Home
About this site
What's new
Publications
Site Map
Terms and Definitions
FAQs
Links to relevant sites
Contact us

What's new?
Articles from internationl sources

April 2004

• Cows ate GM maize and died – Public enquiry needed. Announcing Science in Society #21, Spring 2004. From the Editor.
• A response to criticism about our work on GE biosafety: The Cartagena protocol, the Precautionary principle, “sound science” and “early warnings”. Terje Traavik, Dr. philos. Scientific Director, GENØK-Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, Professor of Gene Ecology, University of Tromso.
• Australia: US struggles in rearguard campaign for GE crops

Cows ate GM maize and died – Public enquiry needed. From the Editor. Announcing Science in Society #21, Spring 2004.

There has been no coverage in the mainstream media; not even after ISIS circulated a detail report, showing how Bt176 has the worst of features common to practically all commercially approved GM crops. Not only is Bt176 unstable like all GM varieties analysed so far, it is also non-uniform, so that different samples of the variety gave different results. Either of those features would make the GM variety illegal under European law.

The dead cows in Hesse are not an isolated case. In 1999, Pusztai and colleagues reported that GM potato engineered with the snowdrop lectin adversely affected every organ system of young rats, in particular, it made their stomach lining twice as thick. Scientists in Egypt found similar effects in mice fed a Bt potato. Several years earlier, the US Food and Drug Administration already had data showing that rats fed a GM tomato with an antisense gene to delay ripening developed holes in their stomach. Add to that the report from Aventis (now Bayer) which showed that glufosinate-tolerant T25 GM maize (about to be approved for growing by the Blair government) killed twice as many broiler chickens compared to non-GM maize, and a host of anecdotal evidence that livestock, wildlife and lab animals avoid GM feed when given the choice, and failed to thrive or died when forced to eat it.

There must now be a public enquiry, not only into the safety of GM food and feed, but especially on why this and other evidence have been systematically misrepresented, suppressed, ignored and denied in the rush to commercialise GM crops and GM food and feed. It amounts to a serious abuse of science and scientific evidence, and our governments' scientific advisors must be called into proper account.

Britain's pro-GM scientific establishment appears to have entered into an elicit relationship, willingly or otherwise, with a gang of biotech corporate warriors – remarkably metamorphosed from their previous Marxist tendencies - who promote their agenda by infiltrating the establishment and using smear tactics borrowed from America's far- right to discredit critics.

Read the evidence and judge for yourselves. There's plenty more: US Department of Agriculture's own data showing that GM crops increased pesticide and herbicide use by more than 50 million pounds between 1996 and 2003; Roundup Ready herbicide linked to sudden death of GM soya and fusarium head blight in wheat; and the regulatory sham surrounding Bt crops that's allowing synthetic, altered toxins of both known and unknown toxicities to enter our ecosystems and food web.

Send a copy of this issue to your government representatives demanding a public enquiry. (Contact sam@I-sis.org.uk for bulk purchase at cost.)

Nanotech & nanotox

Another area where science and technology have gone way ahead of safety considerations is nanotechnology, in particular, nanoparticles and nanotubes.

The science is fascinating, and the possibilities enormous, but that's precisely why it raises a host of new safety concerns. It seems that all kinds of substances acquire entirely new properties when shrunk to the nanoscale (about a billionth of a metre). They become super-efficient catalysts, they concentrate light energy enormously, acquire new electrical properties, and so on.

But the first evidence of the hazards has already emerged. Nanotubes could be worse than asbestos, and both nanotube and other nanoparticles can accumulate in organs and tissues.

Fortunately, at least some scientists involved in developing the technology are much more willing to consider and discuss the safety concerns openly and engage in real dialogue with the public; in contrast to those scientists involved in exploiting GM.

Biology's theory of everything and the obesity epidemic

When the “Living energies” series was circulated, we received an unprecedented number of positive responses from people who know too well that the secret of life is not to be found in genomes and genes or other molecular nuts and bolts.

I think it may well be in how organisms capture, store and transform energy.

Indeed, a universal metabolism appears to lie at the basis of all life, which can explain its patterns of biodiversity and many other biological phenomena. This brings together diverse fields that have hitherto developed independently, such as bioenergetics, ecology, physiology and yes, even the new field of food quality research, where it is found that animals do tend to prefer organically produced food!

And, it could also enable us to better understand a range of fundamental problems from sustainable systems to the obesity epidemic, and what to do about it.

Biology is groping its way towards a theory of everything. Thank goodness not all biology has been swallowed up by genomics and related research.

