Bt Brinjal trials challenged in the Supreme Court of India.

[Guest guest]

GM WATCH dailyhttp://www.gmwatch.org------GM-eggplant challenged in Supreme Court of IndiaPress Release: Robert Mann, 7 August 2006http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0608/S00085.htmIn a type of action not available in many countries, an Indian citizenis challenging proposed field-trials of a particularly obnoxiousGM-eggplant. Several scientists have deposed statements in support -here'smine.Statement for the Supreme Court of Indiaon the Writ Petition of Aruna RodriguesL. R. B. Mannsenior lecturer in Biochemistry (rtd)University of Auckland, New ZealandIntroductionI have studied the statements to the Court by Professor Schubert, DrPusztai and Dr Gurian-Sherman. I find I agree with them, and will notreiterate

their points here, but have been invited to augment them.What Iwish to do is to make some general points about genetic 'engineering',as well as some particular points about the proposed GM-Brinjal thatare not emphasized in their prior statements.Genetic manipulation (GM) or genetic engineering (GE) mean artificialtransfer of genes - pieces of DNA - to produce a transgenic organism,e.g. jellyfish genes into sugarcane or human genes into cows. The methodsof artificially joining pieces of DNA from different organisms' geneswere invented as recently as the mid-1970s and are collectively calledrecombinant-DNA technology.I was a university teacher of biochemistry when these techniques werefirst developed, and became interested in their effects. Much of what Ihave to say to the Court is taken from a paper presented more recentlyas a public lecture to the Royal Society of New Zealand (Aucklandbranch).The

techniques of GM no more entail a uniform degree of hazard thandoes nuclear science. As in nuclear technology, so with geneticengineering: the tag 'nuclear' does not necessarily connote anyserious degree ofhazard, and some versions of GM may well be harmless.But some versions are not harmless. Therefore a regulatory system mustperform sceptical analyses of GM proposals to assess their hazards.General DoubtsMany scientific and moral leaders have queried GM. The science uponwhich GM technology is founded is under strenuous criticism fromscientific thinkers. Genes are not Lego modules which can be blithelyslottedinto very different organisms free from unintended effects. Roguediseases are a genuine concern arising from detailed, scepticalappraisal ofsome GM projects by highly qualified scientists. But global ecologicaldamage is the gravest threat.One tawdry old argument we have heard since

1974 and can expect to hearagain is the claim that gene transfers occur naturally so GM is onlyhastening them. This line of talk is a smoke-screen designed to obscurethe fact that GM usually performs artificial transfers which are notknown to occur in nature. This fact is denied when possible harm issuggested, but is acknowledged, indeed emphasised, for claims ofbenefit. Itis certainly true that no brinjal could arise in nature containingmodified versions of a Bt toxin in most or all of its cells.If we change the rates, or even worse the specificities, with whichgenes can jump around in infectious manners, we may wreak biologicalhavocon a global scale. Go back to Ovid's Metamorphoses to glimpse whatmight go wrong.The gene-manipulators claim they can foresee the evolutionary resultsof their artificial transposings of human genes into sheep, bovine genesinto tomatoes, altered bacterial genes into

eggplant,etc. But suchclaims are a reflection more of arrogance than of scientific analysis.The science upon which current GM experiments are based, as stated orassumed by the experimenters, is in many places wrong.For instance:-1. It is routinely assumed that there are only 4 letters in the'alphabet' of DNA (called for short G, C, T, and A). But it has beenknown forseveral decades that other 'letters' exist in DNA. The functions of the'odd' bases - methyl-C, methyl-G, and others - are largely unknown, butthat does not mean they're equivalent to 'The Big Four'. They are oftenignored by genetic engineers sequencing DNA "copied" by systems thatcan produce only 'Big 4' polymers. The synthetic genes inserted by GMare, on this basis, all made with just 'The Big Four' bases. This is aglaring fallacy.2. Synthetic genes are routinely inserted which are deliberatelydifferent from actual genes. An

example in the present case is the'Bt' genesthat have been inserted into GM-Brinjal; the 'Bt' toxin gene must bedifferent from that for any actual toxin produced in the bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis , in order for the plant to make the novelprotein toany useful extent.3. It is routinely assumed that the effects of genes inserted byradically unnatural methods are predictable, when in fact they areknown tobe extremely variable (frequently lethal). It is pretended that a cellsurviving such genes-insertion processes, and then selected on just oneproperty - resistance to an antibiotic - and then grown into a wholeorganism, e.g. an eggplant, will have all properties at least as good asthose of a normal organism. On the contrary, insertional mutationdamages the target genome in unpredictable ways, rendering literallyunforeseeable the many properties of any surviving GM-cells. Theunforeseeability is

compounded by somaclonal variation in theGM-progeny: plantsgrown from single cells, taking advantage of what is called the'totipotence' of some plant cells, are known to exhibit much morevariabilitythan plants grown from normal seed.How Much Harm; How Often?In appraising dangerous technologies, it is best to estimate the hazard- the scale of harm in the event of a major mishap - as a separatequestion, and then analyse if possible the risk - the probability thatthemajor mishap will occur. Much confusion between these two aspects ofdanger has been created by language-tampering, even in such formal arenasas the Journal of Risk Analysis.Biology is so much more complex than technology that we should notpretend we can imagine all the horror scenarios, but it is suspected thatsome artificial genetic manipulations create the potential to derangethe biosphere for longer than any civilisation could

survive. If onlypro-GM enthusiasts are consulted in the appraisal of GM proposals, suchscenarios will not be thought of.The hazard certainly includes some mortality: a hundred or so peoplewere killed, and a few thousand maimed, in the 1980s by impurities inL-tryptophan (a natural amino acid, sold as a dietary supplement) made byShowa Denko using GM'd bacterial cultures. Showa Denko has paid roughlyU$2,000,000,000 in out-of-court settlements of suits resulting fromsome of the approx. 80 - 120 deaths (possibly more) and thousandscontinuing maimed. This actual damage by GM(http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/trypto.html) is one basis of thecampaign for labelling as such any GM'd foods which may be permitted.Having taught on environmental health hazards for many years in science & medical faculties, and having served as an adviser

to successiveMinisters of Health in the first dozen years of the Toxic SubstancesBoard,I know all too well how overloaded government staff, even when backedby statutory powers, get subverted by not only the specific claims butmore importantly the whole value-system of the industries which they aresupposed to regulate. It is therefore crucially important that aclearly defined agency conduct scrutiny of GMOs before they areallowed intofield-trials. Furthermore, that agency must - to be scientificallyreliable - take due account of evidence against a proposedfield-trial. Inthe case of GM-brinjal, the evidence summarised by the experts fromwhom the Court has already heard on behalf of Mrs Rodrigues is, in myopinion, overwhelming.One aspect of 'Bt'-Brinjal which deserves more attention is thepersistent concern among experts that GM-'Bt' plants such as this willevokeselection & proliferation of mutant

insects resistant to Bacillusthuringiensis. The natural bacterium B. t. is very important in advancedorganic agriculture, so insects resistant to this pesticide would be aserious threat to many types of agriculture on which a country such asIndia inevitably & rightly relies.ConclusionI regard the 'Bt'-brinjal field-trial proposal as one of the mostill-conceived I have encountered in my three decades of criticalappraisalof GM. The risks and hazards, while not exactly known or indeedprecisely foreseeable, appear to be so grave that the proposedfield-trialsshould be enjoined pending a thorough assessment such as has yet to beperformed. Since the intended GM-brinjal would be unfit for humanconsumption, the hazards of the field-trial can be prevented by notdoing thefield-trial.(signed)L. R. B. Mann21-7-2006+ DOCUMENTS ON BT BRINJAL Here are links to documents forming part

ofthe response sent by the Coalition for a GM-Free India, to India's GMregulatory body - the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) - onthe biosafety data and the proposal by Monsanto Mahyco for field trialsand seed production of Bt brinjal (eggplant/aubergine).The Coalition's response was endorsed by more than 250 leadingorganisations and eminent experts from various fields including farmers'organisations, organic farmers, agricultural scientists, microbiologists,medical professionals, and social scientists.The Coalition also told the GEAC that it strongly objected to the factthat the GEAC had stated in a press release that it WILL permit thetrials, even while it was asking for feedback on the proposal to hold thetrials! This, the Coalition said, was not just unacceptable butrendered the entire regulatory process farcical.The documents are at:http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6772http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6773http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6774http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6775http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6776For a letter to the prime minister of India from the food and tradepolicy analyst, Dr Devinder Sharma on the Bt brinjal plans, see:http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6778 "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.

Get your email and more, right on the new .com