A gene called glucuronidase A (gusA) could be the next molecule of contention in debates about the safety of genetically modified (GM) food in India.
A transgenic groundnut—designed to tolerate dry weather and salinity, and being developed by University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) in Dharwad, Karnataka—hasn’t passed muster with the country’s genetic engineering approval committee.
Several genes from plants and bacteria are being tested on food and cash crops to vest in them a host of traits ranging from pest resistance to increased immunity to hostile weather.
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh in February stayed the approval on the commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal, the first GM food crop in India, on the grounds that enough tests weren’t done to inspire public confidence in their safety.
Several European countries are wary of introducing transgenic plants into their environment as the physiological effects of several genes are still unknown.
The GM groundnut contained an unnecessary piece of DNA called gusA and ought not to be released into the environment, according to a statement (
http://tinyurl.com/35scll8) on GEAC’s website.
UAS had asked for permission to conduct early stage tests to determine if the inserted genes works in its GM groundnut.
Scientist M. Udaya Kumar, who is involved with the development of the transgenic groundnut, declined to comment on the committee’s decision.
“These are basic issues that have emerged and will be settled in due course,” he said over the phone. “It’s not right for me to comment on a work in progress.”
GusA is a so-called reporter gene, generally used to determine whether a gene of interest has been expressed into the targeted plant genome.
Some experts were critical of the approval committee’s decision.
P. Ananda Kumar, a senior scientist at the National Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology, a research organisation of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, said the gus gene has no adverse effect on humans or plants.
“It’s a harmless piece of DNA,” he said. “Reporter genes have been known for a long time and are very well understood.”
Another expert working with a private firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the committee’s decision reflected ignorance.
“Gus gene is old technology. But instead of banning it, the developers should only be asked to prove that the plant is safe in the presence of the gene,” he said. “The committee’s action is just an example of insufficient knowledge.”
Copyright © 2009 HT Media All Rights Reserved
