Centre for Plant Bidiversity Research
Centre for Plant Bidiversity Research
CSIRO Discovery Lecture Theatre, Wednesday 6 September at 4 pm
The
first seminar in the series discussed the topic of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) and the environment. The event was well attended and sparked a range
of interesting questions from the floor.
The principal speaker was Dr Mark Lonsdale of CSIRO Entomology.
Chair: Prof Derek Anderson, Chairman of CPBR Board.
The panel comprised:
The Powerpoint presentation given by Mark Lonsdale can be accessed from this web site.
A summary of the main talk and panel presentations, prepared by Roger Beckmann, is set out below.
Given the recent large growth in the area planted to GM crops (the USA now exceeding 30 million ha), it’s important to analyse the potential benefits and risks of the new developments. While the benefits are already fairly well known, the risks necessarily remain rather unquantified.
The talk focussed on environmental risk and ways of assessing it, and given his background as an ecologist specialising in biological invasions (particularly plant weeds), Mark concentrated on the lessons from such invasions.
Invasions are rare events. The majority of ‘transplanted’ species fail; about 10% may establish transient and small casual populations; about 1% may succeed in becoming ‘naturalised’ with a fully integrated self-sustaining population and only about 0.1% are likely to manifest as weeds or pests. But the damage from these comparatively rare events can nevertheless be severe. Even useful species can have unforeseen ‘side-effects’.
An example is Gamba grass in the Northern Territory. One of more than 400 species introduced to northern Australia, it has been a useful fodder grass because it produces a higher biomass than native grasses. Its perennial nature and increased biomass have changed local fire regimes. As the grass has spread to homesteads outside Darwin, it has posed increased fire risks.
In a similar fashion, GMOs - although created with specific, useful purposes in mind - could present unforeseen effects.
Other concerns are the spread of introduced genes to wild relatives; a gain of insecticide resistance in non-target species; recombination of GM viruses with other viruses, and changes to management practices causing some environmental degradation.
New Research project
Data about any impacts of GMOs on biodiversity is very scarce. Mark is managing CSIRO’s Weed Management Program; part of this program is the establishment of a new $3 million project to coordinate research on the ecological implications of GMOs and help fill the data vacuum. Findings will be in the public domain, and the research will provide detailed information to inform the regulatory processes for GMOs.
The project will concentrate on the interaction between GMOs and communities and ecosystems on and off site, as well as off-site studies of individuals and populations. The research will also grapple with risk analysis and risk communication.
Examples of field crop studies proposed are monitoring the effects of new gene products on soil biota and soil processes such as nutrient cycling; or researching the effects of Bt crops on non-target insects - in particular the ‘beneficial’ insects that work to control pests through predation and parasitism.
The effects of proposed GMOs - such as Bt eucalypts or modified rumen biota - will also be assessed in desk studies. The point is not just to consider what could go wrong, but also to examine the larger consequences if the genetic changes work as predicted. For example, the creation of faster-growing, sterile Pacific oysters, if successful, may result in the expansion of the oyster-growing industry which could bring its own environmental consequences.
Risk Assessment
Inherently tricky, risk assessment must be probabilistic and quantitative. Ecological risk assessment needs to consider broad consequences that could flow from cascade effects in ecosystems. Mark likened a GMO in such a situation to a pollutant that could reproduce itself.
Once it is assessed, risk should be communicated. How people then perceive risk, and how they act upon those perceptions, is strongly influenced by potential or actual benefits and by the nature of the society and culture involved.
The old model of communicating risk involved experts speaking from on high. A more modern model involves having a dialogue between various interest groups and consulting widely with different sectors of society.
In Australia, the public attitude to gene technology varies according to the proposed use. Data from Katrine Baghurst (CSIRO Human Nutrition) was used to illustrate this point [ graph ]
Currently, most actual or planned GMO releases in Australia are connected with agriculture and this is not seen as being useful by much of the non-farming public.
Mark concluded with the observation that there was a range of views in the scientific community as much as in the wider public, and that there was a need for more data and more informed debate. He reiterated that this new project was entirely publicly funded and would be free of bias. Hopefully, this would form part of a genuine debate on the future of our agriculture.
PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Paula Fitzgerald gave the point of view of producers and farmers, based on market research of 775 grain and livestock producers, of whom 86% were male.
Many respondents (64%) considered that the main benefits of GM technology were environmental, with 56% nominating greater returns. When asked to consider disadvantages of the technology, 40% nominated ‘consumer backlash’.
Most producers (77%) said they would need more information before considering a move into a GM product. But 24% said that they would not even consider producing GM food.
The producers nominated health considerations, market acceptance and sustainability issues as the main factors they would consider before embarking on GM food production. Only 15% rated the prospect of increased yields as an important factor in this decision.
Paula concluded that, overall, the farming community wanted more information, especially about how these new developments would affect management regimes and the specifics of their work.
Craig Cormick reported on tracking public opinion about GT and on the media’s treatment of the technology. There is a spectrum of views in the community, with many people acknowledging that they simply don’t know enough. For example, 60% and 80% respectively don’t understand the terms ‘gene technology’ or ‘biotechnology’ well enough to feel able to explain them to others. Tracking the change in knowledge and opinion over time shows that people are moving out of the ‘don’t know’ category when asked their opinion and are moving towards the two ends of approval and disapproval.
The data Craig presented confirmed that attitudes to gene technology vary with the use to which it will be put - medical and environmental uses being more approved of than agricultural or food uses. There was also a marked gender difference, with females being less likely than males to approve of GT across all uses.
Craig explained the process of adoption of new technologies in society and predicted that, within about ten years, today’s GT debate will be largely forgotten and most of the community will be happily accepting genetic modification.
TJ Higgins described some GT research in CSIRO. The two aims are to evaluate genes for use, and to obtain a better understanding of plant biology. The latter point is often overlooked. When researchers plan and conduct their work, they are mindful of risks both to health and the environment. Institutional biosafety committees consider all work before it goes to GMAC for approval. TJ made the point that there already is a considerable amount of environmental risk assessment taking place. After describing the possible future for plant GT - more sustainable production and improved performance, improved nutrition, and the growth of new industries in pharmaceuticals and chemical feedstocks - he concluded that the technology is ‘evolutionary’ and not ‘revolutionary’. It is making incremental, useful changes to organisms rather than revolutionising their function.
Graeme O’Neill explained how he has patiently talked to all sides in the GM food debate as part of his research for a book on the issue. Graeme considered that much of the ‘anti-GM’ lobby was concerned more about the future direction of agriculture, the ownership of modified genes, and the control of world food supply rather than the genetic changes per se.
He argued that the views of the ‘concerned’ group have captured the media almost to the exclusion of news about the benefits of the technology. The debate is unequal, and journalists are not always reporting the issues well.
He noted that, increasingly, people are using non-media sources of information - mainly the internet - in which, even more than newspapers, they can browse only those points of view that concur with their own prejudices without any exposure to contrary opinions.
Questions from the floor were many and varied. There was considerable interest in the presentations of some of the panellists on public and media perceptions.
Roger Beckmann
