GM Soya Disaster in Latin America
Starmail - 6. Sep, 17:54
Genmanipulation
6
Sep
2005
4
Sep
2005
Saskatchewan's certified organic farmers are taking Monsanto and Bayer Crop Science to court
Starmail - 4. Sep, 08:18
Monsanto und Bayer sollen für Gen-Kontamination haften
Presseerklärung vom 2. September 2005
Kanada: Sammelklage von Biobauern zugelassen
Monsanto und Bayer sollen für Gen-Kontamination haften
Der Gerichtshof des kanadischen Bundesstaats Saskatchewan hat eine Sammelklage von rund 1000 Biobauern gegen die Konzerne Monsanto und Bayer CropScience zugelassen. Die Landwirte fordern Entschädigungen für Einnahmeverluste, die durch die Kontamination ihrer Raps-Ernte durch genmanipulierte Sorten entstanden sind. Die Kläger werden von der Umweltorganisation Organic Agriculture Protection Fund unterstützt.
Larry Hoffman, einer der beiden Initiatoren der Klage: „Ein Landwirt wie ich kann es sich nicht leisten, gegen einen Konzern wie Monsanto zu prozessieren, selbst wenn dieser meinen Lebensunterhalt gefährdet. Aber wenn wir uns in einer Sammelklage zusammentun, können wir diese Unternehmen mit gemeinsamer Kraft dazu bringen, für ihr Handeln zu haften“.
Gentechnisch manipulierter Raps wird in weiten Teilen Nordamerikas angebaut. Die gentechnische Veränderung bewirkt, dass der Raps gegen ein zugehöriges Herbizid resistent ist. Bayer und Monsanto sichern hierdurch den Absatz ihrer Agrogifte. Genmanipulierte Raps-Pollen können jedoch durch Wind und Insekten mehrere Kilometer weit getragen werden und herkömmlichen Raps bestäuben. In Nordamerika ist es daher praktisch unmöglich, genfreien Raps anzubauen. Konventionell arbeitende Landwirte verlieren hierdurch ihre Exportmärkte, da in den meisten Teilen der Welt genfreier Raps nachgefragt wird.
Philipp Mimkes von der Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren (CBG): „Die unkontrollierte Ausbreitung von Gen-Pflanzen ist kein Unfall, sondern wird von Unternehmen wie Bayer und Monsanto bewusst in Kauf genommen. Landwirte verlieren hierdurch die Möglichkeit, gen-freie Landwirtschaft zu betreiben. Die Verbraucher sollen langfristig gezwungen werden, Gen-Pflanzen zu sich zu nehmen“. Auch in Australien kämpfen derzeit Landwirte gegen die Verunreinigung ihrer Ernten durch Gen-Raps von Bayer. Im Juli mussten australische Raps-Lieferungen nach Japan wegen solcher Kontaminationen gestoppt werden.
Eine Studie der Europäischen Umweltagentur (EEA) hatte im vergangenen Jahr für Raps ein hohes Auskreuzungsrisiko festgestellt. Gen-Raps kreuzt sich nicht nur mit normalen Raps-Pflanzen, sondern auch mit Rüben, Kohlrüben oder dem Schwarzen Senf. Kreuzen sich herbizidresistente Pflanzen mit normalen Pflanzen, besteht die Gefahr, dass sich die Resistenzen übertragen. Da Gen-Saat mehrere Jahre im Boden überdauern kann, können sich solche Gen-Übertragungen über Jahre hinweg unkontrolliert fortsetzen. In Kanada sind bereits Pflanzen entstanden, die gegen drei Herbizide gleichzeitig resistent sind. Die kanadische Royal Society befürchtet daher, dass auswildernder, resistenter Raps zum größten Unkraut-Problem Kanadas wird.
Kontakt Organic Agriculture Protection Fund: http://www.saskorganic.com/oapf/ Gerne senden wir auch die Entscheidung des Gerichtshofs von Saskatchewan zu
Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren
Postfach 150418, D-40081 Düsseldorf
CBGnetwork@aol.com
http://www.CBGnetwork.de
Tel: 0211 - 333 911, Fax 0211 - 333 940
Beirat
Dr. Sigrid Müller, Pharmakologin, Bremen
Dr. Erika Abczynski, Kinderärztin, Dormagen
Eva Bulling-Schröter, ehem. MdB, Berlin
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Rochlitz, Chemiker, ehem. MdB, Burgwald
Dr. Janis Schmelzer, Historiker, Berlin
Wolfram Esche, Rechtsanwalt, Köln
Dorothee Sölle,Theologin, Hamburg (gest. 2003)
Prof. Dr. Anton Schneider, Baubiologe, Neubeuern
Prof. Jürgen Junginger, Designer, Krefeld
Kanada: Sammelklage von Biobauern zugelassen
Monsanto und Bayer sollen für Gen-Kontamination haften
Der Gerichtshof des kanadischen Bundesstaats Saskatchewan hat eine Sammelklage von rund 1000 Biobauern gegen die Konzerne Monsanto und Bayer CropScience zugelassen. Die Landwirte fordern Entschädigungen für Einnahmeverluste, die durch die Kontamination ihrer Raps-Ernte durch genmanipulierte Sorten entstanden sind. Die Kläger werden von der Umweltorganisation Organic Agriculture Protection Fund unterstützt.
