tagged w/ irresponsible science
-
This year, we are eating from the first harvest of Monsanto’s eight-trait “SmartStax” genetically modified (GM) corn. Approved in 2009 and grown for the first time in North America last year, the new GM corn appears as processed food ingredients and feed for dairy and meat animals.
Canada’s approval of SmartStax corn exposed just how little Health Canada cares to investigate the potential risks of GM crops and foods – in the case of SmartStax, not at all. Now the process to approve SmartStax in Europe has identified many of the risk issues being ignored on both sides of the ocean. Confidential industry summaries of data as well as critiques by European experts show more studies must be done to determine any potential health and environmental risks.
No risk assessment in Canada
In July 2009, Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences announced they had received approval in Canada and the US to introduce their new eight-trait GM corn SmartStax (it combines technologies from both companies). However, Health Canada did not actually assess SmartStax for human health safety. Because the individual eight GM traits were previously approved in separate crops, Canadian regulators decided there was nothing new in combining the eight together. Health Canada assumed the corn was a harmless amalgam of GM traits and did not even issue any paperwork to rubberstamp its approval.
In September 2010, the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded SmartStax “is unlikely to have adverse effects on human and animal health and the environment, in the context of its intended uses.” Unlike in Canada, the European Authority actually looked at some industry documents (summarizes of studies). The German non-governmental group Testbiotech published a report in June that examined these documents as well as critiques from regulators in European countries. Its report points to many safety questions still not being addressed in Europe – questions Health Canada should have asked but never did (Testbiotech, June 2011, “How industry and EFSA have been systematically undermining the risk assessment of ‘SmartStax” www.testbiotech.de/node/515)
More GM traits, more risks?
SmartStax corn is the first GM crop that has more than three GM traits “stacked” together. SmartStax produces six different insecticidal toxins (Bt toxins) and is tolerant to two herbicides. SmartStax is also known as MON 89034 x 1507 x MON 88017 x 59122, which represents the four GM events or parental lines bred together to make SmartStax. The possible implications of such complexity were entirely overlooked by Health Canada.
Canadian regulation is essentially based on the view that moving genes around is not inherently risky. Instead of examining the process of genetic engineering, Canada evaluates the end product using, in part, the widely discredited concept of “substantial equivalence.” Substantial equivalence allows for a comparison of a GM organism with its “equivalent” already out in the environment with a “history of safe use.” Health Canada’s approval of SmartStax is an extreme application of substantial equivalence. The European Food Safety Authority chose a similar approach. As Christoph Then of Testbiotech explains, “EFSA based its approval of SmartStax to a large extent on data derived from the parental plants. But this approach is highly complicated since SmartStax has many insecticidal toxins, thus more interactions can to be expected. These interactions remain unstudied.” (June 28, 2011, CBAN press release: “Report Exposes Unstudied Risks of Monsanto’s Genetically Modified “SmartStax” Corn: EU Member State Critiques and Leaked Industry Documents Uncover Safety Questions.”)
While insect resistant crops are engineered using genes from the naturally occurring soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), the risks posed by Bt toxins cannot be assessed by comparing them with the Bt toxins that occur naturally. As the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health states, “concerning all Bt toxins, a history of safe use cannot be argued on the basis of the safety of Bt sprays applied in organic farming. The inserted genes are truncated and arranged with expression modulating DNA parts originating from different organisms and permanently expressed compared to a tight timely Bt spraying schedule.”
Additionally, the Bt toxin Cry1A.105 in SmartStax was artificially synthesized and as stated by Austria, “There is no safe use of the new recombinant protein expressed by an artificially arranged insert such as Cry1A.105.”
In their comments on the EFSA SmartStax decision, regulators from Austria summarized: “A stacked organism has to be regarded as a new event, even if no new modifications are introduced.” This view is consistent with EU regulations and with United Nations Codex guidelines that Canada helped negotiate. Austrian experts take this view because “The gene-cassette combination is new and only minor conclusions could be drawn from the assessment of the parental lines, since unexpected effects (e.g. synergistic effects of the newly introduced proteins) cannot automatically be excluded.”
