APRIL-MAY2008
 Non-GM-Farmers.comIs GM food safe?21 June 2003 As farmers, we need to understand consumer resistance in order to predict future market trends. The concerns can be best described by Judy Carmen in a letter to the editor, Farm Weekly August 5, 2004. "...Not all ingested DNA and proteins are completely broken down in the gut. If proteins were fully digested, we would not have allergies (eg to peanuts) or mad cow disease.There is also evidence that some DNA can survive digestion in the gut and be incorporated into white blood cells, spleen, liver, muscle, milk, kidneys and cells of the immune system. Studies have shown that large molecules, including food proteins and allergens, eaten by the mother, can enter the developing foetus and breast milk. There is a specific concern about proteins and DNA in genetically modified foods because of the way GM foods are made. Methods, such as shooting the desired genes into the plant on tiny bullets, result in genes being placed randomly into the plant's genetic code.This may inadvertently turn some of the plant's natural genes on, or off, produce new toxins, proteins or allergens or produce characteristics found in ancestral forms of the plant. There have been no human safety tests on these foods and no investigations or monitoring of their effect on people in the community who have eaten them. Some GM foods haven't even been tested on animals. Most of the animal tests assess only the new proteins engineered to appear in the plant, not the whole food, and for only a few days' exposure. Full animal autopsies are rarely done. Almost all of the tests have been done by those with vested interests. There have been almost no independent safety tests. Neither the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) or Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) do any of their own safety testing of these foods." Judy Carman (Epidemiologist and biochemist) Kate Clinch-Jones (Medical practitioner) Phil Davies (Plant geneticist) Institute of Health and Environmental Research" |
ISIS Press Release 26/03/08
??“UK Farmers Upbeat about GM Crops” Debunked
Government Funding Industry to Market GM Crops. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Peter Saunders
How UK government funding agency misled the public
The UK Government’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) recently put out a press release entitled, “What farmers think about GM crops” [1], which began: “Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops”, according to research it funded.
It went to say that a research team at the Open University has taken “the first systematic look” at what large-scale, commodity farmers (specifically excluding those mainly involved in organic growing) think about GM crops. The research, aimed at the attitudes of farmers expected to be most favourably disposed to using GM crops, found that they regard GM as a simple extension of previous plant breeding techniques, and GM crops an innovation that “they would assess on its merits.” Their real interest is in “how GM crops would work in practice and whether they can contribute to the profitability of their farms.”
The research was actually done in 2005 [2], and involved interviewing just 30 commodity farmers. Half of the farmers, selected by SCIMAC (the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops), the industry group that supports GM crops, were among those who had hosted the three-year Farm Scale Evaluation of GM crops that SCIMAC had got the UK government to fund in 2000. And even this small, restricted group of farmers, expected to be most favourably inclined towards GM crops, have adopted a wait-and-see attitude.
But the ESRC press release quoted the lead researcher Prof. Andy Lane saying: “New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum by doing both of these things at once….A particular advantage of GM is its potential to allow farmers to grow crops with high yields while using less herbicide.”
Lane’s statements are not based on any evidence provided by the Open University research team, the ESRC or anywhere else, and have been contradicted again and again by data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and studies carried out in universities (see below).
Predictably, the misleading message from the ESRC was widely repeated, often with embellishment, in the popular press. One headline went as far as saying: “UK farmers want to grow GM crops” [3]. Julian Little, Chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, a GM industry group, wrote that [4]: “A study into the attitude of farmers by the Open University this week, announced that farmers recognise the clear economic and environmental benefits of GM crops to themselves and the wider public. It demonstrated that new technologies are seen as a way to achieve high quality produce at a low cost for consumers, while being socially responsible.” He added: “Scientific trials of GM crops must go ahead unmolested.” Biotech giant Monsanto, too, lost little time in posting one such article on its website [5]: “Shhhh…Farmers Love Frankenfoods. British farmers are ready to throw in the organic cotton towel and start growing biotech crops just like their American cousins, finds a new study from Open University.”
