OT: The unpredictable effects of genetic engineering
Jez
http://www.scottishga.vispa.com/GMEvil.htm#Deadly%20food%20supplement
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our
interest is in selling as much of it as possible" – Phil Angell, the
director of corporate communications Monsanto
Genetic engineering is the use of recombinant technology. This gives the
power to move DNA from one organism to another, to identify the function of
particular genes and to transfer the DNA coding or the characteristics from
one species to another.
Uncertainties enter the frame at many stages.
Random location of the inserted genes: - When genetic engineers create GM
crops, they have no means of inserting the gene in a particular position.
The gene ends up in a random location in the genetic material and its
position is not usually identified. But, genes do not work in isolation;
they interact with each other. This means unidentified effects will occur.
As these cannot be predicted, the side effects cannot all be identified and
tested in advance of marketing.
Lack of control over the genes: - All genes are present in every cell of an
organism. But they do not function the whole time or in every cell. In
nature, genes are controlled to ensure that they only operate in the
relevant part of the plant of the plant and at the necessary time. This
control is believed to be from a mixture of the other genetic material
(only a small part of the genetic material of an organism comprises
functional genes) and the gene’s local environment in the organism. But
because little is known about this, GMOs have no equivalent control. So the
genes usually operate the whole time in every cell, including the part
destined for consumption.
Reductionist Science: - Genetic engineers work on the assumption that each
gene has only one function. However the reality is that most genes have
several effects. It is not yet known how these different functions are
controlled and it is not known how to artificially determine a single
function of a gene, without undesired side effects.
Horizontal Gene Transfer: - Along with the main gene, genetic engineers
usually introduce other material into the organism. These have the role of
inserting the gene, activating it, and identifying the successful
transfers. Any of these parts can be of viral or bacterial origin. Viral
parts are used, as viruses are adept at inserting their genetic material
into other organisms – that is how they reproduce. This brings with it the
potential for "horizontal gene transfer" to occur: the genes transferring
out of the GMO and into other organisms. Because of the nature of viruses,
it can be assumed that such transfers will occur much more frequently than
would occur naturally for the non-GM organisms. This evidence already
exists in field trials and laboratory research.
Allergenicity to novel proteins: - GM technology involves the production of
novel substances; allergic reactions to the novel proteins have been
forecast by many scientists, including several in the US Food and Drugs
Agency. Such substances being present in food will regularly expose people
to this risk. For example, in 1995, Pioneer Hi-Bred International,
engineered soybeans with a gene from a brazil nut in the hope that it would
improve the soybean’s protein content. Researchers at the University of
Nebraska tested these soybeans on samples of blood serum taken from people
who were allergic to brazil nuts. The tests indicated that if these people
had eaten the soybeans, they would have suffered an allergic reaction that
could have been fatal.
Evidence of Health Risks
Though it is claimed by the multinational biotechnology companies that
there have been no ill effects regarding GMO consumption there have been no
epidemiological studies to support this statement. In fact there are
developments to suggest the opposite.
In the United Kingdom there has been a 50% rise in soya allergies since
reports of GM soya started.
In Ireland doctors have reported a rise in soya allergies since the
introduction of GM soya imports.
Coinciding with the introduction of GMOs in food in the US, food derived
illnesses are believed to have doubled over the last seven years.
In the US many people reported allergic reactions to Aventis’s Starlink
corn, after it mistakenly entered the American food chain.
Deadly food supplement
Tryptophan is an essential amino acid sold as an over-the-counter food
supplement used for treating insomnia and depression. During 1989 in the
USA a new disease appeared called EMS, whose main chacteristics were raised
numbers of a type of white blood cell and sever muscle pain. In November
that year the US FDA issued a nation-wide warning, advising consumers to
discontinue use of the tryptophan food supplements. By then so many people
had been affected by EMS that it caused over 36 deaths and thousands of
disabilities, some estimates placing this as high as 10,000. The problem
was linked to a contaminated batch of tryptophan coming from the Japanese
company Showa Denko, which had been using a newly modified strain of
genetically engineered bacteria; the new modification being intended to
boost the concentrations of an intermediate chemical, and ultimately the
output, in tryptophan synthesis. It is unclear as to whether the genetic
engineering or change to the post-production filtration process was
responsible for the damaging contaminants getting into the marketed
tryptophan. Although a casual agent (or agents) for the medical problems
has not been identified, as one review commented: "all the analytical
studies revealed the contaminants’ low concentration in L-tryptophan and
this means that the casual contaminate(s) must be very potent indeed".