There are signs that the National Institutes of Health in the United States, at least, have read the writing on the wall with regard to genomics; and are actively inviting generous grant applications from scientists (US citizens only) that can “change the current paradigms of medical research.”

All other governments should take heed.

Please note that free copies of the magazine will be no longer be mailed out by the Third World Network; nor will the pdf of the complete issue be made available on ISIS' website. To continue receiving a hard copy of the magazine, or to view the pdf online , please subscribe or become member of ISIS. Details here .

Top

A response to criticism about our work on GE biosafety: The Cartagena protocol, the Precautionary principle, “sound science” and “early warnings”. Terje Traavik, Dr. philos. Scientific Director, GENØK-Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, Professor of Gene Ecology, University of Tromso.

Background.

On February 22, 2004, I presented the results of ongoing research at the Biosafety Symposium in Kuala Lumpur, held just prior to the first Meeting of the Parties on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Symposium was jointly organised by the Third World Network (a science-interested organisation), the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology (GENØK) and the New Zealand Institute of Gene Ecology. The Symposium was accessible to the public, but it was primarily a meeting for those with professional interests in biosafety.

The presentation of our preliminary research findings was done in the spirit of the greatest of traditions to share the results of research among peers. This tradition has dominated the biological sciences for centuries. Possibly that tradition has become difficult to recognize in an age when most research is filtered for information that must be kept secret for commercial or other reasons. I am proud and grateful to be supported by public agencies who impose no such requirements.

Speaking now for the two Institutes of Gene Ecology, we also reject any inclination among particular parties to define our peer group. The Institutes of Gene Ecology are organised on the principle that bio-applications will have impacts on the planet and the ecology of human beings that transcend dated and arbitrary notions of where biology ends and ethics, social science, law, economics, philosophy and culture begin. Our peer group is composed of those who are specialists in the impacts of genetically engineered organisms. As a community we have a membership that covers all traditional research backgrounds mentioned above. More importantly, each individual among us has a commitment to understand what can be learned from all those disciplines when focused on a single issue — genetically engineered organisms. That latter quality opens our minds to the bodies of knowledge held in non-traditional sources. By this we mean both NGOs and the industry. Our peer group and our emerging competence in holistic impact assessment is what we believe make us unique.

I have been criticised for speaking about my research at the Kuala Lumpur Biosafety Symposium. This is an insult to the audience who was composed of respected scientific specialists, members of the competent regulatory community, and accomplished researchers of the many disciplines whose interests intersect the impacts of new bio-applications, including genetically engineered organisms.

Cartagena Protocol  

The Precautionary Principle plays an important role in the Cartagena Protocol, an international agreement on transboundary movement of GMOs (www.biodiv.org/biosafe/protocol), and in regulations, i.e. the Norwegian Gene Technology Act of 1993 (www.bion.no) and EU directive 2001/18/EC (www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scp/out31_en.html). The Precautionary Principle instructs us to anticipate the potential hazards of genetic engineering applications. Employment of the Precautionary Principle (PP) entails identification of risk, scientific uncertainty and ignorance, and involves transparent and inclusive decision-making processes (Freestone and Hey, 1996). Although a tool for policy decision, I will claim that implementation of the PP must have impact on the research agenda. Employment of the PP emphasises the importance of scientists taking responsibility for anticipation, acknowledgement and communication of uncertainty, in order to produce scientifically and socially robust knowledge (Myhr and Traavik, 2003).

In a very real sense, the spirit of Cartagena, perhaps uniquely, gives the environment legal standing and places the burden-of-proof of safety on those who might damage her. I favour application of a strong version of the PP, realizing the need to identify and acknowledge scientific uncertainty related to GE applications before they are commercialised. The future of mankind and the environment is inter-dependent. Damage to ecosystems and other species will also hurt mankind in the long run. Pure anthropocentric world views may be suicidal for the human species.

When I agreed to speak at the Biosafety Symposium, I fully understood the ethical dilemmas facing scientists when potential “early warnings” of harm to health and the environment appear in their own research. Raised a traditionalist, I began my talk by stating my respect for peer-review as an integrated and necessary part of “sound science” and I of course believe in it. In fact, I believe in it so strongly that I have always, and intend to always, place my work before the entire world, not just before the competent regulatory authorities with restrictions on discussing the content of my findings. This includes early warning reporting. Such reports are necessary to inform other scientists and regulators, giving them the opportunity to “anticipate and prevent”, and should be followed up by further research to reveal the validity of the warnings (reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/).

