Policy advisors
We believe our long term aim of engineering Shewanella until it is capable of accepting industrial wastes as a carbon source holds tremendous potential as an environmental friendly way of treating wastes. However, we understand that a certain percentage of the general public is still a bit reluctant towards accepting genetic modification. In order for us to find out more regarding people’s perception towards genetic engineering, we have approached Professor Jorgen Schlundt for an interview. Professor Jorgen Schlundt is the former Director of the Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses in WHO. The previous appointments he held for his illustrious career includes Senior Scientist at the Microbiology Section of the Institute of Toxicology, National Food Agency of Denmark, Head of Division of Microbiological Safety at the Institute of Food Safety and Toxicology, Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, and Director of National Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark. Professor Jorgen Schlundt is an expert on using risk analysis to minimise the potential harmful effects of food based genetic modified organisms and possesses an excellent knowledge on how and why people perceive genetic modification in a certain manner. He has very kindly agreed to an oral interview and the transcript of our conversation with him is presented as follow.
1. Our project is on engineering the metabolism of Shewanella bacteria for enhanced performance in microbial fuel cells. Shewanella bacteria have the potential to treat waste and produce electricity in the process. We were thinking of using wastes as an alternative carbon source for the cells. What do you think of using genetically engineered organisms to treat waste?
Sounds interesting. Some people, especially in Europe, will be concerned. We have worked a lot on perception on GMOs. Most importantly, the public needs to have more information about GMOs. The reason why consumers are so against GMOs is that they feel that they are the risk takers, and that producers are making the benefit. Thus, a solution would be to create something that is beneficial to the consumers. For example, enrich the products with vitamins and producing more food by enabling growth of certain crops in areas where the environment disallows it. Until now, we have not seen any risk outcome from GMOs. Researchers go to WHO to discuss an agreed framework on how to regulate plants, food and animals – risk assessment before the products are put onto the market. Many tests are to be carried out before the products are placed on the market.
Your project is a good solution to the society and is not just a benefit to the company. However, risk assessment is still required. For example, pseudomonas is pathogenic. You can show that you have considered these risk assessment issues – we cannot consider all issues, as there are too many, thus other people can consider the rest.
People who have problems with GM food have no problems with GM medicine, probably because there is a benefit to consumers. WHO’s stand is that people have the right to know what they eat. In the EU, if a certain percentage of ingredients are GM, a label is required. In the US, there is no enforced labeling of GM food.
2. What factors does WHO consider when regulating such usage of GMO?
WHO doesn’t regulate anything, as WHO cannot enforce legislation. WHO makes standards that countries can then use, but by choice. Under FAO and WHO, there is an international food standard known as Codex Alimentarius. These rules do not cover environment related issues. Those are under the UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). However, there are a lot of overlaps. Codex Alimentarius could also be used in environmental issues. But they are not really the same, as they apply more to food.
3. Are there any differences in the regulations of GMO for food vs non-food? If we subject certain raw materials to be treated using GM bacteria which might eventually be used for food production, will the regulations change? Where do we draw the line?
The regulations are less strict for GMO (environmental) than for GM food, in some countries. However, it differs from country to country. In some countries, water is considered food, but in some countries, it is not. The regulations will change into stricter ones as it is used for food production.
4. We understand that one of your main research area is on the test methodology for assessment of genetically modified microorganisms, and microbiological risk assessment. What possible risks do you foresee in the implementation of our method of treating wastes?
As I mentioned earlier, you are taking a gene from a pathogenic organism to a non-pathogenic organism. Are we creating a pathogenic organism? How do we test it? You can argue by saying that the gene that you take will not cause the organism to be pathogenic. For example, pseudomonas will carry out certain processes when put into a certain environment, so you can test by putting the new GMO into the same environment and see it will carry out those processes as well. An unintentional effect would be that in the process of putting in the gene, it might turn on some other genes. Some of these GMOs might be introduced into the environment. You can say how it will affect the flora and fauna of the environment, and that you will not release into the environment, so there will be little chance of it having an effect on the environment.
