Biosecurity
of transgenic Bt technology
Biosecurity issues
raised to oppose GE crops by anti-tech activists are relevant even to
products of classical agricultural biotechnology, but were never made
an issue in that context.
-C Kameswara Rao, Foundation for Biotechnology
Awareness and Education, Bangalore
krao@fbae.org
In the context of modern agricultural biotechnology the term
biosecurity has two components, biosafety, the safety of genetically
engineered (GE) organisms and/or their products to humans and animals
as food, feed and medicine; and environmental safety, the safety of
non-target organisms, soil and water. The terms biosecurity
and biosafety are often used incorrectly as
synonyms.
Biosecurity issues raised to oppose GE crops by anti-tech activists are
relevant even to products of classical agricultural biotechnology, but
were never made an issue in that context.
It was the international scientific community, not the anti-tech
activists, who have identified the possible biosecurity risks from the
transgenic crops and devised testing and mitigation protocols. Science
has reasonable peer reviewed experimental evidence to answer
biosecurity concerns. The regulatory process in every country ensures
that all questions are answered reasonably satisfactorily before
commercialization is permitted. Most of those who raise biosecurity
issues to voice their opposition to GE crops have no locus standi in
terms of scientific knowledge and expertise to trash the combined
global scientific wisdom.
Biosafety of Bt
Bt being a universally occurring soil bacterium, all species of plants
and animals in agricultural and other situations, and those that use
plants as food have been exposed to Bt and Bt proteins for centuries.
Bt proteins are transient in the environment, the toxicity of Bt
proteins is pest specific, dependent upon a set of biological
pre-requisites. The use of Bt as a conventional pesticide for
over 60 years has demonstrated that it is safe to a variety of
non-target organisms. Cry proteins were shown to be harmless to
vertebrates, including mammals and humans, even at high doses, by
ingestion, inhalation or injection.
Toxicity and allergenicity
Anti-tech activists raise issue after issue to brand GE crops as
toxic. Reports of the death of peacocks and the death of farm
animals in Andhra Pradesh and honey bee colony collapse disaster in
Europe and North America, were attributed to the presumed toxicity of
Bt proteins in GE crops. These incidents projected as major
issues have been effectively shown to be due to causes other than Bt
protein toxicity. Several claims have been made of allergenicity of
transgenic crops, including Bt cotton in some places in India, but
there has never been any scientific evidence.
Impact of Bt on
non-target organisms
The much-brandished instance of toxicity of Bt proteins to non-target
organisms was based on the study by Losey, et al., (Nature,
1999) who reported that transgenic Bt corn pollen harm monarch larvae,
a conclusion immediately questioned by Hodgson
(Nature Biotechnology, 1999). Subsequently, Sears,
et al., (2001) re-examined the issue, avoiding the flaws in the
experimental design in the study of Losey et al., and concluded that
impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations was not
significant.
A February 2008 publication indicates that Cry 1Ab Bt proteins do not
affect the performance of bumble bees in any manner. In May 2008 Bt
Cry1C proteins were shown to be safe to parasitoids that control pest
populations in many crops, in contrast to the severe damage caused to
the parasitoids by the traditional insecticides.
How safe are Bt
transgenics?
All the evidence indicates that Bt transgenics are very safe and over a
decade’s cultivation of Bt transgenics has neither confirmed
the scary scenarios aired by the critics nor has thrown up any new
threats. Biosecurity issues are unfortunately often mixed up with
political, economic, management, societal and ethical issues,
emotionalizing and sensationalizing the concerns, to spread fear and
suspicion of GE technology.