ISP NEWS - Meacher Calls for Enquiry into GM Safety

[Guest guest]

5 May 2004 00:11:23 -0000

ISP NEWS - Meacher Calls for Enquiry into GM Safety

press-release

 

 

ISP News

 

Meacher Calls for Enquiry into GM Safety

 

Michael Meacher joined the ISP to call for an extended enquiry into GM safety,

transparency and independence in scientific research, and an end to the

victimisation of scientists whose research findings are ‘inconvenient’ for

industry. Lim Li Ching reports

 

The ISP had its day in Parliament. The 100-seater room was filled almost to

capacity. The crowd had begun gathering outside the Grand Committee Room almost

an hour before the two-hour special briefing was due to start. The event, which

took place on 29 April 2004, was jointly organised by ISIS and MP Alan Simpson’s

office. It was overd weeks after the first announcement, and has had to

be moved to a bigger room.

 

 

Alan Simpson made the opening speech, thanking ISIS for organising the event,

and for our crucial contribution to turning the tide on GM by getting quality

scientific information to the public and policy-makers.

 

 

Former environment minister Michael Meacher was the first speaker. Among other

MPs attending were Peter Ainsworth (chair of the Environmental Audit Committee),

Joan Ruddock, Jeremy Corbin, David Drew, Roger Williams and Dr. Evan Harris.

 

 

Despite the welcome fact that GM crops are unlikely to be grown in the UK in the

near future following the withdrawal of Chardon LL by Bayer, the ISP still feels

that there are broader issues at hand. Not least that the UK government, in

approving the GM maize in principle, leaves the door open for future approvals.

Approvals of GM crops, food and feed are pending in Europe, and could occur

anytime. In any case, the GM train is still steaming ahead, particularly in

developing countries.

 

 

The ISP is especially concerned that the push to get GM crops approved and

commercialised has distorted and corrupted science, and resulted in many

scientists being victimised for trying to tell the truth about their research

findings or about what they know.

 

 

Michael Meacher spoke directly to those concerns, highlighting the lack of good

research into the long-term effects of GM foods on human health. More

worryingly, when research turns up evidence of potentially adverse impacts, the

results have been rubbished by the scientific establishment, and have not been

followed up with further tests to confirm or refute the original findings.

 

 

Meacher called for a new, full-scale expert GM enquiry in the UK. As the Farm

Scale Evaluations (FSEs) had been extremely narrow, a new enquiry is needed that

would “systematically and rigorously test the impact of GM crops and food on the

environment and on human health”.

 

 

He also demanded a more open and transparent scientific process, and an end to

the suppression and vilification of scientists whose work may produce results

that are inconvenient for the government or the biotech industry. (Dr. Arpad

Pusztai was mentioned more than once in that context in the course of the

briefing.) He called on the UK’s advisory committees and regulatory bodies not

to deny or dismiss the evidence of GM hazards.

 

 

Finally, he said that decision-making in the UK should not be influenced by the

biotech industry, stressing that “No scientist with industry links should be

appointed to regulatory bodies”. He called on the government to ensure the

integrity of research by fully funding independent research, and to abandon the

current practice of encouraging the private sector to contribute 25% of research

funding.

 

 

Peter Saunders stressed that the ISP is in favour of good science.

Unfortunately, the UK government’s decision to give Chardon LL approval for

commercialisation was reliant on poor science. Doubt had been cast on the maize

FSEs because of the impending EU ban on triazine herbicides (atrazine had been

used on the majority of plots planted to non-GM maize), but shortly after, a

paper was published in Nature claiming that the ban would be likely to “reduce

but not negate relative benefits of GMHT maize”.

 

 

However, because only four fields had not been sprayed with triazines, the paper

included in its analysis data from fields that had been sprayed post-emergence

with triazines, to predict what would happen in fields where these chemicals

would not be used at all (See “Bogus comparison in GM maize trial”, this issue).

Despite its obvious flaws, the paper passed the peer review process and was

published online in an advanced version of Nature, right around the time that

the government announced the go-ahead for the GM maize. Is this what they call

‘sound’ science?

