Cover-up over GM DNA in milk- GM maize linked to dead cows

[Guest guest]

The Institute of Science in Society Science Society

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

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

========================================================

 

 

ISIS Press Release 26/07/05

 

Cover-up over GM DNA in milk

**************************

 

Syngenta's GM maize linked to dead cows linked to GM DNA in

milk and scientist involved in what appears to be a major

cover-up on behalf of big dairy producer. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

 

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS

members' website

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/GMDNAinMilkFull.php.

Details here http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php

 

Campaign against GM animal feed

 

Greenpeace Germany began campaigning against GM animal feed

in March 2005. Their main target is Mueller, one of

Germany's biggest dairy producers and also number one in

Britain in yogurt sales. Greenpeace exposed Mueller's use of

GM soya to feed their dairy cows, which Mueller does not

deny. But the company tried to stop Greenpeace's campaign,

and especially the use of the term " GE-milk " through the law

court. The company claims it is scientifically demonstrated

that no GM DNA could transfer into the milk, and produced a

statement signed by six German scientists with the title, No

transfer of genetically modified components from animal feed

to milk. Greenpeace contacted me for help in producing a

counter-statement. The counter-statement, Transfer of

genetically modified DNA from animal feed to milk cannot be

ruled out, and is a cause for concern, was eventually signed

by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, Dr. Susan Bardocz,

Prof. Joe Cummins and Prof. Peter Saunders on behalf of the

Independent Science Panel (www.indsp.org).

 

On 5 July 2005, the court of Cologne decided in favour of

Greenpeace, refusing to grant Mueller an injunction. The

court stated that as since Mueller is using genetically

modified plants for animal feed, the products are connected

with genetic engineering and therefore the term GE-milk is

perfectly justified. Mueller claimed that GM-DNA fragments

are not present in milk, but Greenpeace countered by saying

it was not yet scientifically decided. " The report of the

ISP was vital to support our arguments! " says Greenpeace

activist Ulricke Brendel. Unfortunately, that's not the end

of the matter. Mueller has filed a new case against

Greenpeace, going for the highest court in Germany, to

prevent Greenpeace from using the term, " GE-milk " , and also

asking for €500 000 in damage compensation.

 

" For the next 3 to 5 years, that is as long it might take,

we will keep arguing the case, " Ulricke added. So what's the

current status of the evidence? Is there or is there not GM-

DNA in milk?

 

Unpublished evidence kept under lock and key

 

There are several published studies on the transfer of

genetically modified (GM) DNA from animal feed to milk, all

of them methodologically flawed; nevertheless they indicate

that it is possible for DNA from GM feed to transfer to

milk. And this is confirmed in an unpublished study from the

Weihenstephen Institute of Physiology and the Technical

University of Munich. Astonishingly, the lead author of the

unpublished study from Weihenstephen Institute, which found

positive evidence of GM DNA in milk - Prof. Rolf Espanier -

is also the lead author of the statement on behalf of the

company Mueller, claiming there is no transfer of

genetically modified components from animal feed to milk.

Furthermore, that unpublished study was done on milk

collected from dairy cows in a farm in Hesse Germany where,

between 2000 and 2001, 12 cows died after eating Syngenta's

GM maize Bt 176 ( " Cow ate GM maize and died " , SiS 21

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php). No proper

autopsies were carried out; while this crucial study dated

20 October 2000 remained under lock and key for more than

three years before it was leaked to Greenpeace [1].

 

A handful of studies

 

The first study in the laboratories of Einspanier, Jahreis

and Falchowsky [2] detected " faint signals " of the abundant

plant chloroplast DNA in milk, but not the GM DNA. However,

the limit of detection, i.e., the sensitivity of the

detection method, was not reported. This would involve

spiking the milk with increasing amounts of DNA from the GM

feed until a positive signal is obtained.

 

A second study in another laboratory [3] failed to detect

any GM DNA in milk. But the limit of detection was 30 ng GM

soya DNA added to the milk, which is equivalent to 16 200

copies of the GM soya genome, or the same number of copies

of the GM DNA insert, assuming there is a single insert in

the genome. This is unacceptably high compared to the

standard limit of detection of 10 copies or less; and it

indicates that the method used was far from sensitive

enough. A follow-up investigation [4] did detect plant

chloroplast DNA, but not the GM DNA in milk. Chloroplast DNA

outnumbers GM DNA by up to 50 000 copies to 1. The limit of

detection in this study was still unacceptably high; it

required the presence of 2 700 copies of the GM soya genome

and 602 copies of the GM maize genome in 330 microlitres

(about three drops) of milk. Another limitation of these

studies was that the feeding trials [2, 3] were of short

duration, lasting only several weeks.

