BOISE—A plant geneticist explained the difference between traditional plant breeding methods and genetic modification Feb. 12 during a presentation designed to educate Idaho lawmakers about how genetically engineered crops are produced.
The presentation was meant to inform lawmakers about what genetically modified organisms actually are so they can deal with the issue when and if it comes before the Idaho Legislature, said Steve Cory, president of the Idaho Council on Industry and Environment, which sponsored the event along with Food Producers of Idaho.
The presentation, titled “What are GMOs?” was delivered to the 31 members of the House Agricultural Affairs and Environment, Energy and Technology committees.
The presenter, Joseph Kuhl, assistant professor of plant molecular biology in the University of Idaho’s College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, explained the difference between traditional plant breeding and the development of new cultivars through genetic modification.
Both methods result in the exchange of DNA, he said; the difference lies is the process used to exchange that DNA.
A GMO crop contains a gene or genes that have been artificially inserted, while a conventionally bred plant acquires genes through pollination, he said.
With genetic modification, an inserted gene may come from either an unrelated or related plant or a different species, where only genes from closely related species are involved with traditional methods, he said.
Another major difference, he said, is that “thousands of genes typically get exchanged during traditional breeding. With genetic modification, you’re changing one trait.”
Kuhl said GMO crops are regulated by a host of federal agencies and “are the most extensively tested crops ever added to the food chain. A lot of testing is required to get these plants through the regulatory process.”
Genetically modified plants must be shown to be the same as the parent crop from which they were derived and if a new protein is added, it must be proven to be neither toxic nor allergenic, he said.
Kuhl told the Capital Press later that the main point he wanted the legislators to walk away with was that “people should consider genetically modified plants in the context of traditionally bred cultivars.” To do that, he added, “they need to understand the traditional breeding methods and processes that are used today.”
Rep. Ken Andrus, a Republican rancher from McCammon, said he thought the presentation helped shed some light on the subject and he particularly appreciated Kuhl’s explanation of what makes an organism genetically modified.
“I think it was definitely informative,” he said. “It might have been a little technical for legislators. That was a pretty professional presentation in research language.”
Rep. Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, said the 45-minute presentation was informative but she would have liked to hear from those opposed to the genetic modification of crops.
“It was a good explanation of at least one side of the debate,” she said. “There is some controversy out there regarding this issue and now I’m curious what the other viewpoints are.”
Source: www.capitalpress.com