Peer review itself does not make a scientific finding either true or false. Peer review is neither a single event. Many peer-reviewed publications include the results of research previously tested in a seminar or conference before a critical audience, and before that in a grant application. Grant applications also often contain summaries of preliminary findings. This provides some confidence to granting agencies and their reviewers. The critical audiences alerted to your work during seminars may also begin the process of being inspired to reproduce or extend your findings in ways your imagination has not even considered. That is the process we foster in the professional community; not the process of secrecy.

When it comes to the environment and human health, I strive for nothing less than the most stringently conducted and reported science. That standard is not compromised because some warnings of potential hazard are notified to the competent community through the means discussed above, and early warnings do not preclude the work being subjected to further review as it progresses through to eventual publication in a peer-reviewed journal, often many months in the future.

By similar token, early insight into the commercialisation potential of a research finding would also not await publication in a peer-reviewed journal before a patent application was lodged. The patent is therefore based on observations and tests that have never been openly reviewed, yet applications protected by patents are no less prone to cause concern among the public and governments.

What was the research presented in Kuala Lumpur?  

In my talk, in order to illustrate what I meant by “early warnings”, I very briefly summarized results from three on-going, long-term projects at GENØK:

” Feeding experiments in rats

” Antibody analyses of sera from Philippine farmers

” Safety aspects of transgenic poxvirus-vectored vaccines

The second item, sera from farmers, has attracted the greatest interest so I will briefly summarise those findings below.

We have used direct and inhibitory ELISAs (enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent assays) to demonstrate IgA, IgG and IgM antibodies specifically binding to Bt-toxin Cry1Ab in sera from Philippine farmers. A general interpretation would be that the farmers had been exposed, in an immunologically meaningful way, to Cry1Ab, or an antigen sharing epitopes with Cry1Ab, during the last 6-9 months before blood samples were taken. This might indicate coincidence in time between three observed events: the very first pollination season for Bt-transgenic maize, an outbreak of respiratory/intestinal disease among individuals living close to the Bt-maize field, and the production of serum antibodyies. I strongly emphasized that the tests could not establish any cause-effect relationships between the 3 events, neither could the results preclude such relationships, and hence they might represent an early warning. As I said at the time, even if I had been able to present the detection of specific anti-Cry1Ab IgE antibodies, my conclusions would have been the same.

Why have these results, among many thousands of scientific results presented at conferences annually, attracted so much attention?

These results could challenge long-standing claims based on many unpublished or not peer-reviewed research conducted over the years.

1. Cry1Ab is not immunogenic. The bacterial version of Cry1Ac shares antigenic ‘epitopes' with Cry1Ab. Since Cry1Ac is strongly immunogenic in rodents, a fact backed up by a series of peer-reviewed articles (e.g. Moreno-Fierros et al 2002; Vazquez et al. 1999, Vazquez-Padron et al., 2000), it is a fair hypothesis that Cry1Ab could inspire an immunological response. Also, Bacillus thuringiensis spraying has elicited specific Cry1A antibodies in farm workers, within the same classes we detected, as well as allergy-related IgE antibodies. These findings were published already in 1999 (Bernstein et al., 1999). There is a distinct difference between being “allergenic” and “antigenic”/”immunogenic”: all that is immunogenic is not allergenic. However, immunogens invoke an immune response and any immune response should be further investigated for being indicative of a potential allergic response.

I am aware of no evidence in the existing peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates that these proteins are neither allergenic nor immunogenic. I am aware of claims that the linear amino acid sequence of the Cry proteins is not similar to any known allergens, but this again is controversial (i.e. Kleter and Peijnenburg, 2002) Furthermore, that type of evidence has never been evaluated as predictive of proteins that will turn out to not be allergens (Metcalfe, 1996; Stickler et al. 2003) . Moreover, the engineered plant versions of Cry proteins are C-terminally truncated compared to the bacterial protoxins. New epitopes may be created in plants due to new alternative posttranslational modifications and folding of the protein, or on the basis of complexing between the transgene product and endogenous protein(s). Indeed, most antibodies produced by an allergic individual to inhalant allergens appear to be toward discontinuous epitopes, but it is unknown whether this applies to antibodies to food allergens (Taylor and Lehrer, 1996). These are “sound” scientific hypotheses yet to be experimentally tested, which they should have been before commercialisation of Bt-transgenic plants.

