GM Food, a Regulatory Sham

[JohnyCanuck]

GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham

“The evidence has stacked up to such an extent that our regulators should be answering a charge of criminal negligence at the very least in failing to ban GM crop and continuing with their campaign of denial and disinformation, and worse, helping to promote even more dangerous GM produce from the industry,” said Dr. Mae-Wan Ho. Dr Ho is the director of ISIS and lead author of the report co-authored with Joe Cummins , emeritus Professor of Biology at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, and Peter Saunders, emeritus Professor of Mathematics at King's College, London University.

That Bt toxins can cause serious immune reactions was known long before they were widely incorporated into maize and cotton crops. Similarly, evidence that pieces of genetically modified (GM) DNA can be taken up and incorporated into the genomes of other cells – a process called horizontal gene transfer - has been steadily accumulating since the mid 1990s, when the ISIS scientists first sounded their warning to the regulators.

“GM DNAs often contain antibiotic resistance marker genes and other genes from bacteria and viruses that cause diseases. In addition, they have strong control signals - ‘promoters' - that force the cell to express a foreign gene at high levels,” Dr. Mae-Wan Ho explains. “As a result, horizontal gene transfer not only spreads antibiotic resistance genes to harmful bacteria, it can create new bacteria and viruses that can cause epidemics. And if the strong promoter jumps into the wrong place in the genome of animal cells, it can boost the expression of oncogenes and cause the cells to multiply out of control, or cancer by another name.”

Europe and the UK are required by law to abide by the precautionary principle. Both have signed up to the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety regulating GMOs, and a string of other international treaties for protecting health and the environment based on the precautionary principle. But systematic manipulation of scientific evidence and abuse of science by the regulatory authorities has meant that the precautionary principle is never invoked.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Food_Nightmare_Unfolding.php

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Horrifying.

Imagine that. Genes from GMO organisms being taken up and transferred to the genomes of other organisms. Why, oh why did scientists have to invent this Horizontal Gene Transfer?

[Buzz Clik]

2. For the uninitiated: Bt = Bacillus thuringiensis and is naturally occurring

For decades, Bacillus thuringiensis was touted as THE natural alternative to pesticides, a Godsend in the post-Silent Spring era. Now, it is simply called Bt by the opponents to genetically modified crops and is described, as witnessed in the OP, as some sort of instrument of doom.

My, how things change.

[JohnyCanuck]

3. Tell it to the cows.

GM maize and dead cows

Twelve diary cows died after being fed GM maize and silage. This happened on a farm in Woelfersheim in the state of Hesse, Germany.

According to the report by Greenpeace Germany, "common errors in feeding and infections had by and large been ruled out as the cause of death", and the farmer involved, Gottfried Glöckner, a supporter of GM crops, now suspects that Syngenta’s GM maize Bt 176 is to be blamed.

Bt 176 contains multiple complex traits, including insect resistance – conferred by a toxin from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis – and tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. It was produced initially by the company Ciba-Giegy in 1994, and acquired subsequently by biotech giant Syngenta.

Glöckner has been growing Bt 176 increasingly in his fields since 1997, and in 2000 and 2001, switched over entirely to GM maize. Shortly thereafter, five of his cows died within four months in 2001, and another seven in 2002. The rate of milk production decreased in some of the remaining cows and others had to be slaughtered because of unknown illnesses.

Continued at:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php

I would have thought incorporating Bt and/or its associated toxins internally into the cells of a plant through genetic engineering is liable to have different consequences than applying it externally to the plant. Presumably with an external application most of it would be washed off by rain and/or manual washing before eating of the crop by humans and/or animals.

For more discussion on the perils of GM Corn see the links here:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-maize.php

[Buzz Clik]

4. What exactly am I supposed to tell them?

That a dairy farmer lost twelve head and doesn't know why, so he's blaming "Bt", aka Bacillius thuringiensis, corn?

You tell them, ok?

[JohnyCanuck]

5. Well maybe you can tell this stuff to the mice.

But worse is in store. Molecular analysis recently carried out suggests that the toxin in Bt 176 may not be Cry1Ab, but Cry1Ac, and that Bt 11, which is engineered with Cry1Ab, may be contaminated with Bt 176, so it will have Cry1Ac and well as CrylAb (see "Unstable transgenic lines illegal", this issue).

Molecular analysis has recently been carried out both by French and Belgian government scientists.

Their results revealed that the Bt gene in Bt 176 showed 94% similarity with a synthetic construct of crylAc gene, but only 65% homology with the native cry1Ab gene of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain HD1, from which it was supposed to have been derived. This suggests that the company has misreported or misidentified the transgene present. This is extremely serious.

Syngenta is maintaining that Bt toxin can only deleteriously affect certain insect larvae, thus bestowing insect resistance to their GM maize. But many Bt toxinx are potential allergens and immunogens. A study in 2000 found that the Cry1Ac protein is a potent immunogen and does bind to the intestinal wall of mice, causing significant changes in the gut cells. Bt 176 expresses very high levels of the toxin (see "Bt toxin binds to mouse intestine", this series).