 

 

Stanley Ewen, co-researcher with Arpad Pusztai, has also been on the receiving

end of the treatment meted out to those who dare raise questions about GM

safety. Their research, which found changes in the gastro-intestinal tract of

young rats fed GM potatoes, has been further elaborated by new evidence

published in 2003. When the villi - the finger-like projections in the gut

involved in absorbing and secreting – of the small intestine were examined,

there was clear elongation of the crypts in rats fed GM potatoes. The findings

are similar to that found by Egyptian scientists, who described changes in the

small intestine of mice fed Bt potatoes.

 

 

Ewen also explained that they found an increase in the number of cells in the

crypt and the mitotic rate (number of cells dividing) in the small bowel of

young rats fed GM potatoes. He highlighted other research findings, such as

gastric erosions in female rats fed GM Flavr Savr tomatoes, changes in the

nuclei of liver cells in female mice fed GM soya, the persistence of GM maize

grains in the rumen of sheep, and the transfer of transgenes to human gut

bacteria. Ewen concluded by saying, “Much more scientific investigation is

necessary before I can be satisfied that eating GM foods is not likely to

provoke health problems in the long term”.

 

 

Adding to the list, Mae- Wan Ho cited other evidence that casts doubt on the

safety of GM food and feed, such as reported illnesses in villagers living near

Bt maize fields in the Philippines and recent disclosure in the French newspaper

Le Monde that there were kidney abnormalities and changes in blood sugar and

blood cells in rats fed Bt maize resistant to corn rootworm. She stressed that

there are reports in the scientific literature documenting problems with Bt

toxins. The regulatory process not only ignores all that, but also allows

toxicological tests to be done using the natural bacterial toxin instead of that

produced by the GM crop. Consequently, most, if not all Bt toxins in crop plants

are untested and unknown for toxicity.

 

 

She highlighted transgenic instability as a key safety issue. Recent

event-specific molecular characterisation of commercial transgenic lines has

shown that all the inserts analysed have changed from the original structure

reported by the companies concerned, rendering the safety tests submitted

earlier invalid. Many break-points involve the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV)

35S promoter. The research also showed scrambling of the host genome at the

insertion site, and a tendency for the inserts to land in retrotransposons.

 

 

Lim Li Ching exploded the myth that poor countries need GM crops and could

benefit greatly from them. She described the socio-economic impacts of GM crops

especially in Argentina, and also in Indonesia and India.

 

 

In Argentina, small farming families have been pushed off their land, unable to

compete with large plantations growing herbicide tolerant Roundup Ready (RR)

soya. Traditional food crops have been displaced by RR soya monoculture, leaving

food insecurity in its wake. In addition, large-scale destruction of the

environment has occurred with double the rate of deforestation. Glyphosate use

on RR soya, double that on conventional soya, has led to tolerant and resistant

weeds, necessitating ever more herbicide use, with farmers resorting to older

and more toxic chemicals such as Paraquat and 2,4 D. These agrochemicals have

been devastating on local communities, with serious health impacts, and loss of

crops and livestock. The situation for some farmers in Indonesia and India has

also been dire, with many who planted Bt cotton bearing the brunt of crop

failure and pest attacks on the crop.

 

 

Brian John ended the briefing with an indictment of the scientific establishment

for insisting that genetically modified organisms are safe. He stressed that

there are still many questions about GM safety that need to be asked and that we

need to “bring science with integrity to the fore”. John reminded the government

that ‘the public’ included many scientists who were concerned about GM safety.

He urged for a holistic scientific approach to the issue and concluded by

echoing the ISP call for “good and independent science, free of commercial

interests”.

 

ISP Making Waves

 

The Independent Science Panel (ISP) continues making an impact on the GM debate

worldwide ISP for academic freedom

Prof. Ignacio Chapela was denied tenure at the University of California,

Berkeley, despite the overwhelming majority of scientists in his field who had

recommended otherwise. His research on the introgression of transgenes into

Mexican maize local varieties, which has contributed to opening up the debate on

key safety issues surrounding GM crops, and his outspoken criticism of

large-scale corporate funded research are well-known.

 

 

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, in a letter to the Berkeley alumni magazine California Monthly,

expressed the concern that denying Chapela tenure is a reflection of the undue

influence that industry and their supporters are exerting over academia. She

stressed that disagreements in science must be debated openly and

democratically, and can be resolved by good quality, unbiased research. What

seems to be the suppression of research findings deemed unfavourable to the

industry, and worse, action to deprive a scientist of the opportunity for

further research that could resolve the disagreement, compromises all the

traditional standards of good science.

