Why Terrana’s RNA Spray Technology Is a Dangerous Gamble: Unanswered Safety Questions for Human and Environmental Health, By Mr (Dr) Abigail Knight (Florida)
Terrana Biosciences' RNA spray, designed to enter plants through leaf tears and replicate within them, introduces foreign genetic material into the food chain with little to no public data on its safety. Unlike traditional pesticides, which degrade over time, this self-replicating RNA persists and amplifies within plants, potentially altering their genetic expression in unpredictable ways. The lack of transparent, long-term testing raises critical questions: Is it safe to consume crops treated with this RNA? Could it trigger allergic reactions, toxicity, or other health issues in humans? Studies on RNAi-based biopesticides highlight risks of unintended gene silencing in crops, potentially altering toxin or allergen levels, yet Terrana provides no evidence addressing these concerns.
Environmentally, the risks are equally troubling. RNA sprays targeting pests or pathogens could affect non-target organisms, such as beneficial insects like honeybees, where studies have shown RNAi uptake and cross-generational effects. The technology's "heritability across plant generations" means modified traits could persist in the environment, potentially disrupting ecosystems or transferring to wild plant populations through cross-pollination. Without rigorous, independent ecological assessments, deploying this technology risks cascading effects on biodiversity and soil health.
Regulatory Gaps and Corporate Overreach
The regulatory landscape for RNA-based biopesticides is woefully inadequate. In the EU, these products are classified as new active substances but lack specific guidance, with adaptations still in development. In the U.S., the EPA has approved some RNAi insecticides, but oversight for novel RNA sprays like Terrana's remains unclear, especially given their self-replicating nature and heritability. This regulatory vacuum allows corporations like Flagship Pioneering to rush untested technologies to market, prioritising profit over precaution. The absence of mandatory labelling for treated crops further erodes consumer choice and transparency, echoing concerns about GMO acceptance.
Moreover, the patenting of RNA sprays raises ethical red flags. Biotech companies are seeking ownership over organisms exposed to their products, including offspring, potentially consolidating corporate control over the food system. This threatens farmers' rights and could lock them into dependency on proprietary sprays, mirroring the monopolistic practices seen in GMO seed markets.
Heritability and Unintended Consequences
Terrana's claim of "heritability across plant generations" is particularly alarming. Unlike traditional pesticides, which dissipate, this RNA technology embeds itself in plant biology, passing modified traits to future generations. This could lead to permanent changes in crop genomes, with unknown effects on nutritional content, taste, or resilience. Historical examples of genetic interventions, like the unintended spread of GMO traits to wild species, suggest that heritable RNA modifications could disrupt agricultural and natural ecosystems in ways that are difficult to reverse.
The analogy to Moderna's mRNA vaccines, as touted by Terrana's co-founder Noubar Afeyan, is misleading and concerning. While RNA vaccines are designed for temporary effects in humans, Terrana's sprays are engineered to persist and replicate in plants, raising unique risks that human health applications do not address. The lack of long-term studies on how self-replicating RNA behaves in plants or the food chain underscores the recklessness of this approach.
A False Promise of "Sustainability"
Proponents argue that RNA sprays reduce reliance on chemical pesticides, citing their biodegradability and specificity. However, these claims are speculative without comprehensive data. Pests can develop resistance to RNAi, as seen with other pesticides, potentially rendering the technology ineffective and perpetuating the "pesticide treadmill." Additionally, the energy-intensive production of synthetic RNA and nanocarriers could offset environmental benefits, while the technology's high cost may burden farmers, especially in developing regions. Ecological farming methods, such as crop rotation and biodiversity enhancement, have proven effective without these risks, offering a truly sustainable alternative.
The Hubris of "Playing God"
Terrana's technology exemplifies a broader trend of scientific overreach, where interventions in complex biological systems are rushed to market without fully understanding their implications. The notion that plants need RNA sprays to survive environmental challenges ignores their natural resilience and adaptability, honed over millennia. By altering plant biology at a genetic level, we risk unforeseen consequences that could destabilise food security rather than enhance it. The cautionary tale of GMOs, where public backlash and ecological concerns slowed adoption, should serve as a warning against deploying untested technologies without robust debate and oversight.
Conclusion: A Call for Caution and Accountability
Terrana's RNA spray technology is a high-stakes experiment with our food system, driven by corporate interests and enabled by regulatory gaps. Its self-replicating, heritable nature and untested safety profile pose unacceptable risks to human health, ecosystems, and agricultural sovereignty. Rather than embracing this unproven innovation, we must demand rigorous, independent testing, transparent public debate, and a recommitment to ecological farming practices that choose long-term sustainability over short-term profit. Playing God with our crops is not progress, it's a recipe for disaster.
https://michaeltsnyder.substack.com/p/they-have-created-a-brand-new-rna
Comments