 

The fourth published study [5] established the limit of

detection as between 5 and 10 genomic copies of the GM DNA,

but not by adding the GM plant DNA to milk, which is

necessary, as inhibitors of the detection reaction are often

present. Nevertheless these researchers found plant

chloroplast DNA in high proportions, possibly all, of the

milk samples from dairy cows: 86% positives while the rest

were `indeterminate'. They claim to have found " no

statistically significant " presence of GM DNA in milk. No

information on the length of the feeding trial(s) was given.

 

Positive evidence for the transfer of GM DNA into milk was

presented in the unpublished report [6] from Weihenstephen

Institute referred to earlier. Two milk samples were

analysed, and in both of them, positive signals for GM DNA

were found. These studies used a wider range of probes for

different plant DNA: Ubiquitin and zein (about 20 and 40

copies respectively in the maize genome); EPSPS, single copy

gene specific for GM soya; rubisco gene in chloroplast

genome (about 10 000 to 50 000 copies); and Bt (CrylA),

single copy gene specific for GM maize The first milk sample

was probed for ubiquitin, rubisco and Bt; the second sample

was probed for all five gene-sequences. The milk was

separated by centrifugation into the cell fraction at the

bottom, fat at the top and solution in between.

 

The first sample showed that ubiquitin DNA was present in

all the cell and fat fractions, but not in solution. The

chloroplast rubisco DNA could be detected in all cell and

fat fractions. The Bt DNA was detected in all the fractions

that were positive for chloroplast DNA, with a rather

similar pattern.

 

The summary stated, " It was not difficult to prove the

existence of general plant DNA (chloroplasts) in this milk.

In addition, positive signals for the presence of Bt-maize

fragments were obtained. This data indicates the presence of

small quantities of Bt-maize gene fragments in the tank

milk. " (emphasis added)

 

However, the authors made the unjustified assumptions that

the Bt-maize gene fragments came from other sources than the

animals producing the milk and that they have no biological

significance, " The presence of Bt-maize material in the milk

supplied is not necessary due to endogenous factors (i.e.,

via the animal itself). Thus, the presence of many different

kinds of feed in the tank milk is likely and almost

inevitable in spite of stringent hygienic conditions. The

PCR analysis will also detect dust or aerosols from

neighbouring feeding areas. On the basis of the biological

knowledge available to us, the presence of the very small

quantity of Bt-maize DNA identified has only analytical but

no biological relevance whatsoever. " In the second sample,

not only was the Bt gene fragment from GM maize detected in

milk, the EPSPS gene fragment from GM soya - contained in

the animal feed - was also detected. The summary stated, " In

this milk, it was possible to identify sporadic traces of

general plant DNA (chloroplasts) as well as zein and EPSPS

gene fragments. As well as this, slightly positive signals

indicating the presence of Bt-maize fragments were also

contained. This data indicates minor contamination with Bt-

maize gene fragments in the tank milk. " Again, this

" contamination " was deemed to have " no biological relevance

whatsoever. "

 

GM DNA in milk is a cause for concern

 

The presence of GM DNA in milk is a cause for concern,

regardless of whether it originated in the animal producing

the milk, or by contamination from " dust or aerosols "

containing GM feed, which according to the authors of the

unpublished report [6] " is likely and almost inevitable in

spite of stringent hygienic conditions. "

 

GM DNA is unlike natural DNA in many respects [7]. It

contains new combinations of genetic material that have

never existed in billions of years of evolution, including

genes sequences that are completely synthesized in the

laboratory, differing significantly from their natural

counterparts. GM DNA is designed with recombination

sequences in order to break and insert into genomes; it also

contains other changes to overcome genetic differences

between species. GM DNA inserting into genomes causes

mutational and other genome rearrangements including cancer.

In addition, GM DNA contains a high proportion of viral and

bacterial DNA, known to cause a range of immune reactions in

human [8].

 

Another source of hazard from GM DNA comes from the gene

products encoded, which have never been part of our food

chain. For example, one study found that two-thirds of all

the transgenes have similarities to known allergens [9, 10]

and should be regarded as potential allergens until proven

otherwise.

 

 

========================================================

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at

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

 

If you like this original article from the Institute of

Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving

articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation

or purchase on our website

 

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

 

ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation

dedicated to providing critical public information on

cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability

and ecological sustainability in science.

 

If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML

please let us know. If you would like to be removed from our

mailing list at

 

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

========================================================

CONTACT DETAILS

 

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

NW1 OXR

 

telephone: [44 1994 231623] [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20

7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED FOR ANY PROFIT FREE

PURPOSES WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS

ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-

sis.org.uk/.

ANY COMMERCIAL USE MUST BE AGREED WITH ISIS