December headlines

Return to December article index

Plant's genetic code deciphered

December 14
Washington Post

Capping a massive international five-year effort, scientists have for the first time identified and placed in order the more than 100 million letters of genetic code that nature uses to make a plant.

The feat marks only the third time that a complex organism has had its entire genetic code revealed, after the recent genetic unveilings of a tiny soil-dwelling worm and a fruit fly. (The human genetic sequence has been largely completed, but details of that work have yet to be published.)

The new work paints the clearest portrait yet of flowering plants, a unique class of life that arose a mere 200 million years ago and quickly came to dominate most of Earth's ecosystems. It sheds light on how plants diversified and adapted, and in particular how they overcame the special problems that come with being rooted to a single spot, unable to flee or hide. And it reveals that plants have an astonishing array of biological "senses" – more, perhaps, than people have – through which they experience and respond to the world around them.

More practically, because all flowering plants from broccoli and roses to towering oaks are genetically very similar to the species of plant that was studied – a common roadside weed in the mustard family – scientists now have the genetic toolbox that will allow them to tinker with an entire kingdom of life upon which all animals, including humans, are completely dependent.

That could greatly accelerate ongoing and, in some cases, controversial efforts to engineer crops that are exceptionally nutritious or resistant to insects, and to develop plants that can detoxify soil contaminants or make novel medicines or other products in their leaves.

"It's like standing on top of a hill and seeing gold mines everywhere," said Elliot Meyerowitz of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, whose pioneering work on the project helped reveal how silky flowers sprout from woody stems, why different flowers have characteristically different numbers of petals, and how flower genes can influence the eventual size of a plant's edible fruits.

Among many surprising findings, described in eight articles published in this week's issues of the journals Nature and Science, is that flowering plants have closely related versions of many human disease genes. That discovery is already offering clues about why certain human diseases produce the symptoms they do. And it suggests that plants may eventually be useful not only as a source of novel medicines, but also as screening tools for testing the potential usefulness of experimental drugs.

"This is like a Rosetta stone that will allow us to compare all other living things on Earth," said Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis. "It will lead us to discoveries that are unimaginably interesting."

All this from a scraggly 8-inch-tall plant called Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant geneticists a decade ago selected the weed as their "model organism" representing all 250,000 flowering plant species. Because it grows well indoors, matures in less than two months and produces huge numbers of seeds, a single lab group can grow a million of them a year without a single tractor – confirming Ralph Waldo Emerson's observation that a weed is simply a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered.

In 1996, an international consortium of scientists, including the Institute for Genomic Research in Rockville, banded together to form the Arabidopsis Genome Initiative. With funds from government agencies on three continents, the group began unraveling the DNA on the weed's five chromosomes.

The new articles show that Arabidopsis has about 26,000 genes, fewer than in most other plants and about a third the number believed to reside in the human genome. Almost 1,000 of those are involved in photosynthesis, all stolen from an ancient species of photosynthetic bacteria that learned how to make energy from sunlight about 3.5 billion years ago and at some point took up permanent residence inside a line of cells that would become green plants.

Scientists said they were surprised to find that most of Arabidopsis's genes are essentially copies of the plant's original set of about 15,000 genes – indicating that at one or more points in the plant's evolutionary history, its entire genome accidentally doubled in size. Although many of those duplicate genes were gradually lost, the plant evidently kept and modified many others to perform new and useful tasks.

Most of the genes in Arabidopsis are similar enough to their counterparts in other plants that as scientists identify the ones for drought and pest resistance, for example, they'll be able to insert them into soybeans and other crops in which they are expected to work fine.

Moreover, about 30 percent of the genes have notable similarities to human genes, evidence of a very early chapter of life before the forebears of plants and animals went their independent ways about 1.6 billion years ago. Of 289 human disease genes that the scientists focused on, nearly half were found to have near relatives in Arabidopsis.

For example, a gene the plant uses to respond to ethylene gas, a volatile plant hormone, is similar to a gene linked to Wilson's disease in people. That makes sense, because plants use copper to transport ethylene and the human disease involves copper metabolism as well. But some symptoms of the disease have never been easily attributable to copper problems, said Joseph R. Ecker, a professor at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Calif., who works with Arabidopsis. Now the mustard plant findings have given a clue that those symptoms may be related to gas transport problems in patients with the disease gene.

Arabidopsis also devotes more than 400 genes to making the tough walls that surround every plant cell – structural enhancements that animal cells lack but are crucial to plants, whose immobility leaves them no choice but to tough it out under extreme environmental stresses. Many cell wall components are of economic value because they are made into paper, fibers and other products, and scientists want to manipulate the related genes so plants can make materials with enhanced properties.

Researchers also want to get their hands on the genes that plants use to make "secondary compounds," a family of about 100,000 chemicals that animal cells cannot make and that have value as dyes, fragrances, flavorings and drugs.

But perhaps the most fascinating insight into what it's like to be a plant comes from the genetic baring of the plant's complex sensory system. Scientists said they were astounded to find that hundreds of Arabidopsis genes encode hormone receptors, or biological antennas for detecting signals from inside or outside the plant – such as "seeing" sunlight in the day and "feeling" the cold at night.

"It's all about how plants put on sunscreen in the morning and put on their bed socks at night," said Steve Kay of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, who studies plants' biological clocks.

It's also about how plants feel the chewing of insects on their leaves (which they respond to by producing insecticidal chemicals), how they detect the touch of the wind (which triggers water retention hormones) and how they smell gases from other plants (which can trigger blasts of chemical warfare agents).

Plants also have many genes that work like human immune system genes, rallying to attack bacteria and fungi when the plant becomes aware that it has become infected.

The National Science Foundation is launching a 10-year effort, called Project 2010, to understand what every Arabidopsis gene does.

'Indian Bt cotton seeds have no ill effect on goats'

December 13
Times of India

NEW DELHI - Studies conducted by government agencies on Indian BT cotton seeds indicate that there is no ill-effect on goats while such studies are underway on lactating cows, buffalos, poultry and fish.

According to official sources, the commercial release of the seeds would be considered on completion of the studies.

Countries like the US, Australia, Mexico, Argentina, China and South Africa have adopted BT cotton having the gene Cry1a (C) for commercial cultivation.

Regulatory authorities in the US, Australia, Mexico, Argentina, Spain, Canada, Japan, China, Indonesia and South Africa have reviewed safety assessment studies conducted on BT cotton seed of Monsanto and concluded that BT cotton and cotton seeds posed no food, feed and environmental safety threat.

Only one type of BT cotton seed of Monsanto having gene Cry1a (C) has been introduced in the world and the protein is poisonous only to the target Lepidopteran pests, commonly known as bellworm of cotton.

Argentine GM policy endangers investment - Monsanto

December 13
Reuters

BUENOS AIRES - Agribusiness giant Monsanto Co may close some operations in Argentina if the government does not loosen restrictions on genetically modified (GM) food production, a company official said.

"This investment is in danger and if (the cotton seeds) don't get approved it could be yet another plant that closes in Argentina," Potocnik told Reuters in a recent interview.

U.S.-based Monsanto produces herbicides such as Roundup, seeds and related genetic trait products to help farmers grow crops with higher yields while controlling weeds, insects and diseases.

The company's "Roundup Ready" cotton has not been authorized by Argentina's Agriculture Ministry, which is trying to balance local interests with the increasing hostility abroad toward GM products.

Organizations like Greenpeace have rallied public sentiment, especially in Europe, against what they derisively describe as "Frankenstein foods" on the grounds that not enough is known about gene-altered crops to deem them safe.

Argentina is the world's second-largest producer of GM crops but concern has grown about their viability as its No. 1 trading partner Brazil has lately stiffened its ban on GM crops and their importation.

"The risk that we're running is that as a country we could be left behind in a technology that we had the opportunity to latch onto first, and now it seems like we want to give it up," Potocnik said.

About 90 percent of Argentina's 10 million-hectare soybean crop sprouts from Monsanto's seeds.

An Agriculture Ministry spokesman told Reuters recently that Argentina's GM policy had allowed it to gain the upper hand over the United States in exporting corn to Spain.

European Greens propel agreement on GMO release law

December 12
Environment News Service

Brussels - The European Parliament and Council of Ministers have agreed on revisions to the European Union law on deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) after what have been described as heated conciliation talks.

The deal comes over three years after proposals for the revision emerged from the European Commission.

Green Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are claiming a significant victory, having won a new requirement for national authorities to publicize the locations not only of genetically modified crops planted for testing but also the locations of commercially grown crops.

This was the key remaining point of friction after the bulk of disagreements were cleared up last month.

In an unusual twist, the final deal appears to have been driven by an alliance of Green politicians in both the Parliament and the Council.

Parliamentary Greens today specifically complimented Green French Environment Minister Dominique Voynet, who led the Council delegation to the talks. Earlier on in the process, Green MEPs exchanged harsh words with the Parliament's Socialist rapporteur on the directive.

Though governments have agreed to Parliament's demand on public registers, the final text suggests that the Greens' victory may be less than complete.

Member states will have to establish registers for both experimental and commercial releases of GMOs, but will have significant leeway to decide exactly how to make this information public.

Another key outcome of the conciliation talks is agreement on a new requirement for an already agreed ten year limit on GMO marketing approvals. This will be applied also to further renewals.

Biotechnology interests had campaigned strongly against such an outcome. For genetically modified crops and forestry reproductive material, the rule is to be slightly softened.

Ten year approval periods will start when varieties of plant are placed on national seed catalogues rather than when genetically modified "events" are approved under the deliberate release directive.

The Parliament has also won a concession from European Union governments on establishing links between the directive and the United Nations Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Commission is to be invited to propose ways of implementing the protocol by July 2001.

First passed in 1990, the deliberate release law became the focus of intense political debate as public fears about genetically modified crops spread through Europe in the late 1990s.

European Union governments imposed a quasi-moratorium on new approvals of genetically modified organisms in summer 1999, which remains in place, and the European Commission has been forced to make supplementary proposals for strengthened labeling and traceability of genetically modified products.

A resolution adopted by the European Federation of Green Parties at a November 26 meeting in Stockholm declares, "The Green Parties of Europe acknowledge there are scientifically justified concerns about the safety of all foods produced through recombinant DNA technologies and that these genetically modified foods pose unique hazards to the health of both the consumer and the environment."

The Green parties listed these hazards as, "the potential for generating new toxins, carcinogens and allergens."

Besides unique risks to humans, the Greens said, GM foods pose unique risks to the environment: creation of super weeds and super viruses, destruction of biodiversity and pollution of soil.

Biotech wheat goes under the microscope

December 11
The Oregonian

Wheat is the world's most widely eaten food grain and the top grain traded internationally. It's a main crop in Oregon, where the wheat grown is the product of decades of cross-breeding and tinkering by researchers at public land-grant universities.

Now, wheat produced through genetic engineering is on the horizon in the Northwest.

At stake is a crop that contributed $104 million to the state's economy in 1999.

Administrators of Oregon State University's highly regarded wheat breeding program, responsible for developing wheat varieties for production in Oregon, are close to signing a research and development deal with the chemical giant Monsanto to develop a wheat that would resist Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

OSU sees the agreement as a means to help develop better wheat for Oregon farmers. The additional research costs for OSU are minimal, according to officials, and no money will change hands unless a commercialization agreement is drafted, possibly years from now.

Although the actual crops could be years away, genetically engineered wheat would profoundly affect U.S. food supplies. Already, most processed American supermarket foods contain genetically engineered plant material, mostly from soybeans and corn.

But whether Roundup Ready wheat will actually come to market is still up in the air. The international debate about genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is fierce, and the international trade climate is downright hostile to such foods.

Oregon could see key farm exports shrink. About 85 percent of the wheat grown in Oregon and the Northwest is exported. Some of Oregon's big wheat trading partners -- particularly Japan -- strictly regulate or ban genetically engineered products outright.

In the Northwest, scientists and the farming community also are split about the role of biotechnology in developing new crop strains.

Many farmers feel stuck in the middle. Some may want the benefits of decreased weeds through Roundup Ready strains, with the potential for significant dollar benefits because of higher yields. But they also don't want to be left with bins full of unmarketable grain.

"The Pacific Northwest is not prepared for general introduction of GMOs in the wheat industry," said Mark Hegg, a farmer from Palouse, Wash.

Farmers' concerns

The recent costly recall of at least 300 products contaminated with genetically engineered StarLink corn, which has not been approved for human consumption, was the first recall of genetically engineered food. Farmers and producers are worried about the chaos and financial losses that such a fiasco could create for biotech wheat.

"This was a serious breakdown in the system, and we've gotten a chance to learn from the StarLink debacle," said Darrell Hanavan, chairman of U.S. Wheat Associates biotech committee. U.S. Wheat Associates is an export trade organization based in Washington, D.C., with an office in Portland to serve the Japanese market. Hanavan, based in Englewood, Colo., is also executive director of the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee, the Colorado Association for Wheat Growers and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation.

"It may save us from some mistakes," Hanavan said of the StarLink experience.

Keeping grain commodities separate so that genetically modified grains don't mix with standard varieties poses a daunting task for grain processors. North American grain handling systems are not designed to segregate grains to the very low tolerances for genetically engineered crops required by Oregon's customers in Japan and Europe.

"It's going to be the real challenge," said Jim Peterson, an OSU wheat breeder. "You have to have absolute perfect segregation. The tests are so sensitive they can literally pick out a few GMO seeds contaminating several thousand bushels."

Even those who don't plant genetically engineered wheat worry that their products will test positive because of accidental blending or cross-pollination -- and they worry about who will be liable. These worries are eased somewhat by the fact that wheat does not cross-fertilize as readily as some other crops.

"Any extra (segregation) costs will be borne by the farmer," even those who choose not to grow GMOs, farmer Hegg said.

Why buy altered wheat?

Wheat prices are low, and farmers cannot afford to lose markets. Why would a farmer opt to increase his production with biotech wheat and pay the Roundup Ready fees with crops already trading at a low price?

Even farmers who don't like the prospect of Roundup Ready wheat have to control weeds, and they agree that Roundup is one of the most efficient and environmentally benign weed control systems available. Planting Roundup Ready wheat would allow farmers to deal with weeds they hadn't been able to control before.

Saving seed is perhaps the farmers' biggest issue. Wheat is still the No. 1 crop under the farmer's control, where seed from each crop can be saved for planting the next year. As Stephen Jones, a Washington State University wheat breeder, said, "That's a basic farmers' right."

With biotech wheat, it's likely the companies would want to protect their investment with a technology fee and would restrict farmers from saving seed for another crop.

Hanavan of U.S. Wheat Associates estimates such tech fees would be about $10 an acre, but Monsanto says it's too early to tell.

Peterson at Oregon State defends Monsanto's fee: "That's the only way Monsanto can recoup any investment on that technology," he said. "If there is a benefit to the farmer, they'll buy it. Monsanto can't price it out of the market, either."

Farmer David Dechant of Fort Lupton, Colo., said he's worried he won't be able to save seed and won't be able to grow wheat unless he contracts with a big company and that he will be forced to grow genetically modified wheat to remain competitive, especially when increased production causes a fall in the wheat price.

"I don't feel that it's right not to save seed," Dechant said.

Peterson said farmers will have a choice. "Basically, 98 percent of wheats developed in the United States by public institutions are public varieties, and nobody has proprietary rights." he said. "They are mostly open-released, with no restrictions on regrowing it. I don't expect that to change in the near future, even with biotech."

University involvement

In all, Oregon State University has 90 scientists from six colleges involved with Center for Gene Research and Biotechnology, using $50 million in long-term grants from federal, state and private sources to finance genetic engineering research.

Between 5 percent and 10 percent of the 90 researchers, funded at the rate of $2.5 million to $5 million, are associated with transgenic plant research that could yield commercial crops, said Associate Dean Michael Burke of OSU's College of Agricultural Sciences. He said most of those 90 scientists are working on basic genetics and cell research, and not on genetic engineering of crops.

Burke said OSU gets little financial support from industry and that very little of its financing is tied to the companies that one day hope to market biotech products.

"We don't get much support from industry," Burke said. "Most comes from outside granting agencies, and most of them aren't Monsantos or Duponts."

Ed Souza, a University of Idaho wheat breeder, has signed a similar agreement with Monsanto to work on Roundup Ready wheat.

"Who owns what, how do you pay for it? It's an enormous issue -- serving both of those masters and keeping everybody happy," Souza said.

Reluctant researcher

One university wheat breeder who won't sign a biotechnology agreement is Jones of WSU. He is chairman of the National Wheat Crop Germplasm Committee, which advises the federal government on the acquisition, protection and distribution of wheat germplasm, or genetic stock.

He refuses to sign any agreements for the highly prized wheat varieties he has developed that would result in technology fees, royalties or any other additional cost to wheat growers.

"Who actually owns this material?" he said.

He said he believes taxpayer-supported research shouldn't subsidize private companies. He is opposed to private ownership of wheat varieties and is concerned about the effect of genetic engineering on public crop breeding programs.

Researchers at the two other WSU wheat breeding programs (including spring wheat), he said, are willing to make agreements with biotech companies to work on developing genetically modified wheat crops. Other colleges involved in similar work include the University of Idaho, North Dakota State University, Colorado State University and the University of Minnesota.

Souza of the University of Idaho says there isn't a lot of motivation right now to work on the technology.

"There is a reluctance to move ahead," Souza said, "and Idaho wheat growers ask that we not release it until consumer acceptance can be guaranteed."

"The goals of the researchers and corporate concerns aren't necessarily those of the producer (wheat farmer)," said Hegg of Palouse, Wash. Hegg wants Oregon, Washington and Idaho to reach a cooperative agreement before introduction of genetically modified wheat.

Public-private agreements

Hanavan, chairman of the biotech committee, said public-private research collaborations benefit both companies and farmers.

"We see them as a partnership," he said. "They have helped provide competition and made available more than one source of wheat."

Peterson said public-private partnerships such as the one between OSU and Monsanto are essential. "They can't do it without us; we can't do it without them," he said.

Without these public-private agreements, Hanavan said, wheat farmers would lose on two issues. Biotech companies might bypass universities, eliminating the public breeding system, which develops the best wheats. And the companies could develop their own seed and sell it directly to farmers, as is the case with genetically modified corn and soybeans.

"You've got to put Roundup Ready wheat into the best adapted wheats, which universities have developed, rather than in inferior varieties," Hanavan said.

Peterson emphasized that if OSU eventually signs a commercialization agreement, the university and Monsanto will have "joint control over whatever comes out."

OSU owns the genetic stocks, and Monsanto owns the Roundup Ready gene. The research would be done in Wichita, Kan.

Even if biotech wheat is marketed, Peterson said he doesn't see blanket use of biotech wheat, mostly because it would lose its effectiveness.

"We don't have any intention of going 100 percent biotech," he said. "A large component will still be non-biotech. We want to maintain options for our growers."

Oregon's potato crop

Growers turn their back on Monsanto's GE potatoes

December 11
The Oregonian

Responding to consumers, Oregon potato growers have turned their backs on Monsanto's genetically modified NewLeaf potatoes. Oregon state and commodity spokesmen say they don't know of any Oregon growers who planted them this year after big potato processors refused them. Processors in other states are shunning them as well.

Nobody in the United States is admitting they grow them," said Oscar Gutbrod of the state's Oregon Seed Certification Services, an agriculture professor at Oregon State University.

"There is no known commercial interest in them," said Will Wise, president of the Oregon Potato Commission. "There may be some growing here and there, but I don't know of any. It's all over."

Mark Buckingham, a Monsanto spokesman, said some small commercial plots were in southeastern Oregon. "The market for them" nationwide, he said, "is very small."

"It'll come back; it's just too useful," for a number of reasons, predicted Al Mosley, potato specialist with the OSU Extension Service and an associate professor.

Two years ago, Wise said, about 1 percent to 1.5 percent of Oregon potatoes were grown from Monsanto's NewLeaf Russet Burbank seed potatoes. Genetically, the potato was been spliced with Bt, a bacterium and natural insecticide, so that all parts of the plant kill the Colorado potato beetle. A newer variety, NewLeaf Plus, both kills Colorado potato beetles -- not a huge problem in Oregon -- and includes resistance to potato leaf-roll virus, which is a bigger problem in the Northwest.

The majority of the dozens of federal permits issued from 1994 to 1999 for genetically modified crops in Oregon were for potatoes, according to state figures, but most permits are now for grasses and other crops.

In Oregon, companies that want to grow genetically modified plants as part of their research must obtain a permit from the federal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which the state then reviews to ensure that the plants do not pose a risk to Oregon agriculture and comply with regulations such as quarantines. Oregon actually has no regulations for biotech crops, said Nancy Osterbauer of the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

Buyers of Oregon's potatoes -- big ones such as Lamb Weston, J.R. Simplot (which supplies McDonald's) and McCain Foods, as well as small ones including Kettle Foods and Reser's -- are refusing genetically modified potatoes, Wise said.

Many of the companies consider consumer fears in European and Asian markets, where debate rages over genetically engineered foods.

In Oregon, 75 percent of potatoes go to processors where they are frozen or dried and formed into french fries, chips and flakes. The rest go to the fresh market.

For fall 2000, Wise added, 57,000 acres were planted with potatoes in the state, valued at $138 million.

A CLOSE COUSIN It's all in the family. Wheat, the grain we eat, has a close cousin called jointed goatgrass, which is a weed. So close a cousin that wheat and jointed goatgrass can cross naturally and form partially fertile hybrids.

As plant geneticists get ready to develop a wheat strain that's resistant to herbicides, including Roundup, the relationship becomes critical. Although genetically engineered herbicide-resistant wheat could be one method of control, what's to keep the Roundup-resistant gene from migrating from the desirable plant to the undesirable wild, weedy relative, transferring its herbicide protection back to goatgrass -- creating, in effect, a superweed that the herbicide can't kill?

Scientists say the risks of that gene flow happening are low, but they hope to prevent them from arising in the first place or to develop ways to cope with it.

Carol Mallory-Smith, a weed scientist at Oregon State University, and colleagues in Oregon and Idaho received a four-year, $900,000 grant in September to find out how significant the risk is and to develop ways to prevent the escape of genes from genetically modified wheat into jointed goatgrass.

Jointed goatgrass is a big weed problem in the United States. It costs growers millions of dollars a year in reduced production and grain value.

Herbicides that kill jointed goatgrass also kill wheat.

Mallory-Smith's work isn't specific to Roundup Ready wheat. She started studying the occurrence and the nature of herbicide-resistant goatgrass, weeds that developed some resistance on their own, before genetically modified wheat became an issue. "It's sort of irrelevant whether (the wheat is) GMO or traditional breeding, because the result is the same," she said. "It doesn't matter if it's transgenic or not" as far as her research is concerned.

The grant is from the Initiative for Future Agricultural and Food Systems, a federal research funding program. Other researchers involved in the project are Bob Zemetra, a professor and wheat breeder at the University of Idaho; Don Morishita at University of Idaho; and Oscar Riera-Lizarazu, assistant professor, Crop and Soil Science, OSU.