Larry Hoffman, einer der beiden Initiatoren der Klage: „Ein Landwirt wie ich kann es sich nicht leisten, gegen einen Konzern wie Monsanto zu prozessieren, selbst wenn dieser meinen Lebensunterhalt gefährdet. Aber wenn wir uns in einer Sammelklage zusammentun, können wir diese Unternehmen mit gemeinsamer Kraft dazu bringen, für ihr Handeln zu haften“.
Gentechnisch manipulierter Raps wird in weiten Teilen Nordamerikas angebaut. Die gentechnische Veränderung bewirkt, dass der Raps gegen ein zugehöriges Herbizid resistent ist. Bayer und Monsanto sichern hierdurch den Absatz ihrer Agrogifte. Genmanipulierte Raps-Pollen können jedoch durch Wind und Insekten mehrere Kilometer weit getragen werden und herkömmlichen Raps bestäuben. In Nordamerika ist es daher praktisch unmöglich, genfreien Raps anzubauen. Konventionell arbeitende Landwirte verlieren hierdurch ihre Exportmärkte, da in den meisten Teilen der Welt genfreier Raps nachgefragt wird.
Philipp Mimkes von der Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren (CBG): „Die unkontrollierte Ausbreitung von Gen-Pflanzen ist kein Unfall, sondern wird von Unternehmen wie Bayer und Monsanto bewusst in Kauf genommen. Landwirte verlieren hierdurch die Möglichkeit, gen-freie Landwirtschaft zu betreiben. Die Verbraucher sollen langfristig gezwungen werden, Gen-Pflanzen zu sich zu nehmen“. Auch in Australien kämpfen derzeit Landwirte gegen die Verunreinigung ihrer Ernten durch Gen-Raps von Bayer. Im Juli mussten australische Raps-Lieferungen nach Japan wegen solcher Kontaminationen gestoppt werden.
Eine Studie der Europäischen Umweltagentur (EEA) hatte im vergangenen Jahr für Raps ein hohes Auskreuzungsrisiko festgestellt. Gen-Raps kreuzt sich nicht nur mit normalen Raps-Pflanzen, sondern auch mit Rüben, Kohlrüben oder dem Schwarzen Senf. Kreuzen sich herbizidresistente Pflanzen mit normalen Pflanzen, besteht die Gefahr, dass sich die Resistenzen übertragen. Da Gen-Saat mehrere Jahre im Boden überdauern kann, können sich solche Gen-Übertragungen über Jahre hinweg unkontrolliert fortsetzen. In Kanada sind bereits Pflanzen entstanden, die gegen drei Herbizide gleichzeitig resistent sind. Die kanadische Royal Society befürchtet daher, dass auswildernder, resistenter Raps zum größten Unkraut-Problem Kanadas wird.
Kontakt Organic Agriculture Protection Fund: http://www.saskorganic.com/oapf/ Gerne senden wir auch die Entscheidung des Gerichtshofs von Saskatchewan zu
Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren
Postfach 150418, D-40081 Düsseldorf
CBGnetwork@aol.com
http://www.CBGnetwork.de
Tel: 0211 - 333 911, Fax 0211 - 333 940
Beirat
Dr. Sigrid Müller, Pharmakologin, Bremen
Dr. Erika Abczynski, Kinderärztin, Dormagen
Eva Bulling-Schröter, ehem. MdB, Berlin
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Rochlitz, Chemiker, ehem. MdB, Burgwald
Dr. Janis Schmelzer, Historiker, Berlin
Wolfram Esche, Rechtsanwalt, Köln
Dorothee Sölle,Theologin, Hamburg (gest. 2003)
Prof. Dr. Anton Schneider, Baubiologe, Neubeuern
Prof. Jürgen Junginger, Designer, Krefeld
Starmail - 4. Sep, 08:15
2
Sep
2005
1
Sep
2005
31
Aug
2005
Support BioDemocracy in California
Last year, Mendocino County California became the first county in the U.S. to ban genetically engineered (GE) crops. Since then, two more California counties and two cities have followed Mendocino's example, starting a domino-effect of similar anti-GE ordinances across the nation. Fearing the contagious spread of BioDemocracy in North America, the Biotech Bullies are striking back. In the past several months, 14 U.S. states, prodded by Monsanto and the Farm Bureau, have made it illegal for local communities to ban GE crops. Two recently introduced bills (AB 1508 and SB 1056) in the California legislature would make California the 15th state to eliminate local communities' rights to ban or otherwise regulate genetically engineered seeds. This "preemption" bill would overturn GE-Free victories in Mendocino, Trinity, and Marin counties, as well as the cities of Arcata and Point Arena, and prohibit local communities from banning or regulating genetically engineered crops in the future. Take action today to stop the Biotech Bullies from taking away our democratic rights in California! Send a message to your state legislators by clicking here!
http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/oca/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1139
Informant: Hopedance
http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/oca/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1139
Informant: Hopedance
Starmail - 31. Aug, 16:15
30
Aug
2005
29
Aug
2005
WTO HANDS OFF OUR FOOD
http://www.bite-back.org/objection/index.php
Citizens' Objection: BITE BACK -- WTO HANDS OFF OUR FOOD!
To: The World Trade Organisation From: Concerned People around the World
We, wishing to protect our right to decide what we eat and grow, have serious and legitimate concerns about the risks of genetically modified foods and crops (GMOs) for consumers, farmers, wildlife and environments around the world.
By mounting this World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute the US and others are trying to force genetically modified food into the European Union and other parts of the world. They seek to prevent countries from choosing for themselves whether to permit genetically modified food and farming. They also seek to undermine our right to know and choose what we eat and farm.
