CIMMYT Responds to “Joint Statement” on Genetically Modified Maize in Mexico
February 22, 2002
El
Batan, Texcoco, Mexico—On
19 February 2002, a “Joint Statement,” formulated primarily by the
Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC, formerly RAFI)
and Food First, on behalf of a group of civil society organizations, was
posted on various web sites and listservers. At issue is the possible
introgression of transgenes into Mexican maize landraces or criollos,
which is of particular concern because Mexico is the center of origin and
domestication for maize. The issue is extremely contentious, as some
believe that the introduction of a transformed gene into the landraces
will decrease genetic diversity, whereas others maintain that it will not
affect diversity at all, or indeed would enhance diversity. It also raises
issues of intellectual property management.
CIMMYT
welcomes active and informed debate on important food and agricultural
issues, and certainly maintaining the genetic diversity of one of the
world’s staple cereals—maize—constitutes a critical issue. In fact,
CIMMYT has worked hard during the 1990s to maintain such diversity, both
in Mexican farmers’ fields and in our gene bank, the Wellhausen-Anderson
Plant Genetic Resources Center. We very much regret, however, that in
trying to make its point, the Joint Statement at times resorts to
inaccurate and/or unsubstantiated information. CIMMYT prefers to let
science and facts speak for themselves, but because we are directly cited
and sometimes misrepresented in the Joint Statement, we are compelled to
respond.
The
Joint Statement declares that the Director General of CIMMYT, Professor
Timothy Reeves, “has stood by . . . two main points: there is
contamination [sic] in a Center of Diversity, and it is only a matter of
time before that contamination [sic] reaches into the gene bank—if it
hasn’t already occurred.” The Statement goes on to accuse CIMMYT of
being silent on this issue and “hiding behind a debate they themselves
understand to be irrelevant on methodologies of GM detection.”
On
the introgression of transgenic DNA into Mexican landraces: Has it
occurred? Possibly. CIMMYT has relied on information from others on this
topic. Like the general public, CIMMYT researchers first learned of a
promoter used for transgenic maize (cauliflower mosaic virus, CaMV 35S)
being discovered in Mexican landraces from the “News” and “Letters
to Nature” sections of Nature (issues 27 September and 29
November 2001, respectively), which referred to a study by David Quist and
Ignacio Chapela. CIMMYT immediately began to review the study’s
implications for our own research and for genetic diversity in Mexico.
Since
the Quist-Chapela study was reported in Nature, however, other
scientists have raised serious questions about the study’s
methodologies, results, and conclusions (e.g., Transgenic Research
11:iii-v, 2002). Today, Mexican authorities are conducting rigorous
experiments that look for the expression of a transgene rather than just
the presence of the promoter, to get a clearer picture of whether
transgenes have actually arrived and, if so, assess the extent of the
introduction. CIMMYT scientists are actively involved with some of these
efforts. We understand that a major report will be presented in the coming
weeks.
The
contention that CIMMYT is “hiding” behind arguments about methodology
on this issue is false. Regardless of whether the conclusions of the
Quist-Chapela study are accurate, and regardless of questions about their
methodology, we have made it very clear that the issue they raise is
important, and that careful research must be undertaken without undue
delay to evaluate the situation in Mexico. Perhaps CIMMYT’s adherence to
science (and rigorous research methods) rather than sensational
speculation has been misconstrued. “Reliable statements cannot be made
about the status of transgenic maize in farmers’ fields in Mexico or in
gene banks unless a strong methodology is used to evaluate the genetic
resources in question and produce reliable results,” says CIMMYT
Director General Reeves. “We believe such results are still lacking,
although there seems to be no hesitancy on the part of others to use
preliminary and sometimes unsubstantiated results to support their
cause.”
The
accusation that CIMMYT has remained “silent” on this issue is simply
not true. A scant seven days (4 October 2001) following the publication of
the September 2001 Nature News item, CIMMYT posted the following
statement on its public web site:
The
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), headquartered
in Texcoco, Mexico, regards this as a serious development and offers its
considerable expertise to the appropriate Mexican institutions to (1) help
identify the type and source of the introduced gene(s), (2) assess
potential impacts to biodiversity, the ecology, and the socioeconomic
environment, and (3) to explore possible responses . . . . To date,
details of the studies referred to in Nature (Vol. 413) about the
discovery of transgenes in Mexican landraces have not been released to the
public. CIMMYT looks forward to obtaining and reviewing the data and
determining the implications both for Mexico and for CIMMYT’s work. The
Center is in a unique position to assist in such investigations, and,
given our mandate to serve the resource poor of the developing world, to
work on approaches to maize improvement that benefit poor farmers while
protecting valuable genetic resources and the environment.
Following
CIMMYT’s initial response, results from ongoing screens of gene bank
accessions for the CaMV 35S promoter were posted regularly on our web
site. Public discourse and publications on this issue by CIMMYT over the
years have been considerable. In 1995 (when others were silent on the
topic), CIMMYT conducted a workshop on “Gene Flow Among Maize Landraces,
Improved Maize Varieties, and Teosinte: Implications for Transgenic
Maize.” Proceedings of this workshop were published in early 1997 and
were made available on the CIMMYT web site. In addition, CIMMYT scientists
have regularly written journal articles and given conference presentations
on related topics and in recent months spoken extensively to the local and
international media on the subject. We have hardly been silent.
In
regard to insinuations that transgenes have already found their way into
the Wellhausen-Anderson Plant Genetic Resources Center, tests conducted by
CIMMYT scientists have found no evidence that transgenic DNA is
present in any of the CIMMYT gene bank material that has been tested to
date—and the tests are continuing. We have a world-class
biotechnology program at CIMMYT and maintain that the statements we make
are based on solid scientific evidence.
Lastly,
the Joint Statement asserts that CIMMYT Director General Reeves said “it
would only be a matter of time before contamination reached the gene
banks.” Professor Reeves was quoted out of context and issued the
following statement to clarify CIMMYT’s position and avoid further
misquotes or misunderstandings:
I
will once again state that given what we know about farmers’ management
of diversity in Mexico, and given what we know about gene flow in maize,
if transgenic maize is being grown in farmers’ fields as reported in
January and again in February, then it is possible that material collected
from nearby areas could contain transgenic DNA. It is imperative to learn
more about the situation in the field through carefully designed studies
and to implement procedures that ensure that the status of material is
known before it is stored in gene banks. Only further testing using
reliable methodology will determine whether landrace material with
transgenic DNA has already been stored in one or more gene banks. As
CIMMYT has done to date, we will continue to publish the results of our
analyses of our gene bank accessions on our website.
CIMMYT continues to welcome dialogue and open scientific exchanges on the issue. We remain firmly committed to maintaining genetic diversity in both farmers’ fields and in our gene bank, a commitment that long pre-dates the flamboyant and often misleading headlines that dominate today’s debate. We have repeatedly emphasized that people and governments must determine for themselves, on the basis of their needs and values, whether and how they will use genetically modified food crops and other products of biotechnology. Most important, we remain focused on our primary objective: improving livelihoods of resource-poor farmers and their communities through the well-considered application of first-class science.
April, 2007