First Update of Concerns
We the undersigned scientists call upon our Governments to:
1. Impose an immediate moratorium on further environmental
of transgenic crops, food and animal-feed products for at least 5
2. Ban patents on living organisms, cell lines and genes.
3. Support a comprehensive, independent public enquiry into the
future of agriculture and food security for all, taking account of the
full range of scientific findings as well as socioeconomic and ethical
1. We are extremely concerned over the continued
commercialization of transgenic crops, food and animal-feed
products in the face of growing scientific evidence of hazards to
biodiversity, food safety, human and animal health, while neither
the need nor the benefits of genetic engineering agriculture are yet
1.1 New scientific evidence have convinced us of
the need for an
immediate moratorium on releases.
1.1.1. Herbicide resistant transgenes have spread
to wild relatives
by cross-pollination in both oilseed rape and sugar beet1, creating
many species of potential superweeds. One study shows that
transgenes may be up to 30 times more likely to escape than the
plant's own genes2.
1.1.2. Bt-toxins engineered into a wide range of
already released into the environment may build up in the soil and
have devastating impacts on pollinators and other beneficial
1.1.3. Serious doubts over the safety of transgenic
foods are raised
by new revelations on the results of animal feeding experiments.
Potatoes engineered with snowdrop lectin fed to rats caused highly
significant reduction in weight of many organs, impairment of
immunological responsiveness and signs suggestive of viral
1.1.4. Research from the Netherlands show that antibiotic
marker genes from genetically engineered bacteria can be
transferred horizontally to indigenous bacteria at a substantial
frequency of 10-7 in an artificial gut5.
1.1.5. Researchers in the US found widespread horizontal
a yeast genetic parasite to the mitochondrial genome of higher
plants6, raising serious concerns over the uncontrollable horizontal
spread of transgenes and marker genes from transgenic plants
released into the environment.
2. The patenting of living organisms, cell lines
and genes under the
Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement are
sanctioning acts of piracy of intellectual and genetic resources from
Third World nations7, and at the same time, increasing corporate
monopoly on food production and distribution. Small farmers all over
the world are being marginalized, threatening long term food
security for all8.
3. The Governments of industrialized nations, by
voting for patents
on organisms, cell lines and genes, including human genes, are in
danger of allowing corporations unrestricted exploitation of their
citizens and natural resources through the treaties being negotiated
in the WTO and the MAI. Environmental standards, food safety
standards and even basic human rights will be sacrificed to corporate
4. Governmental advisory committees lack sufficient
from independent scientists not linked to the industry. The result is
that an untried, inadequately researched technology has been
rushed prematurely to the market, while existing scientific evidence
of hazards are being downplayed, ignored, and even suppressed10,
and little independent research on risks are being carried out.
5. The technology is driven by an outmoded, genetic
science that supposes organisms are determined simply by constant,
unchanging genes that can be arbitrarily manipulated to serve our
needs; whereas scientific findings accumulated over the past twenty
years have invalidated every assumption of genetic determinism11.
The new genetics is compelling us to an ecological, holistic
perspective, especially where genes are concerned. The genes are
not constant and unchanging, but fluid and dynamic, responding to
the physiology of the organism and the external environment, and
require a stable, balanced ecology to maintain stability.
Among the signatories to the World Scientists' Statement are:
Dr. Michael Antoniou, Molecular Geneticist, Guy's Hospital, UK
Dr. Daniel Amman, Cell Biologist, Tech., Switzerland
Dr. Catherine Badley, Biologist, Univ. Michigan, USA
Dr. Susan Bardocz, Geneticist, Rowett Institute, UK
Prof. Phil Bereano, Engineer, Council for Responsible Genetics, USA
Dr. Javier Blasco, Aragonese Ctr. Rural Europ. Inform, Spain
Dr. Walter Bortz, Physician, Stanford Univ., USA
Prof. Martha Crouch, Biologist Indiana University, USA
Prof. Joe Cummins, Geneticist, Univ. Western Ontario, Canada
Mr. Gordon Daly, Ph.D. student, gene therapy, Kennedy Inst., UK
Dr. Bruno Dudine, Behavioural Ecologist, Univ. Udine, Italy
Dr. Tewolde Egziabher, Agronomist, Minstry of the
Dr. Ty Fitzmorris, Ecologist, Hampshire College, USA
Prof. John Garderineer, Biologist, Univ. Michigan, USA
Mr. Edward Goldsmith, Ecologist, The Ecologist, London, UK
Prof. Brian Goodwin, Schumacher College, UK
Dr. John Hammond, Engineer, Highfield, UK
Prof. Martha Herbert, Pediatric Neurologist, Mass. Gen. Hosp., USA
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Geneticist and Biophysicist, Open University, UK
Mr. Patrick Holden, Organic Agriculturist, The Soil Association, UK
Dr. Vyvyan Howard, Toxipathologist, Liverpool Univ., UK
Prof. Ruth Hubbard, Biologist, Harvard Univ. USA
Prof. Tirn Ingold, Anthropologist, Univ. Manchester, UK
Ms. Dani Kaye, Scientist for Global Responsibility, London, UK
Dr. Philip Kilner, Cardiologist, Royal Brompton &
Harefield NHS, UK
Richard Lacey, Microbiologist, Leeds, UK
Prof. Ervin Laszlo, Club of Budapest, Hungary
Mr. Sean Lyman, Science Student, Gettysbury College, USA
Dr. Timothy Mann, Geographer, Hampshire College, USA
Dr. Katarina Leppanen, Univ. Sweden, Gothenburg, Sweden
Vuejuin Mckersen, Natural Resource Manager, Univ. Michigan, USA
Prof. David Packham, Material Scientist, Univ. Bath, UK
Chris Picone, Soil Microbiologist, Univ. Michigan, USA
Dr. Robert Poller, Organic Chemist, Univ. London, UK
Dr. Arpad Pusztai, Biochemical Immunologist, Rowett Institute, UK
Dr. Carlos R. Ramirez, Biologist, St. Lawrence Univ., USA
Dr. Peter M. Rosset, Inst. Food & Develop. Policy, USA
Ms. Angela Ryan, Molecular Biologist, Institute of
Science in Society,
Prof. Peter Saunders, Biomathematician, King's College, London, UK
Dr. Nancy A. Schultz, Entomologist, Univ. Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Dr. Brian Schultz, Ecologist, Hampshire College, USA
Ms. Verena Soldati, Biotechnologist, Basle Appell, Switzerland
Dr. John Soluri, Historian of Science, Carnegie Mellon Univ. USA
Dr. Vandana Shiva, Res. Fdn. for Science and Ecology,
Prof. Atuhiro Sibatani, Molecular Biologist, Osaka, Japan
Dr. Gerald Smith, Zoologist, Univ. Michigan, USA
Dr. Ted Steele, Molecular Immunologist, Univ. Wollongong, Australia
Prof. Ian Stewart, Biomathematician, Warwick University, UK
Prof. David Suzuki, Geneticist, Sust. Develop. Res.
Prof. Terje Traavik, Institute of Medical Microbiology,
Ms Rosa Vazquez, Biology Student, Ohio State Univ.
1Brookes, M. (1998). Running wild, New Scientist 31 October; Snow, A.
and Jorgensen, R. (1998). Costs of transgenic
glufosinate resistance introgressed from Brassica napus into weedly Brassica rapa. Abstract, Ecological Society of
America, Baltimore, Aug. 6, 1998
2Bergelson, J., Purrington,c.B. and Wichmann, G. (1998). Promiscuity in transgenic plants. Nature 395, 25.
3Crecchio, C. and Stotzky, G. (1998). Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin from
Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki bound to humic acids from soil," Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30, 463-70, and
4Leake, C. and Fraser, L. (1999). Scientst in Frankenstein food alert is proved right. UK Mail on Sunday, 31 Jan. ;
Goodwin, B.C. (1999). Report on SOAEFD Flexible Fund Project RO818, Jan. 23, 1999.
5MacKenzie, D. (1999). Gut reaction. New Scientist 30 Jan., p.4.
6Cho, Y., Qiu, Y.-L., Kuhlman, P. and Palmer, J.D. (1998). Explosive invasion of plant mitochondria by a group I intron.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 14244-9.
7See Shiva, V. (1998). Biopiracy The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge, Green Books, London; also Latin American
Declaration on Transgenic Organisms, Quito, 22 Jan. 1999.
8The Corner House (1998), Food? Health? Hope? Genetic Engineering and World Hunger, Briefing 10.
9See Mander, J. and Goldsmith, E. eds. (1996). The Case against the Global Economy and for a Turn toward the Local,
Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
10 See note 4.
11See Ho, M.W. (1998, 1999). Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and
Big Business, Gateways Books and Third World Network, Bath and Penang.
First Update of Concerns
- July 15, 1999
Dr Mae-Wan Ho & Angela Ryan
Open University, UK
The article on TRIPS is now under review at the WTO. It is an opportunity
exclude the new biotech patents from TRIPS. A scientific briefing was
produced for the Third World Network and circulated at WTO, by two of our
signatories, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Dr. Terje Traavik. The full document can be
found on our website: <http://www.i-sis.dircon.co.uk>. It provides a
glossary and detailed analysis of the relevant article in TRIPS as well as
corresponding articles in the EU Directive. The briefing conludes :
All classes of the new biotech patents should be rejected from inclusion
TRIPS on the following grounds:
All involve biological processes not under the direct control of the
scientist. They cannot be regarded as inventions but expropriations from
The hit or mis technologies associated with many of the inventions are
inherently hasardous to health and biodiversity.
There is no scientific basis to support the patenting of genes and genomes,
which are discoveries at best.
Many patents are unethical ; they destroy livelihoods, contravene basic
human rights, create unnecessary suffering in animals or are otherwise
contrary to public order and morality.
Many patents involve acts of plagiarism of indigenous knowledge and
biopiracy of plants (and animals) bred and used by local communities for
1. Researchers at Cornell University published a study in Nature
found that pollen from GM Bt corn could have lethal effects on the larvae of
monarch butterflies if it lands on milkweed, the plant upon which they feed.
Forty-four percent of the larvae were killed after 4 days, whereas no
mortality occurred in larvae fed nontransgenic pollen. The Cornell
University researchers say their results "have potentially Ýprofound
implications for the conservation of monarch butterflies" and believe more
research on the environmental risks of biotechnology in agriculture is
Reference: Losey, J.E. et al (1999). Transgenic pollen harms monarch
Nature 399, 214.
2. A recent study on transgenic rice carried out at the John Innes
Institute supports previous evidence that there is a recombination hotspot
in the CaMV 35S promoter. Furthermore, most of the recombination events
analyzed were 'illegitimate' or nonhomologous and do not require substantial
similarity in nucleic acid base sequence. The recombination events were also
found to occur independently, in the absence of other viral genes.
Our comment: Transgenic lines containing the CaMV promoter, which includes
practically all that have been released, are therefore prone to instability
due to rearrangements, and also have the potential to create new viruses or
other invasive genetic elements. The continued release of such transgenic
lines is unwarranted in light of the new findings.
Reference; Kohli, A. et al 1999. Molecular characterization of transforming
plasmid rearrangement in transgenic rice reveals a recombination hotspot in
the CaMV promoter and confirms the predominance of microhomology mediated
recombination. The Plant Journal 17(6), pp 591-601.
3. A new study reviews 8,200 university based trials of transgenic
varieties. It reveals that Roundup Ready Soybeans produce lower yields
compared to their non GM counterparts. The average yield drag in RR
soybeans was 6.7% and in some areas of the midwest the average yeild in
conventional varieties was 10% higher compared to Roundup Ready varieties.
Furthermore the analysis shows that farmers use 2 to 5 times more herbicide
measured in pounds applied per acre on RR soybeans compared with other weed
management systems. RR herbicide use exceeds the levels on many farms using
multi-tactic weed management systems by a factor of 10 or more.
Reference: Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup
Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998 by U.S.
agronomist Dr. Charles Benbrook, author of Pest Management at the Crossroads
and former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture for the US
National Academy of Sciences. ÝAg Biotech Infonet Technical Paper Number 1
July 13 1999. website <http://www.biotech-info.net/RR_yield_drag_98.pdf>
3. A recent population-based study conducted in Sweden between
and including follow-up interviews clearly links exposure to Roundup Ready
herbicide (glyphosate) to non-Hodgkinís lymphoma and strongly suggests
glyphosate deserves further epidemiological studies.
Reference: Hardell, H. & Eriksson, M. (1999). A Case-Control
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides. Cancer 5, No 6.
4. A new paper reports chaotic gene silencing in GM plants and
each transformed plant expressed a different and specific instability
profile. Both transcriptional and post-transcriptional gene silencing
mechanisms were operating in a chaotic manner and demonstrates that
epigenetic (position) effects are responsible for transgene instability in
GM plants. These results indicate that transgene silencing and instability
will continue to hinder the economic exploitation of GM plants.
Reference; Dr Neve M et al. (1999) Gene Silencing results in instability
antibody production in transgenic plants. Molecular and General Genetics
5. Successful transfers of a kanamycin resistance marker gene
to the soil
bacterium Acinetobacter were obtained using DNA extracted from homogenized
plant leaf from a range of transgenic plants: Solanum tuberosum (potato),
Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco), Beta vulgaris (sugar beet), Brassica napus
(oil-seed rape) and Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato). It is estimated that
about 2500 copies of the kanamycin resistance genes (from the same number of
plant cells) is sufficient to successfully transform one bacterium, despite
the fact that there is six million-fold excess of plant DNA present.
Our comment: A single plant with say, 2.5 trillion cells, would be
sufficient to transform one billion bacteria.
Reference: De Vries, J. and Wackernagel, W. (1998). Detection of nptII
(kanamycin resistance) genes in genomes of transgenic plants by
marker-rescue transformation. Mol. Gen. Genet. 257, 606-13.
6. Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria can occur in the
gut at high
frequencies. This has been demonstrated in the gut of germ-free mice. The
germ-free¹ gut-environment can result from taking antibiotics. In one
experiment, tetracycline increases the frequency of horizontal gene transfer
by 20-fold. And vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium is found to
colonise the gut when the mice were treated with antibiotic.
Our comments: Antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from GMOs
bacteria and between bacteria, including those associated with infectious
diseases. Furthermore, the use of antibiotics will make resistance spread
References: Persson et al (1996). Enetrococcus faecium in ex-germfree
Microecology and Therapy, 24, 169-173.
Doucet-Populaire, F. et al (1991). Inducible transfer of conjugative
transposon Tn/545 from Enterocococcus faecalis to Listeria monocytogenes in
the digestive tracts of gnotobiotic mice. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., 35,
Whitman, M.S. et al (1996). Gastrointestional tract colonization with
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in an animal model. Antimicrob.
Agents Chemother. 40, 1526-30.
7. Pathogenic bacteria capable of invading cells can act as vectors
transferring genes into mammalian cells.
Our comment: Dangerous transgenic DNA can end up in the genome of our
with the potential of causing a lot of genetic disturbance including cancer.
Reference: Grillot-Courvalin, et al. (1998). Functional gene transfer
intracellular bacteria to mammalian cells. Nature Biotechnology 16, 1-5.