Interview with Dr. Patrick O'Reilly

It could be said that having a debate over whether or not we should have genetically modified foods is a little like arguing whether or not we should make use of nuclear power. The fact is that you're already eating it; there are 70 million hectares of GM crops planted world-wide. The more I read, the more I'm convinced of one thing and it's this: the GM foodstuff itself is no better or worse for you than any other, but the technology that produces it gives cause for concern.

An analogy: the electricity that comes from a nuclear power station is no different from electricity produced in any other way. We worry about the technology, not the product. So when I went to meet Dr. Patrick O'Reilly, Monsanto's Business Manager here in Ireland, I focused my questions on the technology involved.

P.T. Would it be true to say that in essence the methodology for gene transfer in the laboratory is to modify a virus by inserting into it the genetic material you want to transfer, while crippling its other genes that you don't wish to transfer, and then use it as a vector?

P.O'R. We don't modify viruses. We only use plant bacteria that are not pathogenic to humans.

P.T. My biggest concern is what is called 'horizontal gene transfer', that's to say that GMO's could transfer modified DNA code to organisms other than those they were intended to alter.

P.O'R I don't think that that is realistic. Horizontal gene transfer occurs in nature anyway, albeit rarely. The mechanisms for transferring genes are complex and it's extremely unlikely it could take place outside the laboratory.

P.T. I read an article by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, who suggested that new pathogenic bacteria and antibiotic resistance is linked to horizontal gene transfer, and that the presence of antibiotics typically increases the frequency of horizontal transfer by a factor of 100 or more. Dr. Ho also maintains that transgenes and antibiotic marker genes have been shown to end up in soil fungi and bacteria.

P.O'R. I don't know of this research.

P.T. Leaving aside whether that research is verifiable, I have another concern. I understand that the success rate in forming new GMO's is not high. That would suggest that there is waste genetically modified material that has to be disposed of. Is it possible that this material could end up in the environment by accident?

P.O'R. All waste products are completely destroyed in the laboratory, either by incineration or by autoclaving.

P.T. But isn't an accident always possible? In theory there should never be leakage of nuclear waste from Sellafield, and yet we know that it has happened.

P. O'R. Obviously we cannot guarantee 100 pc safety of anything, and neither can anyone else. But what you're talking about is very hypothetical, it's just not a possibility in the real world. It's a source of worry for many people, I know, but the kind of scenario you describe is not possible unless under laboratory conditions.

P.T. Okay. Tell me this; will herbicide resistant crops mean I'll eat more herbicidal residues?

P. O'R. On the contrary, you'll get less. At the moment food crops are sprayed with a cocktail of chemicals, mostly by way of insurance. If you plant our GM sugarbeet which is resistant to Roundup, you can wait until the weeds have emerged, see where there are more, where there are less, and then spray accordingly. Our research has shown a reduction in the volume of sprays needed. And if you take our GM cotton, which has pest-resistant genes, there is a massive reduction in the use of pesticides. We can even colour it genetically, so you could grow blue, red or green cotton and avoid having to use aniline dyes.

P.T. What about 'terminator technology?'

P. O'R. That's another area where there's a lot of confusion and scare-mongering. At the moment, under European law, if you save seed you're supposed to pay a royalty and that's only fair - the research and development costs are huge, and they have to be recouped. Terminator technology simply ensures 'one seed one plant'. It's a way of guaranteeing our royalties. But no one is forced to buy our seeds, and if they don't, they don't have to pay us.

P.T. How would you like the to see the debate on GM foods proceed?

P. O'R. I think there's a lot of scare-mongering and a lot of mis-information. That's a problem for us; if we try to explain our views on the safety of what we're doing, no one believes us.

P.T. I suppose we all find it hard to accept that a multinational, whose principle ethic is the profit motive, might be good at self-regulation.

P. O'R. Exactly. It's very hard for people to be anything other than sceptical when they listen to big multinationals. Which is why we'd very much like to see a Food Standards Agency which would be staffed by independent experts rather than lobby groups. Let's look at the evidence objectively and then make up our minds.

P.T. As far as consumers are concerned, labelling is our only source of information. The irradiated food experience must have taught you some lessons.

P. O'R. The current labelling laws on GM foods are far stricter than on organic produce. We're subject to safety tests from the single cell, to the plant, to the crop, to the final food. If we'd just invented the potato we'd never get it past the current regulations, since it contains too many toxins in its raw state. The most recent proposals are that any food with more than 2 pc GM content must be labelled as such.

P.T. So is GM food safe?

P. O'R. Of course. Take our 'Flavour-saver tomato' as an example. There are no genes added to it: the genes that cause spoilage are removed, which means you can pick it later in its development when it's riper and still get it to market in a fit state to sell. It's hard to see how that can be anything but an advantage.