From BSE to GMOs – What Have We Learned?

[Guest guest]

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

 

From BSE to GMOs – What Have We Learned?

 

From BSE to GMOs – What Have We Learned?Institute of Science in Society

In working with the Millennium Debate

Most of the world’s 70 million acres of genetically modified crops are being fed

to animals or processed into animal feed products. Furthermore, the biotech

industry depends upon this market for its future viability. In the UK, the BSE

crises has already taught us the lesson of how a change in the composition of

animal feed can have a devastating effect on both animal and human health.

 

In this booklet, Dr Harash Narang, a clinical virologist and BSE expert, adds

his voice to the public debate on GMOs. He is especially concerned about the use

of specific genes in transgenic crops, namely antibiotic resistance marker

genes, insecticide and herbicide-tolerance genes.

 

The aim of this booklet is to inform the public about some of the major failings

in the government’s handling of the BSE crises, and to demonstrate that a

similar scenario is now being repeated with GMOs. Dr Narang combines his

experience with BSE, with his concerns over food GM foods, to convey an

important message to all members of the public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr Harash Narang and BSEBy Angela Ryan

At the height of the BSE crises, Dr Harash Narang held a crucial position as a

government scientist at the Public Health Service Laboratories (PHSL). In 1989,

with over 25 years of research on spongiform disease behind him, he and his

colleague, Dr Robert Perry, a neuropathologist, provided hard evidence linking

mad cow disease (BSE) with Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) in humans.

 

Dr Narang went on to devise a brain test for use in abattoirs, and then a live

urine test for sub-clinical spongiform ecephalopathy – to diagnose BSE in cattle

and CJD in humans. This meant that infected cattle could be detected and

prevented from entering the food chain.

 

The authorities in Ireland adopted the approach of slaughtering the whole herd

in which any clinical case of BSE was detected. Breeding from affected animals

was also stopped so that the infectious agent did not pass from one generation

to the next. These practices succeeded in keeping the total number of BSE cases

in Ireland to below 100.

 

Advice to adopt the same approach was also available in Britain to the relevant

authority, the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF), but it was

ignored, and breeding from affected animals continued in Britain. Out of the170,

000 animals confirmed with BSE in Britain, 40, 000 of them were born after the

feed ban was introduced in 1988.

 

The then Ministers of Agriculture, John Gummer and John MacGregor, chose not to

develop and use the diagnostic test, perhaps because it would have revealed how

widespread the disease had become. An effective diagnostic test would have

contained the disease and thereby prevented further infections. Dr Narang

continued to push for its implementation and to gather further evidence on new

variant CJD. He was the first scientist to use the urine test to identify CJD

cases in young persons, which had been missed by the neurologists.

 

Meanwhile, other scientists were persuaded to add their voices to the BSE/CJD

link such as neuropathologist Helen Grant, Professor Richard Lacy, Stephen

Dealler and Marja Hovi, but all to no avail. The Government continued to insist

there was no link between BSE and CJD.

 

Dr Narang was portrayed as a ‘loose cannon’ and eventually suspended from his

post of clinical virologist at PHSL in 1992, under dubious circumstances. He was

made redundant in 1994. Dr Narang was then able to make his findings public and

the story appeared in The Mail on Sunday in December 1995. This forced the

British Government into a U-turn and it was at this point that they chose to

recognise Dr Narang’s findings and to finally admit the direct link between BSE

and CJD.

 

The BSE crisis continues to this day and is in itself a reflection of the uneasy

relationships between science and government and between science and industry.

BSE continues to pose a problem for the British meat industry abroad and will

continue to do so until such time that the infective agent is eradicated not

only from cattle but also from other farm animals such as sheep and birds.

However, the British government still fails to recognise the biological nature

of the infectious agent responsible for BSE.

 

Dr Narang has published all his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals on

the nature of the infectious agent of BSE. The infectious agent is a slow acting

virus that consists of a single stranded (ss) DNA genome which is associated

with the prion protein. Furthermore, the agent is transmitted maternally from

cow to calf via the ssDNA. Without the implementation of a diagnostic test,

maternal transmission has gone unchecked. This means that the infectious agent

may still be widespread within British livestock while thousands of perfectly

healthy cattle may have been destroyed unnecessarily. Dr Narang has also

suggested the need to develop a vaccine against BSE and new variant CJD.

 

In 1997, the Medical Research Council (MRC) agreed to evaluate Dr Narang’s

diagnostic test (western blotting/ELISA equipment) and set up a special CJD

urine test-committee to oversee his work. The National CJD Surveillance Unit at

Edinburgh was asked to provide Dr Narang with 20 blind samples of urine, 10

samples from CJD cases and 10 from non-CJD cases, so as to evaluate the test.

 

However, the National CJD Surveillance Unit failed to provide the urine samples

in the form requested. The test therefore has not been evaluated by the MRC and

no CJD diagnostic test is in use to this day, making it impossible to monitor

the actual number of CJD cases. Dr Narang has found it increasingly difficult,

if not impossible, to get funding for scientific research in this country. He

has been forced to pursue his endeavours abroad.

 

Dr Narang has published two important books on BSE/CJD: ‘Death on the Menu " , a

first hand account of the level of devastation that CJD brought upon the lives

of it’s victims and their families. And ‘The Link’, which explains, in detail,

the history, incidence, epidemiology and pathology of spongiform ecephalopathy

diseases, from scrapie in sheep, to BSE in cows, to CJD in humans…

 

Dr Narang’s experience is similar to that of other scientists who acted with

integrity and social responsibility. Professor Arpad Pusztai, formerly senior

scientist of the publicly funded Rowett Institute was also made redundant and

vilified by the mainstream scientific community for making public scientific

findings, which were unfavourable to the biotech industry. Thankfully, there is

still a substantial community of independent scientists in the world for whom

integrity and social responsibility are paramount.

 

Dr Narang and Professor Pusztai both belong to a group of more than 100

scientists from 23 different countries all over the world who have signed onto a

the World Scientists’ Statement launched in Cartegena, Columbia, during the UN

Convention of Biological Diversity Conference on the International Biosafety

Protocol Feb 1999, calling on all governments to:

 

Impose an immediate moratorium on further environmental releases of

transgenic crops, food and animal-feed products for at least five years.

Ban patents on living organisms, cell lines and genes.

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 socio-economic and ethical implications.

 

The British government has lost control over GM crops in animal feed. There is

no appropriate regulation governing the safety of GM animal feed and no legal

labelling regime. Mr Blair’s policy of consumer choice is rendered meaningless

due to the failure of excluding GM material from animal feed.

 

Europe has successfully resisted imports of US hormone treated beef and rBST

milk products despite WTO, GATT and EU treaties and agreements. We can therefore

call upon our government to resist the import of GM food and GM animal feed

products destined for our food chain.

 

 

GMOsGenetically Modified Food and Animal FeedBy Dr Harash Narang

Genetic modification has been presented to us as a key solution for solving food

shortages and feeding the hungry. Biotechnology companies promote their products

as safe, healthy and environmentally friendly. However, such companies compete

vigorously with one another, racing to get their GM products onto the market in

order to avoid being left behind. Furthermore, the European Union presently

funds major research programmes into genetic engineering for it is considered a

source of great economic growth. More and more university based research groups

now depend on funding from industry that supports their own interests rather

than science. This has compromised scientific research as well as the

credibility of science and scientists; consequently society is put at risk with

regard to health and safety.

 

>Our food should be treated with the utmost respect. It should have a high

nutritional value and be free from infection and damaging chemicals. Consumers

need to know the basic principles of genetic modification in order to make

informed choices regarding GM food. Food is what fuels our bodies and if it is

good our bodies will work well but if it is bad, our bodies will suffer.

 

We are now dependent on a multi-million pound international food industry which

has grown ever more powerful with the advent of modern day shopping culture. The

GM food industry has its own scientific experts and all these experts speak with

one voice and are constantly assuring us that GM food is safe to eat. They will

certainly not spend any time, money or effort into research, which may prove

otherwise. The fundamental safety issues are not being addressed, but are being

swept under the carpet and avoided.

 

Governments add to this problem by protecting and defending the industry, which

makes large donations to their election funds. Lord Sainsbury, Minister for

Science, recently donated £2 million to the labour party, in an obvious conflict

of interest. Sainsbury has strong connections with the biotechnology industry

and is patentee of genetic material used in GM foods. Furthermore, the Sainsbury

Laboratory, a forerunner in research into GM foods, receives substantial funding

through government grants.

