body

with answers by Dr. Robert Zeigler, Head, Plant Pathology Department at Kansas State University and Director of K-State's Plant Biotechnology Center.

* What is biotechnology?

* What is genetic engineering?

* What is a genetically modified organism, commonly referred to as GMO?

* Why would scientists genetically alter a plant or animal?

* Why don't scientists stick with more traditional improvement practices like cross breeding?

* What are some of the benefits to farmers?

* Are there any benefits to processors? To consumers?

* We know it's possible to add traits. Is it possible to take away undesirable traits?

* What are people's concerns about biotechnology?

* What were the concerns about the monarch butterfly?

* What are peoples' concerns about the social or ethical impacts of biotechnology?

* What are some of the economic risks for farmers of planting genetically modified crops?

* Why is Kansas State University involved in biotech research?

* How do corporations and universities cooperate in this kind of research?

* How long has K-State been involved in biotechnology?

* What are some current research projects K-State is involved in?

* Is public debate good or bad for the long-term future of agricultural biotechnology?

* Where can I find further detailed and up-to-date information on biotechnology?

What is biotechnology? 

Zeigler: In the broad sense, it is technology for working with biological systems. It includes genetic engineering, human and veterinary medicine, crop and animal breeding, diagnostics, pharmaceuticals, forensics and other disciplines. In the narrow sense, it is used as another word for genetic engineering. 

What is genetic engineering? 

Zeigler: It's the process of directly manipulating the genetic material (DNA) of organisms. It encompasses all the technologies used to identify, isolate, analyze, manipulate, and re-incorporate individual genes into an organism. 

What is a genetically modified organism, commonly referred to as GMO? 

Zeigler: A genetically modified organism is a living plant, animal, or microbe that has been altered by the addition or modification of a gene through the process of genetic engineering. GMOs typically incorporate genes or portions of genes from unrelated organisms. 

Why would scientists genetically alter a plant or animal?

 Zeigler: To improve it. For example, scientists may add a gene to a plant from another organism that will enhance the nutritional value of the plant or that will increase tolerance to certain weather conditions. Or in the case of something like Roundup Ready soybeans, a gene was added that makes the plant resistant to the herbicide Roundup (technical name: glyphosate) so that Roundup will kill weeds in a soybean field but have no adverse effect on the soybean plants grown from Roundup Ready soybean seeds. 

Why don't scientists stick with more traditional improvement practices like cross-breeding? 

Zeigler: For many years, crop breeders used natural mutations, cross breeding, and selection to improve varieties of crop plants. For example, most crop plants have been improved by breeding for better quality, higher yields, or pest resistance. Crop improvement will always depend on talented plant breeders, however, conventional breeding has the following limitations: A) Thousands of genes are shuffled when a cross is made, so adding a single new trait to a plant variety without affecting all the other traits has been difficult. B) It has been difficult or impossible to precisely control the expression of a gene in a plant using conventional breeding. With genetic engineering, the location, timing, and amount of gene expression all can be controlled. C) Genes for a desired trait may not exist in the gene pool of the crop species. For instance, no soybean variety had resistance to glyphosate herbicide until Roundup Ready soybeans were introduced. The glyphosate resistance gene was transferred from a soil bacterium. 

What are some of the benefits to farmers? 

Zeigler: The first crops on the market have been aimed at helping producers grow an improved crop. This is because when agricultural biotechnology was in its infancy, these were the easiest traits to work with. For example, Roundup Ready soybeans can simplify producers' weed management programs because Roundup is effective against so many types of weeds and it is very safe for the crop. Another example is Bt corn. Bt corn has been genetically altered to resist Southwestern and European corn borers, insects that have taken a huge economic toll on the U.S. corn crop over the years. Bt corn curbs the need for insecticides, so farmers' "input costs" - in this case insecticides - are reduced, and yields increase because of less insect damage, both of which translate into an economic incentive. Bt corn also helps protect the environment because it lessens the need for a farmer to spray pesticides on his corn field to control corn borers. 

Are there any benefits to processors? To consumers?

 Zeigler: Yes, definitely. Bt corn has at least two benefits to consumers. First, it is less likely to be sprayed with insecticides, so pesticide residues will be lower. Second, Bt corn has lower levels of mycotoxins, which are natural toxins produced by the fungi that invade wounds caused by corn borers. Eventually, biotechnology research will be more focused on making better foods. This is where we're going in the future, toward more functional foods. An example is "Golden Rice", which was developed in Switzerland. Night blindness and anemia, which stem from a lack of Vitamin A and iron, are a common problem in some countries where rice is a staple in peoples' diets. By adding Vitamin A and iron to rice, the health problems are addressed through the food people eat. This trait package is being bred into local rice varieties in various countries, so it's not on the market yet, but will be within five years or so. 

We know it's possible to add traits. Is it possible to take away undesirable traits? 

Zeigler: Just like we can add a good trait, we will be able to remove bad traits. The Flavr Savr tomato was a good example. It did not have any new traits, scientists merely knocked out the natural genes involved in softening of the fruit. This allowed it to ripen fully without getting mushy. In the future there will be opportunities for foods that will lower cholesterol, be anti-carcinogenic and have less allergens. And of course they will have less pesticide and mycotoxin residues because resistance to pests will be built in. 

What are peoples' concerns about biotechnology? 

Zeigler: People are concerned about food safety -- of adding a toxin or an allergen. It's important to understand that these are legitimate concerns. Our conventional foods already contain many natural toxins and allergens and we know they can cause problems. We certainly don't want to create any new problems! Fortunately, we can test for such things as toxins and allergens. Governmental agencies like the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) are responsible for regulating and evaluating the testing procedures. That has been working well. There are no genetically engineered foods on the market that have been proven unsafe. Food scientists are confident they have adequate systems in place to guard against introducing novel carcinogens, toxins or allergens into any food. Most people don't realize that GMOs are subjected to more scrutiny and testing prior to their release than other non-GMO products. People are also concerned about the environment. The main concern is "gene escape". A classic example of that would be if you had a crop plant like sorghum or sunflowers that could pass a foreign gene to their weedy relatives that grow wild. Corn and soybeans are low-risk because they have no weedy relatives to cross with. But we may need to be careful about genes introduced in sunflowers or sorghum. There are also concerns about accidental poisoning of wildlife, about the accumulation of GMO-related chemicals in soils and water, and about pollination of adjacent fields with GMO crops, and possible loss of biodiversity. All of these are risk assessment issues, and will be unique to each different technology. What is the nature of the hazard, what is the severity of the hazard if it occurs, what is the probability of the hazard, what steps can be taken to reduce the risk, what are the risks of the alternatives, and what level of risk are we willing to take? These are the questions to ask about each case. The monarch butterfly case is an example of the need for risk assessment. 

What were the concerns about the monarch butterfly?

 Zeigler: The controversy stemmed from a May 20, 1999 Nature magazine letter to the editor. Cornell University scientists reported preliminary results from the effects of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterflies. The Cornell researchers concluded that "the larvae of the monarch butterfly reared on milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from Bt corn, ate less, grew more slowly and suffered higher mortality than larvae reared on leaves heavily dusted with untransformed corn pollen or on leaves without pollen." The Cornell study defined the nature and potential severity of the risks to monarchs. But a further risk assessment is showing that the probability of occurrence is low. USDA-APHIS (Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service) said "corn pollen is produced for only a short time during the growing season. Corn pollen is heavy and is not blown far from corn fields by the wind. Farmers control the monarch's primary host plant, milkweed, in and around their fields, just as they control other weeds." Other researchers reported preliminary results that only one of the several types of Bt corn has a significant impact on monarch survival. This type is being phased out. So it appears that the risks to monarchs are relatively low and hybrid selection can reduce them further. 

What are peoples' concerns about the social or ethical impacts of biotechnology? 

Zeigler: There are also worries that biotechnology will increase the prosperity gap -- that farmers in rich countries will be given an unfair advantage over those in poor countries. There are concerns about a concentration of economic power moving into a few large multinational companies, erosion of rural communities, and loss of biological diversity. Finally, some people have a moral objection to scientists moving DNA from one species to another, "playing God" with natural species barriers. Individuals must evaluate these economic, social and ethical issues for themselves. 

What are some of the economic risks for farmers of planting genetically modified crops? 

Zeigler: Farmers want to know if they will have a market for their crops. Recently, the European Union, Japan, Thailand and others have expressed concern over GM food and feed grains. Those countries are buyers of U.S. grains and oilseeds. In fact, the United States accounts for almost half of world soybean production (about 157 million metric tons annually) and nearly 60 percent of total world trade in soybeans from 1995-1999, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. The U.S. also produced about 40 percent of total world corn (about 590 million metric tons) over the same period. About 20 percent was exported. In some states this is a bigger issue than it is in Kansas, because we're somewhat far from key export routes and most of our corn and soybeans are used within the state. 

Why is Kansas State University involved in biotech research? 

Zeigler: This technology has great potential to improve agriculture and nutrition and is the logical extension of what we've been doing at U.S. land grant universities for the past 100 years. We respect peoples' concerns but we want to use scientific methods to evaluate potential risks and benefits. If the risks are minimal, then we want to be able to proceed. If they're significant, it's important to discover that. We would need to stop work along that avenue unless we found a way to mitigate the risks. 

How do corporations and universities cooperate in this kind of research? 

Zeigler: Actually, there's been a big shift toward more companies doing their own biotechnology research in the last ten to fifteen years. Obviously most of their research is aimed at product development. Universities have more freedom to do basic research that has no immediate commercial value. In many cases, companies and universities cooperate on research projects. It's often an efficiency issue--each may have expertise in a particular area that the other doesn't. But there are a lot of challenges for universities such as how to maintain the free flow of information and germplasm and how to remain independent and unbiased. It's not clear how our relationships with industry will evolve over time. One thing is clear though; universities have important roles as developers of new technologies, as a venue for the exchange and evaluation of ideas, and as teachers of students of biotechnology. 

How long has K-State been involved in biotechnology? 

Zeigler: We have been doing plant genetic engineering since about 1993, but the University has always been involved in biotechnology in the broad sense. For example, KSU developed and released alfalfa that's resistant to potato leafhoppers, which are a big problem for alfalfa growers in Kansas. As a result of our research, 38 different wheat germplasm lines have been released, each with special traits like disease or insect resistance. They've been incorporated into our own breeding efforts and others around the country. And of course we have developed and published all kinds of basic research that does not have an immediate commercial application, but which enables more applied research in the future. 

What are some current research projects K-State is involved in? 

Zeigler: We're working on dozens of projects to develop, evaluate, and manage new plant biotechnology. For example, we are searching for genes to achieve more durable resistance to wheat leaf rust. It's a joint project between K-State and the USDA. Scab, leaf spots, barley yellow dwarf, Karnal bunt, and Hessian fly are other diseases and pests that are being targeted in our labs. Projects are also underway to improve stalk rot resistance in sorghum, charcoal rot and soybean cyst nematode resistance in soybeans, and drought tolerance in turf grass through biotechnology. 

Is public debate good or bad for the long-term future of agricultural biotechnology? 

Zeigler: There's certainly been a good aspect to it. Regulations and procedures are being tightened by the regulatory agencies - FDA, EPA and USDA - to ensure that on an ongoing basis, they have a good defendable policy. But some critics have resorted to fear mongering rather than engaging in true debates of the risks and benefits of biotechnology. Some extremists have even attacked university labs and greenhouses causing significant damage. That has been the disappointing aspect of the controversy. 

Where can I find further detailed and up to date information on biotechnology? 

Zeigler: Visit http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/biotech/ for updates on regulatory and legislative issues, as well as what K-State is doing in the way of biotechnology research and who's working on it. The site also has numerous links to other biotechnology-related Web sites.

Compiled and edited by Mary Lou Peter.