2. Pollen does not express the cry1ab gen e. This may be true, but if it is it needs to be verified rigorously. By that I mean it must be measured in all engineered plants, it must be measured in plants grown at all sites, and it must be measured for plants grown under different physiological conditions, for a start. The claim should also be made only after corroboration via a number of complementary techniques, e.g. antibody screening of pollen and microarray analysis. This is because eukaryotic promoters, in this case the 35S CaMV promoter used to drive the _expression of the gene, can be inactive in one specific environment, for instance somewhere in the US, but there is not absolute reason for it to not be activated in other environments. To my knowledge, there are no data proving promoter silence in pollen of any Bt-transgenic maize variety, and some data to the contrary. For example, for MON 810 corn grown in the U.S., the concentration of Cry was low but detectable (< 90ng/g total protein) (U.S. EPA Bt crop reassessment data).

How much is too little to inspire an allergic reaction? There is currently no lower threshold for sensitization to allergens as far as I know, and certainly not food allergens, although very low concentrations make sensitization less likely . Furthermore, when Bt crops were assessed for allergenicity by the US, they were not carried out according to the best recommended methods (FAO/WHO), undermining confidence in that evidence. The regulatory assessment also assumed sensitization only via oral exposure, not possible respiratory exposure.

Conclusion

The Biosafety Protocol's main objective is to regulate the trans-boundary movement of genetically engineered organisms for purposes of protecting human and environmental health. In the spirit of the Protocol, that capacity must be relevant to the special or unique concerns of the importing nations and their environments.

It is broadly recognized that third world nations are a huge global repository of biodiversity, local knowledge and cultural treasures, much of it yet to be described. Since at present most genetically engineered organisms originate in the first world nations, their movement to other ecosystems must proceed only with the consent of the fully informed citizenry of these nations. With yet-to-be-determined impacts of genetically engineered organisms on biodiversity and human health, many species as well as cultures could be at risk from international movements of these organisms. In addition, since most genetically engineered organisms are imported along with first world co-technologies (such as certain agricultural practices, pesticides, herbicides, etc.), trans-boundary movement of genetically engineered organisms could threaten various cultures.

Astute observers of genetically engineered organisms cannot help but recognize that the limitations of biosafety infrastructure are not limited to third world countries, but are a result of a global under-investment in science-for-safety. In this regard, the two Institutes of Gene Ecology are optimistic that this is only the beginning of a sustained effort to raise global awareness and capacity in biosafety. In fact, that biosafety is the priority of the third world is an interesting testimony to the fact that priority investment in science-for-sale does not suit all cultures and is exposing significant gaps even among wealthy nations. Norway should also be proud that it has taken a leadership position in championing and resourcing the call for science-for-safety as the world's newest priority.

Literature cited

- Bernstein, I.L, Bernstein, J.A., Miller, M., Tierzieva, S. et al. 1999. Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives 107: 575-582

- CBD: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety ( http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/protocol)

- EEA: European Environment Agency (2002): Late lessons from early warnings. The precautionary principle 1896-2000
( http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/ )

- European Council Directive 2001/18/EC ( http://www.europa.eu.int/commm/food/fs/sc/scp/out31_en.html

- Freestone, D. and Hey, E. (1996): Origins and development of the precautionary principle, in Freestone, D. and
Hey, E. (ed .), The precautionary principle and international law (Netherlands: Kluwer Law International), p.3-15.

- Gene Technology Act 1993. The act relating to the production and use of genetically modified organisms. Act no. 38 of 2 April 1993, Oslo. http://www.bion.no/biotech_regulations_eng.shtml

- Kleter, G.A. and Peijnenburg, AACM. 2002. Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to potential IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens. BMC Structural Biology 2:8

- Metcalfe, D.D., J.D. Astwood, R. Townsend et al. 1996. Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically engineered crop plants. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 36(S): S165–S186.

- Moreno-Fierros, L., Garcia, N., Lopez-Revilla, R., Vazquez-Padron, R.I. 2000. Intranasal, rectal and intraperitoneal immunization with protoxin Cry1Ac from Bacillus thuringiensis induces compartmentalized serum, intestinal, vaginal and pulmonary immune responses in Balb/c mice. Microbes and Infection 2: 885-890

- Myhr, A.I., Traavik, T., 2003. Genetically modified crops: Precautionary science and conflicts of interests. JAGE 16, 227-247.

- Stickler M., Much, J., Estell, D., Power, S., Harding, F. 2003. A human dendritic cell-based method to identify CD4+ T-cell epitopes in potential protein allergens. Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 251-254

- Taylor, S.L., S.B. Lehrer. 1996. Principles and characteristics of food allergens. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 36(S): S91–S118.

- Vazquez, R.I., Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., de la Riva, G.A. 1999. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scand J. Immunol. 49: 578-584

- Vazquez-Padron, R.I., Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., et al. 2000. Characterization of mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 33: 147-155

Top

Australia: US struggles in rearguard campaign for GE crops

Canberra, 1 Apr (IPS/Bob Burton) -- For the last week, Gregory Conko from the conservative US think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), has faced an uphill battle in selling the benefits of genetic engineering (GE) to Australian governments and farmers.

