THE ISSUES SURROUNDING GENETICALLY MODIFIED SUGAR CANE AND BEET
Mike Garrod
(Secretary, World Association of Beet and Cane Growers)

1 Introduction

I understand that many, if not most of you, here today will be scientists. Therefore I must start my presentation by making it clear to you that I am very definitely not a scientist and I shall be looking at this subject from the viewpoint of the practical farmer.

There will be two distinct parts to my presentation - the first will concern the implications, both economic and environmental, that the development of transgenic varieties of beet and cane will have on the growers and consumers while the second part will look at the problems of actually being allowed to grow these varieties on a commercial scale.

I have deliberately used the word 'transgenic' as being preferable to 'genetically modified organism'. Not only is it one word instead of three but I think that 'genetically modified organism' hints at something almost creepy crawly and has certainly not helped us explain the advantages of this technology to the general public. Transgenic is also the term usually used in the United States where the problems associated with public acceptability are far less than in Europe.

2 Implication of Growing Transgenic Beet and Cane

Although the end product from sugar beet and sugar cane is virtually identical, the two plants could hardly be more different. The fact that cane is propagated by vegetative methods means that the seed and chemical companies are not prepared to put so many resources into breeding new varieties because once the growers have a small amount of cane they can easily multiply it up themselves. Cane growers therefore have to fund most of the research themselves and there is now a lot of international co-operation between growers research organisations.

Beet growers have to buy new seed every year so the biotech companies are putting considerable effort into breeding trangenic varieties despite the fact that the area planted to beet world wide is relatively small compared to many other crops and the amount of seed sown per hectare is also small. We now sow our seed at 15-20 cm spacing in rows 50 cm apart so we only need about 100,000 seeds per hectare.

Because of the involvement of the big biotech companies it is not surprising that the stage of development of transgenic varieties is further advanced in beet than cane. However herbicide and insect resistant sugar cane is now under going field testing in countries such as South Africa and Australia. With sugar beet, varieties resistant to the global herbicides Glyphosate (Roundup) and Glyfosinate(Liberty or Basta) are ready for wide scale planting in the United States next spring.

Current methods of weed control in sugar beet

It is estimated that every square metre of agricultural land contains between 4,000 and 140,000 weed seeds. Since sugar beet is a poor competitor for light, nutrients and water compared to many weed species, a weed management programme is essential to achieve a successful crop. Today we achieve this by spraying a sequence of mixtures of herbicides. These herbicides will only kill the weeds if they are sprayed when very small, ideally at the cotyledon stage, and if too higher dose is used the crop itself will be damaged. It is usually necessary to spray three or four times to be sure of killing each flush of weeds before the crop is big enough to compete. Even seven times is not unusual and the first application is sometimes applied before the crop emerges.

Below is a list of the chemicals that are commonly used to form these 'cocktails' -

Chloridazon:		Pyramin
Ethofumesate:		Nortron
Clopyrall:		Shield
Desmedipham:		used in mixtures eg Betanal Progress
Fluazifop-p-butyl:		Fusilade
Lenacil:		Venzar
Metamitron:		Goltix
Phenmedipham:		Betanal
Triflusulfuron-methyl:		Debut
Triallate:		Avadex

As scientists you may think that some of these chemicals are not environmentally friendly or pleasant to use. Because the weeds can only be controlled when small the management of the spray programme is difficult - there is a short time before a flush of weeds becomes too large and days when the weather is suitable for spraying do not always occur at the right time. Farmers have to aim for an entirely weed free scenario with nothing left in the field except for the crop. Something that our opponents tell us will happen if we are able to use transgenic varieties resistant to a global herbicide. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Weed control using a global herbicide

Transgenic varieties will need only two sprays of a low dose of Roundup and the weeds can be allowed to get larger before spraying so that there will be a residue of vegetative material left in the crop, not just bare soil. There is now evidence to suggest that this residue, apart from providing a habitat for insects and birds, may attract aphids from the crop so making it unnecessary to use an insecticide later.

Advantages of using a global herbicide for weed control in sugar beet

1. Cost - Conventional weed control can easily reach £100 per hectare whereas Roundup is likely to be less than £10. Obviously the seed for these varieties will be more expensive so by no means all of this saving will go to the grower.
2. Management of spray programme vastly simpler.
3. Less active ingredient of chemical used and what is used is far more environmentally friendly. 600 tonnes of herbicide active ingredient is applied to the UK beet crop each year. This could be reduced by two thirds.
4. Fewer spraying operations = less land compaction, fuel used etc.
5. Chemical will not damage crop.
6. Eliminate the 'weed beet problem'. Many fields have become infected with weed beet that flower annually and produce viable seeds. These species will not be resistant to the herbicide so will be destroyed.
7. Vegetative residue left in the crop.

Future transgenic developments in sugar beet

One of the most serious diseases of sugar beet is Virus Yellows. The virus is spread by green aphids and can be devastating to the crop especially if the infection occurs at an early growth stage. At present control measures concern killing the aphids with a systemic seed treatment and/or insecticide sprays. The most effective seed treatment involves Imidacloprid (Gaucho). This is very effective but the chemical is extremely residual in the soil and its continued use is under consideration. Within three years it is likely that transgenic sugar beet will have been developed that are resistant to the disease itself.

Violet Root Rot and Fusarium Rot cause sugar beet to deteriorate while stored in clamps on the farm. Promising progress has been made in the United States by cloning a gene from the fungus Trichoderma harzianum to control this problem.

Looking further ahead the possibilities seem endless and sugar beet could become a multi-product crop. For example the protein content of the by-product, pulp for animal feed, could be increased without increasing the amino nitrogen impurities in the sugar.

Public acceptability

Sugar beet is different to other transgenic crops such as maize and soybeans in two important aspects -

1. Sugar is a pure manufactured product and no transgenic material is present in the actual sugar although it is present in the pulp for animal feed.
2. Sugar beet is a bi-annual crop and so it does not flower when grown for sugar production so no pollen is released into the environment.

3 Commercial Production Of Transgenic Crops

Large areas of transgenic crops such as maize, soybeans and cotton are already grown in the United States and other countries but in Europe the situation is far more restricted. Novartis are conducting trials in 23 countries and it seems likely that where need is the driving force approval will be forthcoming more quickly. For example Chile and the Ukraine have some excellent land for sugar beet but it suffers from a very severe weed problem.

Transgenic sugar beet in the United States

The seed companies working with Liberty Link and Roundup Ready sugar beet have harvested sufficient seed from their seed production fields in Oregon to plant large areas of transgenic sugar beet in the spring of 2000 and the seed has been cleared for planting.

The approval process in the United States involves three organisations -

1. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has to grant "non-regulated" status which means that the sugar beet can now be legally planted and are considered to be equivalent to any other sugar beet.
2. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has to clear the sugar and by-products as just as safe as those produced from non transgenic sugar beet.
3. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has to approve the use of the herbicides on sugar beet.

While the FDA has approved the consumption of sugar and by-products manufactured from transgenic sugar beet for consumption the authorities in the EU have not. This is not an issue for sugar as the United States does not export any sugar to the EU but it does export sugar beet pulp for animal feed. At present the pulp market in the United States is split in three approximately equal parts - domestic livestock feeders, Western Europe and Japan.

Situation in UK and the rest of the EU

The situation in the UK and the rest of the EU is, to say the least confusing. The EU is working on a successor to the current directive 90/220 and so for the next two years there is virtually a hold on new approvals.

In the UK the main ruling authority is the Department of the Environment and Transport (DETR). Crops have to go through three stages-

1. Laboratory
2. Field
3. Commercial

However official approval is one thing but obtaining public acceptability is quite another. So where did we go wrong?

I think that, with the benefit of hindsight, we made mistakes from the earliest days and by we I mean the whole agricultural industry, farmers, chemical and seed companies and scientists. We highlighted the economic advantages to the farmer and the biotech industry rather than saying to the consumer - "quite rightly you want us to use less pesticides in food production and this new technology is going to give us the opportunity to do just that". Then we used anti-biotic resistance as marker genes which gave easy ammunition to the anti lobby.

This all happened at a time when public opinion had been sensitised by the salmonella, E coli and, most importantly, the BSE scares. Coupled with a failure to communicate this allowed the lobby groups to set their own agenda and fuel media scares.

I am surprise that the organic is movement is so much against transgenic developments. Their objective is to produce food without using chemical fertilisers or pesticides. Surely biotechnology would be just what they were looking for - or would it destroy their markets?

It really is ironic that the very same people who are demanding that we reduce the amount of pesticides that we use on our crops are, the same time, seeking to deny us the means of doing just that.

The Future

Having got into this mess how do we get out of it?

The whole agricultural industry has to learn to communicate. The consumer really needs answers to four basic questions -

1. Is food safe?
2. Is it healthy?
3. Will I enjoy it?
4. Is the price right?

There can be no success without consumer acceptance and if we fail to get that the most exciting agricultural development for many years will, at best be severely delayed, or at worst even be lost altogether.

To ensure that food produced from transgenic raw materials is safe means that we have to prove a negative and that is always difficult. What I would suggest that we now have to do is to produce products that have obvious consumer benefits rather than economic advantages to the industry. A possible example with sugar is being developed at the Centre for Plant Breeding and Research at Wageningen in The Netherlands. They have engineered a sugar beet that produces sugar in the form of fructans which consists of long chains of molecules which it is hard for the body to absorb. This means that the product will retain all its sweetener and preservative qualities but will provide the minimum of calories when eaten.

FOOTNOTE. (27th November 1999)

Since this presentation was originally made I have heard that the Gerber Company, who manufacture baby food in the USA, have said that they will not use sugar made from transgenic sugar beet in any of their products. Other companies have, or are likely, to follow suit and this will mean that it is unlikely that transgenic sugar beet will not be planted in the USA in the spring of 2000.

---