If successful, this will further the interests of a small number of companies which have a financial stake in this technology at the expense of our interests as citizens around the world.
With this objection we strongly advocate that
1 it's our own right and not up to the WTO to decide what we eat and what crops we farm;
2 governments around the world have the right to develop laws to protect their environment and the well being of their citizens from the risks of genetically modified food and farming, including the right to impose a ban on such products or strict labelling requirements;
3 it is appropriate for such laws to be based on the Precautionary Principle which requires that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage then despite lack of scientific certainty it is better to act now to be safe than wait to be sorry;
4 decisions concerning regulation of international trade in GMOs should be made in accordance with the UN Biosafety Protocol and not by the World Trade Organisation.
Therefore, the WTO must
1 not deny people the right to know and choose what they eat and farm;
2 not undermine the right of the European Union and others to take appropriate steps to protect their citizens and the environment from GMO food and farming;
3 dismiss the complaints of the United States of America, Argentina and Canada.
(sign-on at web link) http://www.bite-back.org/objection/index.php
Informant: Andy Robinson
Citizens' Objection: BITE BACK -- WTO HANDS OFF OUR FOOD!
To: The World Trade Organisation From: Concerned People around the World
We, wishing to protect our right to decide what we eat and grow, have serious and legitimate concerns about the risks of genetically modified foods and crops (GMOs) for consumers, farmers, wildlife and environments around the world.
By mounting this World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute the US and others are trying to force genetically modified food into the European Union and other parts of the world. They seek to prevent countries from choosing for themselves whether to permit genetically modified food and farming. They also seek to undermine our right to know and choose what we eat and farm.
If successful, this will further the interests of a small number of companies which have a financial stake in this technology at the expense of our interests as citizens around the world.
With this objection we strongly advocate that
1 it's our own right and not up to the WTO to decide what we eat and what crops we farm;
2 governments around the world have the right to develop laws to protect their environment and the well being of their citizens from the risks of genetically modified food and farming, including the right to impose a ban on such products or strict labelling requirements;
3 it is appropriate for such laws to be based on the Precautionary Principle which requires that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage then despite lack of scientific certainty it is better to act now to be safe than wait to be sorry;
4 decisions concerning regulation of international trade in GMOs should be made in accordance with the UN Biosafety Protocol and not by the World Trade Organisation.
Therefore, the WTO must
1 not deny people the right to know and choose what they eat and farm;
2 not undermine the right of the European Union and others to take appropriate steps to protect their citizens and the environment from GMO food and farming;
3 dismiss the complaints of the United States of America, Argentina and Canada.
(sign-on at web link) http://www.bite-back.org/objection/index.php
Informant: Andy Robinson
Starmail - 29. Aug, 15:53
18
Aug
2005
Letter to José Maurício Bustani
ISIS Press Release 18/08/05
Letter to José Maurício Bustani
15 August 2005, His Excellency, José Maurício Bustani, Brazilian Embassy,
32 Green Street, London, W1K 7AT
Dear Sir,
I am writing on behalf of the Independent Science Panel (ISP) to urge the Brazilian government to stop growing GM soya and indeed, any other GM crop, in Brazil. The soya in Brazil is intended for the European, Chinese and other markets, mainly as animal feed. But there is stiff consumer opposition in Europe and growing rejection around the world on account of serious concerns over the safety of GM food and feed.
The ISP, launched 10 May 2003 at a public conference in London, UK, consists of dozens of prominent scientists from 11 countries spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, epidemiology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology ( http://www.indsp.org/ISPMembers.php ).
As their contribution to the global GM debate, the ISP reviewed the evidence on the hazards and problems of GM crops as well as the proven successes of sustainable agriculture, and published its report in June 2003 [1].
The key findings of the ISP report on GM crops are as follows:
* Regulations over the releases of GM crops and products have been highly inadequate.
* There has not been a single credible independent scientific study showing that GM food and feed are safe to eat.
* Few feeding studies have been carried out, but existing evidence raises serious doubts over the safety of the transgenic process itself.
* GM varieties are unstable; and this may enhance the horizontal spread of transgenes, with the potential to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and to disrupt gene function in animal and human cells.
* Many GM crops contain gene products known to be harmful: Bt proteins incorporated into a wide range of GM crops to control insect pests are known to be strong immunogens and allergens.
* Herbicide tolerant GM crops - accounting for 75% of all GM crops worldwide - are tied to the broad-spectrum herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium , and will likely increase their use. Both herbicides are systemic metabolic poisons linked to spontaneous abortions, birth defects and other toxicities for human beings and laboratory animals, and also harmful to wild life and beneficial organisms in the soil.
* GM crops have resulted in no benefits to the environment. There has been no reduction in the use of pesticides, while herbicide tolerant weeds and volunteers have emerged, and highly toxic herbicides have had to be brought back in use.
Since its publication, all the major findings of the ISP report have been further corroborated; and the inadequacies of the US regulatory system identified by two US scientists [2].
New evidence confirms that most, if not all GM varieties may be unstable. French government scientists examined five GM varieties already commercialised, and found all the GM inserts had rearranged themselves. Belgian government scientists confirmed those results, and found some of the GM varieties were also non-uniform [3-5].