Because there was such a low concentration of the contaminant, L-trytophan
could be said to have remained "substantially equivalent" after the
production process was modified, yet it clearly was more deadly.
British Medical Association Call for Ban on G.E. Crops and Food
May 1999
The British Medical Association today called for an open-ended ban on the
introduction of genetically-modified crops and food. Sir William Asscher,
chairman of the BMA’s Board of Science and Education, said more research
was needed into the health and environmental impacts of so-called
Frankenstein foods.
The Board today published an interim statement on genetically-modified
organisms (GMOs) and food, calling for strict regulation and assessment of
crop trials and other tests. It made 19 recommendations, including an open-
ended moratorium on the commercial planting of GM crops, a ban on releasing
GMOs into the environment and a review of the World Trade Agreement to
ensure that Governments rather than companies determine whether imports of
GM foods and seeds are restricted.
In a hardline stance, it condemned the use of "marker" genes in crops and
GM food that may help create drug-resistant bacteria.
Marker genes are indicators, which show that other genes have been
successfully transferred to a plant. But some have been shown to produce a
resistance to antibiotics.
The report said the use of antibiotic resistant genes in GM foods was "a
completely unacceptable risk, however slight, to human health".
Environmental campaigners welcomed the BMA’s tough stance, but
biotechnology companies rejected the Board’s allegation that there was not
enough evidence to guarantee safety.
Publishing the 16-page statement, Sir Willim said:" Once the GM genie is
out of the bottle, the impact on the environment is likely to be
irreversible. That is why the precautionary principle is so particularly
important on this issue. It is even more serious than the licensing of
medicines, which can, if necessary be withdrawn".
Genetically-Manipulated Potatoes Cause Serious Health Damage in Animals
May 1999
The controversy over genetically engineered food in Britain has taken on
epidemic proportions. For instance, the Observer (London) of February 14,
1999, reported: "It was supposed to be the food of tomorrow: a genetically
engineered ambrosia to feed Earth’s hordes next century. But it has turned
into a political nightmare. Last week unprecedented ferocious criticism
fell upon the heads of those responsible for making genetically modified
foods in Britain – an onslaught so fierce it is hard to see how their
products can survive commercially."
Much of the controversy stems back to August 1998, when Dr. Arpad Pusztai,
a distinguished researcher at the Rowett Research Instsitute in Scotland,
announced that rats who were fed genetically potatoes showed serious health
damage. Within 48 hours of his announcement, the Institute said Dr. Pusztai
was mistaken, and suspended him.
More recently, at least 20 scientists (including toxicologists, genetic
engineers and medical experts) from 13 different countries re-examined his
work and reported his conclusions were justified. The data showed that rats
fed the GE potatoes for 10 days suffered serious damage to the immune
systems and various organs, including the kidney, stomach, spleen and
brain. The scientists are calling for a reinstatement of Dr. Pusztai as
well as a moratorium of genetically engineered crops until more research
can be done to determine their safety. The public and press and opposition
parties are calling for a 5-year moratorium.
Further research has linked the toxicity of the biotech potatoes to one of
the key components of the genetically engineered process; a promoter virus
that is used as a biochemical switch in many other genetically engineered
crops. More research is also being called for to pinpoint the exact cause
of the toxicity.
The attempted discrediting of Dr. Pusztai has also been linked by the press
to the $230,000 USD grant that the Rowett Research Institute received from
Monsanto, the biotech giant.
MAFF Reveals New Scientific Findings Confirming Fears Over Health Hazards
of GMO’s
The following warnings came from a letter by N. Tomlinson of UK MAFF’s
joint food Safety and Standards Group dated 4 December 1998 to the US FDA,
commenting on its draft document, "Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic
Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants".
· Transfer of antibiotic resistant market genes to gut micro
organisms
· Transfer of transgenic DNA into mammalian cells
· Ampicillin resistance marker gene may compromise treatment for
meningitis
The letter from MAFF cites new findings from the University of Leeds
showing "the relative difficulty with which plant DNA is degraded during
processing"
It mentions other new research showing that bacteria in the mouth can take
up foreign DNA and express the gene(s); and transformable bacteria are also
present in the respitary tract.