Data consistently show that GM crops reduce profit for farmers and increase pesticide use
GM crops are neither profitable for farmers nor do they result in less herbicide use. Data from the USDA and US universities have consistently shown that GM crops gave no increase in crops yields or profitability, and more often a reduction in both, while increasing rather than decreasing the use of pesticides (reviewed in The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World [6]. Both the two major GM traits that make up nearly 100 percent of all GM crops, Bt and glyphosate tolerance, have decisively failed at least as far back as 2005 [7, 8] (Scientists Confirm Failures of Bt-Crops and Roundup Ready Sudden Death, Superweeds, Allergens..., SiS 28), and promoting them can be a recipe for ecological and agronomic disaster.
The Friends of the Earth report [9] released January 2008 confirms those findings. It highlights the more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate herbicide on the major crops - soybeans, corn and cotton - from 1994 (when GM crops were first introduced) to 2005, based on data from the USDA. The increase in glyphosate is not compensated by a decrease in other herbicides. While farmers growing glyphosate tolerant Roundup Ready crops initially used lower quantities of herbicides other than glyphosate, that trend soon reversed. Increasingly, farmers have found it necessary to apply larger amounts of both glyphosate and other herbicides to kill weeds that have become resistant to glypohsate. From 2002 to 2006, the use of the second leading soya herbicide 2,3-D more than doubled from 1.39 to 3.67 million lbs, while glyphosate use on soybeans increased by 29 million lbs (a 43 percent rise). Similarly, glyphosate on corn increased 5-fold from 2002 to 2005 simultaneously with a rise of atrazine by nearly 7 million lbs (12 percent up). Atrazine, the most heavily used herbicide on corn in the US, is banned in Europe because of its links to serious health problems such as endocrine disruption, breast and prostate cancer.
Finally, a 4-year study just completed by researchers at the University of Georgia and the USDA concluded that the use of transgenic cotton does not provide increased returns to the farmer [10]. They found that no transgenic technology system produced significantly greater returns than a non-transgenic system in any year or location.
ESRC complicit in supporting marketing for the biotech industry disguised as research
ESRC spokesperson Astrid Wissenburg stated in a reply to Dr. Brian John of GM-Free Cymru [11] that while accepting “the phrasing of the opening line of the press release could have been more precise, … the facts as stated in the press release are accurate and stand as written [though obviously the quotes attributed to Andy Lane are not accurate]…The purpose of the research was never to undertake a survey of views on GM, but to undertake an in-depth study of farmers’ views on GM crops as a new technology and investigating the major influences on their views and decisions.” The original proposal was to interview 60 farmers, but for “both funding and scientific reasons” the total number was scaled back to thirty.
Why was such a research project undertaken at all? It cost the taxpayer at least £131 000 to interview a select group of 30 farmers and it did not tell us anything remarkable or new. Wissenburg explained: “Given the very limited extent of GM trials in the UK, and the decision not to proceed with licensed GM varieties, the pool of those who could have participated is quite small, so the project could not draw upon a random sample from the whole UK farming population.”
That makes it clear why this research was carried out and why no conclusions about UK farmers can be drawn from it. A representative sample of the whole UK farming population would indeed have included only a very few farmers who have grown GM crop, simply because only a small proportion of UK farmers have grown GM crops. A survey based on such a sample could have provided a basis for determining the views of UK farmers about GM, which is what is claimed in the title of the project, in the press release, and in subsequent articles in the media.
The next sentence in Wissenburg’s reply confirms the real purpose of the research: “The group involved in the research was therefore relatively small, but not 'unrepresentative' of farmers with experience of GM crops. Because of the sensitive nature of the project, access to GM farmers was facilitated by SCIMAC.” (italics added).
The project was intended to target “farmers with experience of GM crops”. In reality, it was little more than a marketing exercise aimed at promoting GM crops to commodity farmers [12] (see Marketing Exercise Masquerading as Scientific Research, SiS 38). SCIMAC and the biotech industry had more than a facilitating role. The nine project advisors included Bob Fiddaman and Daniel Pearsall, respectively chair and secretary of SCIMAC, Helen Ferrier, NFU Food Science Advisor, responsible for assembling and distributing the GM propaganda newsletter called Agbiotech News Roundup; and Richard Powell and Karen Holt from Syngenta Seeds Ltd.
The ESRC later told Times Higher Education that the report had been “subject to peer review” [13] but as recently as 17 March 2008, the ESRC specifically said on its own website that the final report had not been peer reviewed [2]. It had certainly not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.
The Farm Scale Evaluation revisited
What Wissenburg said of the GM crop trials was also inaccurate. The UK government had agreed to fund the 3-year Farm Scale Evaluations for SCIMAC to the tune of £3 million of taxpayer’s money, which critics generally regarded as commercialisation via the backdoor.
The trials were rigged in favour of GM crops right from the start, and crucial aspects such as safety or crop yields were not investigated [14] ("Cynical & Dishonest Science" in GM Maize Trials, SiS 20) because it would have revealed GM in a bad light, as exposed by citizens monitoring their local trials, who provided photographic evidence that the GM maize was severely stunted with fewer and much smaller cobs compared to the conventional maize variety [15] Bogus Comparison in GM Maize Trial, SiS 22). Despite all attempts to manipulate the trials and conceal unfavourable data, the official findings went against GM crops. But the UK government gave the go ahead to grow GM maize without a debate in Parliament, a move condemned by the influential all party Environment Audit Committee. In the event, gene giant Bayer withdrew, saying it was “economically non-viable” [16].
So it was against such a background of
failures that this ‘research project’ was
funded, presumably in the hope of resuscitating GM crops
for Britain. It would actually have been interesting to
find out what UK farmers in general think about GM crops,
but perhaps the researchers and their funders were as
sure as we are about what the outcome would have been and
would rather not ask the question.
********************************************************************
ISIS Press Release 17/03/08
Transgenic Lines Unstable hence Illegal and Ineligible
for
Protection
New evidence may pull the plug on GMOs. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
An electronic version of this report, or any other ISIS
report, with full references, can be sent to you via
e-mail
for a donation of £3.50. Please e-mail the title of the
report to: report@i-sis.org.uk
Transgenes unstable in more ways than one
Transgene instability has been known at least since 1994
[1] (reviewed in Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare,
p.140), though it is seldom, if ever, reported in the
popular media.
Transgenes (the synthetic foreign genes transferred into
the genetically modified organism (GMO)) can become
silent or inactive during growth and development of the
GMO, or in its progeny. This has been attributed to
defence mechanisms that silence genome invaders such as
viruses. But transgenes can also stop working on account
of structural factors intrinsic to the transgenic DNA
inserted into the genome of the GMO [2] (reviewed in
Living with the Fluid Genome, pp. 128-135). Transgenic
DNA has been artificially constructed by stitching
together synthetic copies of DNA from different sources,
and often contain additional weak points that tend to
break and rejoin (recombination hotspots). The most
widely used cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter
is associated with such a recombination hotspot [3], as
we have warned [4-6]. Transgenic constructs are also
designed with ends that can break into genomes such as
the repeated sequences of viral vectors, and the left and
right borders of the T-DNA of Agrobacterium, widely used
as a vector. These ends too, are recombination sequences,
and facilitate movement of the transgenic DNA within as
well as between genomes. For more details see [7]
(Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen, SiS 38)
Transgene instability makes transgenic varieties illegal
and ineligible for patent protection
During the transformation process that creates the GMO,
the transgenic construct tends to undergo deletions,
duplications, and rearrangements, integrating at
unpredictable sites in the host cell genome, causing
widespread damage both at and away from the site(s) of
integration. The precise configuration of the DNA
integrated, the site(s) of insertion, and the particular
collateral damages done to the host genome are therefore
specific for each transgenic 'event'. Each 'event'
is a
single cell that has integrated transgenic DNA and from
which a transgenic plant is generated, which is then bred
through a number of generations to give a transgenic
line.
Read the rest of this article here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/transgenicLinesUnstable2.php
ISIS Press Release 19/03/08
Transgenic Potato Not to be Released
A version of this article was submitted to Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) 4 March 2008 on behalf of ISIS.
The University of Leeds Centre for Plant Sciences submitted an application to release genetically modified (GM) potatoes to the open environment for a field trial [1]. The transgenic potato plants have been produced using Agrobacterium tumefaciens. All constructs have the selectable marker gene for neomycin required only for selection of transgenic lines for evaluation and according to the application, “known to be biosafe as used.” The potato will express a cysteine proteinase inhibitor (cystatin) from rice and/or a repellent of synthetic origin. Both confer resistance to potato cyst-nematodes. Cystatins limit growth of the nematode while the repellent prevents the nematodes from entering the roots of the potato. Their expression will be under the control of CaMV35S promoter from Cauliflower mosaic virus for constitutive expression, or promoters that restrict expression to roots. The root specific promoters used are from a serine threonine kinase (ARSK1) and the MDK420 gene of Arabidopsis thaliana; they provide expression in roots and at root tips respectively. A signal sequence from the Calreticulin gene of Nicotiana plumbaginifoli are used in lines expressing the repellent to favour its release from root. The nos terminator sequence from Agrobacterium tumefaciens terminates transcription of gene sequences. Six strains of GM potatoes are to be tested: constitutive cysatin, root specific cystatin, root tip repellent, constitutive repellent, root tip repellent plus root tip specific cystatin. and constitutive repellent plus root specific cystatin.
Cystatin
The cystatin modified potatoes have been studied extensively according to the application for consent [1]. The safety of the protease inhibitor in transgenic potato in the human diet was evaluated in a small rat feeding study [2]. The inhibitor caused a small but significant decrease in the weight of the animals’ liver, but there were few other detectable impacts at the levels of inhibitor studied.
The application for consent failed to mention that that there have been numerous studies published in the medical literature showing that risk of heart failure, atherosclerosis and nephropathy were marked by elevated cystatin blood levels [3-5]. It is presently unclear whether or not elevated cystatin causes kidney damage, or whether it results from kidney pathology of another origin. At any rate, it is unwise to ignore evidence showing that greatly elevating the plant source of cystatin could be harmful to humans.
Cystatin has been found damaged and reduced in activity upon exposure to a common fungicide sodium diethyl dithiocarbamate (Mancozeb) [6]. Carbamate pesticides are used extensively, which may negate the effectiveness of the modified potato’s defence against nematodes.
Synthetic Repellent
The gene and the peptide that it produces are not fully or well described in the consent application [1]. Additional information was provided [7], which clarified some of the properties of the repellent. However, neither document gave a clear description of the repellent synthetic peptide and its synthetic gene. Little actual information was provided on the organization of the gene and the messenger RNA and the processing of the peptide in the potato cell. Such information is necessary. The mode of action of the synthetic peptide was also not clearly stated in the original application and a brief description was given in additional information [7].
A publication from the Leeds group described producing a peptide in potato to disrupt cyst nematodes, and compared the mode of action of the peptide to an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor aldicarb [8]. Aldicarb is a toxic pesticide slated for withdrawal from EU. However, the additional information document [7] compared the synthetic peptide in the application to the anthelminic levamisole, an inhibitor of the nicotinic acetylcholinesterase receptor [9]. The synthetic peptide excreted from the potato root paralyses the nematode preventing it from invading the potato. Both of the documents of the application for consent [1,7] measure the peptide in plant and soil by its ability to inhibit an enzyme. However, the loss in ability to inhibit an enzyme does not necessarily mean that the remains of the peptide are not toxic to mammals. Some study of the toxicity of the breakdown products of the synthetic peptide should have been done because such products may pollute ground water. The synthetic peptide and its breakdown products should have should have been studied fuller to determine whether or not they are toxic to mammals.
