Unit IV.

Controversies in Biotechnology

A. Monarch Butterfly Controversy

B. Starlink Corn Controversy

C. Poisonous Potato Controversies

D. The Mexican corn gene escape controversy

Why is Biotechnology a controversial field?

The safety of food produced using biotechnology is one source of controversy. Companies that
create genetically modified organisms say that their products are substantially equivalent to—
and often healthier than—foods that are not genetically engineered.

Ethical issues that arise from modern biotechnologies include the availability and use of
privileged information, potential for ecological harm, access to new drugs and treatments, and
the idea of interfering with nature. Applications include agriculture and health care.

The Monarch Butterfly Controversy

In the summer of 1999, Cornell entomologist John Losey sparked a worldwide controversy
with the publication of a short paper in the scientific journal Nature reporting laboratory
findings that monarch butterfly larvae died after eating milkweed plants dusted with pollen from
genetically modified (GM) corn.
The second most widely grown transgenic crop in the United States are maize ( Zea mays)
cultivars that have been engineered to express genes for various insecticidal protein endotoxins
(Bt toxins) from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringenisis. The principal target species for Bt
toxin-expressing maize (Bt maize) is the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis), one of the
most damaging pests of maize in North America. Losses attributable to European corn borer
damage exceed over $1 billion annually in the United States alone. Bt toxins are widely believed
to be selectively toxic, only affecting those insects (e.g. lepidopteran larvae) that have a gut
alkaline enough to activate the Bt protoxin by enzymatic proteolysis. Receptor binding by the C-
terminal domain of the active toxin is the major determinant of host specificity by the different
Bt toxins.

Given the growing agricultural importance of Bt maize as well as Bt cotton ( Gossypium

hirsutum) and Bt potato (Solanum tuberosum), it is not surprising that a storm of
controversy arose following the publication in Nature of a preliminary study by Losey et al.
(1999). This paper raised serious concerns about the ecological safety of Bt maize cultivation to
non-target lepidopterans, in particular the larvae of monarch butterfly (Danaus plexipus).
On the basis of laboratory assays, the authors concluded that monarch larvae reared on
milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) leaves dusted with pollen from Bt maize ate less, grew more
slowly, and suffered higher mortality than those reared on leaves dusted with non transformed
maize or on leaves without pollen.

The conclusions of Losey et al. (1999) were challenged on three grounds. First, the pollen
doses used by Losey et al. (1999) were not quantitatively measured but were
gauged by eye to match pollen dustings on milkweed leaves collected in the field.
This raised concerns about subconscious biases on the part of the researchers. Second,
concerns, as it turns out, valid ones, were raised as to the validity of extrapolating
from the results of Losey at al. (1999), which concerned only one type of pollen, to
all types of Bt maize pollen. Third, the soundness of extrapolating from laboratory
assays to the field was uncertain, although a subsequent field study by Jesse and
Obrycki (2000) did seem to confirm the fears raised by the Losey et al. (1999) study.

Regardless of the deficiencies of the study, the results of Losey et al. (1999) were widely
heralded by the popular press and established the monarch butterfly, one of the more beautiful
creatures on our planet, as the cause popular for environmentalists opposed to biotechnology.
The Starlink Corn Controversy

Humans and animals have consumed corn for centuries. Corn is one of the world’s most
commonly eaten foods. It is no wonder the Aventis Cropscience genetically modified a corn
to be resistant to pests.

Aventis Scientists incorporated Cry9C, a protein isolated from a common soil bacteria; Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) sp. Tolworthi, into StarLink corn. The Cry9C protein is effective against
caterpillars because it binds to different sites of the insect gut and destroys the stomach cells.
This protein has no effect on other living creatures. StarLink corn was approved by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for animal feed but not for human food until additional
testing was completed.

The controversy began when traces of DNA from StarLink corn were found in taco shells and
other corn related products. Although there are several varieties of Bt corns in the market,
StarLink was illegal in human food. It was only approved for animal feed. The EPA Scientific
Advisory panel considered the protein Cry9C a medium risk potential human allergen. This
decision was based upon limited data. The protein was slow to digest, suggesting a possible
concern, however the protein’s amino acid sequence was not similar to known allergens
therefore the likelihood of allergenicity is low. Furthermore, for people to become allergic to a
protein they need to be exposed to it multiple times over an extended period of time. Since the
Cry9C protein is only a small fraction of corn protein, the probability that the protein would
sensitize an individual is low.