MAFF warns, "there is a case to be concerned about the problem of gene
transfer to environmental organisms" and that bacteria that have taken up
the antibiotic resistance genes "could also act as a gene pool that may
interact with human pathogens." It goes on state "The widespread use of
transgenics carrying antibiotic resistance marker genes will involve a
massive amplification of these genes in the biosphere. Whether or not these
genes are expressed, amplification on the scale that will occur when
transgenic crops are planted in large fields means that arguments about the
rarity of possible transfer events will become less significant."
MAFF cites recent publications showing that transgenic DNA may gain access
into mammalian cells by being carried in pathogenic bacteria that invade
cells.
The ampicillin-resistcance marker gene encodes a beta-lactamase, which
inactivates penicillin and other penicillin-like antibiotics. This gene is
highly mutable, and hence capable of extending its spectrum of resistance
to many other similar antibiotics.
FDA cover-up
The FDA admits it is operating under a directive "to foster" the US biotech
industry; and its directive advocates the premise that bio engineered foods
are essentially the same as others. However, the agency’s attempts to bend
its policy to conform with this premise met strong resistance from its own
scientists, who repeatedly warned that genetic engineering differs from
conventional practices and entails a unique set of risks. Numerous agency
experts protested that drafts of the Statement of Policy were ignoring the
recognised potential for bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and
allergens in a different manner and to a different degree than do
conventional methods.
Dr. Louis Pribyl of the FDA Microbiology Group said "There is a profound
difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional
breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this
document". He added that several aspects of gene splicing "…may be more
hazardous."
Dr. Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, objected that the agency was
"…trying to fit a square peg into a round hole…[by] trying to force an
ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by
genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices."
She said: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding
are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they
lead to different risks."
Dr. Jim Mayanksi, the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, acknowledged there is
no consensus about the safety of genetically engineered foods in the
scientific community at large, and FDA scientists advised they should
undergo special testing, including toxicological tests.
Nonetheless, so strong was the FDA’s motivation to promote the biotech
industry that it not only disregarded the warnings of its own scientists
about the unique risk of gene-spliced foods, it dismissed them and took a
public position that was the opposite. Its official policy asserts: "The
agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these
new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way…"
Thus, although agency experts advised that genetically engineered foods
should be subjected to special testing, the bureaucrats in charge of the
policy proclaimed these foods require no testing at all.
Scientists comments on genetic engineering
• Professor Arpad Pusztai, world-leading nutritional science expert,
formerly of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett
Research Institute, "If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We
are putting new things into food, which have not been eaten before. The
effects on the immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge
anyone who will say that the effects are predictable."
• Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
toxicologist, "This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns
by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the
very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the
environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the
most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly
deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."
• Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine
(CVM),"...animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present
unique animal and food safety concerns ... Residues of plant constituents
or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems.
"
• Dr Vyvyan Howard: expert in fetal and infant toxico-pathology at
Liverpool University Hospital, "Swapping genes between organisms can
produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect
children"
Dr Mae Wan-Ho, geneticist in the UK Open University Department of Biology
says: "Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using
artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses, as
vectors to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once inside cells, these
vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign
genes into the host genome has long been known to have many harmful and
fatal effects including cancer of the organism."
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate and Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard
University, wrote, "Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly,
and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will
be transposed overnight into wholly new associations..going ahead in this
direction may be not only unwise, but also dangerous. Potentially, it could
breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel
epidemics."
Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology at Guy’s
Hospital says, "The generation of genetically engineered plants and animals
involves the random integration of artificial combinations of genetic
material from unrelated species into the DNA of the host organism. This
procedure results in disruption of the genetic blueprint of the organism
with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic
substances has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast,
plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major
health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or
enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it
could take years for full toxicity to come to light." Dr Antoniou recently
warned MPs against believing there was any safe alternative to a ban on GM
foods, "We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we
should not think that by regulating something which is inherently
unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe!"
Professor Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign:" We don’t
know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated into the genome [the
individual’s DNA]. I’m more worried about humans than about the
environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it’s a long-
term thing, you need to do long-term experiments."
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn