Now Syngenta needs to come clean about rogue corn's promoter and Cry proteins/DE

[Guest guest]

GMW: Now Syngenta needs to come clean about rogue corn's

promoter and Cry proteins/DEFRA accused of key role in GM

contamination cover-up

 

 

" GM WATCH " <info

 

Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:50:39 +0100

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

 

 

 

Below is GM FREE CYMRU's latest press release on Syngenta's rogue corn

scandal.

 

First some interesting comments we've had from Prof Joe Cummins

following Syngenta's confirmation of the fact that a marker gene that

confers

resistance to ampicillin, a commonly used antibiotic, was present in

the Bt10 seeds - something that they failed to disclose previously when

they maintained that Bt10 was more or less identical to Bt11 corn which

has US approval.

 

Here Joe points to some more missing pieces of the jigsaw that have

also been kept back by Syngenta and the US regulatory authorities in

their

attempt to finesse this scandal. Joe writes:

 

The promoter question is still very much open. It would be good for

Syngenta to release the full molecular data including the promoter

(enhancer) change and as well the Canadian review of Bt11

showed that there were several Cry proteins produced, either by

breakdown or processing. we really need to know what Cry proteins are

produced

in Bt10.

 

Finally, it was clear Syngenta marketed a defective under producing

product in Bt10 then palmed off many tonnes of the seed. Why keep tonnes

of inferior seed?

 

What a mess!

sincerely,joe

------

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 30th March 2005

Immediate release

 

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

DEFRA accused of key role in GM contamination cover-up

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

 

DEFRA was accused today of playing a key role in a spin-doctored

cover-up designed to protect the GM industry from the effects of the

latest

GM contamination scandal. According to GM Free Cymru, the Government

Department rushed into print last week to protect the corporate giant

Syngenta, within 24 hours of receiving notification of the contamination

of maize supplies with the unauthorized variety Bt10. The organization

insists that the DEFRA press notice was inaccurate and misleading, and

contained statements which DEFRA must have known to be untrue (1).

 

** The DEFRA statement stresses in several places that the

contamination incident was on " an extremely small scale " . But GM Free

Cymru

points out that by using Syngenta's own figures (2) it is clear that

around

187,000 tonnes of contaminated maize has entered the food chain, and

that unauthorised GM material has been distributed on a massive scale.

Some of this material has been exported to Europe, but Syngenta refuses

to release details.

 

** DEFRA pretends that because USDA has concluded that there are no

safety concerns about the contamination incident, we should all come to

the same conclusion. What DEFRA does not say is that there is no

effective regulation of GM crops and foods in the USA, and that Bt 10

maize

has never come before the authorities for assessment or regulation

either in the US or Europe (3). The DEFRA attitude is complacent and

even

negligent.

 

** DEFRA states that Bt10 maize " is covered by the existing tolerance

exemption for Bt11 " and that it is virtually identical in its proteins.

This is a disingenuous and dangerous statement, since DEFRA and ACRE

knew as long ago as 2003 that Bt10 is unique and identifiable (4). It

also contains ampicillin antibiotic resistant marker genes, which makes

it illegal in Europe (5).

 

** DEFRA and ACRE are in possession of detailed technical data about

Bt10 which they have refused, in spite of requests from a number of

NGOs, to place in the public domain. This information is not

commercially

sensitive. We believe that since Bt10 was developed about ten years

ago by the Northrup-King company (later taken over by Syngenta) it has

changed its character and may be unstable. If this is the case, and if

Bt10 really is a " failed " variety, DEFRA should be taking steps to

protect the public instead of taking steps to protect Syngenta.

 

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: " It is well known that

one of DEFRA's policy objectives is the promotion of GM crops and foods

against the clearly-expressed wishes of the British public. But in

rushing to " damp down " speculation about the extent of Bt10

contamination,

and any associated health dangers, it has danced to Syngenta's tune and

has failed in its duty of care. Has DEFRA not learned anything from

the BSE disaster and the F & M disaster? We may now have maize products on

our supermarket shelves that contain antibiotics, and our Government

appears to be quite disinterested. "

 

ENDS

 

Contact: Dr Brian John

Tel 01239-820470

 

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

 

(1) DEFRA Press Release, 23 March 2005 (see below)

http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=153346 & NewsAreaID=2

 

(2) Press Release: Following Syngenta-initiated investigation of

unintended corn release, EPA and USDA conclude existing food safety

clearance applies, no human health or environmental concerns ,

Washington, DC

(USA), 21 March 2005, Syngenta web site.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050321/full/nature03570.html

http://www.syngenta.com

 

(3) http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5029

GM Maize imported into Europe had no US or EU approval

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 24 March 2005

Seven packages of information about Bt10 were submitted to EPA between

Jan 7th and March 10th 2005; these were reviewed, and EPA then

confirmed the Syngenta view that there was no risk associated with the

releases

of Bt10 into the environment and the food chain. There appear to have

been no laboratory analyses of Bt10 maize either by EPA, USDA or FDA.

 

(4) We now know that the differences between the Bt10 and Bt11

varieties were so significant that the former was used as a 'control' to

establish the distinctiveness of the latter. If these differences had

not

been established, Bt11 would never have been given approval in Europe.

See ACRE advice as follows:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice35.pdf

www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice46.pdf

In the Syngenta press release, the company said that the Bt protein

produced by the Bt10 breeding lines is identical to that produced by the

commercialized, fully approved Bt11 varieties. They claimed, on this

basis, that there is no change to the food, health and environmental

profile of the corn. In the view of GM Free Cymru this is a fraudulent

statement.

 

(5) According to FoE Europe, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the

Environment (ACRE) notes that Bt10 contains one or more copies of the

ampicillin resistance marker gene (beta lactamase), which is not present

in Bt11. This therefore makes Bt10 a very different GMO than Bt11.

Since ampicillin is a widely used clinical antibiotic, and EFSA, Codex

Alimentarius, FAO-WHO and many medical and scientific experts have

recommended against the use of genes for such antibiotics in GM foods,

it would

certainly not be licenced in the EU.

 

 

 

 

 

---------