Many Bt transgenes are synthetic, including the one in Bt 176. They are hybrids of multiple toxins. That means Bt transgenes not only risk killing more species of insects than intended, but may also contain previously unknown toxicities for other animals and human beings (see "Regulatory sham on Bt crops", this issue).

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php

[Buzz Clik]

9. You seem to be blasting off on a tangent. Let's go get back on topic:

And that is the lethality of Bt corn:

Studies on feeds from genetically modified plants (GMP) - Contributions to nutritional and safety assessment

Flachowsky G (Flachowsky, G.), Aulrich K (Aulrich, K.), Bohme H (Boehme, H.), Halle I (Halle, I.)

Animal Feed Science and Technology. 133(1-2):2-30 FEB 1 2007.

Abstract Since 1997, 18 studies with feeds from genetically modified plants (GMP) in the nutrition of dairy cows, growing bulls, growing and finishing pigs, laying hens, chicken for finishing as well as growing and laying quails were conducted at the Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL) in Braunschweig (Germany).

The majority of the experiments (16) were undertaken with GMP of the so-called first generation (plants with input traits and without substantial changes in composition) such as Bt-maize, Pat-maize, Pat-sugar beet, Gt-soybean, Gt-potatoes and Bt-potatoes. Two studies were carried out with GMP of the second generation (plants with output traits or with substantial changes in their chemical composition) such as an altered fatty acids profile in rapeseed or inulin potatoes. In all experiments, feeds from GMP were compared with their isogenic counterparts.

The iso- and transgenic feeds were analysed for their composition (proximates, fibre fraction, amino acids, fatty acid pattern, minerals) and undesirable substances (e.g., mycotoxins). Animal studies were carried out for nutritional and safety assessment such as digestibility, feed intake, health and performance of target animal species and quality of food of animal origin. Reproduction was studied in a 10-generation experiment with quails and a 4-generation experiment with laying hens. Duration of experiments and number of animals were limited in some cases due to small amounts of GM-feed available for experimentation.

Attention was drawn to the fate of DNA during feed processing (silage making, oil extraction), in the digestive tract of animals (slaughtering of animals 0, 4, 8, 12 and 24 It after feeding) and in the animal body (samples from several organs and tissues).

In agreement with more than 100 animal studies available to date, results show no significant differences in the nutritional value of feeds from GMP of the first generation in comparison with non-GMP varieties. To date, no fragments of recombinant DNA have been found in any organ or tissue sample from animals fed GMP The lower content of mycotoxins in Bt-maize and side effects in GMP of the second generation are of safety concern.

The results indicate that routine feeding studies with target animal species add little to nutritional assessment of feed from GMP of the first generation, but they are of public interest and important for safety assessment. These studies will play a more important role in nutritional and safety assessment of feeds from GMP with output traits. Proposals for such studies were made on the basis of previous experiments.

Well, that doesn't agree with the conclusions in Science in Society at all. And it is truly science based. I don't pretend that this is the end of the discussion, but please keep this on topic and on a scientific level.

[Jcrowley]

13. Genetically engineered Bt crops are quite different

from Bt being used topically and sparingly at point specific times. You know that. To suggest otherwise is utterly dishonest or uninformed.

Richard Jagger, Monsanto Australia Limited
"We see it as a a real fundamental step change in how crops will be grown in the future...using biotechnology to redress some of the issues that we're having problems with."

Bt cotton's power comes from this crystal-shaped toxin, a natural insecticide emitted by the common soil bacterium Bt. Monsanto engineered the gene that makes this toxin into cotton.. so the plants now make the toxin.

This Bt toxin is environmentally friendly because it kills only Heliothis and closely related species. In theory it could fit well with sustainable agriculture practices, like those that use beneficial insects to help kill pests like heliothis. That said you might be surprised to learn that Bt cotton will not do away with spraying. Bt toxin doesn't kill cotton's minor pests that the old broad spectrum sprays used to - mites, green mirrids and aphids.

At the United States Department of Agriculture in Mississippi they've worked out that farmers will have to spray Bt cotton a number of times to stop these minor pests becoming major ones. And there's another complication. In Australian conditions, the level of Bt toxin drops drastically at the end of the season. So Australian farmers will still have to spray for heliothis before harvesting.

In all, scientists predict farmers will have to spray Bt cotton up to 6 times a season. So how does this sit with Bt cotton's 'green' sales pitch?

It turns out that the damage done to DNA due to the process of creating a genetically modified organism is far more extensive than previously thought. GM crops routinely create unintended proteins, alter existing protein levels or even change the components and shape of the protein that is created by the inserted gene.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Interesting, but I certainly don't agree with your original charge:

Genetically engineered Bt crops are quite different from Bt being used topically and sparingly at point specific times. You know that. To suggest otherwise is utterly dishonest or uninformed.