 

We are told that everything is under control and evidence is being gathered but

when scientific findings run contra to biotechnology interests the scientists

who present those findings are gagged e.g. the recent Pusztai affair. The

political power that the industry commands should not be underestimated. In the

absence of adequate labelling, we have been given no choice in the matter of GM

food and are being used as guinea pigs in an uncontrolled experiment.

 

It should be a fundamental human right to know what we are being fed and the

effects it will have on our health. We need to understand enough of GM food

science so as to grasp the environmental dangers and health risks attached to

the products we consume and feed to our livestock.

 

I am no stranger to GM science. I conducted gene modification experiments from

my laboratory as part of an investigation into CJD and BSE. I am very conscious

of health and safety, and nothing has ever been used for human or animal

consumption or released into the environment from my laboratory. Nevertheless

the Public Health Laboratory Service Board ordered me to stop all work on

genetic engineering the BSE agent, fearing I might create a ‘super’ bug. I am,

therefore, qualified to discuss genetic modification without being guilty of a

mere sentimental aversion to the technology.

 

Traditionally, growers and scientists have used crossbreeding for thousands of

years. But today we are introducing genes, which are capable of producing

insecticides and herbicide-tolerant chemicals in our food. We are incorporating

genes from animal sources into non-meat products.

 

Under pressure to promote their products, scientists from biotechnology

companies claim GM food is safe. But we’ve heard these sorts of assurances

before.

 

We have all already eaten GM food, and increasingly, industry and governments

realise that consumer confidence is central to the successful promotion of GM

products. That confidence demands credible answers to some simple questions.

- Is GM Food Safe?- What is being introduced in GM foods?- Would only those who

eat the food be affected by the genetic modification- How would GM crops affect

the environment?Marker Genes

Genetic modification is a random process and highly imprecise. Fewer that 1 in

ever 1000 or even 1 in every 100,000 cells is modified during the process

itself. It is therefore necessary to identify those cells which have been

modified. This entails a technique, which is crucial, but little commented on.

To identify the modified cells, and for this reason only, an extra ‘marker gene’

is added. This is a passenger gene and it is carried along with the one for

improvement, growth, pesticide resistance or whatever desired characteristic one

is trying to introduce.

 

Almost all marker genes used in GM are antibiotic resistance genes and they work

by producing a chemical that reacts with antibiotics to protect the GM cells

from the harmful effects of the antibiotic. The marker gene will be active only

in those cells, which have been genetically modified, and therefore the modified

cells can be selected by growing these cells in the presence of the antibiotic.

This is how GM cells are sorted from non-GM cells. Therefore all GM products

contain a gene that produces the desired trait and something that overcomes the

antibiotic, an anti-antibiotic.

 

The biotechnology companies claim that the quantities produced are too small to

damage human health. But in laboratory conditions, these modified cells continue

to grow when the antibiotic concentration is higher that that used to treat

patients. Furthermore, they produce more that enough of the anti-antibiotic

product to pass resistance on to neighbouring unmodified cells. Therefore GM

food may contain ‘anti-antibiotic’ chemicals in abundance and these chemicals

may also confer resistance on other strains of bacteria that would normally be

killed by antibiotics. Furthermore, antibiotic resistance genes have the

potential to spread in our environment via horizontal gene transfer to other

bacteria. In this process, the genetic material, DNA, is directly transferred to

unrelated species, which may result in new strains of antibiotic resistant

bacteria.

 

It is known that DNA from GM material can persist in the environment and is not

completely broken down by either processing, decomposition or digestion. Both GM

plant materials used in silage and manure from animals fed with GM feed may

contain fragments of DNA bearing antibiotic resistance genes. Antibiotic

resistance genes may escape from both silage and manure to bacteria in the gut

and in the environment. GM animal feed serves to greatly increase the potential

for new strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

How may this affect humans?

A child who becomes host to such an antibiotic resistant bacteria would be at an

increased risk of developing a disease, such as meningitis, and of passing on

both infection and drug resistance to other children, whether or not they had

eaten GM food or not. The world already faces the threat of multi-drug resistant

bacteria; surely an environment rich in anti-antibiotics is one to be avoided.

" Useful Genes "

So far " useful genes " have remained hypothetical, except for those prolonging

the shelf life of tomatoes which do not benefit consumers at all. Ordinary

potatoes consist mostly of starch. It is claimed that GM potatoes can be

produced to contain 20% protein. To the consumer, these two types of potato

would be indistinguishable, posing a problem for those who need to know the

caloric value of their food. A bigger threat is for those who cannot tolerate

high protein diets. But how active is this protein gene?

 

On a microscopic level, such a protein gene would have to be abnormally active

during growth for the potato to have such a protein boost. Of the total weight,

20% is additional protein produced by the inserted gene. But remember, along

side the protein gene may be the marker gene producing the anti-antibiotic

product. How much anti-antibiotic product will be produced compared to the 20%

additional protein? This question remains unanswered. Such investigations have

not been carried out and we simple don’t know.

Insecticide and Herbicide Tolerance Genes

Almost all GM crops now available have been modified to protect them from

insects and or herbicides by inserting insecticide and herbicide-tolerance

genes. Revealingly, less is known about the insecticide and herbicide-tolerance

chemicals, as well as herbicide residues that we can expect to consume from

these plants engineered. Such chemicals may not have noticeable effects on

adults but for children, the effects may be more serious.

 

The major insecticides used are Bt toxins isolated from the soil bacterium

Bacillus thuringiensis. Suspensions of the bacterium have been used by organic

farmer as an occasional spray to control pests. The GM plants, however will be

producing this insecticide continuously in all parts of the plant, including

pollen and nectar. Studies have shown that the monarch butterfly and lacewings

are harmed by this toxin as well as bees. Bee honey will also be contaminated,

harming the next generation of bees, which will feed on it in the hive. Humans

who eat such honey will also be affected.

 

Furthermore, the Bt toxin is released from transgenic plants directly into the

soil, where it cannot be broken down by sunlight, as is the case when organic

farmers use bacterial suspension. It cannot be broken down by soil microbes and

will therefore build up in the soil and will have harmful effects on soil

insects. As the population of butterflies and bees drop sharply this will have a

dramatic effect on the rate of pollination. The level of biodiversity will be

reduced by the widespread use of such GM crops.

Build up of toxic chemicals in the body

Many chemicals taken in by the body cannot be excreted. Therefore, their

concentration will increase over time. Such a build up of insecticide and

herbicide residues in our bodies may be enough to produce cancerous effects.

There is also evidence to suggest that such chemicals are excreted in mother’s

milk, which will not be good for baby.

 

Herbicide residues in food are already a serious issue. Herbicide-tolerant GM

crops are engineered to be tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides which kill all

other species of plants indiscriminately. Insects, birds and mammals, which

depend on those plants, will also die out. These herbicides will have drastic

effects on biodiversity.

 

GM companies engineer crops to be tolerant to their own herbicide. Studies on

glufosinate, one such herbicide, shows that when ingested by pregnant females it

causes birth defects and defeats in behaviour and learning in offspring.

Furthermore, fathers exposed to glufosinate also gave birth to children with

birth defects while exposure to most other pesticides did not cause such

effects. Glyphosate, another broad-spectrum herbicide contained in a formulation

commonly known as Roundup Ready, has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Claims by officials that the herbicides used with GM crops have no harmful side

effects are false.

What have we Learned?

Fundamental safety assessments regarding GMOs have yet to be carried out,

including comprehensive feeding and environmental impact assessments. The

present generation of GM crops may indeed have adverse affects on the organisms

that consume them. They contain antibiotic resistance marker genes and in

addition, some are producing harmful insecticides in high doses in every single

cell. Toxic herbicides are used with herbicide-tolerant GM crops and over time,

these products will build up in our environment affecting both human and animal

health. Any increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria or any additional harm to

our already troubled biodiversity or any more build up of carcinogenic chemicals

in our bodies, is to be avoided at all costs if we are to secure a sustainable

future for coming generations.

 

In my view, the current generation of GM crops are unacceptable in terms of

risks to health and biodiversity. A five year moratorium will give time for

vital research to be conducted so as to overcome the above mentioned hazards of

GM crops.

 

I have given you some fundamental principles of genetically modified food

science. Based on this knowledge it is up to you to decide whether GM food is

safe to eat and whether it is justifiable to continue with the field trials of

these GM crops.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR

telephone: [44 20 8643 0681] [44 20 7383 3376] [44 20 7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam - Website/Mailing List

press-release - ISIS Director m.w.ho

MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON

CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO

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

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!