 

ISP challenges GM maize approval

Dr. Brian John of GM-Free Cymru and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Director, both members

of the ISP, wrote a strongly worded letter to Margaret Beckett in February to

challenge the approval of Chardon LL GM maize for Britain. The letter summarised

crucial scientific evidence on Chardon LL, which might involve a likelihood of

harm arising from its use, and called for DEFRA to bring this to the attention

of the European Commission and other EU countries. They pointed to the

instability of Chardon LL’s transgenic insert, possibly related to the

cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter.

 

 

Commenting on the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs), they reminded Beckett that the

FSE maize trials did not replicate the likely commercial growing conditions that

would apply if Chardon LL is grown in the future, and that Chardon LL should

only be grown in the UK if the herbicide regime is exactly as it was in the

FSEs. They pointed out that there are now major concerns about the toxicity of

glufosinate ammonium, the herbicide used in conjunction with Chardon LL. In

addition, experience from the US shows that glufosinate ammonium is ineffective

when used on its own with GM maize after 2-3 years.

 

 

Finally, they raised the issue of contamination, pointing to research that

suggests cross-pollination and hybridization of conventional maize at a distance

of c. 5 km from the source crop.

 

Pharmaceutical rice stalled

Recent reports that a GM pharmaceutical rice, modified to produce two human

proteins, had been approved by the California Rice Commission for commercial

planting prompted ISP members Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae- Wan Ho to write to

California’s Secretary of Food and Agriculture, A.G. Kawamura and Governor

Arnold Schwarzenegger, urging them to reject the GM pharm rice (see “Pharm crop

stalled for now,” this issue).

 

 

They highlighted some of the apparent irregularities in the approval process of

the transgenic rice, which meant that federal approval had yet to be sought for

growing the GM pharm rice. A report on the potential hazards of the GM pharm

rice was also enclosed.

 

 

Many people had likewise written letters urging the California Department of

Food and Agriculture to reject the GM rice. It eventually did, on the basis that

the GM rice had yet to obtain the necessary approvals from the United States

Department of Agriculture.

 

ISP questions risk assessment of hybrid GM maize

Public comment was invited on the assessment report of the UK competent

authority, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), on a GM

maize hybrid seeking approval in the EU. The GM maize is a hybrid of the NK603

line that expresses glyphosate tolerance and MON 810 that produces Bt

insecticide. ACRE’s assessment was that this hybrid GM maize “does not pose a

risk to human health or the environment”. It recommended allowing its import and

use for food/feed but not for cultivation.

 

 

ISP members Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins were scathing in their

response. They pointed out that there was no credible evidence that the GM maize

hybrid was safe for animal and human health, as no independent molecular data

were provided to ascertain that the transgene inserts are stable as claimed by

the company, including in the seed sets that will be used for animal feed and

human food. In addition, no toxicological studies or tests for allergenicity

were conducted, no feeding trials were done on cows or pigs while no data

accompanied Monsanto’s own feeding trial on chickens, and not a single reference

was made to peer-reviewed scientific literature.

 

 

They highlighted existing scientific evidence suggesting that the GM maize

hybrid may not be safe, including evidence that the transgene inserts in the

parental lines are unstable and evidence questioning the safety of GM maize

containing Bt toxins.

 

Independent Science Panel for Biosafety

ISP members Dr. Susan Bardocz, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Lim Li Ching and Dr. Arpad

Pusztai attended the First Meeting of the Parties (MOP 1) to the Cartagena

Protocol on Biosafety. Between them, they actively followed the negotiations and

carried out many activities around the meeting. These included speaking at major

side events, giving numerous interviews to journalists and independent

film-makers, taking part in an hour-long programme for Malaysian national

television, and providing informal advice to NGOs and government delegates.

 

 

It was time well spent, as they lent much needed support to the overwhelming

majority of countries wanting a strong Biosafety Protocol.

 

 

To view press cuttings, and to find out more about the ISP, please visit the

Independent Science Panel website www.indsp.org

 

 

 

 

 

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs