Salk Institute Cell
Biologist
Highlights Inadequacies of GM food testing
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/salkgmfoodrisks.htm
Will UK Chancellor Force Taxpayers To Carry The GM Risk?
Oct 2002
Below is an article that appeared in a recent edition of the food and biotechnology industry journal, AgraFood Biotech. The article is from a cell biologist at the Salk Institute for biological studies in the US calling for higher standards of safety testing in the GM food sector.
By implication the article goes some way to revealing some of the reasons why the biotechnology industry is resisting legislation around the world which would place the liability for adverse effects of GM crops and food on those who create these novel organisms. The novelty of such organisms incorporating recombinant DNA is inescapably confirmed by the patents that attach to them.
By the same token the article also goes some way to help explain why the insurance industry is shying away from this sector.
Actions often speak louder than words. Clearly the actions of both the biotech industry and the insurance sector suggest that in reality they feel the science-base for the introduction of this technology is inadequate to vouchsafe its safety even though efforts are often made to claim the contrary. Research currently being carried out by the European Commission confirms that this view is also quietly held in some of the highest administrative levels within Europe.
The myth of the 'precision' of recombinant DNA technology has most recently been illustrated by a university laboratory in Michigan which has created a new deadly genetically modified pig pathogen by mistake. To make matters considerably worse vials of the GM bacteria concerned have recently gone missing, with investigators indicating that the bacteria could 'devastate the pork industry' if released into the environment.
Given the acknowledged novelty of organisms incorporating recombinant DNA is the Chancellor of the Exchequer willing to force British taxpayers to pay for the management of the first GM food crisis when it arrives, a la BSE - itself a hazard arising out of the creation of novel biological circumstances?
If so perhaps the Chancellor could explain in advance why, in the context of a market economy, potential GM crisis-management funding by the taxpayer is more acceptable than the biotech industry and its shareholders having to foot the bill? They are the ones receiving the financial benefits of the patents that apply to these novel creations; they should also be accepting the corresponding risks (a similar concept of risk transfer is, after all, supposed to lie at the heart of the Chancellor's own 'private finance initiative' for the national provision of public services that he and the Prime Minister are currently so vigorously attempting to defend).
It seems transparent subsidies for farmers may be on the way out, but hidden subsidies for the biotech industry may well be on the way in.
NATURAL
LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
"The debate surrounding the
commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) food crops usually
centre around irrational emotional arguments on the one hand, and
the erroneous concept that genetic engineering is just like plant
breeding on the other notes cell biologist professor David
Schubert of the Salk
Institute.... Once modified, the
biological activity of the molecule may be changed but there is,
at our current state of knowledge, no way of knowing the
biological effects of these modifications..... the
only reasonable solution, said Schubert, is to require all GM
products for human consumption be tested for toxicity and
carcinognicity before they are marketed. These safety criteria
are required for many chemicals and all drugs, and the magnitude
of harm caused by a widely consumed toxic food would be much
greater than that of any single drug, he said."
The Risks of GM Food
p 22 AgraFood Biotech No. 87. August
13, 2002
"[GM crops] are a new and
unknown quantity and until there is more scientific evidence and
legal information it is impossible for any insurance company to
provide cover."
Spokesman for NFU Insurance, a leading UK insurer
for farmers
Farmers told GM crops are 'too dangerous to insure'
The Herald, 10 March 2002
AgraFood Biotech No. 87. August 13, 2002
The risks of GM food
The debate surrounding the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) food crops usually centre around irrational emotional arguments on the one hand, and the erroneous concept that genetic engineering is just like plant breeding on the other notes cell biologist professor David Schubert of the Salk Institute.
"I believe that the three issues which should be of most concern on the basis of established science receive little or no discussion. These are:
1. that introducing the same gene into two different types of cell can produce two very distinct protein molecules;
2. the recent observation, that the introduction of any gene, be it from a different or the same species always significantly changes overall gene expression and therefore the phenotype of the recipient cell; and
3. the possibility that enzymatic pathways introduced to synthesise small molecules such as vitamins can interact with endogenous pathways to produce novel molecules," said Schubert.
"The potential consequence of all of these perturbations could be the production of biomolecules that are either toxic or carcinogenic, and there is no a priori way of predicting the outcome," he said.
Schubert noted that post-translational modification of proteins is totally dependent upon the cell type in which they are expressed. For example, he said, when the beta-amytoid precursor protein is expressed in liver cells it contains covalently-attached chondriotin sulphate carbohydrate, but when expressed in brain cells contains a much simpler sugar.
This is because each cell type expresses a unique repertoire of enzymes capable of modifying proteins after they are synthesised.
Once modified, the biological activity of the molecule may be changed but there is, at our current state of knowledge, no way of knowing the biological effects of these modifications, said Schubert.
Induced synthesis
The second concern, he said, is the potential for
inducing the synthesis of poisonous or toxic compounds following
the introduction of a foreign gene.
These observations are clearly at odds with the individuals who imply that everything is fine because they are simply introducing one gene. In fact, the introduction of a single gene invariably alters the gene expression pattern of the whole cell and each cell of the individual or plant responds differently.
One recently published example, he said, is the transfection of a receptor gene into human cells. In this case, the gene was a closely related isoform of an endogenously expressed gene.
The pattern of gene expression was monitored using gene chip technology, and the mRNA levels of 5% of the genes was significantly upregulated or downregulated. Similarly the simple introduction of a bacterial enzyme used for growth selection of transfected cells changes the expression of 3% of the genes. While these types of unpredicted changes in gene expression are very real, they have not received much attention outside the community of the DNA chip users.
Furthermore, (such changes) are not unexpected, said Schubert. The maintenance of a specific cell phenotype is a very precise balancing act of gene regulation, and any perturbation is going to change the overall patterns of gene expression.
The problem, like that of secondary modifications, is that there is currently no way to predict the resultant changes in protein synthesis, he said.
Toxic products
The introduction of genes for a new enzymatic pathway into plants
could lead to the synthesis of totally novel or unexpected
products via the interaction with endogenous pathways, said
Schubert. Some of the products could be toxic.
For example, retinoic acid (vitamin A) and derivatives of retinoic acid are used in many signaling events that control mammalian development.
Since these compounds are soluble and work at ultralow concentrations, a GM plant making vitamin A may also produce retinoic acid derivatives which act as agonists or antagonists in these pathways, resulting in abnormal embryonic development, said Schubert. Given the fact that GM plants are going to make proteins in different amounts and perhaps totally new proteins than their parental species what are the potential outcomes? A worst case scenario could be that an introduced bacterial toxin is modified to make it toxic to humans.
Direct toxicity may be rapidly detected once the product enters the market place but carcinogenic activity or toxicity caused by interaction with other foods would take decades to detect, if ever. The same outcomes would be predicted for the production of toxins or carcinogens via indirect changes in gene expression.
Finally, if the above problems are real, what can be done to address these concerns? The issue of secondary modification could be addressed by continual monitoring of the introduced gene product by mass spectroscopy.
The problem is that some secondary modifications, like phosphorylation or sulphation can be lost during purification.
However, the best, and to me the only reasonable solution, said Schubert, is to require all GM products for human consumption be tested for toxicity and carcinognicity before they are marketed.
These safety criteria are required for many chemicals and all drugs, and the magnitude of harm caused by a widely consumed toxic food would be much greater than that of any single drug, he said.
p22 AgraFood Biotech No. 87. August 13, 2002
"Federal authorities are
investigating the disappearance of genetically altered bacteria
fatal to pigs that appear to have been stolen from a research
laboratory at Michigan State University... Lonnie King, dean of
Michigan State's College of Veterinary Medicine, said the
bacteria normally attack the respiratory system of young pigs.
The genetically
modified version, however,
spreads into the brain, and the animals can die of complications
from encephalitis. The researcher was attempting to make a
'nonpathogenic' strain to use as a vaccine but ended up with a deadlier version
instead, Dr. King said....
School officials and the Department of Agriculture have spent the
past two days alerting state veterinarians, pork producers,
veterinary facilities, schools and labs around the country about
the theft and what to look for. 'We're taking this very
seriously,' said Detroit-based Federal Bureau of Investigation
Special Agent Terry Booth. 'It could wipe out a lot of swine.'
The implications of that would be serious from both an economic
and dietary standpoint. 'Look at the mad-cow disease,' Mr. Booth
said, referring to the human deaths and the devastation done to
Britain's beef industry by that outbreak."
