Volume 2
EC regulation of genetic modification in agriculture / Select Committee on the European Communities.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Select Committee on the European Communities.
- Date:
- [1999], ©1999
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: EC regulation of genetic modification in agriculture / Select Committee on the European Communities. Source: Wellcome Collection.
20/428 (page 12)
![[Chairman Contd] Foods and Processes for nine years from 1988 to 1997. I came to the end of my term last September, but I have kept up my interest in the field and the media keep talking to me. For much of that period I was also Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, from which post I retired about two years ago. In that post I was Chairman of the John Innes Council, the John Innes Institute being the major plant-breeding biology research institute in this country. I have some previous experience in a biotechnology company in North America and also as a professor doing gene cloning at the University of Warwick. Professor Beringer and I are both scientists by background. We have been trying to steer through this new technology in an area which has aroused some controversy. Lord Willoughby de Broke 35. ACNFP opposed regulatory approval for the maize produced by Novartis which contains both an insecticide and genes which in a bacteria, but not in the maize, would have conferred resistance to an antibiotic. ACRE was satisfied with the safety of the product. Can you explain the difference between the two committees’ conclusions? (Professor Burke) This is an interesting case study. Antibiotic resistance genes—that is, those genes that confer resistance against the action of a particular antibiotic - have been used widely in plant biology for the selection of new varieties from _ genetic modification for some time. Some years ago the committee that I chaired became somewhat concerned about their widespread use. We initiated a consultation in the early ‘nineties and produced a guidance paper for the use of these genes in 1994. All of that predates the receipt of this particular application from Ciba-Geigy (as it was then). This maize contains a gene which confers resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. It was there because of the way that the genetic material had been constructed in the bacterial host before being put into the plant. It served no useful function in the plant. We were concerned with the low risk possibility of the transfer of this gene to gut bacteria in cattle when fed the unprocessed maize, the possible activation of the gene and the production and replication of those bacteria, with subsequent transfer into the human food chain, with the low risk of increasing antibiotic resistance in the human population through the human handling of those cattle. We are talking about a low-risk situation, and we have trouble dealing with very low-risk situations. The beef on the bone controversy is an example of that. Professor Beringer and I agree that these are lower risks than that. The committee was not against the use of antibiotic resistance genes as such. The flavour-saver tomato and the Zeneca tomato paste contain an antibiotic resistance gene which we considered not to be a risk, but we thought that this one was just over the boundary and we did not recommend approval. That went to Ministers who received different advice from Professor Beringer’s committee. We had a first meeting in late 1995 to see if we could agree. We did not agree. However, we agreed on the differences. ACRE is concerned about evidence of harm. It took the view that there was no increase in risk because the antibiotic resistance genes were already present to a considerable extent in the population. We believe that although that was true we should not be party to any action that increased that figure, even by a small percentage. In making that decision we were influenced by a medical member of our committee who was very concerned about antibiotic resistance and possibly the consumer representative who was also present. We are talking about a marginal decision in a low-risk case. They were more concerned about the environment, and we the particular food. They were subject to legal constraints, and we were dealing more with people’s perceptions and concerns about these novel foods. (Professor Beringer) Clearly, this is not an easy issue. ACRE took the view that the increment of risk was extraordinarily low. In anything we look at we do not assume that there is no risk of harm. All of the crops that we grow have within them some potential to cause harm, sometimes serious harm. For example, potatoes can be extremely poisonous. We are very used to the concept of an existing element of possible harm. Are we going to make something worse than it already is? After all, there is nothing much worse for the natural environment than agriculture. The basis of our decision was that about five per cent of people were already carrying these drug-resistant genes and the chances of that maize introducing those genes into humans and causing a health problem were unlikely to be as much as one in a million million, so it was quite low relative to five per cent. To us, it did not present a risk of harm. Therefore, we gave our approval. If one had stopped all prescriptions for ampicillin other than only in emergency use perhaps the view would have been rather different. But that is an extremely commonly used antibiotic. It is used far too often and irresponsibly and has a very high existing frequency of resistance. We did not believe that it would add to harm. (Professor Burke) 1 tried this argument on the committee who said that nothing should be done to increase that figure, even by a minuscule amount. Therefore, one has two different attitudes to a currently agreed situation. Lord Jopling 36. We have moved on a little. A number of us read an article that appeared in The Times on 4 May based on work carried out in Switzerland by the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agro-ecology and Agriculture in Zurich. It reads: “A team. . .has found evidence that the poisonous effects of the protein can spread further. It raised plant-eating insects on B thuringiensis maize plants and fed them to the larvae of lacewings - which eat crop pests. They report. . .that the death rates of the lacewings nearly doubled. . .” The conclusion reached - that is, by the journalist - was that, “This means that an insect could nibble the plant, then fly off and be eaten by a lacewing, which would die.” Here one has an area where there may be a domino effect that only experience can show up. Listening to the evidence given earlier by Professor](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32220832_0002_0020.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