A paper published in 2002 [6] reported that 22 out of 33 transgenic proteins have runs of 6 or 7 amino acids identical to known allergens. These include all the Bt toxins (Cry proteins), the CP4 EPSPS and GOX conferring glyphosate tolerance, the coat protein of the papaya ringspot virus, and even marker proteins such as GUS ( b -glucuronidase). A follow-up study confirmed those results [7], highlighting the inadequacy of current methods to predict the allergenic potential of proteins new to our food chain and the need to take these positive findings seriously until they can be ruled out by further tests to be “false positives” [8]. This warning is particularly significant as a string of anecdotal evidence – including feeding trials presented by companies to regulatory authorities under “confidential business information” – continue to raise serious doubts over the safety of GM crops and GM food and feed [9].
More reports from the scientific literature indicate that the natural toxin is not the same as, or “substantially equivalent” to, the GM toxin. Green lacewings suffer significantly reduced survival and delayed development when fed an insect pest (lepidopteran) that has eaten GM maize containing the Bt toxin Cry1Ab, but not when fed the same pest treated with much higher levels of the natural toxin in bacteria [10,11]. These findings again suggest that the genetic modification process itself may be unsafe.
Recent findings indicate that glyphosate is toxic to human placental cells and Roundup Ready considerably worse [12, 13]. Roundup was found to be extremely lethal to frogs [14, 15].
A report drawing on 9 years of US Dept of Agriculture data concludes that overall, GM crops have increased pesticide use by 122 million pounds weight since 1996 [16].
These uncertainties over the safety of GMO are widely publicised amid mounting opposition to GM food and feed from farmers and consumers around the world.
Many also share the ISP scientists' concern about the accelerating destruction of the Amazon rainforest to make way for soya cultivation, as the integrity of the Amazon rainforests is widely acknowledged to be crucial for stabilizing global climate and rainfall patterns, and hence mitigating global warming [17, 18].
In view of the evidence against GM crops and in favour of all forms of sustainable non-GM agriculture, the ISP has called for a global ban on further environmental releases of GM crops and a comprehensive shift to non-GM sustainable agriculture. This is all the more urgent as water and oil - on which industrial monoculture, and even more so, GM agriculture are heavily dependent - are both rapidly depleting.
We urge you to convey a strong message to President Lula to reverse the decision to allow cultivation of GM soya. Instead every effort should be made to support reforestation of existing soya plantations for sustainable, small-scale agro-forestry that can truly provide food security for all [19].
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Member of ISP, Director, Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London, NW1 0XR, UK References
1. Ho MW, Lim LC et al. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World , ISP Report, ISIS & TWN, London & Penang, 2003. http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A//www.indsp.org/ISPreportSummary.php&ei=BYcEQ7vVHabeRLWjhN0O
2. Freese W and Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 2004, 21, 299-324.
3. Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Pr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org
4. The Service of Biosafety and Biotechnology (SBB) of the Scientific Institute of Public Health (IPH) in Brussels website ( http://biosafety. ihe.be/TP/MGC.html
5. Ho MW. Unstable transgenic lines illegal. ISIS press release 03/12/03 http://www.i- sis.org.uk/UTLI.php ; also Science in Society 2004, 21, 23 http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
6. Kleter GA and Peijnenburg Ad ACM. 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 2002, 2:8 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6807/2/8
7. Fiers MWEJ, Kleter GA, Nijland H, Peijnenburg Ad ACM, Nap JP and van Ham R CHJ. Allermatch TM, a webtool for the prediction of potential allergenicity according to current FAO/WHO Codex alimentarius guidelines. BMC Bioinformatics 2004, 5:133 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/5/133
8. Ho MW, Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Cummins J. Are transgenic proteins allergenic? ISIS report (to appear).
9. Ho MW and Cummins J. GM food & feed not fit for “man or beast”. ISP Briefing, UK Parliament, 29 April 2004; ISIS Press release 07/05/04 http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ManorBeast.php
10. Dutton A, Klein H, Romeis J and Bigler F. “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea ”, Ecological Entomology 2002, 27, 441-7.
11. Romeis J, Dutton A and Bigler F. “ Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)”, Journal of Insect Physiology 2004, in press.
12. Richard S, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Benachour N and Seralini G-E. Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatases
13. Ho MW and Cummins J. Glyphosate toxic and Roundup worse. Science in Society 2005, 26, 12, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
14. Relyea RA. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecological Applications 2005, 15, 618-27.
15. Ho MW. Roundup kills frogs. Science in Society 2005, 26, 13, http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
16. Benbrook CM. Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in the United States: The first nine years. Northwest Science and Technology Centre, Sandpoint, Idaho. 25 Oct 2004. http:/www.biotech-info.net/highlights.html#technical_papers.
17. Bunyard P. Why Gaia needs rainforests. Science in Society 2003, 20, 24-26, http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
18. Bunyard P. Soya destroying Amazon. Science in Society 2003, 20, 27, http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
19. Ho MW. Sustainable food systems for sustainable development. Science in Society 2005, 27, 33-35, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/letterJMB.php
If you like this original article from the Institute of Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation or purchase on our website. ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation dedicated to providing critical public information on cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability and ecological sustainability in science.
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR telephone: [44 1994 231623] [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20 7272 5636]
Letter to José Maurício Bustani
15 August 2005, His Excellency, José Maurício Bustani, Brazilian Embassy,
32 Green Street, London, W1K 7AT
Dear Sir,
I am writing on behalf of the Independent Science Panel (ISP) to urge the Brazilian government to stop growing GM soya and indeed, any other GM crop, in Brazil. The soya in Brazil is intended for the European, Chinese and other markets, mainly as animal feed. But there is stiff consumer opposition in Europe and growing rejection around the world on account of serious concerns over the safety of GM food and feed.
The ISP, launched 10 May 2003 at a public conference in London, UK, consists of dozens of prominent scientists from 11 countries spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, epidemiology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology ( http://www.indsp.org/ISPMembers.php ).
As their contribution to the global GM debate, the ISP reviewed the evidence on the hazards and problems of GM crops as well as the proven successes of sustainable agriculture, and published its report in June 2003 [1].
The key findings of the ISP report on GM crops are as follows:
* Regulations over the releases of GM crops and products have been highly inadequate.
* There has not been a single credible independent scientific study showing that GM food and feed are safe to eat.
* Few feeding studies have been carried out, but existing evidence raises serious doubts over the safety of the transgenic process itself.
* GM varieties are unstable; and this may enhance the horizontal spread of transgenes, with the potential to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and to disrupt gene function in animal and human cells.
* Many GM crops contain gene products known to be harmful: Bt proteins incorporated into a wide range of GM crops to control insect pests are known to be strong immunogens and allergens.
* Herbicide tolerant GM crops - accounting for 75% of all GM crops worldwide - are tied to the broad-spectrum herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium , and will likely increase their use. Both herbicides are systemic metabolic poisons linked to spontaneous abortions, birth defects and other toxicities for human beings and laboratory animals, and also harmful to wild life and beneficial organisms in the soil.
* GM crops have resulted in no benefits to the environment. There has been no reduction in the use of pesticides, while herbicide tolerant weeds and volunteers have emerged, and highly toxic herbicides have had to be brought back in use.
Since its publication, all the major findings of the ISP report have been further corroborated; and the inadequacies of the US regulatory system identified by two US scientists [2].
New evidence confirms that most, if not all GM varieties may be unstable. French government scientists examined five GM varieties already commercialised, and found all the GM inserts had rearranged themselves. Belgian government scientists confirmed those results, and found some of the GM varieties were also non-uniform [3-5].
A paper published in 2002 [6] reported that 22 out of 33 transgenic proteins have runs of 6 or 7 amino acids identical to known allergens. These include all the Bt toxins (Cry proteins), the CP4 EPSPS and GOX conferring glyphosate tolerance, the coat protein of the papaya ringspot virus, and even marker proteins such as GUS ( b -glucuronidase). A follow-up study confirmed those results [7], highlighting the inadequacy of current methods to predict the allergenic potential of proteins new to our food chain and the need to take these positive findings seriously until they can be ruled out by further tests to be “false positives” [8]. This warning is particularly significant as a string of anecdotal evidence – including feeding trials presented by companies to regulatory authorities under “confidential business information” – continue to raise serious doubts over the safety of GM crops and GM food and feed [9].
More reports from the scientific literature indicate that the natural toxin is not the same as, or “substantially equivalent” to, the GM toxin. Green lacewings suffer significantly reduced survival and delayed development when fed an insect pest (lepidopteran) that has eaten GM maize containing the Bt toxin Cry1Ab, but not when fed the same pest treated with much higher levels of the natural toxin in bacteria [10,11]. These findings again suggest that the genetic modification process itself may be unsafe.
Recent findings indicate that glyphosate is toxic to human placental cells and Roundup Ready considerably worse [12, 13]. Roundup was found to be extremely lethal to frogs [14, 15].
A report drawing on 9 years of US Dept of Agriculture data concludes that overall, GM crops have increased pesticide use by 122 million pounds weight since 1996 [16].
These uncertainties over the safety of GMO are widely publicised amid mounting opposition to GM food and feed from farmers and consumers around the world.
Many also share the ISP scientists' concern about the accelerating destruction of the Amazon rainforest to make way for soya cultivation, as the integrity of the Amazon rainforests is widely acknowledged to be crucial for stabilizing global climate and rainfall patterns, and hence mitigating global warming [17, 18].
In view of the evidence against GM crops and in favour of all forms of sustainable non-GM agriculture, the ISP has called for a global ban on further environmental releases of GM crops and a comprehensive shift to non-GM sustainable agriculture. This is all the more urgent as water and oil - on which industrial monoculture, and even more so, GM agriculture are heavily dependent - are both rapidly depleting.
We urge you to convey a strong message to President Lula to reverse the decision to allow cultivation of GM soya. Instead every effort should be made to support reforestation of existing soya plantations for sustainable, small-scale agro-forestry that can truly provide food security for all [19].
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Member of ISP, Director, Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London, NW1 0XR, UK References
1. Ho MW, Lim LC et al. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World , ISP Report, ISIS & TWN, London & Penang, 2003. http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A//www.indsp.org/ISPreportSummary.php&ei=BYcEQ7vVHabeRLWjhN0O
2. Freese W and Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 2004, 21, 299-324.
3. Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Pr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org
4. The Service of Biosafety and Biotechnology (SBB) of the Scientific Institute of Public Health (IPH) in Brussels website ( http://biosafety. ihe.be/TP/MGC.html
5. Ho MW. Unstable transgenic lines illegal. ISIS press release 03/12/03 http://www.i- sis.org.uk/UTLI.php ; also Science in Society 2004, 21, 23 http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
6. Kleter GA and Peijnenburg Ad ACM. 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 2002, 2:8 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6807/2/8
7. Fiers MWEJ, Kleter GA, Nijland H, Peijnenburg Ad ACM, Nap JP and van Ham R CHJ. Allermatch TM, a webtool for the prediction of potential allergenicity according to current FAO/WHO Codex alimentarius guidelines. BMC Bioinformatics 2004, 5:133 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/5/133
8. Ho MW, Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Cummins J. Are transgenic proteins allergenic? ISIS report (to appear).
9. Ho MW and Cummins J. GM food & feed not fit for “man or beast”. ISP Briefing, UK Parliament, 29 April 2004; ISIS Press release 07/05/04 http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ManorBeast.php
10. Dutton A, Klein H, Romeis J and Bigler F. “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea ”, Ecological Entomology 2002, 27, 441-7.
11. Romeis J, Dutton A and Bigler F. “ Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)”, Journal of Insect Physiology 2004, in press.
12. Richard S, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Benachour N and Seralini G-E. Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatases
13. Ho MW and Cummins J. Glyphosate toxic and Roundup worse. Science in Society 2005, 26, 12, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
14. Relyea RA. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecological Applications 2005, 15, 618-27.
15. Ho MW. Roundup kills frogs. Science in Society 2005, 26, 13, http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
16. Benbrook CM. Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in the United States: The first nine years. Northwest Science and Technology Centre, Sandpoint, Idaho. 25 Oct 2004. http:/www.biotech-info.net/highlights.html#technical_papers.
17. Bunyard P. Why Gaia needs rainforests. Science in Society 2003, 20, 24-26, http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
18. Bunyard P. Soya destroying Amazon. Science in Society 2003, 20, 27, http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
19. Ho MW. Sustainable food systems for sustainable development. Science in Society 2005, 27, 33-35, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/letterJMB.php
If you like this original article from the Institute of Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation or purchase on our website. ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation dedicated to providing critical public information on cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability and ecological sustainability in science.
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR telephone: [44 1994 231623] [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20 7272 5636]
Starmail - 18. Aug, 15:05
16
Aug
2005
GMOs and Human Health
The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk Website/Mailing List press-release@i-sis.org.uk ISIS Director m.w.ho@i- sis.org.uk UNSUBSCRIBE HERE
ISIS Press Release 16/08/05 GMOs and Human Health
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho told the People's Health Assembly that GM is proving bad for health because it goes against the grain of the new genetics science
A GMO or genetically modified organism is one whose natural genetic material has been modified by having synthetic genetic material inserted into it. That is how we have GM crops grown for food and feed, for fibre and for a range of pharmaceuticals and industrial products in the latest offering, if we don't manage to stop it.
Maybe you have heard the mantra from certain scientists that GM food is perfectly safe because the technology is so very precise and wonderful and the regulation the strictest in the world; that GM is good for biodiversity, increases yield, reduces pesticide use, and so on. All of the claims have been falsified, with data collected by the US Department of Agriculture and by independent scientists .
The World Health Organization has just issued a report, Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: an evidence-based study (23 June 2005) claiming that although there may be potential risks involved in the use of GMOs, the GM crops that are grown today are not likely to present health risks.
Yet there has been a string of incidents indicating GM food and feed are far from safe. These include studies carried out by biotech companies producing the GM crops, which they have kept secret under confidential business information.
* Kidney and blood abnormalities in rats fed one of Monsanto's GM maize in Monsanto's secret dossier.
* Villagers in the south of the Philippines who suffered mysterious illnesses when another GM maize came into flower in a nearby field two years in a row. Antibodies to the Bt protein inserted into the GM maize were found in the villagers.
* A dozen cows that died after eating a third GM maize made by Syngenta, and others in the herd had to be slaughtered because of mysterious illnesses. Autopsies failed to be carried out, which is why Greenpeace and farmers are demonstrating in front of the Robert Koch Institute
* Senior scientist Arpad Pusztai and colleagues in Scotland found young rats fed GM potatoes ended up with damage in every organ system; the most dramatic being an increase in thickness of the stomach lining to twice that in controls. Scientists in Egypt found similar effects in mice fed GM potatoes with another gene.
* The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early 1990s that rats fed GM tomatoes had developed small holes in their stomach.
To cut a long story short, different species of GM food and feed crops with different genes had adversely affected several species of animals. You don't have to be a scientific genius to see that there may be something in the genetic engineering process itself that's harmful . So what's wrong with GMOs? First, new genes and combinations of genes made in the laboratory, which have never existed in billions of years of evolution, are being introduced into our food chain.
Allergies and other toxicities come to mind. In fact, 22 out of 33 proteins incorporated into GM crops were found to have similarities to known allergens, and are therefore suspected allergens. The synthetic genetic material are introduced into the cells of organisms with invasive methods that are uncontrollable, unreliable and unpredictable, and far from precise.
It ends up damaging the natural genetic material of the organism with many unpredictable, unintended effects, including gross abnormalities that you can see, and metabolic changes that may be toxic that you can't see. Many foreign synthetic genes are copies of those from bacteria and viruses that cause diseases. They also contain antibiotic resistance marker genes to help track the movements of the foreign gene inserts and select for cells that have taken up the foreign genes.
Right from the beginning, in the mid1970s, geneticists themselves have worried that releasing those synthetic genetic material runs the risk of creating new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and spreading antibiotic resistance to make infections untreatable. As the result of the Asilomar Declaration, a moratorium was imposed. Unfortunately, the moratorium was short-lived, as geneticists were in a hurry for commercial exploitation of genetic engineering. The dangers arise because the genetic material persists long after the cells or organism is dead, and can be taken up by bacteria and viruses that are in all environments
This process - called horizontal gene transfer and recombination - is the main route to creating dangerous pathogens. Genetic engineering is nothing if not greatly enhanced horizontal gene transfer and recombination, and nasty surprises have already been sprung.
Researchers in Australia ‘accidentally' transformed a harmless mousepox virus into a lethal pathogen that killed all the mice, even those that were supposed to be resistant to the virus. Headlines in the New Scientist editorial: “The Genie is out, Biotech has just sprung a nasty surprise. Next time, it could be catastrophic.”
The lead article continued in the same vein: “Disaster in the making. An engineered mouse virus leaves us one step away from the ultimate bioweapon.”
The researchers added a gene coding for an immune signalling molecule to the virus, which they thought would boost antibody production; instead, it suppressed immune responses. The researchers had previously put the same gene into a vaccinia virus and found it delayed the clearance of virus from the animals, so it may well have the same immune suppressive effects for all viruses. Imagine what would happen if this gene ever got into a smallpox virus!
More surprisingly, researchers at the University of California in Berkeley found that disrupting a set of disease-causing genes in Mycobacterium tuberculosis , the tuberculosis bacterium, resulted in a hyper-virulent mutant strain that killed all the mice by 41 weeks, while all the control mice exposed to the unmodified bacterium survived.
There is yet another insidious danger. The synthetic genes created for genetic modification are designed to cross species barriers and to jump into the natural genetic material of cells. Such constructs jumping into the natural genetic material of human cells can trigger cancer .
This is not just a theoretical possibility. It has happened in gene therapy, which is genetic modification of human cells.
In 2000, researchers in the Neckar Hospital in Paris, France treated infants with X- linked Severe Combined Immune Deficiency apparently successfully by isolating bone marrow cells from the patients, applying gene therapy, and then injecting the genetically modified cells back into the patients. But since 2002, 3 infants have developed leukaemia. One child has died. The foreign synthetic gene has inserted near a human gene that controls cell division, making it overactive, resulting in uncontrollable multiplication of the white blood cells.
I have only scratched the surface of the problems and hazards of genetic modification. But you can already see that there has been a massive campaign of misinformation and disinformation on the part of the GM proponents. The greatest danger, I think, is the mindset of the GM proponents
Genetic engineering of plants and animals began in the mid 1970s under the illusion that the genetic material is constant and static and the characteristics of organisms are hardwired in their genes. One gene determines one characteristic. But geneticists soon discovered to their great surprise that the genetic material is dynamic and fluid, in that both the expression and structure of genes are constantly changing under the influence of the environment. Geneticists have coined the term, “the fluid genome”, which encapsulated this major paradigm change. The genome is the totality of all the genetic material in an organism.
The processes responsible for the fluid genome are precisely orchestrated by the organism as a whole in a dance of life that's necessary for survival. In contrast, genetic engineering in the lab is crude, imprecise and invasive. The rogue genes inserted into a genome to make a GMO can land anywhere in any form and has a tendency to be unstable, basically because these rogue genes do not know the language of the dance. Genetic engineers haven't learned to dance with life.
That is why dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries launched ourselves as the Independent Science Panel, to overcome the campaign of disinformation from pro-GM scientists who are working to promote the corporate agenda, and to reclaim science for the public good. We compiled all the evidence against GM crops as well as the evidence on the successes and benefits of all forms of sustainable non-GM agriculture. Based on this evidence, we are calling for a ban on the environmental releases of GM crops and a comprehensive shift to sustainable agriculture. I hope the Assembly will support this call!
Plenary lecture to the People's Health Assembly 2, 17-22 July 2005, Cuenca, Ecuador. For further information please visit the Institute of Science in Society website: http://www.i-sis.org.uk
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
ISIS Press Release 16/08/05 GMOs and Human Health
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho told the People's Health Assembly that GM is proving bad for health because it goes against the grain of the new genetics science
A GMO or genetically modified organism is one whose natural genetic material has been modified by having synthetic genetic material inserted into it. That is how we have GM crops grown for food and feed, for fibre and for a range of pharmaceuticals and industrial products in the latest offering, if we don't manage to stop it.
Maybe you have heard the mantra from certain scientists that GM food is perfectly safe because the technology is so very precise and wonderful and the regulation the strictest in the world; that GM is good for biodiversity, increases yield, reduces pesticide use, and so on. All of the claims have been falsified, with data collected by the US Department of Agriculture and by independent scientists .
The World Health Organization has just issued a report, Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: an evidence-based study (23 June 2005) claiming that although there may be potential risks involved in the use of GMOs, the GM crops that are grown today are not likely to present health risks.
Yet there has been a string of incidents indicating GM food and feed are far from safe. These include studies carried out by biotech companies producing the GM crops, which they have kept secret under confidential business information.
* Kidney and blood abnormalities in rats fed one of Monsanto's GM maize in Monsanto's secret dossier.
* Villagers in the south of the Philippines who suffered mysterious illnesses when another GM maize came into flower in a nearby field two years in a row. Antibodies to the Bt protein inserted into the GM maize were found in the villagers.
* A dozen cows that died after eating a third GM maize made by Syngenta, and others in the herd had to be slaughtered because of mysterious illnesses. Autopsies failed to be carried out, which is why Greenpeace and farmers are demonstrating in front of the Robert Koch Institute
* Senior scientist Arpad Pusztai and colleagues in Scotland found young rats fed GM potatoes ended up with damage in every organ system; the most dramatic being an increase in thickness of the stomach lining to twice that in controls. Scientists in Egypt found similar effects in mice fed GM potatoes with another gene.
* The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early 1990s that rats fed GM tomatoes had developed small holes in their stomach.
To cut a long story short, different species of GM food and feed crops with different genes had adversely affected several species of animals. You don't have to be a scientific genius to see that there may be something in the genetic engineering process itself that's harmful . So what's wrong with GMOs? First, new genes and combinations of genes made in the laboratory, which have never existed in billions of years of evolution, are being introduced into our food chain.
Allergies and other toxicities come to mind. In fact, 22 out of 33 proteins incorporated into GM crops were found to have similarities to known allergens, and are therefore suspected allergens. The synthetic genetic material are introduced into the cells of organisms with invasive methods that are uncontrollable, unreliable and unpredictable, and far from precise.
It ends up damaging the natural genetic material of the organism with many unpredictable, unintended effects, including gross abnormalities that you can see, and metabolic changes that may be toxic that you can't see. Many foreign synthetic genes are copies of those from bacteria and viruses that cause diseases. They also contain antibiotic resistance marker genes to help track the movements of the foreign gene inserts and select for cells that have taken up the foreign genes.
Right from the beginning, in the mid1970s, geneticists themselves have worried that releasing those synthetic genetic material runs the risk of creating new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and spreading antibiotic resistance to make infections untreatable. As the result of the Asilomar Declaration, a moratorium was imposed. Unfortunately, the moratorium was short-lived, as geneticists were in a hurry for commercial exploitation of genetic engineering. The dangers arise because the genetic material persists long after the cells or organism is dead, and can be taken up by bacteria and viruses that are in all environments
This process - called horizontal gene transfer and recombination - is the main route to creating dangerous pathogens. Genetic engineering is nothing if not greatly enhanced horizontal gene transfer and recombination, and nasty surprises have already been sprung.
Researchers in Australia ‘accidentally' transformed a harmless mousepox virus into a lethal pathogen that killed all the mice, even those that were supposed to be resistant to the virus. Headlines in the New Scientist editorial: “The Genie is out, Biotech has just sprung a nasty surprise. Next time, it could be catastrophic.”
The lead article continued in the same vein: “Disaster in the making. An engineered mouse virus leaves us one step away from the ultimate bioweapon.”
The researchers added a gene coding for an immune signalling molecule to the virus, which they thought would boost antibody production; instead, it suppressed immune responses. The researchers had previously put the same gene into a vaccinia virus and found it delayed the clearance of virus from the animals, so it may well have the same immune suppressive effects for all viruses. Imagine what would happen if this gene ever got into a smallpox virus!
More surprisingly, researchers at the University of California in Berkeley found that disrupting a set of disease-causing genes in Mycobacterium tuberculosis , the tuberculosis bacterium, resulted in a hyper-virulent mutant strain that killed all the mice by 41 weeks, while all the control mice exposed to the unmodified bacterium survived.
There is yet another insidious danger. The synthetic genes created for genetic modification are designed to cross species barriers and to jump into the natural genetic material of cells. Such constructs jumping into the natural genetic material of human cells can trigger cancer .
This is not just a theoretical possibility. It has happened in gene therapy, which is genetic modification of human cells.
In 2000, researchers in the Neckar Hospital in Paris, France treated infants with X- linked Severe Combined Immune Deficiency apparently successfully by isolating bone marrow cells from the patients, applying gene therapy, and then injecting the genetically modified cells back into the patients. But since 2002, 3 infants have developed leukaemia. One child has died. The foreign synthetic gene has inserted near a human gene that controls cell division, making it overactive, resulting in uncontrollable multiplication of the white blood cells.
I have only scratched the surface of the problems and hazards of genetic modification. But you can already see that there has been a massive campaign of misinformation and disinformation on the part of the GM proponents. The greatest danger, I think, is the mindset of the GM proponents
Genetic engineering of plants and animals began in the mid 1970s under the illusion that the genetic material is constant and static and the characteristics of organisms are hardwired in their genes. One gene determines one characteristic. But geneticists soon discovered to their great surprise that the genetic material is dynamic and fluid, in that both the expression and structure of genes are constantly changing under the influence of the environment. Geneticists have coined the term, “the fluid genome”, which encapsulated this major paradigm change. The genome is the totality of all the genetic material in an organism.
The processes responsible for the fluid genome are precisely orchestrated by the organism as a whole in a dance of life that's necessary for survival. In contrast, genetic engineering in the lab is crude, imprecise and invasive. The rogue genes inserted into a genome to make a GMO can land anywhere in any form and has a tendency to be unstable, basically because these rogue genes do not know the language of the dance. Genetic engineers haven't learned to dance with life.
That is why dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries launched ourselves as the Independent Science Panel, to overcome the campaign of disinformation from pro-GM scientists who are working to promote the corporate agenda, and to reclaim science for the public good. We compiled all the evidence against GM crops as well as the evidence on the successes and benefits of all forms of sustainable non-GM agriculture. Based on this evidence, we are calling for a ban on the environmental releases of GM crops and a comprehensive shift to sustainable agriculture. I hope the Assembly will support this call!
Plenary lecture to the People's Health Assembly 2, 17-22 July 2005, Cuenca, Ecuador. For further information please visit the Institute of Science in Society website: http://www.i-sis.org.uk
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
Starmail - 16. Aug, 14:23