More at the link.This year, we are eating from the first harvest of Monsanto’s eight-trait... more
-
-
Perhaps one of the most significant points in this case is that genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa is the first perennial GMO. It can cross breed with wild alfalfa and provide a rogue GE gene pool, greatly increasing the probability that eventually all alfalfa will become contaminated. Alfalfa is also considered “insectary” due to the large number of insects it attracts, which will also accelerate the genetic contamination. If GMO alfalfa follows the same path as GMO soy and corn, then within 15 years we should expect to see 80-90% of the 21 million acres currently planted in alfalfa to be of a GE variety. This means a serious challenge to producing organic alfalfa, vital for organic dairy. It also means a substantially increased environmental human exposure to the herbicide RoundUp, a known endocrine disrupter.
Plant pathologist Don Huber, PhD, professor emeritus of Purdue University, says the repercussions of introducing Roundup Ready technology to another crop, like alfalfa, could be disastrous. "If indications hold true, we're set up for the greatest disaster that this country or the world has ever seen, that will dwarf any major famine or drought that has ever been recorded," says Huber.
Should consumers choose to take their own action against this assault on human health, we wanted to point out some of the Land O’ Lakes brand names & licensees so that you can contact them and tell them what you think about their grand “little” experiment on mankind. Here are a few of the most well known names:
Land O’ Lakes
- http://www.landolakesinc.com/utility/contact/default.aspx
- http://www.facebook.com/LandOLakes
- (800) 328-9680
Purina Mills (Livestock feeds)
- http://cattle.purinamills.com/ContactUs/default.aspx
- (800) 227-8941
Dean Foods (Owner of Horizon Organics) packaging LOL products under license
- (214) 303-3400
- Dean Foods Consumer Response P.O. Box 961447 El Paso, TX 79996
- media@deanfoods.com
White Wave (Owned by Dean foods) packaging LOL products under license
- Land O’Lakes products: 800-878-9762
- jarod.ballentine@whitewave.com
- http://www.facebook.com/pages/WhiteWave-Foods/108451807072
Alpine Lace (Lowfat cheese products)
- http://www.alpinelace.com/contact/other.cfm
Of course you could also contact Forage Genetics directly at:
- Forage Genetics International, P.O. Box 339 Nampa, ID 83653-0339
- (800) 635-5701 info@foragegenetics.com
- Mark McCaslin, PhD, President - mccaslin@foragegenetics.com
If consumers let these food giants know that they will NOT buy their poisons, they WILL have no choice but to eventually listen
_____________
Time for a massive boycott.Perhaps one of the most significant points in this case is that genetically engineered... more
-
-
URGENT: YOUR SUPPORT NEEDED for Professor G-E Séralini and colleagues
Court case coming up in Paris, 23 November 2010
GMWatch is joining French activists in appealing for your support for Professor G-E Séralini and his research colleagues, who are based at Criigen, la Fondation Sciences Citoyennes (FSC) and ENSSER (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility). The public interest research of Séralini and colleagues on GMOs and pesticide/glyphosate toxicity has international significance, especially in India, where it helped in achieving the moratorium for the Bt brinjal, but also in Canada, Europe and the USA.
Now, Séralini and colleagues find themselves under concerted attack from GM promoters, who have resorted to defamation and flawed logic in an attempt to discredit the scientists. Séralini and colleagues have decided that the only way forward is to go to court to defend their professional reputations and their ability to continue to do public interest research.
Please voice your support for Séralini and colleagues and for the cause of open scientific discourse by signing this on-line petition:
http://sciencescitoyennes.org/spip.php?article1807
Background about Séralini and colleagues' work
Séralini and his colleagues have undertaken reviews of data provided by Monsanto in order to justify the commercialization of three of its GM maize lines (MON 863, MON 810, NK603). The re-analyses by Professor Seralini and colleagues question the reliability of Monsanto's data to formally prove the safety of these three GM maize lines (inadequacies in methodology, lack of robustness in statistical analysis). Unlike the research performed by the company, the work of Professor Séralini and colleagues has been subject to rigorous evaluation by peers before being published in the scientific literature in 2007 and 2009.
The findings by Professor Seralini’s research team question the validity of approvals granted by the European Commission, given on the advice of the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) for human and animal consumption of these three maize varieties.
Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team have repeatedly been subjected to defamatory attacks extending far beyond any scientific discourse and without any scientifically supported justification or merit. Such attacks fundamentally undermine the principles of due scientific discourse and the fairness of an open society and need to be robustly repulsed once and for all.
The professor of molecular biology based at Caen University has been able to identify the person attempting to destroy his good name as a scientist: namely Professor Marc Fellous and indirectly the AFBV (French Association of Plant Biotechnology), chaired by Marc Fellous, Professor of Genetics and former president of the Biomolecular Engineering Commission (a governmental commission to assess agricultural GMOs, of which Professor Séralini was a member from 1998 to 2007). He therefore feels morally obliged to go to court to defend his team's professional reputation against threats to the livelihood of all scientists who seek funding for public interest research.
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION in defence of the principles of respectful scientific criticism and the use of diverse expertise on issues as sensitive, complex and potentially irreversible as the effects of growing GM crops.
The petition condemns the approach of researchers, who use defamation and flawed/biased logic rather than credible scientific grounds, to unfairly and unjustly argue their case. The petition calls for open and transparent scientific discourse, subject to assessment by peers.
http://sciencescitoyennes.org/spip.php?article1807URGENT: YOUR SUPPORT NEEDED for Professor G-E Séralini and colleagues
Court... more
-
-
Stream ecosystems are tightly linked to agricultural fields and should be considered when adopting new agricultural technologies
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/cioe-ifg092410.php
In a paper published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Cary Institute aquatic ecologist Dr. Emma Rosi-Marshall and colleagues report that streams throughout the Midwestern Corn Belt are receiving insecticidal proteins that originate from adjacent genetically modified crops. The protein enters streams through runoff and when corn leaves, stalks, and plant parts are washed into stream channels.
Genetically-modified plants are a mainstay of large-scale agriculture in the American Midwest, where corn is a dominant crop. In 2009, more than 85% of U.S. corn crops were genetically modified to repel pests and/or resist herbicide exposure. Corn engineered to release an insecticide that wards off the European corn borer, commonly referred to as Bt corn, comprised 63% of crops. The tissue of these plants has been modified to express insecticidal proteins, one of which is commonly known as Cry1Ab.
Following an assessment of 217 stream sites in Indiana, the paper's authors found dissolved Cry1Ab proteins from Bt corn present in stream water at nearly a quarter of the sites, including headwater streams. Eighty-six percent of the sampled sites contained corn leaves, husks, stalks, or cobs in their channels; at 13% of these sites corn byproducts contained detectable Cry1Ab proteins. The study was conducted six months after crop harvest, indicating that the insecticidal proteins in crop byproducts can persist in the landscape.
Using these data, U.S. Department of Agriculture land cover data, and GIS modeling, the authors found that all of the stream sites with detectable Cry1Ab insecticidal proteins were located within 500 meters of a corn field. Furthermore, given current agricultural land use patterns, 91% percent of the streams and rivers throughout Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana —some 159,000 miles of waterways—are also located within 500 meters of corn fields.
Rosi-Marshall comments, "Our research adds to the growing body of evidence that corn crop byproducts can be dispersed throughout a stream network, and that the compounds associated with genetically-modified crops, such as insecticidal proteins, can enter nearby water bodies."
After corn crops are harvested, a common agricultural practice is to leave discarded plant material on the fields. This "no-till" form of agriculture minimizes soil erosion, but it also sets the stage for corn byproducts to enter nearby stream channels.
Rosi-Marshall concludes, "The tight linkage between corn fields and streams warrants further research into how corn byproducts, including Cr1Ab insecticidal proteins, potentially impact non-target ecosystems, such as streams and wetlands." These corn byproducts may alter the health of freshwaters. Ultimately, streams that originate in the Corn Belt drain into the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes.Stream ecosystems are tightly linked to agricultural fields and should be considered... more
-
-
A letter from Pesticide Action Network Asia/Pacific on the application by the Malasian Institute for Medical Research to release GM mosquitoes into the wild.
We refer to the public announcement by the National Biosafety Board of Malaysia about the application by the Institute for Medical Research (IMR) for the release of genetically modified male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Pahang and Melaka (referred to as Living Modified Organisms or LMOs of the OX513A strain) (Reference No. NRE(S) 609-2/1). We have serious concerns and objections.
First of all, there is a lack of transparency and information about the genes involved in the genetic engineering of the mosquito. For example, how is this male LMO ‘created’? Is there not the risk of a margin of error that might allow female LMOs to be selected in the process? What are the sources of the molecular marker and the ‘lethal’ gene that will make the offspring of the LMO and a female Aedes aegypti die? This is very critical.
The technique apparently employed in this IMR project seems to be the one called “Released Insects with a Dominant Lethal” (RIDL) which is a tetracycline-repressible lethal system, utilizing the piggyBac transposon. If the key gene that confers the dominant lethal trait is tTAV, a protein, — and we do not know this for sure since the IMR refuses to release the information — then in the absence of tetracycline, the mosquito offspring of the LMO will likely die from the toxic effects of the over-production of tTAV. If such a gene is the one causing fatality to the offspring of the LMO, then what is the precise mode of action of the tTAV protein? Its mode of action and how it leads to the death of the mosquito offspring/organism exactly appear unclear and little understood. This should be clarified and investigated before any open releases are considered, as it may have environmental or health consequences as well as carry risks arising from horizontal gene transfer.
The public announcement and fact sheet do not look at the possibility of new health risks to humans and animals arising from the genetically modified mosquitoes, in particular if female LMOs are released accidentally or female progenies from the released male LMOs somehow survive. In relation to the latter, Phuc et al. [1] state that 3-4% of the first larval instar of OX513A do survive to adulthood. Thus the IMR fact sheet is not quite accurate in stating that the presence of the “conditional lethality trait” in OX513A progenies is fatal; “resulting in the death of the progenies in the absence of tetracycline”. The figure for 3-4% is given for laboratory experiments. What is the figure for field cage trials? Different conditions (biotic and abiotic stresses) need to be tested for changes in (a) the survival rate of OX513A mosquitoes and (b) phenotypic and behavioral characteristics.
Please let us briefly explain our concern regarding the use of a seemingly untested protein. As an example, Bt crops like cotton and corn are genetically engineered with the Bt-toxin gene from the soil-bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). There are many different forms of and genes for Bt toxins—the most commonly used are Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac. Cry1Ac has been found to be a potent immunogen. It binds to gut cells and is capable of causing changes in the permeability of the gut (e.g. [2-5]). Other examples of unpredicted immunogenicity or toxicity are two food products. In the 1990s, in feeding trials with rats (and mice), genetically engineered (GE) tomatoes in the US (Clagene) as well as GE potatoes in the UK [6,7] were found to cause damage to the gut and its mucosal cell lining. In both cases, the transgenes used were coding for proteins regarded as harmless when ingested by mammals.
Another major risk in the IMR project is horizontal gene transfer of the piggyBac insert, which contains the two transgenes. According to a paper by Ho and Cummins [9], the risk of the transgenes being transferred horizontally to other species is highly increased due to their combination with the piggyBac transposon. The risks of such transposons transferring to the genomes of the mammalian hosts should be investigated, including the possible transfer to laboratory animals used as blood meal donors for female LMO mosquitoes.
This is relevant at this present stage as there will potentially be females amongst the released LMO mosquitoes. The male LMOs have to be sorted from the females, and this takes place at the pupae stage, when males are generally smaller than females. This, however, is unlikely to be 100 per cent accurate. It is obvious that transgene escape can readily occur, whether horizontally or vertically (via sexual reproduction).
The enhanced possibility of horizontal gene transfer is only one possible effect of genetic engineering. Transgenes as well as the insertion of transgenes via genetic engineering are known to give rise to other unexpected, unintended, positional, synergistical, or pleiotropic effects [10]. As an example, one study in 2005 looked at GE peas that had been genetically engineered with a bean gene. Unexpectedly, the protein product from the bean gene changed its characteristics when produced in peas and caused immune reactions and inflammation in mice, not seen with the bean [11]. This provides evidence that a gene may behave differently when transferred from one organism to another, even if the two organisms are very close from an evolutionary standpoint.
The relevance of this for the given situation is that there are likely to be changes in the GE mosquito other than the intended or expected ones. These would include changes in genoptypic, phenotypic or metabolic levels as well as behavioural levels. Genetically engineering a mosquito, which is a vector of disease, may give rise to unexpected effects that may include negative impacts on human and animal health, for example, the insect may become more virulent, aggressive or its bite might have different effects on the host.