The FDA received approximately 34 reports of adverse reactions to corn products which may
contain StarLink. Of the 34 reports, 20 were very unlikely a result of an allergic reaction. The
U.S. Center investigated 7 people who experienced symptoms that are consistent with an
allergic reaction. The people showed no reaction to the Cry9C protein. This does not mean
people could not develop an allergic reaction in the future.

Aventis submitted a new evaluation of the corn to EPA and requested a temporary approval for
human consumption. The new information demonstrated the consumption of corn based foods
that contain StarLink would expose consumers to Cry9C many times smaller than needed to
cause sensitivity. Subsequently, Aventis voluntarily withdrew registration for StarLink corn. It
will no longer be grown.
As a result of this episode, the Aventis Company and others in the biotechnology industry will
seek approvals for both human and animal consumption before marketing genetically enhanced
seeds.

The Poisonous Potato Controversies

Árpád Pusztai (born c. 1931) is a Hungarian-born protein scientist who has spent most of his
career at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He is considered the world's
foremost expert on plant lectins, author of 270 papers and three books on the subject.

In 1998 Pusztai publicly announced that the results of his research show eating genetically
modified potatoes causes harm to rats, leading to his dismissal from the institute. The resulting
controversy over the dismissal and the validity of his research's conclusions became known as
the Pusztai affair.

Between 1995 and 1998 he performed a series of experiments on some genetically modified
potatoes which had been developed by an English biotech company, Cambridge Agricultural
Genetics, later called Axis Genetics. They had been field-grown at Rothamsted, and were
intended for commercialization. The potatoes were the widely grown desiree red variety,
modified with a gene taken from snowdrop (Galanthus) plants, that caused the potatoes to
express snowdrop lectin, a protein which Arpad Pusztai had previously shown to be toxic to
insects but harmless to mammals.

Initially Pusztai and his team observed a lack of correlation between levels of the lectin in the
potato leaves and their toxicity to insects. Subsequently they experimented by feeding rats on
raw and cooked genetically modified potatoes, using Desiree Red potatoes as controls. One of
the controls was unmodified desiree red potatoes mixed with snowdrop lectin. The rats fed on
the genetically modified potatoes showed lower intestine damage and harm to their immune
systems. These effects were not observed in rats fed on unmodified potatoes, or unmodified
potatoes mixed with snowdrop lectin. The team concluded that the effects observed were a
result of the genetic modification, not the snowdrop lectin.

The Rowett institute was initially proud of these discoveries, and encouraged Pusztai to
publicize the discoveries widely. In 1998 Arpad Pusztai informed an ITV world in Action
documentary that he had observed problems with the safety of GM potatoes.

On 10th October, the day that the documentary was due to be broadcast he was invited onto
an early morning television debate, but informed beforehand by the Rowett institute that he
was not permitted to discuss details of the experiment. A spokesman for Monsanto made false
claims about the experiments, including a claim that the potatoes had been modified with toxic
Jack Bean lectin, to which Arpad Pusztai could only respond "no comment". In reality, Jack
Bean lectin had not been used in the experiments. That morning, the Rowett institute received
two phone calls from 10 Downing Street. According to Professor Robert Orskov OBE, who
worked at the Rowett for 33 years and is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts. The phone
calls went from Monsanto, the American firm which produces 90% of the world's GM food, to
Bill Clinton and then to Tony Blair, and then to Rowett director Philip James

Phone calls to Arpad Pusztai's office were diverted, and Arpad Pusztai was suspended and
legally gagged, along with his wife and colleague Dr Susan Bardocz. His data was confiscated
and his team was disbanded. The potatoes were subsequently destroyed, along with all details
of their modification (a commercial secret of Cambridge Agricultural Genetics, which
subsequently ceased business). There followed a cover up and sustained attempts to discredit
Arpad Pusztai, involving a lot of deliberate misinformation:

Initially the Rowett institute claimed that they were not doing any research on GM crops. Later
the Rowett institute claimed that Arpad Pusztai had voluntarily retired, and apologized for his
"mistake". According to this version of the story, the experiments had never been performed
and a student had accidentally confused control data with experimental data. Later the story
changed again, it was claimed that Pusztai had modified the potatoes with toxic Jack Bean
lectin. Sir Robert May encouraged this myth when he told Radio 4's Today programme: "If you
mix cyanide with vermouth in a cocktail and find that it is not good for you, I don't draw
sweeping conclusions that you should ban all mixed drinks." Similar statements were also made
by the Agriculture Minister Jack Cunningham the Rowett institute also announced that they
were publishing Arpad Pusztai's data online so that the public could draw their own conclusions,
but omitted much of the data making the remainder statistically meaningless.

In 1999 Arpad Pusztai and Stanley Ewen published their results in The Lancet. The Pro GM
lobby put strong pressure on The Lancet not to publish, including a threatening phone call to
The Lancet editor.

Research protocols were sent by Pusztai to 24 independent scientists in different countries

(including experts in physiology, medicine, toxic pathology, nutrition, microbiology and
biochemistry).These disagree with the conclusions of the review committee and argued that his
research was of good quality and justified his conclusions. Among 'casualties' in these events
was Dr. Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on
animal nutrition and former top scientist at the Rowett Institute who was fired for publicly
defending Pusztai's research. Various reports concerning the politicization of the peer review
process and alleged deliberate misrepresentation of Pusztai's results were voiced by
newspapers and some scientists.

Lenape Potato

In the late 1960s, researchers from the US Department of Agriculture, Penn State University
and the Wise Potato Chip Company collaborated to breed the “Lenape” potato. This new
breed soon became hugely popular with potato chip manufacturers, due to the fact that it had
the perfect combination of sugar and starch to produce the thin, crispy golden brown potato
chips that we know today.
But the Lenape potato’s biggest legacy might be its impact on the GMO debate. After the new
breed was introduced, the USDA found that it contained heightened levels of solanine, an
alkaloid that helps protect the potato against pests that is also slightly toxic and harmful to
humans.

Good potato chips come from starchy potatoes. But to get just the right chip color — that
perfect, buttery golden brown — you have to pay attention to a lot of different factors, from the
types of sugar found in the potato, to the internal chemistry that happens as the potato sits in a
sack post-harvest.

Despite an almost boring reputation as the squishy white bread of the plant kingdom, potatoes
actually come from somewhat nasty roots. Their closest relatives are innocuous enough.
Potatoes have strong genetic ties to tomatoes and eggplants. But their more distant cousins
include tobacco, chili peppers, deadly nightshade, and the hallucinatory drug-producing flower,
datura.

This is a phylogenetic family that is ready to throw down, chemically speaking. Called
Solanaceae, its members are known for producing a wide variety of nitrogen-rich chemical
compounds, called alkaloids. Nicotine is an alkaloid. So are caffeine, cocaine, and a host of
other plant-derived chemicals that humans have taken a liking to over the millennia. Depending
on the dose, and on the specific compound, alkaloids can have effects ranging from medicinal,
to far-out crazy hallucinatory, to deadly.

Potatoes produce an alkaloid called solanine. All potatoes have it, and it's a feature, not a bug
— at least as far as the potato is concerned. Like a lot of other plant-produced alkaloids,
solanine is a natural defense mechanism. It protects the potato from pests. Think of potato
blight, the fungus-like disease partly responsible for the Irish Famine of the 19th century. The
more solanine a potato contains, the less susceptible it is to blight. When a potato is put into a
compromising situation — when it's young and vulnerable, for instance, or when tubers get
uncovered and, thus, more exposed to things that might eat it — solanine production can rev
up.

Those triggers aren't always the most convenient for the potato's human predators. A sudden
frost, for instance, can stunt the growth of tubers and promote the growth of vines and leaves,
which mimics a younger stage of development and is accompanied by higher solanine
concentrations. And if you leave potatoes exposed to the sun for too long after harvest, they
start reacting as though they just got accidentally uncovered. They turn green and they
produce more solanine. This is actually why you're not supposed to eat green potatoes. Those
spuds, and especially their skins, are rich in solanine. How much solanine varies; it might just
be enough to make your stomach a little upset. Or, it could lead to serious illness accompanied
by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of consciousness, and convulsive twitching. In very rare cases,
people who ate green potatoes have even died.
Poor post-harvest handling was not the problem with the Lenape, however. In 1974, after
Lenape potatoes had been recalled from agricultural production and relegated to the status of
"breeding material", the USDA published results of an experiment where they grew Lenape, and
five other potato varieties, at 39 locations around the country. They carefully monitored
growing and harvesting conditions and then compared the solanine content of all the potatoes.

The conclusion: Lenape was genetically predisposed towards producing an extraordinarily high
amount of solanine, no matter what happened to it during growth and harvest. The average
Russet potato, for instance, contained about 8 mg of solanine for every 100 g of potato.
Lenape, on the other hand, was closer to 30 mg of toxin for every 100 g of food. That made it
nicely resistant to a lot of agricultural pests. But it also explained why some of the people who
were the first to eat Lenapes — most of them breeders and other professionals in the
agriculture industry — ended up with severe nausea, like a fast-acting stomach bug.

In 2004, a National Academies panel on the unintended health effects of genetic engineering
reported that conventional potato breeders continue to try to increase the amount of solanine
produced by the leaves and vines of their potato plants in hopes of making those plants more
naturally pest-resistant. Because of that, the USDA actually has a recommended limit for
solanine content of new potato varieties — but that limit isn't strictly enforced.

The Mexican corn gene escape controversy

Mexico is the centre of origin as well as a centre of diversity for maize ( Zea mays). There are
several theories about the actual “birthplace“ of maize. There is strong evidence to suggest that
it was first cultivated in the south of Mexico, in the federal states of Puebla, Mexico and Oaxaca
(Serratos Hernández, 2009). Current diversity is estimated to comprise several hundred maize
varieties and landraces. All of them originate from teosinte, a wild grass species (OECD,
2003).
The presence of transgenic maize in Mexico was first revealed to the public through a study of
scientists from the University of Berkeley, who found transgenic constructs in traditional
maize varieties in Sierra Juárez (federal state of Oaxaca) in the southeast of Mexico (Quist &
Chapela, 2001). The findings caused great surprise because at this time there were not even
any small-scale field trials with transgenic maize in Mexico. According to ISAAA (2012), the first
field trials were conducted in 2009. Although the findings from the study were immediately
attacked by industry and industry affiliated scientists, they were consistent with tests conducted
by Mexican authorities (Ezcurra et al., 2001).
A working group of scientists commissioned by the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) confirmed that the contamination of Mexican maize varieties is a reality (CEC, 2004).

In 2005, a study found no traces of genetically engineered maize in traditional Mexican maize
varieties (Ortíz-García et al., 2005). It took several studies published years after the first
scientific findings of Quist & Chapela to finally confirm the spread of transgenic constructs in
traditional Mexican maize varieties.

Contamination is documented in the following locations:

› Sierra Juárez (Oaxaca), samples taken in 2000 (Quist & Chapela, 2001)
› nature protection area near Mexico City, samples taken in 2003 (Serratos-
Hernández et al., 2007)
› Sierra Juárez (Oaxaca), samples taken in 2001, 2004 (Piñeyro-Nelson et al., 2009)
› Guanajuato, Veracruz, Oaxaca and Yucatán, samples taken in 2002 (Dyer et al.,
2009)

The NAFTA commission (CEC, 2004) concluded that maize imports from the US were
responsible for the introgression of transgenic maize even in remote parts of Mexico. Maize was
imported as food aid but was neither milled nor labeled as being genetically engineered.
According to this theory, maize imported from the US was used as seed by Mexican farmers and
thus found its way into traditional seed systems, which are based on seed exchange. Further,
studies have confirmed that maize can hybridize with its wild ancestor teosinte (Zea mays
ssp. mexicana). Maize x teosinte hybrids might even have fitness advantages since they
produce more seeds than wild teosinte. There can also be gene introgression from teosinte to
maize.

A study trying to reconstruct possible ways of transgenes spreading into traditional maize seed
systems found that there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding the way transgenes have
spread throughout Mexico. At least in some regions, the presence of transgenes in indigenous
maize landraces is not compatible with applied models.

Biological profile: Maize (Zea mays, ssp. mays)

Family: True grasses (Poaceae)
Centre of origin/diversity:
Mexico is a centre of origin and diversity for maize (Zea mays). There are strong
indications that maize crops were first cultivated in the south of Mexico, in the federal states
of Puebla, Mexico and Oaxaca (Serratos-Hernández, 2009). Current diversity is estimated to
comprise several hundred maize varieties and landraces. All of them originate from teosinte, a
wild
grass species (OECD, 2003).
Cultivated species: Zea mays, ssp. mays
Major producing countries:
In order of production volume: USA, China, Brazil, Mexico (FAOSTAT, 2013)
Spread of pollen:
Cross pollination, mainly by wind (OECD, 2003)

Spread of seeds:
Transport (OGTR, 2008)
Farthest pollen-mediated outcrossing distance measured to date:
4.440 meters (Bannert, 2006)

Seed persistence/dormancy:
Seeds that are lost during harvest may produce volunteers in the following crop. However, seed
dormancy is almost non-existent. Feral populations may appear under suitable climatic
conditions
(OGTR, 2008).
Potential hybridisation with other crop plants:
No known cases.
The so-called heterosis effect is often used in hybrid maize breeding. However, according to the
biologist Allison Snow, such performance enhancing hybridisation effects still cannot be
detected in crosses between traditional indigenous and genetically engineered maize. (in
Gilbert, 2013).
Potential hybridisation with wild relatives:
Compatibility with most teosinte species, especially Mexican species Zea mays ssp. mexicana
and Zea
mays ssp. parviglumis (Wilkes, 1977; Baltazar et al., 2005; Chavez et al., 2012; Ellstrand et al.,
2007).
Hybrids with Tripsacum species (T. dactyloides, T. floridanum, T. lanceolatum, and T. Pilosum )
can be produced under artificial conditions. According to an industry dossier, there are related
species in India that under controlled conditions can hybridize with maize.
Weediness / invasiveness:
Weediness not pronounced. However, maize is listed as a weed in the US.
Wild relatives with potential for invasiveness/weediness:
Various teosinte species have weediness traits. In Mexico, for instance, Balsas teosinte ( Zea
mays ssp. parviglumis) and Mexican teosinte (Zea mays ssp. mexicana) are compatible with
maize.
Possible transgene-mediated fitness advantage:
Almost no scientific data available. In general, the presence of Bt toxins in genetically
engineered plants are regarded as a fitness advantage under pest infestation.

Further Information:
According to Guadagnuolo et al. (2006), maize x teosinte hybrids produce more seeds than wild
teosinte and therefore have a fitness advantage.
Teosinte species, on the other hand, can outcross into maize.

____________________________________________________________________

References:
Why is Biotechnology Controversial, Lisbnet.com, December 4, 2021
https://lisbdnet.com/why-is-biotechnology-controversial/#:~:text=not%20genetically
%20engineered.-,What%20are%20the%20controversies%20surrounding%20biotechnology
%3F,idea%20of%20interfering%20with%20nature.

The Monarch Butterfly Controversy:

GM Corn and the Monarch Butterfly Controversy
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology
https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/
food_and_biotechnology/vfbiotechmonarchpdf.pdf-#:~:text=In%20the%20summer%20of
%201999,genetically%20modified%20(GM)%20corn.

Peter V. Minorsky, The Hot and the Classic, Plant Physiology, Volume 127, Issue 3, November
2001, Pages 709–710, https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.900008
https://academic.oup.com/plphys/article/127/3/709/6110146

StarLink Corn: What Happened

UC Davis, June 28, 2017
https://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biotechnology/starlink-corn-what-happened#:~:text=The
%20controversy%20began%20when%20traces,only%20approved%20for%20animal%20feed.

https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Genetically_modified_food_controversies.html

Mexican gene corn escape:

Andreas Bauer-Panskus, Sylvia Hamberger, Christoph Then (November 2013)
https://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/Testbiotech_Transgene_Escape.pdf