That is because a string of decisions in the last two weeks by Australian state governments - banning or placing a moratorium on the planting of genetically modified (GM) canola in order to prevent the loss of markets for wheat as well as non-GE canola - has made Conko's US-government funded tour appear obsolete.

"My understanding from some of the state officials in Tasmania and Western Australia is that they would prefer not to allow any GM crops so the entire state can have a reputation of being GM-free," Conko said.

"In the short term this may be a rational marketing decision but in the long term I don't see that is necessarily going to hold up."

While the US Embassy organised Conko's tour in an attempt to shore up fading support among farmers for genetically engineered crops, the cost is being covered by the National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy, which in turn is funded by the US Department of Agriculture.

Asked whether companies with genetic engineering interests fund the CEI, Conko said: "We do get a small amount of money from one biotech firm and a couple of food companies." While saying that less than a quarter of the CEI's agriculture programme funding comes from corporations, Conko confirmed that Monsanto is the biotechnology sponsor of the institute.

A genetic engineering campaigner with Greenpeace Australia, Jeremy Tager, believes Conko's tour is another signal of how desperate the US government and companies like Monsanto have become. "They have effectively lost the debate in the bulk of Australia and this is a desperate attempt to shore up their fading support," he said.

The Australian government's Federal Gene Technology Regulator has licensed for both Bayer and Monsanto the unconditional release of genetically engineered canola varieties. But strong opposition from farmers, agricultural marketing agencies and environmentalists has blocked the commercial release of the crops.

The last week has seen a stunning series of setbacks in the determination of the pro-genetic engineering proponents to press ahead with the commercial release of GE canola in Australia.

Last week, Victoria decided to legislate for a four-year ban on the crop, and the Western Australian government legislated to keep the whole state free of genetically engineered crops indefinitely. This week, the South Australian parliament is debating legislation to impose a moratorium on genetically engineered canola, and a similar bill is before the Australian Capital Territory parliament.

Colleen Ross, the National Farmers Union of Canada spokeswoman on genetically engineered crops, is also touring Australia, but with the support of environmental and anti-GE farmers groups.

Ross, who farmed in Australia for many years before moving to Canada, has a word of warning for Australian farmers and governments considering the use of genetically engineered crops.

"I don't want Australian farmers to go through what we have gone through six or seven years down the track. We have Monsanto taking our farmers to court, we have complicated intellectual property rights and trade disputes. Far better just to say no," she said.

When Victorian Agriculture Minister Bob Cameron announced the state government's four-year ban last week on genetically engineered canola, he cited a market survey undertaken by the Australian Wheat Board. This, he said, "found that 30% of its wheat markets would have concerns if GM grain of any type was commercially grown in Victoria".

Tager of Greenpeace welcomes the decisions by the state governments, but sees as the next critical decision the imminent decision by the New South Wales government on whether it approves a massive 3,500-hectare 'trial' of GE canola. "Unless there is intervention by the Premier or at Cabinet level, I don't think there is much doubt that the Minister for Agriculture will say yes to the planting," he said.

The implications of a go-ahead, he argues, are potentially massive. "The estimate we have is that 3,500 hectares would contaminate 250,000 hectares of land at risk of contamination, that is a pretty conservative estimate based on fairly short distances of contamination occurring. If you took the UK figure of contamination across 26 kilometres - they can't explain it, but they found that there is nothing in NSW at all left GE-free," he said.

Conko argues that while there is often opposition to the introduction of GE crops, farmers largely learn to co-exist. "We found in North America that we can have GM agriculture and conventional agriculture and even organic agriculture co-exist more or less peacefully. There are some rough edges and its not foolproof but we have found a way to manage the problems that come about from co-existence," he said.

Ross dismisses the claims by supporters of GE that co-existence is possible. In January she was in court supporting Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who is being sued by Monsanto over his contaminated crop that the company claims was in fact the unauthorised use of its technology.

"Farmers who are growing GE in Canada and the US say 'it's our right to grow GE crop' but when they grow GE crops, us non-GE farmers lose our right to grow our non-GE crops because of the contamination," she pointed out. She has a blunt message for Australian farmers and governments: "Why is Australia even considering it? What the heck are you thinking?"

Top

[Home] - [About this site] - [What's new] - [Publications] - [Site Map] -
[Terms and Definitions] - [FAQs] - [Links to relevant sites] - [Contact us]