Mutagenesis: One way Europeans wish it was 1936 again

|

The year 1936 wasn’t the greatest for Europe. A black American named Jesse Owens made the Nazis look foolish at the Berlin Olympics, Edward VIII decided he’d rather have an American divorcée than the throne of England and the whole continent couldn’t figure out whether they wanted Spain to be Fascists or Communists.

But apparently the science was pretty good. So good that Europeans prefer their pre-World War II genetic modification to the precise, modern kind.

Mutagenesis is mutating an organism by bombarding it with radiation and chemicals. Plants and animals have been genetically modified due to mutation by radiation all throughout existence, of course, mutation due to radiation is a well-established driver of evolution. But as is well-known, bombarding something with radiation and hoping for the best is a hit-and-miss proposition and it relies heavily on experimentation. It became wildly popular because modern genetic modification was not created for another 40 years – and Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists did not exist to protest science back then.

Today, there are over 2,200 varieties of lettuce, oats and other crops created using that legacy mutation-driven genetic engineering. Yet it was never a cause for protest – and that is why some companies have been reverting to such scarier science of the past in order to circumvent protests against genetically modified foods.

To the European Commission, a genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism “in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination.” So if a gene for strawberry flavor gets put into a fish, that is a GMO and under the “safeguard clause” France, Germany and others in Europe would block its sale.  What if a laboratory experiment bombards parts of a fish with ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals and it suddenly tastes like strawberry? That is instead mutagenesis, and allowed under European law.

The ‘safeguard clause’ means new GMOs can’t be sold into Europe’s largest markets. Monsanto stopped pursuing approval of biotech seeds there but that does not mean “Frankenfood” has stopped. Instead, companies are literally creating new mutant seeds using legacy mutagenesis and they face no more regulation than any amateur tinkerer would face creating their own new strain on a farm.

Monsanto has given up in Europe but DuPont and BASF are pushing forward and creating new herbicide-resistant crops – they are not legally GMOs so they are exempt, since mutagenesis is considered a “conventional breeding technique”.  By retreating to less-precise mutagenesis, those companies actually have a huge competitive advantage in the $34 billion global seed market. Scientists know that GMOs were created because mutagenesis has far more risks than a precise genetic modification.

Genetically modified foods have yet to cause even a single stomachache while mutagenesis has greater risk of producing an unforeseen detrimental effect than any other breeding technique. Workers who got photodermatitis, a skin condition where people are hyper-sensitive to sunlight, from celery did not get it from a GMO, they got it from a mutagenetic product in the 1980s. That celery is considered ‘organic’ today.

What are the special requirements for approval and use of these new mutant varieties that organic farmers in Europe can use? None, “despite the expectation that mutant varieties may possess and generate more unexpected outcomes … because of the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of non-targeted mutations,” as the National Academy of Sciences notes,

Pre-GMO genetic modification was downright scary, yet food science luddites believe random mutation is superior to creation of a precise trait that cannot possibly express itself in any way other than what science intends.

Anti-GMO people are clearly using “Franken-” as an adjective in the wrong era—Frankenstein was a hybrid, not a GMO.

Hank Campbell is founder of Science 2.0 and an award-winning science writer who has appeared in numerous publications, from Wired to the Wall Street Journal. In 2012 he was co-author of the bestselling book Science Left Behind. Follow him on Twitter @HankCampbell.

  • First Officer

    Frankenstein wasn’t even a hybrid, but a grafted organism, like most apple trees and grapevines. :)

    • Doug

      Is it too late to point out that Frankenstein was a scientist? His creation was “the monster”! So by the NGO logic if GMOs are Franken-Foods, then Mutagenetic foods are FrankenMonster foods?

  • Mel

    Source for the celery? And the link is broken for “while mutagenesis has greater risk of producing an unforeseen detrimental effect than any other breeding technique”

  • RobertWager

    Science has always had an uphill battle for the hearts and minds of the people.

    • What? The opposite is the case Rob.
      The bow-and-arrow, steam engine, light bulb, radio, television, cassette player, iPod, iPhone, iPad… people have always embraced new technologies.
      Only now that we’re forced to subsidize the organic movement are we seeing opposition to technology.

      • First Officer

        I think you’re both right. It’s true what you say, Popoff, but there were stirrings against radio and TV as well as the printing press. Don’t forget, Frankenstein was published in the 1818.

        • And let us not forget the Luddites who opposed the introduction of machinery in factories in the early 19th-c. But the public has always embraced technology, or at worse was indifferent to it. Even GMOs hardly register with 90% of the public. It’s only activists (tax funded no less) who make trouble for this technology.

  • Warren Lauzon

    I read someplace a few months ago that the FDA(?) was considering redefining what a GMO was – and would include the mutagenesis varieties. Have not been able to find out much since then.

  • Giovanni Tagliabue

    Nice article. The celery variety was probably not mutagenized, bur conventional crossed, but it’s not very clear: http://archderm.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=548785

  • she’satCornell

    Great article. Why don’t ‘organic consumers’ know about this?

  • First Officer

    Speaking of 1936, has anyone else noticed how anti-gmoers demand, “genetic purity”.

    • hyperzombie

      Yeah, and for some reason they hate “Foreign Genes”

    • agliterate

      I wonder what Hitler would have thought about gmos, given his rants of “genetic purity…”

  • This article is bang on!

    Of course, the reason consumers don’t know about any of this is because GMO executives are all too afraid to take the hallowed organic industry to task and call them out on huge inconsistencies like this.

    Trish Jordan and Hugh Grant of Monsanto, Jay Vroom and Jeff Case of CropLife, Rick Tolman and Mark Lambert of the National Corn Growers Association, Ab Basu and Richard Lobb of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and perhaps saddest of all, Julie Borlaug of the Norman Borlaug Institute… these are just some of the people who have decided to take a very soft-handed approach to dealing with anti-GMO organic activists. And it shows.

    No American or Canadian should be ashamed of our leading role in developing this field of science. If they are, they should find another line of work.

    http://www.greenerideal.com/lifestyle/0915-gmo-debate-meetings-about-non-existent-food-safety-issues/

  • kaidog

    Well, I guess it’s a bit comforting to know that Europe’s collective understanding of science is at least as bad as ours.

    *sigh*

  • kets

    Good article. One minor issue — “mutation-driven genetic engineering”. Random mutagenesis isn’t really engineering I think, just genetic modification. With engineering there has to be some plan or blueprint. This is just a crap shoot.