Impact of GMO

1
Impact of GMOs on Non-Target Organisms

• Peter C. Ellsworth, Ph.D.
• IPM Specialist, University of Arizona
• Steve Naranjo, Ph.D.
• Research Scientist, USDA-ARS, WCRL

2
Disclosure

• Those engaged in the dialog on biotechnology
  should fully disclose their relationships and
  opinions up front so that audiences can
  consider the context.
• Partial support for my research comes from
  companies with interests in biotechnology.
• The balance of support comes from state and
  federal sources of competitively available public
  funds.

3
Disclosure (continued)

• Biotechnology and its products are neither
  inherently good nor bad.
• The specific process and each of its products
  should be scientifically and independently
  evaluated.

4
Science or Emotion?

• Proponents and opponents of biotechnology have
  made ample use of both.
• However, emotion tends to rule in the court of
  public opinion.

5
Public Opinion

• Unintended consequences pelicans nearly wiped
  out by DDT, massive radiation leaked at
  Chernobyl, now butterflies killed by genetically
  modified corn

Full page back cover of blue magazine
Patagonia, 2001
6
Public Opinion

• The list of environmental damage caused by
  inadequately tested technologies is long. With
  genetic engineering unleashed on the world the
  list may grow much, much longer. We dont yet
  know all the impacts and dangers of genetic
  engineering. Shouldnt we find out the risks
  before we turn genetically modified organisms
  loose on the world, or eat them in our food?

7
Public Opinion

• Our species, as yet unable to see the whole, or
  to know how it works, now stands poised...

From www.patagonia.com/enviroaction Patagonia,
2001
8
Are Scientists Mad?

• For the past decade, biotechs mad scientists
  have been telling consumers not to worry about
  Frankenstein foods.
• The biotech industry and governments have done
  almost no safety testing of GE foods.
• Millions of acres of GE crops are spreading
  genetic pollution, creating superweeds and pests,
  disrupting the balance between pests and natural
  predators, and killing butterflies and beneficial
  soil microorganisms. The more we learn about
  Frankenfoods and crops, the scarier they appear.

From BioDemocracy News 40, The Death of
Frankenfoods, August 2002
9
Powerful Imagery
10
GMOs Social Platform?

• Starbucks Global Week of Action (Sept. 21-28,
  2002)
• Remove genetically engineered ingredients from
  their food and dairy products on a worldwide
  basis,
• Improve working conditions for coffee plantation
  workers, and brew and seriously promote fair
  trade coffee in all of their cafes.

From Organic Consumers Association
organicconsumers.org
11
World Food Deprivation
12
A Hungry Planet?

• 1.85 Billion people (30) are hungry in the world
  today (FAO, 2002).
• 36 Million people (13) go hungry in the U.S.
  today (USDA, 2002).
• 2.5 - 6 Million people (20-50) starving in
  Zambia today, yet
• Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa recently
  rejected FREE corn (10,000 tons) offered by the
  U.S., because it was not GMO-free.

13
So What Is The Story?

• Monarch Butterfly, symbol of nature and
  wildness in North America.

14
Incredible Annual Migration!
15
Monarchs Feed on Milkweed
16
Bt Corn Sheds Pollen

• Some of which may fall on milkweed plants that
  serve as hosts for Monarchs.
• Bt corn pollen may contain some quantity of the
  Bt endotoxin.

17
Monarchs Are Killed?

• Scientists have shown that larvae are killed when
  fed milkweed dusted with Bt corn pollen.
• But how realistic was this study?

18
PNAS Temporal Spatial Distribution of Monarchs

• Per plant densities of larvae, similar among
  habitats (i.e., ag. vs. non-ag. lands)
• For upper Midwest, most Monarchs are, in fact,
  produced on agricultural lands!
• Regardless of Bt corn, other agricultural
  practices like foliar insecticide use and weed
  control could have large impacts on populations
  of Monarchs

From Oberhauser et al., 2001
19
PNAS Corn Pollen Deposits on Milkweed

• Average 171 pollen grains per sq. cm. in corn
  fields
• Average 14 pollen grains per sq. cm. 6 ft outside
  of the corn field
• One rain removes 54-86 of the pollen
• Youngest leaves, the preferred food, have 50-70
  lower pollen density than older leaves

From Pleasants et al., 2001
20
PNAS Toxicity of Bt Proteins Corn Pollen
Bt Toxin 1st instars on diet 1st instars on pollen on discs
Cry1F Non-Toxic Non-Toxic
Cry9C Non-Toxic Non-Toxic
Cry1Ac Toxic Non-Toxic
Cry1Ab Toxic Toxic (Event 176 only)
From Helmich et al., 2001
21
PNAS Field Mortality of Monarchs

• 50 of Monarch larvae died in the first 24 hrs
• NONE related to proximity to Bt corn
• But slower growth of Black Swallowtails likely
  related to pollen exposure
• for Event 176 (Novartis) only

From Zanger et al., 2001
22
PNAS Field Impact of Cry1Ab (3 events)
Exposure Density Duration Cry1Ab Event 176 Cry1Ab Bt11 Cry1Ab Mon810
22 gr. / sq. cm. Weight loss (-18) -- --
67 gr. / sq. cm. Weight loss (42) mortality (40) NOE --
97 gr. / sq. cm. NOE --
500 gr. / sq. cm. NOE --
In-field feeding for 14-22 d NOE NOE
Compared to lambda-cyhalothrin which killed most
Monarch larvae
From Stanley-Horn et al., 2001
23
PNAS A Risk Assessment...

• Acute toxic effects of pollen
• Probability of larvae being exposed to toxic
  levels in and around corn fields

Hazard Exposure Risk
X
This two year study suggests that the impact of
Bt corn pollen from current commercial hybrids on
Monarch Butterfly populations is negligible.
From Sears et al., 2001
24
Non-Target Organisms (NTO)

• Search for unintended consequences of technology
  (e.g., Bt cotton) on biodiversity.
• Through direct effects, i.e., toxic effects on
  non-target species,
• Or through indirect effects, i.e., through
  non-target species feeding on intoxicated hosts.

25
Natural Enemy AbundanceNo Insecticides
P 0.18
P 0.29
Bt cotton Non-Bt
26
Natural Enemy AbundanceInsecticides as needed
Bt cotton Non-Bt
Unsprayed Sprayed
27
Non-Target Organisms (NTO)

• Over 370 arthropod species have been tracked in 2
  years of field studies using a variety of
  methodologies.
• So far, no major or functional differences have
  been found in Arizona between BG, BGII, and
  conventional cotton communities
• Except where harsh PBW sprays are needed in
  conventional cottons.
• Thus, Bt cotton ecosystems are not only safe, but
  safer than conventional cotton ecosystems where
  insecticidal inputs are higher.

28
Information
ACIS

• All University of Arizona crop production crop
  protection information is available on our web
  site,
• Arizona Crop Information Site (ACIS), at
• http//ag.arizona.edu/crops

http//ag.arizona.edu/crops/presentations/presenta
tions.html