I'll confess to being ignorant of the exact mechanism of the expression of the Bt gene in corn, but there is no dishonesty on my part. I also don't agree that spraying Bt and having Bt toxins expressed by corn are necessarily different. I'd be interested in a technical explanation of what turns on the gene to make corn produce the Bt toxin. Does the gene in corn continue to produce the toxin even when the corn plant is no longer metabolising? (Seems unlikely, but not impossible). Is it possible to shut off the gene?

[Jcrowley]

17. What I would recommend

is that you involve yourself in deeper studies on the Bt gene expression in all applications.

My original charge is quite accurate and understated.

"I also don't agree that spraying Bt and having Bt toxins expressed by corn are necessarily different."

Your above statement would, I hope, give you pause for further self-exploration on this topic.

While I'm sleeping the BioTech propaganda machine rolls on. I've been at this a long time. It's rather tedious and redundant.

[Buzz Clik]

19. LOL! Stop it... I can't breathe!

So, I ask you a direct question, and rather than give me an answer, you scold me for being ignorant.

Come on, Crowley ... even a little clue? I know you know what turns on the Bt gene, and you won't tell me? How cruel!

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Crystal shaped toxin?

What are they even trying to say?

"That said you might be surprised to learn that Bt cotton will not do away with spraying."

No, but it's significantly reduced the need.

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/6/wa/CALSArticle?ArticleID=12616

[KittyWampus]

6. So you can't distinguish between using Bt applied to crops at appropriate intervels and putting it

IN THE CROPS?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. So you're saying...

the Bt toxin in plants is dangerous, but the Bt toxin that gets sprayed out of planes and helicopters is safe?

[KittyWampus]

18. Gee, why do you suppose the FDA lists ACCEPTABLE amounts of various substances

in our food supply when large amounts are not acceptable?

Could it be that incidental exposure is harmless but extensive exposure isn't?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. So then...

is the Bt in corn over that limit?

[Gormy Cuss]

7. Yes, things do change. Bt was a foliar spray used selectively by organic farmers,

and later marketed as the natural alternative to home and other commercial growers. As a foliar spray it had a short toxicity. The GM version appears in the plant material of every plant in the field and is a ready toxin every day for the life of the plant. Regardless of whether one thinks that change is problematic (perhaps by killing off populations of related but benign lepidoptera, for example) things have changed, quite dramatically.

[Buzz Clik]

10. ... only by innuendo.

I would love to see some hard-core facts on this. Seriously.

This is so reminiscent of arguing with non-believers about global warming.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. I would too, but in the meantime I think it's important to proceed with caution.

The EPA responded to early university research by demanding that companies do their own field tests and using those results the EPA, under a pro-business, anti-regulation administration, concluded that there was no significant risk to the benign lepidoptera. I'd feel better if there wasn't sufficient evidence that in many regulatory environments this administration has been cooking the books. Funny you should mention global warming...

[Buzz Clik]

12. Well, just a second...

The initial testing was done under the Clinton administration.

I am with you in not trusting everything from EPA and little or nothing from BushCo.

[Gormy Cuss]

14. Waning year, with most conclusions done after the Bush administration took over.

The whole StarLink mess was while Clinton was still in the White House, wasn't it? But back to the original post, foliar application of a pesticide known to have rapid dissipation versus a steady state of resistance in plants is dramatically different. Not necessarily bad, but very different.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Agreed.

It would be fascinating to see the exact differences and how they play out: foliar/soil applications of insecticide (Bt or otherwise) versus the ability of the plant to express Bt-related insecticides.

Many genetic traits are expressed only when activated. Is this the case for Bt in corn? I really don't know. However, if the Bt gene is cranking 24/7 with no activation required, this would, indeed, be cause for pause.

[KittyWampus]

20. Except Global Warming has vast amount of independant research supporting it. GM crops HAVE NONE

Monsato has gotten its products on market with almost no research into possible negative side effects.

They have stiffled research. And they are the ones supplying favorable studies not independant labs.

And it's up to the manufacturer and the scientists to prove the safety of the product... not the other way around.

So it's really freaking ironic that you'd try and compare those who critize GM crops and Monsato to people who question global warming.

[Buzz Clik]

23. Ironic? Not at all. You simply directed the discussion another way.

I agree that we do not have any long-term data concerning health effects of GM crops. However, getting to my point, other than a lot of tales being told at GM-hating websites, the amount of data suggesting negative health impacts of GM crops is nearly zero. I-SIS is so similar to junkscience.com or co2science.com its scary -- lots of accusations, a few tangential studies, but very little substance.

[Morgana LaFey]

22. C'mon, people -- K&R this. I rescued it off page 2

and it's far too important to be overlooked.

[Buzz Clik]

25. Overlooking this thread is appropriate.

[Morgana LaFey]

26. Thanks for the kick. Now, how 'bout a recommend? nt

[Buzz Clik]

28. Recommend? I don't think. Howsabout you make a contribution?

[Morgana LaFey]

31. I have, actually

Maybe not one you'd prefer, though.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. It's got good humor value.

:thumbsup:

[Buzz Clik]

29. Indeed. Perhaps in response to Morgan's request for a recommendation....

... I could recommend that the thread be moved to the DU Lounge.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. skepticism and debunking would have a good time with it.