MON 810

Last updated

The MON 810 corn is a genetically modified maize used around the world. It is a Zea mays line known as YieldGard from the company Monsanto. [1] This plant is a genetically modified organism (GMO) designed to combat crop loss due to insects. There is an inserted gene in the DNA of MON 810 which allows the plant to make a protein that harms insects that try to eat it. The inserted gene is from the Bacillus thuringiensis which produces the Bt protein that is poisonous to insects in the order Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), including the European corn borer.

Contents

These genetically modified plants with Bt protein are grown on a large scale around the world. [2] Monsanto’s corn line MON 810 is produced by ballistically transforming another corn line with a plasmid, PV-ZMCT10. [3] This plasmid has a cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter and hsp70 maize intron sequences which drive the expression of the Cry1Ab gene. The gene then codes for delta endotoxins (Cry proteins) which are very potent toxins that provoke lesions in the cell membrane causing cell death. [4] These produced Bt proteins bind to certain localized sites on the epithelium of the midgut of insects. [1] Proteins need specific receptors on cells in order to form the Cry proteins and become toxic, which is why the toxins are specific for the order Lepidoptera. [5] The receptors are important for binding the toxic protein and starting the signal cascade, but the exact mechanism of these toxins is not well understood. [6]

Controversy

MON 810’s transgene structure differs from the original plasmid constructed for the safety assessment for Monsanto [1] and has changed compared to the naturally occurring (non-active) Cry1Ab protein. [7] Gilles-Eric Seralini and colleagues (2007 & 2009) re-analyzed Monsanto data for MON 810 (which was made available following a demand for public availability of the data, and a court case) and claimed that it had caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in rats. [8] [9] However, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed this re-analysis and concluded that the differences observed were within a normal range for control rats and deemed the statistical methods used inappropriate. [10] Similar criticisms have been levelled at later work by Séralini involving rats he asserted to have developed cancer from consumption of genetically modified produce; see Séralini affair.

Several publications show effects from Cry1Ab on insects and other arthropods not belonging to the group of Lepidoptera. [11] [12] [13] This indicates an effect on non-target species. Effects on non-target organisms (i.e. those outside the group of Lepidoptera) indicates that the Cry1Ab toxin has less specific modes of toxicity than previously assumed, [5] [7] or that the transgene insertion may cause unintended effects (e.g. changes in gene expression) in the plant. [12]

On the 5 April 2012, [14] Poland announced that it would ban the cultivation of MON 810 on its territory because the "pollen of this strain could have a harmful effect on bees." No evidence exists to suggest that bees are harmed by the Bt Protein, however prior to research implicating neonictinoid pesticides (usage of which is in fact reduced by planting of naturally pesticidal Bt crops, [15] ) colony collapse disorder was occasionally blamed on modified crops.

A 2010 paper (systematic review) by Agnes Ricroch et al. in the journal Transgenic Research , which reviewed several previously published meta-analyses and recent studies, concluded that the German decision to ban the cultivation of MON 810 was "scientifically unjustified." This is despite the fact that several of the meta-analyses reviewed actually indicate specific negative effects from Cry1Ab toxin on non-target organisms, [16] [17] [18] although when compared to spraying with broad-spectrum pesticides, the negative effects on non-target organisms from Cry-toxins were lower. [18]

Ricroch et al. claim that substantial evidence cited in their review is biased towards total eco-system effects and the German decision should have been based on a "case-by-case approach" and uses an incomplete list of references. [19] The authors of this review also criticized the French ban and its political circumstances in an ISB [20] News Report. [21] As revealed in the WikiLeaks cables, after France banned the variety, Craig Stapleton, the US ambassador to France recommended that "we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU". [22] [23]

In 2012, an article by Bøhn et al., in Environmental Sciences Europe, [24] disagreed with the viewpoint of Ricroch et al. that the German ban was “scientifically unjustified”. In drawing their conclusion they point to the following weaknesses in the Ricroch et al. paper: i) important claims about the Daphnia magna study are incorrect (that the amount of toxin in the experiment was not presented), and ii) core results are omitted from the discussion (overall mortality differences and total fecundity). Furthermore, only selected data from the literature (those showing negative effects) were qualitatively scrutinized – studies showing no effect were simply quantitatively described without their quality being subjected to the same level of critique. The effect of such a double standard in the evaluation of the quality of biosafety science means that those only reading or referring to Ricroch et al. will be seriously misinformed about both the available biosafety science and the German ban on MON810 maize. [24] However, Bøhn et al. do not claim that the ban was finally and irreversibly justified by the science referred to, as this was ultimately seen to be a political decision. [24]

A 2012 paper in the Polish Journal of Veterinary Medicine found no difference between the number of honeybees that visited a MON 810 maize and a closely related maize. [25]

Analysing the controversy over MON 810 in Europe and particularly the question of the quality of the biosafety science cited to support the German ban, Wickson and Wynne [26] have highlighted how science for policy can be differentially framed in terms of its research questions, methods and data interpretation and how all studies performed, whether for or against an issue, can be legitimately debated in terms of the quality of their research process and the significance of their findings. They suggest that debates over the quality of science for policy in the case of MON 810 are not purely technical but rather are inherently shaped by unstated normative commitments and value judgments. Finally, they argue that for agricultural biotechnology, there are a range of conditions that make current practices of assessing the quality of biosafety science unethical. These include: a lack of open access to testing materials; limited resources for independent research; lack of transparency concerning the transgenic constructs in use; lack of consistency in the application of evidentiary and interpretive standards; and no clear processes ensuring accountability and consistency in assessment processes. [26]

Authorized use

It was approved for use in the European Union in 1998. [27] Since then, six countries have grown it [28] (Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania [29] ) and six countries (Austria, Hungary, Greece, France, Luxembourg, and Germany) have banned its cultivation (imports were still allowed) under an emergency temporary provision known as the 'Safeguard Clause' [30] due to concerns that it causes environmental damage.

In Italy its cultivation has been banned since July 12, 2013, when the Italian Health minister required the suspension of the authorization of GM maize's cultivation, [31] in reaction to a scientific report by the Italian Agricultural Research Council (CRA) about the insecticide producing GM maize.[ citation needed ] In Poland the cultivation of GMO crops has been banned since January 28, 2013. [32]

MON 810 is approved for use in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, the European Union (where approval is also required by member states), Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa, Switzerland, South Korea, Taiwan, the United States and Uruguay. [33]

On 24 February 2016 an open letter of concern was written to the DG Health and Food Safety (SANTE,)European Commission regarding new invasive species (acclaimed ancestor of cultivated maize, teosinte) in Spain that can outcross with genetically modified maize (MON 810). [34]

Notes and references

  1. 1 2 3 Van Rie J. et al. 1989. Specificity of Bacillius thuringiensis delta-endotoxins. Eur J Biochem 186: 239-247.
  2. ↑ ISAAA. 2009. Executive Summary Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM crops. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/39/executivesummmary/default.html%5B%5D
  3. ↑ United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. Biopesticides Registration Action Document. N.p., Sept. 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2012. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-01-27. Retrieved 2012-12-14.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. ↑ Tilley ST, Saibil HR. 2006. The mechanism of pore formation by bacterial toxins. Curr Opin Struct Bio 16:230-236.
  5. 1 2 Then, C. 2010. Risk assessment of toxins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis--synergism, efficacy, and selectivity. Environ Sci Pollut Res 17:791-797.
  6. ↑ Jimenez-Juarez et al. 2007. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab mutants affecting oligomer formation are non-toxic to Manduca sexta larvae. J Biol Chem 282 29:21222-21229.
  7. 1 2 Hilbeck A, Schmidt JEU. 2006. Another view on Bt proteins-how specific are they and what else might they do? Biopesticides Int 2 1:1-50.
  8. ↑ Gilles-Éric Séralini, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS (2007). "New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity". Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 52 (4): 596–602
  9. ↑ Gilles-Éric Séralini, de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D. (2009) A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 10;5(7):706-26.
  10. ↑ Statement of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the analysis of data from a 90-day rat feeding study with MON 863 maize
  11. ↑ Hilbeck, A et al. 1998. Toxicity of Bacillis thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin to the predator Chrysoperla carnea. Environmental Entomology 275:1255-1263.
  12. 1 2 Bøhn, T., Primicerio, R., Hessen, D. O. and Traavik, T. 2008. Reduced fitness of Daphnia magna fed a Bt-transgenic maize variety. - Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 55: 584-592.
  13. ↑ Bøhn, T., Traavik, T. and Primicerio, R. 2010. Demographic responses of Daphnia magna fed transgenic Bt-maize. - Ecotoxicology DOI 10.1007/s10646-009-0427-x. (Open Access).: 419-430.
  14. ↑ "Poland bans Mon810". Archived from the original on 9 April 2012. Retrieved 4 March 2023.
  15. ↑ "Harnessing the Power of Knowledge". Taylor & Francis. Retrieved 4 March 2023.
  16. ↑ Lövei, G. L. and Arpaia, S. 2005. The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: a critical review of laboratory studies. - Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 114: 1-14.
  17. ↑ Lövei, G. L., Andow, D. A. and Arpaia, S. 2009. Transgenic Insecticidal Crops and Natural Enemies: A Detailed Review of Laboratory Studies. - Environmental Entomology 38: 293-306.
  18. 1 2 Marvier, M., McCreedy, C., Regetz, J. and Kareiva, P. 2007. A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates. - Science 316: 1475-1477.
  19. ↑ Ricroch A, Bergé JB, Kuntz M (February 2010). "Is the German suspension of MON810 maize cultivation scientifically justified?". Transgenic Res. 19 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1007/s11248-009-9297-5. PMC   2801845 . PMID   19548100.
  20. ↑ Information Systems for Biotechnology project at Virginia Tech
  21. ↑ Ricroch A; Bergé JB; Kuntz M (April 2010). "Is the Suspension of MON810 Maize Cultivation by Some European Countries Scientifically Justified?" (PDF). ISB News Report: 8–11.
  22. ↑ Vidal, John (3 January 2011). "WikiLeaks: US targets EU over GM crops". The Guardian . Retrieved 3 January 2011.
  23. ↑ "Democracy Now: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Sought to Retaliate Against Europe over Monsanto GM Crops". Democracy Now . 23 December 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2012.
  24. 1 2 3 Bøhn, T., Primicerio, R. and Traavik, T. 2012. The German ban on GM maize MON810: scientifically justified or unjustified? - Environmental Sciences Europe 24:22: 1-7.
  25. ↑ Grabowski, Marcin; Zbigniew T Dabrowski (2012). "Evaluation of the Impact of the Toxic Protein Cry1Ab Expressed by the Genetically Modified Cultivar MON810 on Honey Bee (Apis Mellifera L.) Behavior". Medycyna Weterynaryjna. 68 (10): 630–633.
  26. 1 2 Wickson, F. and Wynne, B. 2012. Ethics of Science for Policy in the Environmental Governance of Biotechnology: MON810 Maize in Europe. - Ethics, Policy and Environment 15: 321-340.
  27. ↑ Staff 10 February 1998) Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Plants Regarding the Genetically Modified, Insect Resistant Maize Lines Notified by the Monsanto Company Archived 2015-07-26 at the Wayback Machine Notification C/F/95/12/02, the Scientific Committee on Plants, European Commission, Retrieved 13 November 2012
  28. ↑ Staff (July 2012) Annual monitoring report on the cultivation of MON 810 in 2011 Archived 2015-09-08 at the Wayback Machine Annual MON 810 monitoring report to the European Commission, Monsanto Europe, Retrieved 13 November 2012
  29. ↑ Hera, Cristian; Popescu, Ana (2011). "Biotechnology and its role for a sustainable agriculture". Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting . 14 (2): 26–43. S2CID   55001415.
  30. ↑ Staff Rules on GMOs in the EU - Ban on GMOs cultivation European Commission, Retrieved 13 November 2012
  31. ↑ Italy (12 July 2013) Health minister demands ban of GM maize, Accessed 12 July 2013
  32. ↑ Poland (28 January 2013) Kontrole wykazały że rolnicy nie wykorzystują kukurydzy GMO, Portal Spożywczy
  33. ↑ Staff (29 January 2009) Database Product Description MON-ØØ81Ø-6 (MON810) [Usurped!] Centre for Environmental Risk Assessment, GM Crop Database, Accessed 5 April 2012
  34. ↑ "Open NGO Letter to Commission on Teosinte in Spain" (PDF). Test Biotech. Brussels. 24 February 2016. Retrieved 4 March 2023.

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> Species of bacteria used as an insecticide

Bacillus thuringiensis is a gram-positive, soil-dwelling bacterium, the most commonly used biological pesticide worldwide. B. thuringiensis also occurs naturally in the gut of caterpillars of various types of moths and butterflies, as well on leaf surfaces, aquatic environments, animal feces, insect-rich environments, and flour mills and grain-storage facilities. It has also been observed to parasitize other moths such as Cadra calidella—in laboratory experiments working with C. calidella, many of the moths were diseased due to this parasite.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified maize</span> Genetically modified crop

Genetically modified maize (corn) is a genetically modified crop. Specific maize strains have been genetically engineered to express agriculturally-desirable traits, including resistance to pests and to herbicides. Maize strains with both traits are now in use in multiple countries. GM maize has also caused controversy with respect to possible health effects, impact on other insects and impact on other plants via gene flow. One strain, called Starlink, was approved only for animal feed in the US but was found in food, leading to a series of recalls starting in 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified organism</span> Organisms whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering methods

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. The exact definition of a genetically modified organism and what constitutes genetic engineering varies, with the most common being an organism altered in a way that "does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination". A wide variety of organisms have been genetically modified (GM), from animals to plants and microorganisms. Genes have been transferred within the same species, across species, and even across kingdoms. New genes can be introduced, or endogenous genes can be enhanced, altered, or knocked out.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified food</span> Foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA

Genetically modified foods, also known as genetically engineered foods, or bioengineered foods are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using various methods of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering techniques allow for the introduction of new traits as well as greater control over traits when compared to previous methods, such as selective breeding and mutation breeding.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified crops</span> Plants used in agriculture

Genetically modified crops are plants used in agriculture, the DNA of which has been modified using genetic engineering methods. Plant genomes can be engineered by physical methods or by use of Agrobacterium for the delivery of sequences hosted in T-DNA binary vectors. In most cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species. Examples in food crops include resistance to certain pests, diseases, environmental conditions, reduction of spoilage, resistance to chemical treatments, or improving the nutrient profile of the crop. Examples in non-food crops include production of pharmaceutical agents, biofuels, and other industrially useful goods, as well as for bioremediation.

Bt cotton is a genetically modified pest resistant plant cotton variety that produces an insecticide to combat bollworm.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified food controversies</span> Controversies over GMO food

Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population. In addition, products derived from GMO organisms play a role in the production of ethanol fuels and pharmaceuticals.

MON 863 is a genetically engineered variety of maize produced by Monsanto. It is genetically altered to express a modified version of Cry3Bb1, a delta endotoxin which originates from Bacillus thuringiensis. This protects the plant from corn rootworm. Unlike MON 810, Bt 11, and Bt 176 which each produce a modified Cry1Ab, MON 863 instead produces a modified Cry3Bb1 toxin and contains nptII, a marker gene for antibiotic resistance.

The United States is the largest grower of commercial crops that have been genetically engineered in the world, but not without domestic and international opposition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified soybean</span> Soybean that has had DNA introduced into it using genetic engineering techniques

A genetically modified soybean is a soybean that has had DNA introduced into it using genetic engineering techniques. In 1996, the first genetically modified soybean was introduced to the U.S. by Monsanto. In 2014, 90.7 million hectares of GM soybeans were planted worldwide, this is almost 82% of the total soybeans cultivation area.

The genetically modified brinjal is a suite of transgenic brinjals created by inserting a crystal protein gene (Cry1Ac) from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis into the genome of various brinjal cultivars. The insertion of the gene, along with other genetic elements such as promoters, terminators and an antibiotic resistance marker gene into the brinjal plant is accomplished using Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation. The Bt brinjal has been developed to give resistance against lepidopteron insects, in particular the Brinjal Fruit and Shoot Borer (FSB) by forming pores in the digestive system. Mahyco, an Indian seed company based in Jalna, Maharashtra, has developed the Bt brinjal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation of genetic engineering</span> Overview of the regulation of genetic engineering

The regulation of genetic engineering varies widely by country. Countries such as the United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt use substantial equivalence as the starting point when assessing safety, while many countries such as those in the European Union, Brazil and China authorize GMO cultivation on a case-by-case basis. Many countries allow the import of GM food with authorization, but either do not allow its cultivation or have provisions for cultivation, but no GM products are yet produced. Most countries that do not allow for GMO cultivation do permit research. Most (85%) of the world's GMO crops are grown in the Americas. One of the key issues concerning regulators is whether GM products should be labeled. Labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries. Labeling can be mandatory up to a threshold GM content level or voluntary. A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%. In Canada and the USA labeling of GM food is voluntary, while in Europe all food or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.

Genetic engineering in the European Union has varying degrees of regulation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Séralini affair</span> Retracted study led by Gilles-Éric Séralini

The Séralini affair was the controversy surrounding the publication, retraction, and republication of a journal article by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini. First published by Food and Chemical Toxicology in September 2012, the article presented a two-year feeding study in rats, and reported an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and the herbicide RoundUp. Scientists and regulatory agencies subsequently concluded that the study's design was flawed and its findings unsubstantiated. A chief criticism was that each part of the study had too few rats to obtain statistically useful data, particularly because the strain of rat used, Sprague Dawley, develops tumors at a high rate over its lifetime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">March Against Monsanto</span> International protest movement

The March Against Monsanto was an international grassroots movement and protest against Monsanto, a producer of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. The movement was founded by Tami Canal in response to the failure of California Proposition 37, a ballot initiative which would have required labeling food products made from GMOs. Advocates support mandatory labeling laws for food made from GMOs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gilles-Éric Séralini</span>

Gilles-Éric Séralini is a French molecular biologist, political advisor and activist on genetically modified organisms and foods. He is of Algerian-French origin. Séralini has been a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen since 1991, and is president and chairman of the board of CRIIGEN.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cry1Ac</span> Crystal protein

Cry1Ac protoxin is a crystal protein produced by the gram-positive bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) during sporulation. Cry1Ac is one of the delta endotoxins produced by this bacterium which act as insecticides. Because of this, the genes for these have been introduced into commercially important crops by genetic engineering in order to confer pest resistance on those plants.

Genetic engineering in North America is any genetic engineering activities in North America

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.