Written by Rashelle Predovnik Friday, 02 October 2009 13:51
Genetically modified (GM) canola trials have begun in WA and pro-GM scientists say the debate, which surrounds biotechnology as a whole, needs to be based on sound science and widely-available information.
According to Professor Mark Tester, director of the Australian Plant Phenomics Facility, traditional techniques for gene modification limited modifications to those occurring between closely related organisms.
“New GM can be used for similar types of gene modifications, but it also enables the transfer of genes between any two organisms, including between a plant and an organism from another kingdom,” Professor Tester says.
Professor Tester says the risks from many GM applications are not too different to their conventionally-bred counterparts but it would be wrong to say differences did not exist.
“Each GM case must be considered separately by plant scientists and concerns raised that are unique to new GM should be seriously considered to assess their validity.
Professor Tester says even if a particular concern is valid, it is important that neither side of the debate resort to over-simplified generalisations or opportunities for the wider use of new GM technologies could be permanently lost.
“One can question some of the current commercial applications, and I think it’s fair enough to ask those questions, but this doesn’t mean that all applications of GM will necessarily have these types of DNA for which questions can be asked.”
According to Richard Oliver, professor of molecular plant pathology at Murdoch University, GM crops are likely to increase health by reducing yield loss, herbicide and fungicide use, and mycotoxin contamination.
Professor Oliver says as a plant scientist, consumer and parent, he is happy to eat GM foods because all reasonable testing has been done.
“You can always speculate that the fourth generation of people who use a dash of GM-grown canola oil on the fourth Tuesday of every month might get more cold sores, in 80 years’ time.
“We can’t formally rule it out but we also can’t readily do an experiment to test the idea.
“Some ideas don’t lend themselves to experimental testing - do we need to test that using a parachute is a safer way of jumping out of aeroplanes than not using a parachute?”
Professor Tester says scientific research often involves a level of assumption-based reasoning.
“I guess the issue with GM crops is that you do tests, more tests than any other food products, but they still haven’t demonstrated absolute certainty about safety.
“Sure we could always do more food testing but where do you stop?”
Professor Tester says people are right to ask questions about GM because it’s a new and powerful technology.
“When it comes to GM, it is important to give people as much information as possible and we really need to have this type of dialogue to try to chip away at people’s conceptions.
“All of this discussion is much less relevant if we think we are just changing genes that are in the plants at any rate and not producing a product that is significantly any different to what a breeder would produce.”
Professor Tester says in his own work he is trying to make plants more salt-tolerant.
“We’re actually messing with plant genes in plants and turning them on with promoters which are DNA that come from plants.
“It’s just plant genes in plants and I really don’t think that’s hugely different to what breeders have been trying to do for 10,000s of years.
“If you get something like Monsanto’s BT toxin, you can ask hard questions about that, and I think that’s fair enough, but when it comes to me messing with salt transporters in the roots of wheat plants, well… I really think you should be asking me a different set of questions.”