Authorities Probe Case Of Missing Bacteria
Wall St Journal, September 2002
"Canadians aren't being adequately protected by
government from the risks of genetically modified foods and other
biotech products, says a highly critical scientific report
commissioned by the federal government. The expert report,
formally released here today by the Royal Society of Canada,
condemned the basic approach of federal regulation of biotech
agricultural products as 'scientifically unjustifiable.' ...The
scientific experts also said the government had no proven way to
determine whether genetically modified foods were safe in their
entirely, rather than just looking at individual components. They
urged a crash research program to fill this gap.... The experts
say [the approach of 'substantial equivalence'] is fatally flawed
for genetically modified, or GM, crops and exposes Canadians to
several potential health risks, including toxicity and allergic
reactions."
GM Food Report: Ottawa Rapped,
Expert Study Considered Major Setback
for Biotech Industry
Toronto Star, 5 Feb 2000
"Monsanto should not have to
vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling
as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A's
[Food and Drug Administration] job."
Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of
corporate communications, in an
interview with the New
York Times, October 25, 1998
"The FDA said it agreed with
the study’s findings but said it should not be obliged to
check [GM food testing] data on a regular basis."
USA: GM foods pose no additional
risk to health - report
Just-food.com, 29 May 2002
"Biotechnology
companies can market genetically engineered (GE) foods without
notifying the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or obtaining its
approval, thanks to regulatory gaps in a system that consumer and
environmental groups today asked Health and Human Services (HHS)
Secretary Tommy Thompson to fix."
REGULATORY GAP MEANS GE FOODS
ARRIVE ON THE MARKET WITHOUT FDA
APPROVAL AND POSSIBLY WITHOUT NOTICE
CSPI Press Release, May 3, 2002
".....In vivo and in vitro
validated nutritional-toxicological testing procedures are
urgently required. .... if the testing procedure investigated in
this project does not allow assessment of the toxicity of the
gene products introduced into the food product via the GM plants,
the whole
strategy for the safety assessment of novel foods from GM plants
will need to be revised".
Introduction to research study commissioned by European Commission and not due to be completed until 2004
"Ben Miflin, former
director of the Institute of Arable Crops at Rothamsted, near
London, who is a proponent of the potential benefits of genetic
modification of crops.... argues that, under current monitoring
conditions, any unanticipated health impact of such foods would
need to be a 'monumental disaster' to be detectable. Miflin
points out that a general increase in gastrointestinal disorders,
for example, would be difficult to attribute to a particular
food, given the diverse possible origins of such symptoms."
'Long-term effect of GM crops
serves up food for thought'
Nature, Volume 398:651, April 22, 1999
Food Illness Situation In US Since the Introduction of GM Foods
"The C.D.C. [Centres for
Disease Control] now says that food is responsible for twice the
number of illnesses in the United States as scientists thought
just seven years ago.... At least 80 percent of food-related
illnesses are caused by viruses or other pathogens that
scientists cannot even identify."
Contaminated Food Makes Millions Ill
Despite Advances
New York Times, 18 March 2001
Coincidence or not?
Where are the epidemiological studies investigating this
question?
More on this - click here
"In
fact, no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the
human health effects of GM food exist."
Genetically Modified Foods:
Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?
Dr Aarpad Puztai, Actionbioscience.org,
June 2001
"British scientific
researchers have demonstrated for the first time that genetically
modified DNA material from crops is finding its way into human
gut bacteria, raising potentially serious health questions....
The research, commissioned by the food standards agency, is the
world's first known trial of GM foods on human volunteers....
Michael Antonio, a senior lecturer in molecular genetics at
King's College Medical School, London, last night said that the
work was significant. 'To my knowledge they have demonstrated
clearly that you can get GM plant DNA in the gut bacteria.
Everyone used to deny that this was possible..... They have shown
that this can happen even at very low levels after just one
meal..'..."
GM genes found in human gut
Guardian, 17 July 2002
More references on the inadequacies of GM food testing
What leading scientists have said about the dangers of genetically modified foods
'Top Biotech Scientists Comment on GM Safety'
European Commission lacks confidence in
own GM safety tests - More Details
The big lie - GM foods have been tested as safe -
Mystery of missing research
Where are the independent safety tests of GM food?
The Thalidomide of Genetic Engineering
US government agency suppresses advice of own scientists
on GM risks
Special risks from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter
in transgenic crops
Population duped by genetic engineers
Health Statistics - Lies, Damn Lies, and
GM foods?
How much of the GM truth are we being told by the
biotechnology industry? - 'NGIN'
Political compliance V sound science - biotech debacle
set to unfold further?
Corrupt Science-Business interface - 'Lancet'
Dr Aarpad Pusztai on his suppressed research and the dubious science driving GM technology
NATURAL LAW PARTY
WESSEX
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex