by frog
Genetic Engineering is back, with AgResearch making a massive application to genetically engineer a wide range of animals, plus human and monkey cells. I really thought this story would have been all over the media by now and was going to link to articles letting news agencies tell the story. But it hasn’t yet (Except this Radio NZ rural news item). So instead, in Jeanette’s own words:
This application in four parts lists numerous animal and human cells and other animal body parts to be host organisms for engineering. It could allow AgResearch to develop unlimited numbers of GE animals without telling us which specific genes and associated genetic material they intend to use, and without going back to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) for further approval.
The application also shows AgResearch has refused to tell ERMA where in New Zealand its outside experiments are likely to be and suggests Canterbury, Taranaki and Southland might become new GE testing grounds.
Whole animals the Crown research institute wants to genetically engineer for “outside containment” are llamas, alpacas, sheep, cows, pigs, goats, buffalo, deer and horses.
Worryingly, this GE application seems to be more about engineering our food than it is about medicines or vaccinations. The scope of it, both in terms of the places that that the GE animals will be bred and raised, and also where they will then end up presents a massive threat to NZ’s GE-free reputation. The huge ominbus application appears to breach the Government’s promise to deal with GE applications on a case by case basis, instead trying to get through a wide range of objectionable applications all in one go.
Opportunities to submit on this application close on 31 October – details are on ERMA’s website here and here.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Fri, August 8th, 2008
Tags: agresearch, ERMA, GE, Genetic engineering, Jeanette Fitzsimons
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Get over G.E..
Animals are fine outside aslong as they are castrated, and that is so much easyer to do than with plants. I dont see anyting wrong with this, and since the genes wont spread throughout populations if the animals are castrated it does not effect our “G.E. Free” marketing ploy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh dear, here we go again. I had hoped they had given up. Anyway, I suppose one positive spin-off is that it will be good for growing the Green vote at the upcoming election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad,
G.E. has the potential to provide affordable vaccines and medicines as wel as new body parts to replace those that are lost. G.E. has the potential to vastly increase the standard of living of much of the worlds poor. In animals which are castrated and not used for food there are no downsides unless somehow we create a massive blob that can withstand all our military hardware and destroy new zealand with its excrations.
I thought you were a humanist? why would you deny us something that could benifit us so and has so little potential downsides?
Its like those who appose stem cell research; its just a senseless reactionary, and somewhat religious, approach.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good
we need to feed the projected 9 billion world population somehow
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
who cares about science when we can let millions starve so long as they don’t have access to any GE crops or foods
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
lol, id rather not feed them…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Panda, we have enough food now, unsustainable biofuel production aside. That’s not the problem so GE food is not needed as a solution. This science is meant to patent food and make a few rich regardless of who dies in the process. Which is pretty much the same sentiment as Sapient expressed. Shameful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
valis, not exactly what I was getting at.
I was meaning that I would rather our population didint grow that large in the first place. Id rather our population as it is now was much smaller. but even so; we have plenty of food to adiquitly feed every currently living human, atleast for the moment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
lol, id rather not feed them…
haha
I would I am a Dairy Farmer,bring on $10 payouts
btw I love the whole biofuels debacle its making me a lot of money
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While I totally oppose the use of unlabeled GE materials in food/medicines etc etc I do feel there is no way to stop technology and would rather have a comprehensive testing programme now. It is in the best interests of NZ that we do at least some of our own testing here as a)ethics and protocols here are good and b) it goes some way to ensure this type of technology is not tested on the poorest people in the poorest countries with any negative results hidden until its too late.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s not far from Green Party policy, joanna. Keep it in the lab. Do effective testing before thinking about any release. One problem with this is that public good science was effectively killed off in NZ in the early 90′s when the DSIR was broken up into commercially oriented CRIs. The profit motive does not sit will with the precautionary principle, which should surprise no one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I thought (hoped) it might be, but often policy (especially green party policy) is reduced to 10 seconds of hysterics (by the media). As somone loosely connected to scientific research I will always be in favour of better funding, but I think big issues like this should transcend party lines so we as a country can up with a reasoned, sensible and ethical long term approach. I believe the greens could do this, the others I’m less sure of…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I ask – what is the point of doing GE work on some of our traditional food chain animals if the GE product is not to be eaten?
I oppose GE in the food chain, directly and indirectly.
We are a small country, one that is well able to produce genuine GE free food for the world markets. That would make our export food a desireable product.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mary Shelly inspired paranoia still alive and well, I see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are a number of issues here. I don’t have a problem with the science itself, but:
We still have the opportunity to market NZ as a GE-free country, and hopefully get a price premium on all our exports. My personal opinion is that we should keep it in the lab and push this marketing tactic for all it is worth. Then once the consumers have become too complacent and we are no longer getting a price premium we could consider using GE crops and animals. There is a financial benefit to be gained from being GE free, as plenty of people round the world, rightly or wrongly, don’t like GE and might be prepared to pay a premium to avoid it.
I do have a problem with the reference to “human cells”, I personally believe this is unethical.
I have a problem with the omnibus application. Although there is nothing wrong with the technology per se there are issues with some of its applications (herbicide resistance for example), and it needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, does anyone know whether New Zealand recognises genome patents? One of the biggest problems with GE is the legal one that can result in farmers being prosecuted because their crop was pollinated with patented pollen, or they inadvertently grew some patented seed. We can avoid this issue if we do not recognise genome patents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With food scarcity being an emerging issue, people aren’t going to give a toss about “GE Free”. They’ll be demanding higher productivity, and the science that goes along with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What do we mean by GE free?
HUman insulin is produced by genetically modified organisms.
The enzymes we use to make beer are produced by genetically modified organisms.
All antibiotics are produced by Genetically modified organisms.
So what do you mean by GE free?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Panda said: we need to feed the projected 9 billion world population somehow
Panda, from what I’ve read, there is absolutely no evidence that GE crops provide higher yields. If you have some evidence of this, then please tell us all.
Sapient said” G.E. has the potential to provide affordable vaccines and medicines as wel as new body parts to replace those that are lost.
It does indeed. But this potential can be achieved by developing it in the containment of a laboratory environment, rather than taking the risk of releasing GE organisms into the environment. Once the Gene Genie is let out of the bottle, you can’t put it back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen, please don’t be deliberately obtuse. You know as well as I do that the term is being used here to describe the direct manipulation of an organism’s genes, rather than the indirect manipulation that occurs in traditional breeding and hybridisation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad, you are correct in terms of microbes and plants; both of which are a chalange to castrate. However with mammels the costs of providing secured, air tight, containment is massive and where the animals are castrated; totally surperfluous.
I castrated G.E. animal, unless it leaks some sort of vile substance, is of no danger to any of our industries or our G.E. free status. They can be held in a fenced off paddock away from feed stock and G.E. would become significantly more viable and could progress alot faster under these conditions with no additional risk to humans or anything other than the grass they consume.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad, Owen is actually correct that insulin is produced by GE organisms – in this case bacteria I believe. I am not sure about the others but expect he is right. These are microorganisms in labs however.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient said: However with mammels the costs of providing secured, air tight, containment is massive and where the animals are castrated; totally surperfluous.
You are strictly correct Sapient. However, the whole point of developing genetically modified organism is that they can breed and pass on the modified genotype to their offspring. If they are castrated before mature enough to breed that is never tested, and each generation of animals would have to be developed from the same genetic modification procedure – which is prohibitively expensive – rather than natural conception.
Of course that may be what the biotech companies want – to have agricultural production forever beholden to them. That’s what Monsanto has already attempted to do with the development of the “terminator gene”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis said: Owen is actually correct that insulin is produced by GE organisms
Yes, you’re right – I missed that example he referred to. But as you say, it is done within the containment of a laboratory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
To what I refer; the production of drugs cheaply and the growth of replacement body parts. The animals would not need to breed and most likley due to the genetic cross overs of breeding it would undesirable to do so. With drugs the animals would most likley be cloned from a base set of proto-cells and with body parts the animals would most likley also be cloned; with the selection of relivant body parts, blood types and other such factors effecting which genome is chosen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens have painted themselves into a corner over GE.
How about splicing a coral gene into our sheep so we have irridescent flashing blobs in the paddocks at night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am sorry to be pedantic but all those examples I referred to use Genetically modified organisms.
To make antibiotics we crank up the productivity by transferring the genes into more productive organisms or by modifying the switching genes which turn the genes on and off.
How do you think we keep coming up with new antibiotics in commercial quantities?
You cannot dismiss the issue over antibiotics and other medicines by saying they are “kept in laboratories”. Many live vaccines are produced via GE and are excreted by animals and people into the environment.
Anyhow the other objection is that GE allows companies to gain patents and of course all the organisms I referred to are subject of patents if they have been modified – although in some cases the patents have expired.
And the other objection is that GE is “Not natural”. But we seem happy to take advantage of these “unnatural” pharmceuticals. And the new attacks on malaria are based on GE parasites etc and we may well depend on GE finally control possums.
GE free is a very like Nuclear free. Where do you draw the line?
And of course NZ allows GE related patents. But you cannot patent a gene which occurs in nature in NZ and pure genome patents are hard to come by and to defend. I might say that in many cases – as for example the GM anti facial excema drug (which is a modified organism) the more valuable patent and the only one worth pursuing is for the diagnostic kit. The one is not much use without the other and the diagnostic kit is much easier to patent and more robust.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lol, if new zealand were truley nuclear free then I may feel sorry for all those cancer sufferers and people whom need scans; not to mention the poor psychologists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The main problem with the type of application AgResearch are proposing is that it is advocating a huge policy shift. The government policy on GM release is “case by case” assessment. I ought to know, I drafted hundreds of ministerial letters, speech notes and cabinet papers with that mantra. But the Agresearch application is policy change by stealth, without it going through cabinet or the public submission process.
