used in regulation. For example, scientists suggest that companies be required to systematically provide a for-and-against analysis report for each case. They also propose that toxicology tests be strengthened when approval requests are submitted, for example by extending them to at least two species, by making tests longer than 90 days, and by factoring in the sex of the individual, along with other aspects that for the moment do not figure in inspections.

Imprimer

Les autres dossiers :

• Les OGM au coeur de la controverse
• Les Biocarburants : une voie d'avenir ?
• La PAC est-elle indispensable ?
• Les phytosanitaires : à bannir ?
• L'agriculture : une menace pour la biodiversité ?
• Agriculture et gestion de l’eau, sont-elles incompatibles ?
• Les attaques contre la viande sont-elles justifiées ?