0. MAJOR CHANGES
0.1. Arguments that are specific to particular GE traits like
herbicide-tolerant crops, Bt crops, recombinant
hormones,
promoters, antibiotic-resistance markers,
etc. have been marked
appropriately (e.g., HT, BT, RBGH, CAMV, ARM,
and so on).
0.2. Headers have been modified to reflect industry claims, which have
been put under the following general headings:
safety claims,
scientific claims, economic claims, legal
claims, moral claims,
and quality claims.
1. ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT
1.1. This document aims to support the campaign against the risks of
genetic engineering (GE). It will try to summarize
all claims
made by the proponents of GE, and the responses
by the critics of
GE. Supporting data and summaries of scientific
studies will be
included as much as possible.
1.2. I welcome suggestions, corrections, improvements and new
information to this document. Most important
are corrections to
factual or argumentation errors/weaknesses.
Style, syntax and
grammar corrections are also welcome. My real
role is to
coordinate what will hopefully be a worldwide
group effort.
1.3. Contributions we are most interested in are of two types: a)
facts, together with the source or URL, preferably
both; source
can be an email posting or news item, but
scientific publications
are preferred; peer-reviewed articles are
even better; b)
arguments, whether for or against GE; we also
want the strongest
arguments of the other side, so we can research
how they may be
answered properly.
1.4. IMPORTANT: When sending me a suggested change or addition, please
do not (repeat: DO NOT) send me back the full
edited document.
Send only the paragraph(s) you want to add/change,
the version
number of the document you have (e.g., v0.2),
and the section
heading of the paragraph (e.g., 1.4).
1.5. Updated versions of this document will be released regularly at
the GENTECH (gentech@ping.de) and BAN (ban@tao.ca)
mailing lists.
You are welcome to post this document on any
other mailing list
or website, but please post it in its entirety.
1.6. Some conventions: + is an argument in favor; - is against; ++ or
-- means this item is a new entry or is an
edited version of its
earlier counterpart; * is for useful data
which is neither for or
against GE.
2. SAFETY CLAIMS: GE-FOODS ARE SAFE
+ We have been doing biotech for thousands of years.
- We have been
doing traditional biotechnology
(fermentation, conventional breeding, etc.)
for a long time; but
modern biotechnology or genetic engineering
is a very recent
development, and the first commercial products
were released only
in the early 1990s. If we look at our experience
at DDT and other
toxic chemicals (produced by the more or less
same firms now
engaged in GE), it took some 20-30 years to
determine they were
bioaccumulating through the food chain and
causing cancers and
around 50 years to determine that they were
mimicking some human
hormones and disrupting our endocrine systems.
+ GE is just an extension of conventional breeding.
- GE and conventional
breeding are radically different.
Conventional breeding works only within the
same or closely
related species (e.g., bacteria to bacteria,
corn with corn, pigs
with pigs, etc.) In contrast, GE involves
mixing genes from very
distantly related species that in nature will
never breed with
each other (e.g., bacteria to corn, or pig
to human beings).
- Actually GE
is a new, experimental, very dangerous, AND
radical technology. The process causes unnatural
mutation and
combination of the DNA in our food in a manner
which excludes
nature out of the process. This means we and
our children are now
eating lab-created, mutated and experimental
"fake" food. They
are experimenting, not only with us and with
our children, but
with the entire food chain. (From: pmligotti@earthlink.net)
- Whoever argues
that GE is no different from conventional
breeding is probably laying the groundwork
for the concept of
"substantial equivalence", that the products
of genetic
engineering are as safe as the products of
conventional breeding.
This dubious concept is often used as excuse
to avoid thorough
and rigorous testing.
+ Horizontal
gene tranfer across distant species occurs in
nature. Natural broad-species vectors exist;
some do replicate in
Gram- bacteria, others only in Gram+. There
are also vectors
which replicate in Gram- and Gram+ bacteria,
and some organisms
transfer DNA to plants (eg Agrobacterium tumefaciens,
A.
rhizogenes)
- Where horizontal
gene transfer occurs in nature, it is
often in connection with the emergence of
more virulent or new
pathogens. GE is inherently risky because
it uses the same
mechanism to facilitate the insertion of foreign
genes through
bacterial or viral vectors.
+ GE is much
more precise than conventional breeding.
- GE is only
precise in so far as the foreign genes which
will be inserted into a target organism are
known. But GE has no
control where into the target organism's genome
the foreign genes
will be inserted. The insertion site is totally
random and
unpredictable. Since genes do not operate
in isolation, but
interact in a complicated way and change their
behaviour in
response to influences from nearby and even
distant genes, the
behaviour of the transformed target organism
is also
unpredictable.
+ There are techniques
that ensure a precise integration
into the genome (eg double recombination using
a suicide gene or
by using chimeraplasty which precisely changes
an already
existing gene)
- The commercially-available
GE-crops did not use these new
experimental techniques, but random techniques
like the "gene
gun" or bioballistics.
+ Even with random
methods, it is possible to determine the
insertion site(s) afterward and choose clones
accordingly.
- Even after
the insertion site has been determined, the
interaction between the inserted promoter
and miscellaneous
foreign genes on the one hand and the neighboring
genes on the
other hand must still be determined. We know
too little today
about most target genomes to determine these
interactions
precisely.
- There is no
data documenting the stability of any
transgenic line in gene expression, or in
structure and location
of the insert in the genome. Such data must
include the level of
gene expression, as well as a genetic map
and DNA base sequence
of the insert and its site of insertion in
the host genome in
each successive generation. No such
information has been
provided by industry, nor requested by regulatory
authorities.
(32) (See: "Will genetically engineered crops
mean adulterated
and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?",
Michael W. Fox, Senior
Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of
the United States 2100
L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)
+ Crop varieties
developed through conventional breeding do
not undergo feeding tests. Why should GE varieties?
- GE destabilizes
the target genome, so it involves
inherently higher risks than conventional
breeding. Thus we
should assume that GE varieties are unsafe
unless proven
otherwise through thorough long-term testing.
Traditional
varieties of food crops have evolved with
us for thousands of
years, and can be assumed to be safe unless
proven otherwise.
Modern hybrids may or may not need to be rigorously
tested
depending on the situation.
+ Problems attributed
to GE-crops may also occur with
conventionally-bred hybrids especially when
breeding with wild
relatives.
- GE-crops are
inherently riskier, because the results of
the random insertions are unpredictable. When
we breed a natural
corn variety that is safe to eat with another
natural corn
variety that is also safe to eat, we can reasonably
assume that
the result would also be safe to eat, unless
proven otherwise. No
foreign genes have been introduced. If we
cause mutations through
GE (or even through high-intensity radiation),
we cannot
reasonably assume that the mutant is safe
to eat, without
thorough testing. If we breed this presumably
unsafe mutant with
a natural corn variety, we cannot assume that
the result is safe
to eat either.
- By 1992, there
were already 7 known instances of
unexpected results from GE. One can only imagine
how many more
there have been in the interim. (Bereano,
Philip and Nachama
Wilker, "Regulations for Genetically Engineered
Foods," Science,
Vol. 258, 4 Dec 1992, p. 1561-2)
- An example
of GE unpredictability: Bill Vencill of the
Univ of Georgia examined the effects of heat
on GE soya beans
after Georgia farmers alerted him to unexpected
crop losses,
esp. during Georgia's two hottest springs
since the beans were
launched in 1996. "In the years we saw the
problems, the soils
were reaching 40 to 50 C," says Vencill. His
team replicated
these conditions in lab growth chambers, comparing
the hardiness
of the Monsanto plants with conventional strains.
In soils that
reached only 25 C during the day, the GM Monsanto
beans grew as
well as other beans. But in warmer soils,
the GM plants appeared
stunted. In soils reaching 45 C, the differences
were marked.
Vencill described the findings at a British
Crop Protection
Council meeting in Brighton this week. "We
saw lower heights,
yields and weights in the Monsanto beans,"
says Vencill. Worse,
stems of nearly all the GE beans split open
as the first leaves
began to emerge compared with 50-70% of the
other test plants.
This had occurred on farms, but had been blamed
on fungal
disease. "Instead, we think the stem splits,
and it exposes the
plant to secondary infection," says Vencill.
Vencill suspects the
changes in plant physiology caused by the
addition of GE
resistance to glyphosate, the herbicide marketed
as Roundup by
Monsanto. These herbicide-resistant plants
have been shown to
produce up to 20 per cent more lignin, the
tough, woody form of
cellulose. "We think it might make the plants
more brittle," says
Vencill. (See: Andy Coghlan, New Scientist,
20 Nov 1999)
2.1. CLAIM: GE-FOODS ARE SAFE FOR HUMAN AND ANIMAL CONSUMPTION
- Summary: we
do not know enough yet; some studies justify
certain concerns about human and environmental
safety; more
studies need to be done; meanwhile, based
on the precautionary
principle, we must assume that GE foods are
not safe and take the
necessary precautions.
2.1.1. CLAIM: GE- AND CONVENTIONAL FOODS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT
+ We have established
the substantial equivalence between
commercial GE foods and their conventional
counterparts.
Therefore, we can assume that GE foods are
as safe as their
conventional counterpart.
+ In September
1996, WHO and the FAO convened an expert
consultation on GE-food safety in Rome, which
adopted the same
industry line that: 1) safety issues in GE-foods
were "basically
of the same nature" as in foods from conventional
breeding; 2)
the substantial equivalence concept can be
used to show GE-food
safety; and 3) once substantial equivalence
is shown, "no further
safety consideration is needed." (See: "Biotechnology
and food
safety: Report of a joint WHO/FAO consultation",
Rome, Italy, 20
Sep - 4 Oct 1996)
- The 1996 WHO/FAO
report made clear that the participants
were invited "in their individual capacities
and not as
representative of any organization, affiliation
or government."
So the report describes individual opinions
and not official WHO
or FAO position. (See: "Biotechnology and
food safety: Report of
a joint WHO/FAO consultation", Rome, Italy,
20 Sep - 4 Oct 1996,
p.1)
- Biotech firms
often refer to this 1996 report to falsely
claim that the "WHO/FAO have declared that
Bt corn [or some other
GE-product] is as safe as its conventional
equivalent for animal
and human consumption." Yet, the WHO and the
FAO themselves have
no such official position.
+ The U.S. FDA
has declared that GE crops are as safe as
their conventional counterpart.
+ On May 18,
1994, the US FDA announced that a GE tomato
was as safe as conventional tomato. In a nutshell,
the FDA
position is that labeling isn't required unless
a GE product
"differs significantly from its conventional
counterpart" - if
it contains a new sweetener, for example -
or if it introduces
an allergen. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.;
Knight Ridder/Tribune
Business News)
- Because the
FDA accepted the concept of substantial
equivalence, it did not require feeding and
other rigorous tests
that pharmaceuticals or food additives normally
require. (See
also "Revolving door" under "Government/Industry
collusion")
- Confidential
documents made public in an on-going class
action lawsuit have revealed that the FDAs
own scientists do not
agree with concept of "substantial equivalence
between GE and
normal seeds.
- The U.S. Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act prescribes that
additives like the foreign genes in GE foods
can only be
recognized as safe based on tests that have
shown the foods are
harmless. But no such tests exist for GM foods.
So, although the
GRAS exemption was meant for substances whose
safety has already
been shown through testing, the FDA is using
it to avoid testing
and to approve substances based largely on
conjecture - one that
is dubious in the eyes of its own and many
other experts. (Steven
M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the
Alliance for
Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit
against the FDA to
obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling
of GE foods)
+ GE foods vary
from non-GE foods only in the characteristic
that has been modified.
- The random
insertion of foreign genes into the genetic
material may cause unexpected changes in the
functioning of other
genes. Existing molecules may be manufactured
in incorrect
quantities, at the wrong times, or new molecules
may be produced.
GE foods and food products may therefore contain
unexpected
toxins or allergenic molecules that could
harm our health or that
of our offspring. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic
Engineering",
Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering,
Dunedin
Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the
SANET list)
- A study published
July 1, 1999 in the Journal of
Medicinal Food presents new information about
biologically active
components in GM soybeans resistant to Monsanto's
Roundup
herbicide. Dr. Marc Lappe, Director of the
Center for Ethics and
Toxics (CETOS) and principal investigator
says, "Based on
corporate representations, the phytoestrogen
concentrations of
Monsanto's Roundup Ready and conventional
soybeans were supposed
to be equivalent. But the initial industry
studies were performed
on unsprayed soybeans. We found significant
differences when we
examined herbicide-sprayed soybeans analogous
to those used in
foods. The study shows an overall reduction
in phytoestrogen
levels of 12-14 percent in the genetically
altered soybean
strains. Most of this reduction was
attributable to reductions
in genistin and to a lesser extent daidzin
levels, which were
significantly lower in modified compared to
conventional soybeans
in both strains. The apparent differences
found may be an
important discovery because consumers tend
to buy soy products
for their naturally occurring phytoestrogens
which are thought to
protect against breast cancer, heart disease,
and osteoporosis.
As GE strains replace conventional ones, any
differences in
phytoestrogen levels becomes increasingly
important." (See:
"Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens
in
Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans",
Maryanne
Liebert Publishers, J. of Medicinal Food,
Vol. 1 No. 4, 1999) (6
Jul 1999) <http://www.cetos.org>
+ FDA can demand
extensive safety testing if the new gene
"differs substantially" from those generally
found in other food.
- That's a hollow
promise. All 44 crops that so far have
gained FDA marketing approval have avoided
scrutiny because FDA
has accepted the industry's claims that they
are "substantially
equivalent" to conventional food. (See: Rick
Weiss, Washington
Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
- Some scientists
have questioned substantial equivalence as
"a commercial and political judgment masquerading
as if it were
scientific... primarily to provide an excuse
for not requiring
biochemical or toxicological tests." (See:
Letter to Nature by
Erik Millstone, Eric Brunner and Sue Mayer,
7 Oct 1999) (http:)
- The Codex Alimentarius
itself, the UN agency which WHO and
the FAO defer to on food safety issues, has
not adopted the
concept for its food safety assessments. (See:
) (http:)
- The British
Medical Association rejected the notion that
GM foods should be assumed to be safe when
they are said to be
substantially equivalent to their conventional
counterparts,
which is the basis of U.S. regulation of biotech
foods. "This
concept does not account for gene interaction
of unexpected
kinds, which may take place in GM foods,"
the BMA asserts. "The
possibility that certain novel genes inserted
into food may cause
problems to humans is a real possibility,
and 'substantial
equivalence' is a rule which can be used to
evade this biological
fact." (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification
on Agriculture,
Food and Health", British Medical Association,
May 1999)
- In March 1998
a letter in the UK's Farmers Weekly
reported that livestock on farms from Nebraska
to Iowa were not
grazing, as in the past, in fields of Bt corn.
Unpalatability of
the Bt stalks was suspected. One farm specialist
from Dawson
County, Nebraska, reportedly said: "At first
we thought it was a
joke, but I have heard it enough now that
we are looking into
what could be going on." (See: Farmers Weekly,
UK, Mar 1998)
<http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmanimalgrazing.htm>
- Animals reject
"substantial equivalence"? After four
months of hearing anecdotes from Kansas to
Wisconsin, it is time
to collect stories more thoroughly from farmers:
About the hogs
that wouldn't eat ration when GMO crops were
included. About one
farmer who said "if you want your cattle to
go off their feed,
just switch them out to a GMO silage." About
another whose cattle
broke through an old fence and ate down the
non-GMO hybrids but
wouldn't touch the Roundup Ready corn, though
"they had to walk
through the GMOs to get to the Pioneer 3477
on the other side."
About the cattle whose weight-gain fell off
when switched over to
GMO sources. About the organic farmer with
a terrible deer
problem on his soybeans, who drives out at
night, and sees 40 of
them mowing down his tofu beans while across
the road not one doe
is eating on the Roundup Readies. About the
raccoons romping by
the dozen in the organic corn, while down
the road not one ear
has been touched in the Bt fields. Even the
mice will move on
down the line if given an alternative to these
"crops". (See:
ACRES USA Special Report, 18 Sep 1999 by Steven
Sprinkel,
Yankton, South Dakota)
- Rodents reject
"substantial equivalence"? Consider the
Flavr Savr tomato, which was given a gene
to delay its ripening.
When scientists tried to feed rodents the
tomatoes, however, the
animals wouldn't eat them, recalled Roger
Salquist, a scientist
involved in creating the Flavr Savr. "I gotta
tell you, you can
be Chef Boyardee and mice are still not going
to like them." They
went so far as to force-feed the rodents through
gastric tubes
and stomach washes. This made the rodents
sick, and revealed
nothing about the tomato's safety. The tomato
ultimately won
approval from the FDA but failed in the market
in part because it
was so expensive. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington
Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
- Although these
novel products are different enough to be
patented, the biotech industry and U.S. regulatory
agencies say
they are no different from their natural counterparts.
For this
reason, the U.S. FDA requires no pre-market
testing on animal or
human subjects (as would be required of new
drugs or food
additives) nor any labeling. "There isn't
any difference between
a GM product and a natural food in terms of
its impact on
consumer health," says Jim Maryanski, biotech
coordinator for
FDA, which oversees the safety of fruits,
vegetables and other GE
food products. FDA only requires a label if
a product contains a
known allergen or is nutritionally different
- for example if a
GM orange had more or less vitamin C, he says.
2.1.2. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT CAUSE ALLERGIC REACTIONS
- One GE product
you won't find on the market is a soybean
to which genes from a Brazil nut had been
introduced. A New
England Journal of Medicine article in early
1996 suggested the
GM soybean could cause reactions in people
allergic to Brazil
nuts. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl of Johnson, Iowa
- which had developed
the soybean and later funded that allergy
study - said it won't
market the soybean because of the allergy
potential. (Aberdeen
American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune
Business News)
* Pioneer Hi-Bred,
the giant seed company, asked University
of Nebraska scientist Steve Taylor in 1995
to study a new soybean
they had invented. Pioneer had spliced a Brazil
nut gene into
soybean, to make it more protein-rich. Taylor
was to check if the
GM soybean would affect people allergic to
Brazil nuts, a serious
concern because such people wouldn't think
to avoid soy. Just one
of the nut's thousands of proteins was put
into Pioneers' new
soybean, and the odds of that one causing
the nut's allergies
were incredibly low, Taylor said. But one
test, then another, and
finally a third showed that the GE protein
was indeed a major
cause of Brazil nut allergies. In trying improve
the soybean,
Pioneer had made it potentially more deadly;
it quickly halted
the soybean project. Taylor's study is symbolic
of all that is
both scary and reassuring about GM food. It
proved that GM food
could cause an unexpected and potentially
fatal reaction. But the
problem was detected before the product was
marketed. Symbolic
because it was, and still is, one of the very
few studies ever to
look directly for any harm from a GE food
or crop. That dearth of
studies is the legacy of a U.S. policy that
treats GM plants and
food to be substantially the same as conventional
ones. (See:
Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
+ This was a
very predictable situation. The soya allergy
was caused by the same protein that was responsible
for allergic
reactions to Brazil nuts.
- If the allergy
was predictable, why did Pioneer even
attempt to create that GE-soya?
+ The fact that
the soya with the Brazil nut gene was
recalled and not commercialized shows that
the regulatory system
worked.
- The system
may have worked in that particular case. How
about all the other cases of commercialized
GE-soya?
- A study by
the York Nutritional Laboratory, Europe's
leading specialists on food sensitivity, found
that health
complaints caused by soya - the ingredient
most associated with
GM foods - have increased by 50% in 1998.
Researchers said their
findings provide real evidence that GE food
could have a
tangible, harmful impact on the human body.
It is the first time
in 17 years of testing that soya has crept
into the laboratory's
top 10 foods to cause an allergic reaction
in consumers. John
Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory,
said: "We believe this
raises serious new questions about the safety
of GM foods because
it is impossible to guarantee that the soya
used in the tests was
GM-free." (See: UK Daily Express, 12 March
1999)
- FDA scientists
warn that GE foods could "produce a new
protein allergen" or "enhance the synthesis
of existing plant
food allergens." Without labeling, people
with certain food
allergies will not be able to know if they
might be harmed by the
food they're eating. (NYTimes full page ad,
18 Oct 1999)
- BT: A new study
of Ohio crop pickers and handlers finds
that Bt can provoke immunological changes
indicative of a
developing allergy. With long-term exposure,
affected individuals
might develop asthma or other serious allergic
reactions, notes
study leader I. Leonard Bernstein of the University
of Cincinnati
College of Medicine. (See: Science News Online,
Vol 156 No 1, 3
Jul 1999). This means that people must avoid
ingesting even
"relatively safe" biopesticides like Bt.
- BT: A health
survey evaluated farm workers before the
spraying of Bt pesticides and 1 and 4 months
after the spraying.
Two groups of low and medium exposure workers
were also assessed.
While there was no evidence of occupationally-related
respiratory
disease, positive skin prick tests were seen
in exposed workers,
with a significant increase in the number
of positive tests to
spores 1 to 4 months after exposure to Bt.
The increase was more
significant in high rather than low exposure
workers. The study
concluded that exposure to Bt may lead to
allergic skin
sensitisation and induction of IgE antibodies
or IgG antibodies -
or both. (Bernstein J L et al. 1999. Immune
responses in farm
workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis
pesticides.
Environmental Health Perspectives. 107 (7):
575-582)
* BT: The EPA
has been asked to approve a new kind of Bt
corn toxin called cry9C, seen as a test case
of the degree of
risk the EPA is willing to accept. While other
versions of Bt
break down harmlessly in the human digestive
tract, cry9C can
survive digestion and remains stable in the
human stomach. Thus,
its potential to cause allergies is higher.
The FDA demands extra
allergy testing for new food with such stable
proteins. AgrEvo,
the German firm seeking cry9C approval, has
conducted some more
tests, including a comparison of cry9C's molecular
structure with
known allergy-causing proteins. So far, no
similarities have been
found. But as the EPA evaluates the corn for
human ingestion, the
reality is that there is no surefire way of
testing new proteins
like cry9C for their potential to trigger
allergies. (See: Rick
Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
2.1.3. CLAIM: GE-FOODS ARE NOT TOXIC
- A case in which
a GE-product might have resulted in toxic
contaminants: a Japanese firm that makes the
food supplement
L-tryptophan changed its production process
and switched to GE
bacteria, at the same time removing some steps
in their
purification process. The new process resulted
in a toxic
contaminant that could have come from the
GE-bacteria used in
producing the L-tryptophan. Before the product
could be recalled,
it had killed 37 and hospitalized 1,500.
<http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/NewsNov-Dec97/GENews12-23Trypt.htm>
- About 37 people
died and some 1,500 became sick after
Japanese company Showa Denko K.K. produced
the amino acid
tryptophan using GE - and inadvertently introduced
a toxin. A Web
site operated by survivors of the 1989 outbreak
agrees with those
basic facts, although one of the articles
posted there lists only
28 deaths. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.;
Knight Ridder/Tribune
Business News)
+ The L-tryptophan
contaminant came not from the GE-bacteria
but from a non-GE source which was overlooked
due to the change
in the purification process,
- A non-GE contaminant
cannot be ruled out. Unfortunately, A
mysterious fire destroyed all samples of the
GE-bacteria used for
the production process, making it impossible
for investigators to
conclusively determine the real cause. (See:
)
- According to
some FDA scientists, GE food may bring "some
undesirable effects such as increased levels
of known naturally
occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not
previously identified
toxicants, increased capability of concentrating
toxic substances
from the environment (e.g., pesticides or
heavy metals), and
undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients."
In other
words, scientists from the FDA itself suspect
that GE could make
foods toxic. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct
1999)
- Dr. Arpad Pusztai
found that a diet of potatoes engineered
to express the snowdrop lectin weakened rats'
immune systems and
adversely affected the kidney, thymus, spleen,
gut and brain of
the animals. If confirmed, Pusztai's conclusions
will reinforce
concerns that gene insertion itself may create
new toxins; it
will also implicate the toxin commonly used
in other GE-crops -
the Bt toxin which, Pusztai says, is also
a lectin.
+ The Royal Society
of London reviewed Pusztai's study and
found it flawed and unworthy of publication.
- After the Royal
Society's review, however, Pusztai
submitted the results of his study to The
Lancet, one of the
world's most prestigious medical journal,
which decided to
publish the study. (See: The Lancet, Oct 1999)
* The UK's Royal
Society has written to the Natural Law
Party indicating that it has called for Dr
Pusztai's work to be
repeated because of the outstanding uncertainties
it considers
arise from it. (From: "NLP Wessex" <nlpwessex@bigfoot.com>,
19
Nov 1999) In a way, this is a recognition
by the Royal Society
that Pusztai's work deserves to be taken seriously,
a reversal of
their earlier condemnation of Pusztai's work.
- The concern
of pediatric neurologist Dr. Martha Herbert of
the Council for Responsible Genetics is "the
immature gut and
immature body of infants." If introduced too
early, even proteins
that are normally part of our diet can lead
to auto-immune and
allergic reactions later on, she said. "If
a substance harms
adults, it may well harm babies, the sick
and the elderly more
severely, and after smaller exposures," Dr.
Herbert warned in her
June 1999 statement. (See: ) <http://>
+ BT: The Bt
formulation has been in use as a biopesticide
for decades and is not considered harmful
to human beings. It is
one of the few insecticides that organic farmers
are allowed to
use.
- BT: The Bt
biopesticide is relatively safe, compared to
chemical pesticides, but it is not completely
safe. The dried Bt
spores, for instance, may be harmful to the
human immune system.
French scientists at le Bouchet army research
labs found that the
spores caused lung inflammation, internal
bleeding and death in
lab mice. Last year, French scientists isolated
a Bt strain that
destroyed tissue in the wounds of a French
soldier in Bosnia. The
strain, known as H34, also infected wounds
in immuno-suppressed
mice. Now the same team has found that H34
can kill mice with
intact immune systems if they inhale the spores.
Francoise
Ramisse of le Bouchet and her colleagues found
that healthy mice
inhaling 108 spores of Bt H34 died within
eight hours from
internal bleeding and tissue damage. (See:
New Scientist, 29 May
1999)
+ BT: Spores
from mutants of the Bt H34 strain which did not
produce the toxin were equally lethal to mice,
suggesting that
the Bt toxin was not to blame. Researchers
think the symptoms are
caused by other toxins. The bacterium's close
cousin, Bacillus
cereus, produces a toxin that ruptures cell
membranes. And in
1991, Japanese researchers showed that B.
thuringiensis produces
the same toxin. (See: New Scientist, 29 May
1999)
+ BT: Since the
natural Bt toxin is relatively safe, then
the GE-toxin in corn is safe too.
- BT: The Bt
corn toxin is not identical to the natural
toxin. The natural Bt gene which produces
the toxin was
substantially modified before it was transferred
to corn. The
toxin gene in Bt corn is a truncated version
(at both 5' and 3'
ends) of the Bt toxin and is the smallest
fragment that still
possesses toxicity to insects. (See: M. Vaeck
et al. Nature 328,
33-37, 1987, as cited by Heine Deelstra).
* BT: Why is it a bad thing if they are not identical?
- BT: This means
that, unlike the natural Bt toxin, the Bt
corn toxin has never existed in nature, until
Bt corn started
synthesizing it. It is risky to put into our
gut any substance
which our gut has never seen before, because
we have not evolved
to handle such a substance. In our experience
with synthetic
chemicals, this has led to various long-term
problems like
cancers.
+ BT: The Bt
natural gene produces a large, inactive
pro-toxin that is about 1200 amino acids in
length. This
pro-toxin releases upon digestion by proteases
(in the insects
gut) an active 68,000 Dalton fragment. So
the pro-toxins of
plants and Bt may differ in length, while
the active toxic
fragment is exactly the same in size and mode
of action.
Truncation of sequences before and after the
'toxic fragment'
might affect, due to folding differences,
(1) the crystallisation
properties and (2) the susceptibility to proteases
of the
pro-toxin. The occurrence of (1) and/or (2)
are not known to me.
(Heine J. Deelstra <h.j.deelstra@bioledu.rug.nl>,
on GENTECH
list)
- BT: The Bt
corn toxin is up to 100 times more powerful
than the natural toxin. This is part of the
high-dose strategy
which supposedly delays the development of
resistance in corn
borers. However, such high doses may also
be riskier to
non-target species, including human beings
who ingest the toxin
when they eat Bt corn.
- BT: The expression
of the full-length [Bt] toxin was too
low to achieve pest resistance in plants other
than tobacco
(against the tobacco hornworm) and tomato
plants. Toxin levels
were so low that protection was not attained
against less
sensitive, but agronomically-important insect
pests. Researchers
then modified part of the Bt toxin coding
sequence so that it was
efficiently expressed (and translated) in
plants. This was done
by using a synthetic toxin gene for amino
acids 1-453 (coding for
the same amino acids as the natural Bt toxin
gene but using
codons preferred by plants) and fusing this
with the (natural)
gene fragment encoding for amino acids 454-615.
The rest of the
bacterial gene (amino acids 616-1178) was
not used. Expression of
this gene in cotton plants showed that Bt
toxin levels were
increased by 100 times and that Bt toxin constituted
0.02% of the
protein in the plant. (See: Recombinant DNA,
2nd edition by James
D. Watson et al. and Moleculaire Biologie
van Schimmels en
Planten (in Dutch), 1998 by Prof. J.G.H Wessels,
as cited by
Deelstra)
- The genetically
engineered sweetener Aspartame has caused
thousands of documented disease cases worldwide.
(From:
pmligotti@earthlink.net)
2.1.4. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT CAUSE CANCER
- HT: Since herbicide-resistant
GE-crops lead to greater
herbicide use, cancer risk can also come from
exposure to higher
levels of herbicides like bromoxynil (Rhone-Poulenc's
Buctril)
and glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup). Authors
Marc Lappe and Britt
Bailey (Against the Grain, 1998) warn that
bromoxynil
bioaccumulates, because it is fat-soluble.
Rat and rabbit studies
have shown birth defects, other developmental
disorders in
fetuses, tumors, and carcinomas at levels
ranging from 20 to 300
parts per million. (See: Lappe, Marc and Britt
Bailey; Against
the Grain, 1998) (http:)
- HT: Glyphosate
exposure, on the other hand, can triple the
risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, say cancer
specialists Dr.
Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of
Sweden's Orebro
Hospital, in a study published in the American
Cancer Society
journal (See: Cancer, 3/15/99) (http:)
- RBGH: U.S.
food campaigner Robert Cohen warns about the
hormone Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1),
identical versions
of which occur in cows and humans. In 1994,
Cohen says, the U.S.
FDA approved the use of a GE-hormone (rBGH)
in cows to stimulate
milk production. Using rBGH raises IGF-1 levels
in cows' milk by
80%. IGF-1, Cohen warns, is a key factor in
prostrate cancer
(Science, 1/98), breast cancer (The Lancet,
5/98), and lung
cancer (Journal of the NCI, 1/99). Most recently,
Cohen cites a
report in the Journal of the American Dietetic
Association
(10/99, p.1231), which found IGF-1 levels
in the blood of milk
drinkers 10% higher than in non-drinkers.
The implication:
GE-milk exposes its drinkers to higher cancer
risks. (See: )
- RBGH: On December
15, 1998, the Center for Food Safety, on
behalf of a broad coalition, filed a legal
petition in
Washington, D.C. against the FDA to have rBGH
taken off the
market. The CFS petition cites mounting evidence
that the
original testing of rBGH was flawed. In 1990
the FDA said BGH was
"safe for human consumption." Part of its
findings were based on
90-day rat feeding studies in which they reported
"no
toxicologically significant changes..." Based
largely on this
conclusion, FDA did not require human toxicological
tests usually
required for a veterinary drug. However in
April 1998,
researchers from Health Canada, the Canadian
equivalent to FDA,
issued a report contradicting FDA's findings.
Canadian
researchers found studies showing that rats
were absorbing rBGH
after all. In fact, between 20 and 30 percent
of the rats were
developing distinct immunological reactions.
Additionally, cysts
formed in the thyroid of some male rats and
infiltrated the
prostate - both warning signs for potential
cancer hazards.
- RBGH: Milk
from cows injected with rBGH, which is not
analogous to normal BGH (7), has elevated
insulin-like growth
factor that is implicated as a risk factor
in human breast cancer
(8,9). (See: "Will genetically engineered
crops mean adulterated
and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?",
Michael W. Fox, Senior
Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of
the United States 2100
L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)
- RBGH: The EU
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and
Animal Welfare on Animal Health Aspects of
the Use of Bovine
Somatotropin, rBST, (adopted March 10th 1999)
has recommended
that, due to foot problems, mastitis and injection
site reactions
in dairy cows, rBST from an animal welfare
and health point of
view, should not be used. This is an important
recommendation
given the upcoming vote on rBST in International
Trade.
- RBGH: At the
previous 22nd Codex session, the Codex
Alimentarius Commission decided to suspend
the consideration of
Maximum Reside Limits for rBGH. The reason
for the suspension was
so that scientific data could be re-evaluated.
Since then, there
has been more evidence that rBGH is not safe.
The 23rd Session of
the Codex Alimentarius Commission was held
in Rome, June 28 -
July 3, 1999. Since the U.S. realized that
they were not going to
win on this issue, they essentially dropped
it.
+ These examples
are not due to the effect of GE but rather
the use of the chemicals or hormones.
- HT:/RBGH: But
the higher cancer risks are the consequence
of GE products (more herbicide residues in
food, higher IGF-1
levels in milk, etc.). People would not have
been exposed to
these risks if HT crops or rBGH had not been
developed.
2.1.5. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO PATHOGENS
- "The evidence
is now overwhelming that horizontal gene
transfer has been responsible for both the
rapid spread of
antibiotic resistance and for the emergence
of virulent strains
of pathogens in recent years... One main contributing
factor to
the recent increase in the scope and frequency
of horizontal gene
transfers may be the deliberate acts of genetic
engineers to
break down species barriers. They do so by
constructing a range
of chimaeric vectors for cloning, and transferring
genes... Thus,
genetic engineering biotechnology has opened
effectively opened
up highways for horizontal gene transfer and
recombination, where
previously, there was only restricted access
through narrow,
tortuous footpaths." (See: Mae Wan-Ho, Terje
Traavik, Orjan
Olsvik, Tore Midtvedt, Beatrix Tappeser, C.
Vyvyan Howard,
Christine von Weizsaecker, and George C. McGavin;
Gene Technology
in the Etiology of Drug-resistant Diseases,
1998.
+ Their conclusion
is unsupported by there data; no recent
increase of transfer has been observed.
- In May 1999,
the British Medical Association, which
counts some 80% or nearly 115,000 of Britain's
medical doctors,
issued an official statement in May 1999 expressing
concern over
the safety of GE-foods. The BMA recommended
a moratorium on
planting commercial GE-crops in the UK "until
there is scientific
consensus (or as close agreement as reasonably
achievable) about
the potential long-term environmental effects."
The BMA also
called for 1) segregation at source, "to enable
identification
and traceability" of GE-foods; 2) labelling
GE-imports and
banning unlabelled ones, if the industry refuses
to segregate;
and 3) more robust systems of disease surveillance,
to deal with
"potential emergence of new diseases associated
with GM material
which will be obscure and difficult to diagnose".
(See: "The
Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture,
Food and Health",
British Medical Association, May 1999)
- Mae Wan-Ho
and Angela Ryan of the UK Open University
warned last July 1999 that "no transgenic
plant containing the
CaMV promoter should be released," because
the Cauliflower Mosaic
Virus (CaMV) promoter is "very likely to recombine
with other DNA
in the host genome, including dormant viral
DNA, as well as with
other viruses in the host cell." The problem
covers practically
all GE-plants released so far. These GE-plants,
according to
Ryan, "have the potential to create new viruses
or other invasive
genetic elements." (See: )
- There is potential
for vector recombination to generate
new virulent strains of viruses, especially
in transgenic plants
engineered for viral resistance with viral
genes. In plants
containing coat protein genes, there is a
possibility that such
genes will be taken up by unrelated viruses
infecting the plant.
In such situations, the foreign gene changes
the coat structure
of the viruses and may confer properties such
as changed method
of transmission between plants. The second
potential risk is that
recombination between RNA virus and a viral
RNA inside the
transgenic crop could produce a new pathogen
leading to more
severe disease problems. Some researchers
have shown that
recombination occurs in transgenic plants
and that under certain
conditions it produces a new viral strain
with altered host
range. (Steinbrecher, R.A. (1996) From Green
to Gene Revolution:
the environmental risks of genetically engineered
crops. The
Ecologist 26, 273-282. As cited in: "Ten reasons
why
biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel
A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset,
Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
- The Cauliflower
Mosaic Virus (CaMV) and HIV have
interchangeable components, according to five
researchers of the
John Innes Centre and Sainsbury Laboratory
(UK). (See John Innes
Centre Annual Report, 1998/1999) If they meet
in nature, they
could recombine to form chimeric viruses with
potentially
devastating properties. (jcummins@julian.uwo.ca,
6 Nov 1999) This
can happen, for instance, if pollen from a
GE plant is inhaled by
an HIV-positive or AIDS-stricken person.
- The 1999 UK
John Innes Centre and Sainsbury Laboratory
Annual report specifically acknowledges that
this particular
viral promoter is prone to 'recombination'
events (see
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/camv.htm
for more
information).
- One must consider
not only the "fate" of GMOs but also the
genes and viruses or parts thereof, that have
been inserted into
them. Such "naked DNA", in the form of recombinant
and modified
nucleic acids, has been found capable of surviving
and remaining
functional longer after organisms' death than
was assumed
previously.(6,30) Furthermore, xenobiotics,
especially dioxins
and various agrichemicals, can act as mutagens
(31), altering the
structure and sequence of DNA and also increasing
the
permeability of cells and the incorporation
of foreign DNA into
living organisms. (See: "Will genetically
engineered crops mean
adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?",
Michael W.
Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane
Society of the United
States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC
20037)
- The use of
the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral promoter (CaMV)
has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses
or create new
viruses in all species to which it is transferred.
CaMV is known
to be found in practically all current transgenic
crops released
commercially or undergoing field trials. This
transgenic
instability increases the possibility of promotion
of an
inappropriate over-expression of genes to
the transferred
species. The development of cancer may be
one consequence of such
inappropriate over-expression of genes. The
scientists behind the
research "strongly recommend that all transgenic
crops containing
CaMV 35S or similar promoters which are recombinogenic
should be
immediately withdrawn from commercial production
or open field
trials. All products derived from such crops
containing
transgenic DNA should also be immediately
withdrawn from sale and
from use for human consumption or animal feed".
(See: Mae-Wan Ho,
Angela Ryan, and Joseph Cummins, "Cauliflower
Mosaic Viral
Promotor - A recipe for Disaster?", Microbial
Ecology in Health
and Disease (Dec 1999).
2.1.6. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT CAUSE ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANCE
- Many GE-foods
contain antibiotic-resistance marker (ARM)
genes. These genes can be acquired by harmful
bacteria through
horizontal gene transfer, making it more difficult
to cure
diseases.
+ There is very
low probability that ARM genes in GE-plants
can transfer to pathogenic bacteria.
- In May 1999,
The British Medical Association called for a
"ban on the use of antibiotic resistance marker
genes in GM food,
as the risk to human health from antibiotic
resistance developing
in micro-organisms is one of the major public
health threats that
will be faced in the 21st Century." (See:
"The Impact of Genetic
Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health",
British Medical
Association, May 1999) (http:/)
+ Modified DNA
quickly breaks down in the gut, so it cannot
transfer antibiotic resistance
- Using an "artificial
gut", Dutch researchers showed that
DNA remains intact for several minutes in
the large intestine. If
the GE bacteria were a type normally found
in the gut, such as
Enterococcus, the experiment showed each had
a 1 in 10 million
chance of passing DNA containing ARM genes
to an native gut
bacterium when they came in contact. There
are normally around a
thousand billion gut bacteria, suggesting
that many would be
transformed. If some normal gut bacteria were
killed off - as in
the guts of people or animals in antibiotics
- the transfer rate
from gut-type bacteria increased tenfold.
(See: New Scientist, 30
Jan 1999)
- Safer New Screen
for GM Crops: Rockefeller University and
University of Singapore researchers can now
screen for GM crops
without having to insert an ARM gene. The
new method, described
in Nature, uses a gene that enhances a plant's
use of its own
growth hormones. (Irish Times, 13 Sep 1999)
If ARM genes are
safe, why are so much research funds being
spent looking for
alternatives to these genes?
+ Because plants with ARM genes won't sell, that's why.
- They won't
sell because medical doctors, like members of
the British Medical Association, have warned
against their
dangers.
- Countries which have banned the use of ARM genes: Norway
- Countries where
a ban on the use of ARM genes has been
proposed: Europe (See:)
2.1.7. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT AFFECT OUR IMMUNE SYSTEM
- Twenty two
leading scientists recently declared that
animal test results linking GE foods to immuno-suppression
are
valid. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999)
2.1.10. OTHERS
- HT: Lappe
and Bailey also noted the "remarkably high
estrogenic activity of soy isoflavones," elevated
levels of which
have been found in herbicide-treated GE-soya.
"If ingested by
nursing infants, these isoflavones can produce
circulating levels
equivalent to 13,000 to 22,000 times the normal
plasma estradiol
concentrations found in babies, with unknown
and potentially
dangerous secondary effects," they warned.
Early exposure to
estrogens, they wrote, is associated with
sex organ dysfunctions
and higher risks of vaginal adenocarcinoma
and other tumors.
(See: Lappe, Marc and Britt Bailey; Against
the Grain, 1998)
+ HT: On the
isoflavone statement reread
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1999/Jul-Aug/msg00200.html
(From: "H J
Deelstra" <H.J.Deelstra@bioledu.rug.nl>)
- The Scottish
Crop Research Institute and the University of
Dundee, reported that the snowdrop lectin
(the same lectin
Pusztai used in his GE-potato study) can bind
with human white
blood cells, raising questions about safety
of the lectin itself.
(See: The Lancet, Oct 1999) (http:)
2.2. CLAIM: GE-CROPS DON'T HARM THE ENVIRONMENT
- Summary: Once
released into the environment, live GE
organisms will be practically impossible
to recall and will be a
permanent source of genetic contamination
and pollution. We
therefore oppose field releases, including
field-testing, of
live GE organisms.
2.2.1. CLAIM: GENETIC CONTAMINATION (ESCAPE AND SPREAD) CAN BE AVOIDED
+ Pollen does
not travel very far. Isolation distances of
50-100 meters will prevent any genetic contamination.
- Pollen can
be carried by wind, bees and other insects,
birds, and other pollinators. Animals can
eat seeds and then
travel long distances. Their droppings can
contain viable seeds.
People can inadvertently transport seeds hundreds
or even
thousands of kilometers from the source.
- Studies in
Denmark, Scotland and Lower Saxony in Germany
have shown that GMO rapeseed can pass on its
traits to, not only
non-GMO rapeseed, but also weedy relatives
up to 2.5 km away.
This can lead to superweeds.
- Research by
the Scottish Crop Research Institute reported
at the Gene Flow in Agriculture: Revelence
for Transgeneic Crops
Conference, Keele University April 1999 (British
Crop Protection
Council Symposium Proceedings No 72) reported
oilseed rape pollen
at 4km from a field of oilseed rape.
- Scientists
from the Scottish Crop Research Institute in
Dundee have shown that as high as 7% of the
natural rape plants
in a field 400 meters away were pollinated
by GM pollen. They
said that oilseed rape pollen had been found
4 km away from the
nearest source - further than it had been
previously discovered.
They said "bees may be important pollen vectors
over a range of
distances" and concluded that "the results
suggest that
farm-to-farm spread of OSR [oilseed rape]
transgenes will be
widespread." (See: New Scientist, April 1999)
- The European
Commission has formulated 5-point emergency
plan if GE plants result in widespread illness
or death of
wildlife. The plan includes: 1) methods and
procedures for
controlling the GMOs in case of unexpected
spread; 2) methods for
decontamination of the areas affected and
eradication of the
GMOs; 3) methods for disposal or sanitation
of plants, animals,
soils, etc. exposed during and after the spread;
4) methods for
isolating area affected by spread; and 5)
plants for protecting
human health and environment in case undesirable
effects occur.
(See: Independent, London, 4 Apr 1999)
- Steve Jones
(professor of genetics, University College,
London): Those [transgenic] genes are going
to get out into other
plants. Everybody knows that. And we have
no idea what is going
to happen. (BBC, 12 Apr 1999)
- Spontaneous
hybrids and backcrosses occured between GE
oilseed rape and its weedy relative, Brassica
campestris, under
field conditions (Jorgensen, R.B. and B. Andersen.
1994.
Spontaneous hybridization between oilseed
rape (Brassica napus)
and weedy B. campestris (Brassicaceae): a
risk of growing
genetically modified oilseed rate. American
Journal of Botany
81:1620-1626, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999).
- HT: Transgenic,
herbicide-tolerant weed-like plants,
exhibiting high fertility and the same morphology
and chromosome
numbers as in the weedy relative, were produced
in field
experiments where GE herbicide-tolerant interspecific
hybrids
were grown together with the weedy relative.
(Mikkelsen, T.R.,
Andersen, B. and R.B.Jorgensen. 1996. The
risk of crop transgene
spread. Nature 380:31, as cited by Kapuscinski
1999)
- HT: Arabidopsis
thaliana, weed species often used for GE
studies, was found to be more prolific and
promiscuous when
genetically modified. This implies that GE
can substantially
increase the probability of transgene escape,
heightening the
risk of producing weedy or pest populations
of wild relatives. In
field studies, herbicide-resistant Arabidopsis
thaliana produced
by gene transfer of a resistance allele outcrossed
to wild
relatives roughly 20 times more often than
ordinary mutants
expressing the same mutant allele as the transgenic
plants.
(Bergelson, J., Purrington, C.B. and G. Wichmann.
1998.
Promiscuity in transgenic plants. Nature 395:
25, as cited by
Kapuscinski 1999)
- "This is only
the latest in a long list of field trials
showing that genetically engineered crops,
once released, are
totally uncontainable. They will become a
nightmare for
conventional farmers to control. For farmers
who do not want to
grow them, such as the organic sector, these
crops will be almost
impossible to avoid." (Dr. Michael Antoniou)
- John Innes
Centre, one of Europe's leading research
institute on GM crops, carried out research
commissioned by the
UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food. They reported: GE
crops will "inevitably" contaminate organic
crops. Pollen and
seed pollution by GE crops could not be avoided
entirely and
"acceptable levels" of contamination would
have to be set. They
estimated that 1% of organically-grown plants
in any one field
could become GM hybrids because of pollen
spread. They concluded
that contamination by seed or pollen cannot
be entirely
eliminated. (BBC, 17 Jun 1999)
- Scientists
have found GM pollen in beehives nearly 5km
from an official trial site, Friends of the
Earth said today.
These are the first published monitoring results
of GM pollen
from a farm-scale trial site and show GM pollen
travelling
further than ever previously detected. It
also reveals the scale
of the threat the trials pose to non-GM and
organic farmers,
beekeepers and the wider environment, said
Friends of the Earth.
The government's rules for farm-scale trials
require only a
50-metre separation between GM crops and other
fields. (Amanda
Brown, AAP, London, 30 Sep 1999)
- Scientists
have found GM oilseed rape pollen four and a
half kilometres from a trial site. Friends
of the Earth had
contracted the National Pollen Research Unit
at University
College, Worcester to monitor airborne pollen
on roads and public
rights of way around the farm scale trial
for spring oilseed rape
at Model Farm, Pirton, Near Watlington, Oxfordshire
in June and
July 1999. Pollen traps were placed on six
bee hives sited in the
area. Two were 500 metres from the crop, two
were 2.75 kilometres
from the crop and two were 4.5 km. The pollen
was collected and
analysed by a bee and honey consultant, Sarah
Brookes, of
Evesham, Worcestershire. Six samples of airborne
pollen and 6 of
beehive pollen were sent to the laboratory
of the Federal
Environment Agency in Austria for DNA analysis.
All six beehive
samples were found to contain GM oilseed rape
pollen from an
AgrEvo variety and 2 out of 6 airborne samples.
The Government's
rules for the farm scale trials require only
a 50 metre
separation distance between GM crops and other
fields. For seed
crops and organic crops the recommended distance
is 200m. The
trial shows GM pollen at distances further
than ever previously
detected and shows the scale of the threat
the trials pose to
non-GM crops, beekeepers and the wider environment
- HT: And scientists
are finding that some GE crops, such
as herbicide-resistant canola in Canada, are
cross-pollinating
with wild relatives more widely than had been
predicted, creating
hardy weeds that can survive herbicidal sprays.
(See: Rick Weiss,
Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
+ HT: Gary Barton
(Monsanto's director of biotechnology
communications): "Resistance can develop"
but superweeds - hybrid
plants resistant to herbicide - were not an
issue since they
could always be sprayed with other weedkillers
to which they were
not resistant. (See: Independent, London,
25 Apr 1999)
- HT: The potential
transfer through gene flow of genes
from herbicide resistant crops to wild or
semidomesticated
relatives can lead to the creation of superweeds.
(Lutman, P.J.W.
(ed.) (1999) Gene flow and agriculture: relevance
for transgenic
crops. British Crop Protection Council Symposium
Proceedings No.
72. Stafordshire, England. As cited in: "Ten
reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel
A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset,
Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
- HT: There is
potential for HT varieties to become serious
weeds in other crops (See: Duke l996, Holt
and Le baron l990).
(Duke, S.O. (1996) Herbicide resistant crops:
agricultural,
environmental, economic, regulatory, and technical
aspects, p.
420. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton; See also:
Holt, J.S. and H.M.
Le Baron (1990) Significance and distribution
of herbicide
resistance. Weed Technol. 4, 141-149. As cited
in: "Ten reasons
why biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel
A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset,
Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
- A scientific
report, carried out for the British
government in 1997 but not published until
now, concluded that GE
oilseed rape could breed with ordinary farmers'
crops and make
them inedible. The study, conducted by the
prestigious Scottish
Crops Institute for the Ministry of Environment,
says that
contamination of farmers' ordinary fields
is "inevitable" under
current farming practices. (UK Sunday Independent,
21 Feb 1999)
- Genetic contamination
and pollution can occur through live
DNA fragments.
- There is evidence
that foreign DNA can enter the body via
the gastrointestinal tract and cross the placenta
(1,2). (See:
"Will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated
and toxic
food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W.
Fox, Senior Scholar/
Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United
States 2100 L Street,
NW Washington, DC 20037)
- STRAINS of
farm-bred fish developed to grow fat quickly
are threatening to drive Britain's majestic
wild salmon into
extinction. Millions of GM fish have escaped
into the Atlantic
from offshore farms in Europe and America.
And the new strains
are mating with wild salmon, polluting their
gene pool and
producing hybrids that can't survive in the
open ocean. (Mail, 19
Sep 1999)
- Although the
ecological risks issue has received some
discussion in government, international, and
scientific circles,
discussions have often been pursued from a
narrow perspective
that has downplayed the seriousness of the
risks. (See: Kendall,
H.W., R. Beachy, T. Eismer, F. Gould, R.
Herdt, P.H. Ravon, J
Schell and M.S. Swaminathan (1997) Bioengineering
of crops.
Report of the World Bank Panel on Transgenic
Crops, World Bank,
Washington, D.C. p. 30; See also: Royal Society
(1998)
Genetically modified plants for food use.
Statement 2/98, p. 16.
London. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology
will not
ensure food security, protect the environment
and reduce poverty
in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri,
UC Berkeley and
Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development
Policy, Oakland,
CA)
-- Dr. Norman
Ellstrand (Professor of Genetics, University
of California, one of the world's leading
authorities in genetic
engineering) on the economic implications
for farmers of gene
exchange between crops and weedy relatives:
"We see this as a
multi-million dollar problem. In Europe, there
is already a big
problem with gene flow between wild beet and
cultivated beet.
Oil-seed rape also has close relatives and
is going to cause
problems in the future. One would expect that
the kind of genes
that are now being engineered are going to
be the ones that have
a higher potentiality for causing trouble."
(From: Protect
Organic! Campaign jasonab@mediaone.net (617)
661-5609)
2.2.2. CLAIM: GE-CROPS REDUCE CHEMICAL USE
+ GE crops will
reduce the use of herbicides, insecticides
and other chemicals.
+ BT: Prakash
of Tuskegee University points out that before
Bt corn was introduced, farmers controlled
the corn borer with
conventional insecticide sprays that are toxic
not only monarch
butterfly larvae but also other desirable,
non-target species
like lady bugs. By cutting down on using these
insecticides, Bt
corn is a boon to beneficial species and the
environment.
"Ultimately the biggest benefit of biotech
will be cultivating
crops that use no herbicides, insecticides
and fertilizers at all
- and that even have nutrients and vaccines
added, possibly at
lower costs to consumers down the line," says
Prakash.
- BT: Corn farmers
very seldom spray field corn for corn
borers. Doing so will simply be a waste of
money, because the
borers are inside the corn stem, and can't
be reached by the
spray. Thus, using Bt corn does not really
reduce chemical use.
- HT: Crops engineered
to be resistant to specific
herbicides may encourage more liberal use
of those herbicides.
This has been anticipated by one manufacturer,
who has applied to
ANZFA (Australia-New Zealand Food Authority)
to have the
allowable residue of the herbicide glyphosate
(Roundup) in foods
sold in New Zealand increased by 200 times.
In areas of the USA
where GE-crops that produce their own insecticide
are grown,
pesticide use has not decreased. (See: "13
Myths about Genetic
Engineering", Consumers for Education about
Genetic Engineering,
Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the
SANET list)
- The British
Medical Association urged that: the risk that
GM crops may increase the use of herbicides
and pesticides in the
environment needs to be comprehensively assessed
to determine
their full environmental impact. (See: "The
Impact of Genetic
Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health",
British Medical
Association, May 1999)
- Patent applications
by Novartis of Basle, Switzerland
imply the need for more pesticides to get
the best out of GM
plants. The applications (WO 99/35910 and
WO 99/35913) were filed
after Novartis scientists realised that a
wide spectrum of insect
pests was attacking Bt maize, its major GM
crop. So they tried on
the Bt maize different combinations of their
pesticides. Their
patent applications identify pesticide combinations
that could
raise maize yields by 20 per cent. The same
pesticides appear to
increase the yields of other GM plants, including
herbicide-
tolerant ones. So Novartis extended its patent
applications to
cover use of the pesticides on a long list
of GM crops including
maize, cereals, soya beans, potatoes, rice,
cotton and mustard.
Novartis' patent applications belie claims
that GE crops will
reduce pesticide use. (See: Andy Coghlan and
Barry Fox, New
Scientist, 18 December 1999)
-- Section 1.5:
"All materials and/or the products produced
from genetically engineered/modified organisms
(GEO/GMO) are not
compatible with the principles of organic
production (either the
growing, manufacturing, or processing) and
therefore are not
accepted under these guidelines." (See: Codex
Guidelines for the
Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing
of Organically
Produced Foods)
<http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/ECONOMIC/ESN/codex/default.htm>
2.2.3. CLAIM: GE-CROPS DO NOT HARM DIVERSITY
- HT: The use
of HT crops undermine the possibilities of
crop diversification thus reducing agrobiodiversity
in time and
space. (Altieri, M.A. (1994) Biodiversity
and Pest Management in
Agroecosystems. Haworth Press, New York. As
cited in: "Ten
reasons why biotechnology will not ensure
food security, protect
the environment and reduce poverty in the
developing world";
Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset,
Institute for
Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
- Ecological
theory predicts that the large-scale landscape
homogenization with transgenic crops will
exacerbate the
ecological problems already associated with
monoculture
agriculture. Unquestioned expansion of this
technology into
developing countries may not be wise or desirable.
There is
strength in the agricultural diversity of
many of these
countries, and it should not be inhibited
or reduced by extensive
monoculture, especially when consequences
of doing so results in
serious social and environmental problems.
(Altieri, M.A. (1996)
Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture.
Westview
Press, Boulder. As cited in: "Ten reasons
why biotechnology will
not ensure food security, protect the environment
and reduce
poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A.
Altieri, UC Berkeley
and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development
Policy,
Oakland, CA)
- The trend to
create broad international markets for single
products, is simplifying cropping systems
and creating genetic
uniformity in rural landscapes. History has
shown that a huge
area planted to a single crop variety is very
vulnerable to new
matching strains of pathogens or insect pests.
Furthermore, the
widespread use of homogeneous transgenic varieties
will
unavoidably lead to "genetic erosion," as
the local varieties
used by thousands of farmers in the developing
world are replaced
by the new seeds. (Robinson, R.A. (1996) Return
to
Resistance:breeding crops to reduce pesticide
resistance.
AgAccess, Davis. As cited in: "Ten reasons
why biotechnology will
not ensure food security, protect the environment
and reduce
poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A.
Altieri, UC Berkeley
and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development
Policy,
Oakland, CA)
- A single GM
fish released into the wild could wipe out
local populations of the original species,
biologists warn in the
New Scientist (4 Dec 1999). William Muir and
Richard Howard of
Purdue University, Indiana, studied fish carrying
the human
growth hormone gene (hGH), which increases
growth rate and final
size. US and British biologists are doing
similar experiments
with GE salmon. Muir and Howard put hGH in
embryos of Japanese
medaka, a common aquarium fish, which then
matured faster and
produced more eggs than normal fish, rapidly
spreading the new
gene. But only 2/3 of the GE medaka survived
to reproductive age,
which led the population to dwindle. In a
computer model, 60 GE
fish in a wild population of 60,000 fish,
caused extinction
within 40 generations. Even a single GE animal
could lead to
extinction, they found, but it would take
longer. "You have the
very strange situation where the least fit
individual in the
population is getting all the matings - this
is the reverse of
Darwin's model," says Muir. The researchers
say this is the first
evidence that GMOs could have catastrophic
consequences on their
own species. (See: Environmental News Service,
2 Dec 1999)
- An aquarium
fish, Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes),
modified with a growth gene hGH were more
succesful in attracting
mates. Thus the hGH gene spread rapidly through
the population.
However only 2/3 of the GE medaka survived
to reproductive age
compared with wild medakas. Thus the spread
of the hGH gene could
make populations dwindle and eventually become
extinct. A
computer model showed that releasing 60 GE
fish into a wild
population of 60,000 resulted in extinction
in just 40
generations. Even a single modified fish could
also result in
extinction, though over a longer period. The
work may also apply
to salmon who have similar mating preferences.
(See: Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 96,
p 13 853)
2.2.4. CLAIM: THE DEVELOPMENT OF BT RESISTANCE CAN BE CONTROLLED
+ BT: Resistance
will be controlled by using a high-dose
strategy to kill all corn borers, and requiring
farmers to plant
20-40% of their fields with non-Bt corn, to
provide susceptible
pests who will mate with resistant pests
- BT: Farmers
find it ridiculous to be required to reserve
20-40% of their crops as feed for pests they
want to eliminate in
the first place.
- BT: In the
earliest days of the debate, the suggested
refugia size was 5%. Later, it rose to 10%.
Now, it is 20-40%. If
the trend continues, they will be suggesting
a 100% non-Bt field
soon, which is what we've been arguing for
in the first place.
- BT: The high-dose/refugia
strategy can only work
resistance is recessive and: i) dose should
be very toxic so that
all heterozygotes for resistance are killed;
ii) resistance
alleles are very rare; and iii) susceptible
insects are within
mating distance of resistant insects. ECB
have been found to
exhibit resistance to Bt toxin in a dominant
way, which will
hasten instead of retard the spread of resistance.
(See: Science
284: 965-967, 1999)
- BT: F.Huang,
L.L.Buschman (both with the Dept. of
Entomology, Kansas State U) and W.H.McGaughey
(USDA, Agric.
Research Center Service, Grain Mktg &
Prod. Research Center): ECB
resistance to a Bt spray formulation (Dipel)
appears to be
inherited as an incompletely dominant autosomal
gene. This
contrasts with the resistance of other insects,
which has been
characterized as recessive. If it is not recessive,
the
usefulness of the high-dose/refugia strategy
may be diminished.
- BT: Dominant
mutants conferring resistance to Bt toxin can
be recovered from Corn Borers exposed to the
toxin. Such mutants
would spread like wildfire through corn fields
with refuge plots
because over half the off-springs of mating
between mutant and
wild type insects would be resistant to Bt
toxin. The refuge
would provide a rich breeding ground for spread
of the dominant
mutants. (See: "Inheritance of resistance
to Bacillus
thuringiensis toxin (Dipel ES) in the European
Corn Borer";
Haung,F., Buschman,L., Higgins,R. and McGaugen,W.,
Science, 7 May
1999:965-967, as cited by Joseph Cummins)
- BT: Bt resistance
has emerged among pink bollworms, a
major cotton pest, in Arizona cotton fields.
(See: California
Farmer Magazine, mid-January 1999)
- BT: When Monsanto
and other companies took the naturally
occurring insecticide bacterium Bt and spliced
its operating
mechanism into crops, organic farmers were
concerned that insects
would quickly become resistant to Bt, removing
a crucial tool of
environmentally sound farming only to serve
corporate interests.
These concerns are being borne out in last
year's cropping
trials. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods",
Wisconsin State
Journal, 22 Apr 1999)
- BT: At the
same time, recent studies have pointed to a
variety of other problems that seem to be
emerging from Bt corn.
One report, for example, suggests that the
EPA's primary strategy
for preventing the emergence of Bt-resistant
insects-a plan that
calls for planting "refuges" of conventional
corn in nearby
fields-may be doomed to fail because Bt resistance
genes in
insects behave differently than scientists
had thought. (See:
Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
- BT: Another
study showed that Bt can alter the time it
takes an insect to reach adulthood. That could
dash the EPA's
hopes that Bt-resistant insects will mate
with Bt-susceptible
ones and give birth to offspring still vulnerable
to the
chemical. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post,
15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
- BT: GM plants
which produce their own insecticides
closely follow the pesticide paradigm, which
is itself rapidly
failing due to pest resistance to pesticides.
Instead of the
failed "one pest-one chemical" model, GE emphasizes
a "one
pest-one gene" approach, shown over and over
again in laboratory
trials to fail, as pest species rapidly adapt
and develop
resistance to the pesticide present in the
plant. (Alstad, D.N.
and D.A. Andow (1995) Managing the Evolution
of Insect Resistance
to Transgenic Plants. Science 268, 1894-1896.
As cited in: "Ten
reasons why biotechnology will not ensure
food security, protect
the environment and reduce poverty in the
developing world";
Miguel A. Altieri, University of California,
Berkeley and Peter
Rosset, Institute for Food and Development
Policy, Oakland, CA)
- BT: Not only
will the new GM varieties fail over the
short-to-medium term, despite so-called voluntary
resistance
management schemes (Mallet, J. and P. Porter
(1992) Preventing
insect adaptations to insect resistant crops:
are seed mixtures
or refugia the best strategy? Proc. R. Soc.
London Ser. B. Biol.
Sci. 250. 165-169 As cited in: "Ten reasons
why biotechnology
will not ensure food security, protect the
environment and reduce
poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A.
Altieri, UC Berkeley
and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development
Policy,
Oakland, CA), but in the process may render
useless the natural
pesticide "Bt," which is relied upon by organic
farmers and
others desiring to reduce chemical dependence.
Bt crops violate
the basic and widely accepted principle of
"integrated pest
management" (IPM), which is that reliance
on any single pest
management technology tends to trigger shifts
in pest species or
the evolution of resistance through one or
more mechanisms (NRC
l996). (National Research Council (1996) Ecologically
Based Pest
Management. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington DC. As cited
in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not
ensure food security,
protect the environment and reduce poverty
in the developing
world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and
Peter Rosset,
Institute for Food and Development Policy,
Oakland, CA)
- BT: When the
product is engineered into the plant itself,
pest exposure leaps from minimal and occasional
to massive and
continuous exposure, dramatically accelerating
resistance.
(Gould, F. (1994) Potential and Problems with
High- Dose
Strategies for Pesticidal Engineered Crops.
Biocontrol Science
and Technology 4, 451-461. As cited in: "Ten
reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel
A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset,
Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
- BT: Bt will
rapidly become useless, both as a feature of
the new seeds and as an old standby sprayed
when needed by
farmers that want out of the pesticide treadmill.
(Pimentel, D.,
M.S. Hunter, J.A. LaGro, R.A. Efroymson, J.C.
Landers, F.T.
Mervis, C.A. McCarthy and A.E. Boyd (1989)
Benefits and Risks of
genetic Engineering in Agriculture.BioScience
39, 606-614. As
cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will
not ensure food
security, protect the environment and reduce
poverty in the
developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley
and Peter
Rosset, Institute for Food and Development
Policy, Oakland, CA)
+ BT: Resistance
has already been observed in Hawaii where
dusts containing Bt spores were repeatedly
applied onto the same
field (up to 15X in one year). So, resistance
development is not
unique to GE.
- BT: Expressing
the Bt toxin in the plant is the fastest
way to develop resistance, because it releases
the toxin 24 hours
a day, in all parts of the plant, whether
there is infestation or
not. This is like spraying daily whether there
is a pest or not,
or taking antibiotics daily, whether you are
sick or not. If
true, the Hawaii case stresses the need to
use insect control
measures sparingly, only when they are really
needed.
2.2.5. CLAIM: BT IS NOT HARMFUL TO NON-TARGET SPECIES
+ BT: The Bt toxin will not harm non-target species.
- BT: Iowa researchers
have found Bt corn pollen deadly to
monarch butterflies. First, the Iowa study
determined the amount
of corn pollen deposited on A. syriaca leaves
within and adjacent
to a Bt corn field at 0 m, 1m, and 3m. The
highest levels of
pollen deposition was found on plants within
the corn field, and
lowest levels found at three meters from the
edge of the corn
field. Leaf samples taken from within and
at the edge of the corn
field were used to assess mortality of first
instar monarch, D.
plexippus exposed Bt and non-Bt corn pollen.
Within 48 hours,
there was 19% mortality in the Bt corn pollen
treatment compared
to 0% on non-Bt corn pollen exposed plants
and 3% in the no
pollen controls. (See: "Non-target effects
of Bt corn pollen on
the Monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaidae)"
by L. Hansen, Iowa
State University, Ames , IA 50011 and J. Obrycki,
Iowa State
University, Ames, IA 50011. (Contact e-mail:
lrahnsen@iastate.edu)
- BT: Cornell
University researchers, in a letter to the
journal Nature, May 20 issue, reported that
pollen from Bt corn
harmed monarch butterfly larvae in laboratory
tests. In the
Cornell study, one group of monarch (Danaus
plexippus)
caterpillars fed on milkweed (Asclepias curassavica)
leaves
dusted with pollen from Bt corn, another group
fed on milkweed
leaves dusted with pollen from non-GE corn,
and a third group fed
on leaves without added pollen. The researchers
found that the
caterpillars that ate leaves with pollen from
the Bt corn ate
less, grew more slowly and died sooner. Results
were similar to
those reported earlier by Hansen and Obrycki
(http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/d81.html)
who
used leaves collected in corn fields. The
Cornell researchers
(Losey, Rayor and Carter, who can be contacted
at
jel27@cornell.edu) collected pollen and applied
it to lab-raised
milkweed leaves. (See: Losey, J.J.E., L.S.
Rayor and M.E. Carter
(1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae.
Nature 399: 214)
- BT: Concerns
over impact on birds that feed on insects
targetted by Bt crops like the skylark, linnet
and corn bunting
in the UK.
- BT: Bt crops
have a negative effect on Chrysoperla carnea,
a beneficial insect, based on three studies
by A. Hilbeck, M.
Baumgartner, et. al. of the Swiss Federal
Research Station for
Agroecology and Agriculture. The green lacewings
suffered
reproductive problems and reduced longevity.
(See: Hilbeck, A.,
Baumbartner, M., Fried, P.M. and F. Bigler,
1998. Effects of
transgenic Bt corn-fed prey on mortality and
development time of
immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae).
Environmental Entomology 27:480-487, as cited
by Kapuscinski
1999))
- BT: Still other
studies suggest that Bt corn may be
inadvertently killing beneficial insects such
as ladybugs and
lacewings, which eat insect pests. If true,
then the insecticidal
crops may be giving reprieves to as many insect
pests as they are
killing. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post,
15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
- BT: Beneficial
insects that feed on insect prey reared on
transgenic insect-resistant crops exhibited
increased mortality
and reduced developmental time (See: Birch,
A N.E., Geoghegan,
I.E., Majerus, M.E.N., Hackett, C., and J.
Allen. 1996/7,
Interactions between plant resistance genes,
pest aphid
populations and beneficial aphid predators.
Scottish Crop
Research Institute Annual Report, 1996/7:
68-72, as cited by
Kapuscinski 1999) Researchers led by Dr. Nicholas
Birch of the
Scottish Crop Research Institute, Dundee,
fed GE GNA potato to
aphids, which were in turn fed to ladybird
beetles. The
ladybirds' lives were shortened by up to half
the expected
life-span, and their fertility and egg-laying
was significantly
reduced. Females were apparently affected
more seriously than
males and a change of diet to aphids not exposed
to GE plants
seemed to reverse the process. Potato aphids
were fed to adult
two-spot ladybirds for 12 days, before switching
back to non-GE
diet. Female ladybirds fed with GE-affected
aphids died on the
average after 36 days, compared with the 74
days of those in a
control group fed on aphids not exposed to
a GE diet. The study
was published in the scientific journal Molecular
Breeding. (See:
Guardian, London, 4 Mar 1999)
* Butterfly populations
are at an almost 30-year low in the
Sacramento Valley, adjacent foothills and
the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta, researchers say. Entomologists
find the data
particularly worrisome because the decline
is so widespread and
there is no clear reason for it. Some species
that typically are
very common - including orange sulphur butterflies
- have been
almost absent in the region this year. A few
varieties were up in
numbers, but the overall trend was way, way
down. ``In all
candor, I don't understand this,'' said Arthur
Shapiro, an
entomologist at the University of California
at Davis. ``Many
more species are down than up. If this were
the stock market,
investors would be worried.'' Monarchs, large
orange-and-black
migratory butterflies that are among the most
easily identified
of insects, also declined. At Natural Bridges
State Beach in
Aptos (Santa Cruz County), where Northern
California monarchs
winter, 14,000 butterflies were counted, down
from an average of
about 60,000. Shapiro said there is no evidence
linking
California monarch declines with GM crops.
Shapiro said there is
no apparent reason for the decline. ``Pesticide
use patterns
haven't really changed and recent habitat
loss hasn't been
sufficient to account for this,'' he said.
``Nothing has really
changed that can explain these oddities, unless
something subtle
is going on that has finally reached a threshold
level.'' (Glen
Martin, San Francisco Chronicle, 22 December
1999)
<http://www.commondreams.org/>
- Shapiro's response
in the above case of crashing
butterfly populations shows how some scientists
can totally miss
the obvious. Bt toxin kills lepidopterans,
butterflies are
lepidopterans. Since 1997, millions of acres
of field have been
planted with Bt corn. How can Shapiro say
that "there is no
evidence" linking these declines to GM crops,
or that "nothing
has really changed that can explain these
oddities"? At least,
he should point out the Bt crops are one possible
cause, and this
should be explored further.
2.2.6. CLAIM: GE-CROPS HAVE NO HARMFUL EFFECT ON SOIL ECOLOGY
+ BT: Bt toxin
from GE-plants is very short-lived in soil
(Eric Sachs of Monsanto, in response to a
question re impacts of
Bt corn on soil microbial community, 18 Jun
1999 EPA-USDA Bt corn
workshop, as cited by Charles Benbrook)
- BT: GE crops
are building up Bt toxins in the soil,
damaging the soil food web and harming beneficial
insects. (Gene
Exchange, Union of Concerned Scientsts, Fall/Winter
1998)
- BT: New York
University researchers found out that unlike
natural Bt toxin, the active toxin produced
by Bt crops do not
disappear when added to soil, but become rapidly
bound to soil
particles, and are not broken down by soil
microbes. The
researchers contend that these GE Bt toxins
can build up in the
soil, killing Bt-sensitive soil organisms
and increasing
selection pressure for resistance to develop.
In addition, a
broader range of organisms is likely to be
susceptible to the
active, GE toxins. (See: Seedling, Mar 1999,
Vol 16 No 1)
- BT: "Bound
humic acid-toxin complexes were toxic to larvae
of the tobacco hornwork (Manduca sexta). The
lethal concentration
necessary to kill 50% of the larvae (LC50)
of the bound toxin was
comparable with that of the free toxin, indicating
that the
binding of the toxin to humic acids did not
affect insecticidal
activity... The result of these studies indicate
that the toxins
from B. thuringiensis introduced in transgenic
plants and
microbes could persist, accumulate, and remain
insecticidal in
soil as a result of binding to humic acids,
as well as on clays,
as previously described. This persistence
could pose a hazard to
non-target organisms and enhance the selection
of toxin-resistant
target species." (See: C.Crecchio and G.Stotzky
1998.
Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of
the toxin from
Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki bound
to humic acids from
soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30: 463-470). See
also: J. Koskella and
G. Stotzky, "Microbial Utilization of Free
and Clay-Bound
Insecticidal Activity after Incubation with
Microbes," Applied
and Env. Microbiology, Sep 1997: 3561-3568.
See further: H. Tapp
and G. Stotzky, "Persistence of the Insecticidal
Toxin from Bt
subsp. Kurstaki in Soil," Soil Biology and
Biochemistry, Vol 30
No 4 1998: 471-476.)
- BT: Bt toxin
present in crop foliage plowed under after
harvest can adhere to soil colloids for up
to 3 months,
negatively affecting the soil invertebrate
populations that break
down organic matter and play other ecological
roles. (See:
Donnegan, K.K., C.J. Palm, V.J. Fieland, L.A.
Porteous, L.M.
Ganis, D.L. Scheller and R.J. Seidler (1995)
Changes in levels,
species, and DNA fingerpr