The proposal by the IMR to do fogging after the release is also fraught with contention. Fogging with resigen (active ingredients: S-bioallethrin and permethrin) means spraying communities and the environment with poisonous pesticides. Both are pyrethroids which have been linked to toxicity in humans including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and neurotoxicity as well as acute toxic effects such as coughing, redness, burning sensation/pain in the eyes and skin, dizziness, headache, fatigue, nausea, listlessness, vomiting, epigastric pain, muscular fasciculation [12,13]. These pyrethroids can be inhaled or ingested (directly or through water). Permethrin has also been found to have potential to be an endocrine disrupter [14]. Besides this, fogging is ineffective in controlling mosquitoes because it is not targeted but simply sprayed all over the area, allowing a large proportion of mosquitoes to escape.
Last but not least, involving the communities that will be affected by the release as well as the public at large is a matter of public trust. The effects of the genetically engineered mosquito including its molecular marker and the ‘lethal’ gene (assumed to be tTAV) on fish, frogs or other organisms present in the environment that might feed on it, and its possible effects on humans or other mammals have not been tested. Before any open release, this information must be determined, especially since there is risk of survival of the GE mosquito offspring.
continuedA letter from Pesticide Action Network Asia/Pacific on the application by the Malasian... more
-
-
In times when food is genetically manipulated and chemically contaminated, the metaphor "food for thought" can also stand for manipulated information and be toxic food for thought. Unfortunately, Dr M.S. Swaminathan's GM: Food for Thought (August 26), is as manipulated as the genetically-modified (GM) foods which were the subject of his article.
Dr Swaminathan's first scientific manipulation was the argument that conventional plant "breeding methods are very time consuming and often not very accurate. However, with the recombinant DNA technology, plants with the desired traits can be produced very rapidly and with greater accuracy". This is scientifically false. Genetic engineering is a crude and blind technology of shooting genes into an organism through a "gene gun". It’s like infecting the organism with a "cancer". It is not known if the transgene is introduced, and that is why antibiotic resistance markers have to be used. Nor is it known where in the genome the transgene gets introduced. This is not "accuracy", it is literally shooting in the dark.
Further, the genetically engineered construct is introduced into existing crops that are bred by conventional breeding methods. Thus Bt Cotton (Bt stands for Bacillus Thuringenesis) is the introduction of Bt genes into existing hybrids in the case of Mahyco (a company that produces and markets a broad range of seeds developed with biotechnology), and into a selection in the case of the Central Cotton Research Institute. GM technology does not substitute conventional breeding, it is dependent on it. Thus the arguments of "speed" as well as "accuracy" are false.
The second scientific inaccuracy in Dr Swaminathan’s article is the claim that through GM technology "we can isolate a gene responsible for conferring drought tolerance, introduce that gene into a plant, and make it drought tolerant".
Drought tolerance is a polygenetic trait. It is, therefore, scientifically flawed to talk of "isolating a gene for drought tolerance". Genetic engineering tools are so far only able to transfer single gene traits. That is why in 20 years only two single gene traits have been commercialised through genetic engineering. One is herbicide resistance and the second is the Bt toxin trait.
Navdanya Trust’s recent report (Biopiracy of Climate Resilient Crops: Gene giants are stealing farmers innovation of drought resistant, flood resistant and salt resistant varieties) shows that farmers have bred corps that are resistant to climate extremes. And it is these traits, a result of a millennia of farmers breeding, that are now being patented and pirated by the genetic engineering industry. Using farmers’ varieties as "genetic material", the biotechnology industry is playing genetic roulette to gamble on which gene complexes are responsible for which trait. This is not done through genetic engineering; it is done through software programs like "Athlete" that uses "vast amounts of available genomic data (mostly public) to rapidly reach a reliable limited list of candidate key genes with high relevance to a target trait of choice. Allegorically, the Athlete platform could be viewed as a "machine" that is able to choose 50-100 lottery tickets from amongst hundreds of thousands
of tickets, with the high likelihood that the winning ticket will be included among them".
Breeding is being replaced by gambling, innovation is giving way to biopiracy, and science is being substituted by propaganda.
more at the link.In times when food is genetically manipulated and chemically contaminated, the... more
-