General considerations
The application for consent included a discussion justifying the use of the antibiotic neomycin resistance marker in the proposed open field releases even though the antibiotic is still used in medicine [1]. It stated that as the marker was used in food crops released commercially in the North and South America it must be safe. Such reasoning is unsound.
The application for consent seems to have overlooked the important question regarding the potential impact of the modified potatoes on beneficial nematodes that control many insect pests described in two major reviews [10, 11]. The elimination of a natural population of such nematodes from the test site would increase the need for extensive insecticide spraying. It would be wise to carry out an inventory of these nematodes on the test site prior to commencing the actual experiments, and to determine from the experiment whether the loss of beneficial nematodes and the added cost of controlling insect pests exceed the benefits of decreasing the nematode pests.
In conclusion, Consent should not be considered until the potential toxicity (including immunogenicity) of the repellent and repellent breakdown products are fully investigated and reported, and taken into account.
References
1. APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO RELEASE GMOs (FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN MARKETING) UNDER THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (DELIBERATE RELEASE) REGULATIONS 2002 – HIGHER PLANTSCentre for Plant Sciences University of Leeds Control of potato cyst-nematodes with minimised environmental impact 2008
2. Atkinson HJ, Johnston KA, Robbins M. Prima facie evidence that a phytocystatin for transgenic plant resistance to nematodes is not a toxic risk in the human diet. J Nutr. 2004, 134(2), :431-4.
3. Niccoli G, Conte M, Bona RD, Altamura L, Siviglia M, Dato I, Ferrante G, Leone AM, Porto I, Burzotta F, Brugaletta S, Biasucci LM, Crea F. Cystatin C is associated with an increased coronary atherosclerotic burden and a stable plaque phenotype in patients with ischemic heart disease and normal glomerular filtration rate. Atherosclerosis. 2007 Nov 3 [Epub ]
4. Lee BW, Ihm SH, Choi MG, Yoo HJ. The comparison of cystatin C and creatinine as an accurate serum marker in the prediction of type 2 diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007, 78(3), :428-34.
5. Djoussé L, Kurth T, Gaziano JM. Cystatin C and risk of heart failure in the Physicians' Health Study (PHS). Am Heart J. 2008, 155(1), 82-6.
6. Sharma S, Rashid F, Bano B. Biochemical and biophysical changes induced by fungicide sodium diethyl dithiocarbamate (SDD), in phytocystatin purified from Phaseolus mungo (Urd): a commonly used Indian legume. J Agric Food Chem. 2005, 53(15), 6027-34
7. APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO RELEASE GMOs (FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN MARKETING) UNDER THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (DELIBERATE RELEASE) REGULATIONS 2002 – HIGHER PLANTS Defra Reference number 07/R31/1 Control of potato cyst-nematodes with minimised environmental impact Additional information requested by DEFRA GM team 2008 regarding potato cyst-nematodes with minimised environmental impact
8. Liu B, Hibbard JK, Urwin PE, Atkinson HJ. The production of synthetic chemodisruptive peptides in planta disrupts the establishment of cyst nematodes. Plant Biotechnol J. 2005, 3(5) 487-96.
9. Martin RJ, Robertson AP Mode of action of levamisole and pyrantel, anthelmintic resistance, E153 and Q57. Parasitology 2007, Pt 8, 1093-104.
10. Shapiro-Ilan1.D Entomopathogenic nematodes and insect management Encyclopedia of Entomology 2004, 781-784 DOI 10.1007/0-306-48380-7_1430
11. Klingen I, Haukeland S The soil as a reservoir for natural enemies of pest insects and mites with emphasis on fungi and nematodes. Progress in Biological Control An Ecological and Societal Approach to Biological Control Volume 2 2006 145-211 DOI 10.1007/1-4020-4401-1