The other issue I have is with the animal manipulation. GM of animals by necessity involves intrusive manipulation, resulting in severe suffering to both the GM animals and their surrogate mothers. In New Zealand this is regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (at least in theory), but if AgResearch have a blanket approval to import GM animals from countries like the United States with very weak legislation, then these animals may have been subjected to suffering that would be unacceptable in New Zealand.
The case-by-case HSNO approval by ERMA should at least in theory address the issue of animal suffering, since ERMA are obliged to take cultural, spiritual and ethical issues into account when making decisions. Bypassing this step is contrary to the intent of both the HSNO and Animal Welfare Acts.
And it is nonsensical to suppose that more animal flesh will feed the starving billions. Animal flesh is a cause of mass starvation, not its cure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1:
“The other issue I have is with the animal manipulation. GM of animals by necessity involves intrusive manipulation, resulting in severe suffering to both the GM animals and their surrogate mothers.”
Could you please explain what you mean by this? How do you feel the effect on the surrogate differs from standard AI?
Also, no-one has answered whether NZ recognises genome patents, does anyone know?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does anyone know any links to sites that say what GE foods they are intending to produce?
I have looked at the Erma and Agresearch web sites and they only talk about making enzymes, hormones and biopharmaceuticals, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Could you please explain what you mean by this? How do you feel the effect on the surrogate differs from standard AI?”
Gladly – GM animals are created by nuclear transfer, the same type of technology that created Dolly the sheep. Basically a somatic (body cell) nucleus (the part with the genetic information) is placed inside an egg cell that has had the nucleus sucked out. The transgenic DNA (the part form the other species we are interested in) is inserted into the nucleus. The egg with the body cell nucleus is then placed inside a surrogate mother.
There are many problems with this method. The main one is that the nucleus of the body cell only has some of its genes expressed (ie only some genes produce RNA and proteins). But a nucleus in an egg cell has to have all its genes expressed in order to make an embryo (this is known as totipotent). The transgenic egg cells are treated in a certain way to make them totipotent (I am not sure of the details), but this also alters them in a way that nobody is sure of, and as a result many abort before they become full term (causing pain to the almost fully formed foetus and the mother), are born severely deformed (causing pain to the transgenic animal), or are abnormally large and have to be taken out of the surrogate mother by Caesarian (causing pain to the mother). The success rate for transgenic animals is about 2%, so 98% end up on the scrap heap.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1:
Thanks for that, I didn’t realise the success rate was still so low.
Based on your concern about pain being caused to animal foetuses and their abortion, I assume you are also against human abortion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I cannot answer your question about genome patents because I do not know exactly what you are referring to.
If you significantly alter a genome to create a benefit (ie address a mischief) and can control the use of that genome then you can apply for a patent.
In effect anyone who registers a plant variety is registering a “genome” because the genome determines and expresses the variety.
But registering a plant variety is not the same as filing a patent.
Many plant varieties are sterile hybrids and so there is no problem of control.
These hybrids (like mules) have their terminator genes built in. But for some reason they are acceptable while terminator genes built into GM plant varieties are not even though that is obviously the best means of ensuring downstream control over reproduction.
I find it difficult to make sense of it all. The traditional way of creating plant varieties (esp flowers) was to irradiate the seeds with ionising radiation and hope that a few of the sports would be useful in some way – such as a new colour. This is a totally random process but remains the standard process in the absence of GM.
Go figure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What I am referring to is one of the biggest problems with GE, and it has absolutely nothing to do with science, food safety or anything like that (concerns that are often overstated).
There are reports of farmers in the USA who have had GE plants found in their fields. This can occur from pollination from GE crops nearby, or even from GE seed blowing off the back of a truck (which incidentally is not prevented by using terminator genes).
When these plants are discovered, farmers have then been prosecuted for stealing patented material, as the actual modified genome is patented. The farmer is legally required to give up his crop and give it to the seed company, just as if he had copied a patent on anything else.
This is a major problem, as farmers can be incriminated for theft through no fault of their own, nor through any fault of the GE technology – just through a legal technicality. It can also prevent farmers from keeping seed from one year to the next without paying royalties to the company.
This is why it is important that we do not recognise genome patents here. If we don’t recognise such patents, this major issue with GE in the USA will not be a problem here. If we do recognise them then we are asking for trouble.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Based on your concern about pain being caused to animal foetuses and their abortion, I assume you are also against human abortion?”
Of course, and human cloning because it has the same problems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis you make a very important point: but I have a feeling that if we fail to recognise American patents we could have the gun boats in the harbour forthwith.
Let’s try to keep their bluidy GE shyte out of our Country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kelpie:
Plant breeding companies are able to survive quite happily at the moment without needing their produce patented. Genome patents are just a quirk of the US legal system. There is no need for them.
It is easy to say “ban, ban, ban”, but I personally prefer to look at the genuine concerns on an individual basis and see if they can be resolved, with a ban being the last option if this is unsuccessful. This is a serious issue we need to work out. I will have to do more research on it, I was expecting someone over here would have the answer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)