GMW: Monsanto's GM corn: Unfit for rats, unfit for humans/Support GM free Zones

[Guest guest]

GMW: Monsanto's GM corn: Unfit for rats, unfit for

humans/Support GM free Zones

" GM WATCH " <info

Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:18:26 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

1. Background information on MON863

2. ASK BRIT GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT GM FREE ZONES*

3. Mrs Beckett Urged to Support GM free Zones - Press release

 

*TAKE ACTION: go to www.foeeurope.org/ban_risky_gm_food/#eirEmail

(for more info see item 2)

------

1.Background information on MON863

Greenpeace, June 2005

 

Monsanto's GM corn: Unfit for rats, unfit for humans

 

MON863 is a genetically modified corn which expresses a Bt-toxin

(Cry3Bb1). This toxin, which stems from a micro-organism (Bacillus

thuringiensis), is meant to protect the maize against a pest called corn

rootworm. This GM maize is different from those Bt-plants (Mon 810,

Bt11, Bt

176) already placed on the market, as they produce another toxin

(Cry1Ab), which is toxic to the European corn borer. Further, the GM

maize

contains an antibiotic resistance marker gene, which should be not used

according to recent EU law.

 

On 23 April 2004 the French newspaper Le Monde revealed that the French

expert body in charge of GMO evaluation (CGB, Commission du Genie

Biomoleculaire) had expressed doubts about the safety of GM maize Mon

863.

By filing application for market authorisation under EU law, Monsanto

had delivered the results of a rat feeding study to EU government

authorities. These results show that significant variations were found

between

the rats fed with conventional maize and those fed with GM maize

Mon863, such as an increased number of white blood cells in the males,

reduced immature red blood cells in females, a significant increase in

blood

sugar in the females or a higher frequency of physical irregularities

in the kidneys of the males, such as reduced weight and inflammation.

 

Victory for transparency a precedent

 

When it filed the application to market MON863, Monsanto requested that

crucial documents concerning the risk assessment, like the results of

rat feeding trials, should be classified as confidential. But according

to European law the public has a right to have full access to

information concerning the risk assessment of GMOs. Article 25 of

Directive

2001/18/EC states that :

 

" 2. The notifier may indicate the information in the notification

submitted under this Directive, the disclosure of which might harm his

competitive position and which should therefore be treated as

confidential.

Verifiable justification must be given in such cases.

3. The competent authority shall, after consultation with the notifier,

decide which information will be kept confidential and shall inform the

notifier of its decisions. "

 

Article 25 (4) also indicates that " in no case " should the information

related to " environmental risk assessment " be kept confidential.

 

Article 2 (8) of Directive 2001/18 defines " environmental risk

assessment " as " the evaluation of risks to human health and the

environment,

whether direct or indirect, immediate or delayed, which the deliberate

release or the placing on the market of GMOs may pose and carried out in

accordance with Annex II. "

 

In Annex II of Directive 2001/18 the general principles declare that

the risk assessment should : " be carried out in a scientifically sound

and transparent manner based on available scientific and technical data " .

 

It took more than a year for Greenpeace to see the interests of society

finally prevail over Monsanto's economic interests and its policy of

opacity and secrecy.

 

· On 5 May 2004, Greenpeace wrote to the German agriculture ministry,

which was in charge of the initial risk assessment report, to request

access to the full documents concerning Mon 863.

 

· On 4 August 2004, the German agriculture ministry replied that the

applicant, Monsanto, had refused to agree to publish the initial rat

study MSL-18175, which had been classified as " confidential business

information " .

 

· On 21 March 2005, the Gerrman authority decided to give access to the

full document, because Monsanto could not show that its request for

confidentiality was backed by EU or national law.

 

· On 27 April 2005, Monsanto filed an appeal against the decision of

German government and, in addition, took out an injunction to stop the

authorities publishing the data.

 

· On 9 June 2005, the German court decided to reject Monsanto's

request; the data could not be seen as confidential, the right of

society to

transparency had to be given more weight than Monsanto's economic

interests. The company appealed the decision.

 

· On 20 June, the court rejected the appeal, and ruled that the

documents be made public.

 

Serious safety concerns

 

Greenpeace's ongoing examination of the material provided by Monsanto

gives rise to serious concerns.

 

Monsanto's results reveal many irregularities in the study and five

significant differences between the rats fed with the GMO maize and the

control groups, which were fed conventional maize.

These include statistically significant differences in white blood

cells. These cells are an indicator of abnormal situations in the body

such

as infections and inflammations. Furthermore, there are differences in

the organ weight of the kidneys and some abnormal changes in the

structure of the kidneys.

 

Monsanto tries to negate these findings by use of " reference " and

" historical " control data collected from other experiments where rats

were

fed non-GM maize. Such inclusion of " historical " or " reference " data is

hardly valid from a scientific point of view. It is the direct

comparison between two or more groups during a certain experiment that

is the

critical and valid comparison in normal scientific practices. As soon as

statistically significant differences appear, one should immediately

check for further evidence, run further experiments to try to find out

where those differences come from. This is particularly important as this

feeding trial was only conducted over 90 days. The high number of

statistically significant differences therefore raises severe doubts

regarding the food and feed safety of this GMO maize.

 

Since the study indicates that this GM maize has the potential to

negatively affect the health of rats, there are grounds for concern

that it

could also interfere with the metabolism of humans and other animals.

This is a valid reason for rejecting the request for market permission.

 

Furthermore, the experiment was not well designed. Important data and

parameters are missing. And, as it took only 90 days, it remains

impossible to draw any conclusions regarding the effects of long-term

ingestion of the maize.

 

Greenpeace's position has been confirmed by two new scientific opinions

by renowned experts in the field, presented in Berlin on 22 June 2005:

Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, a member of two GMO evaluation

committees within the French ministry of agriculture and ministry of

ecology,

and Professor Arpad Pusztai, who was invited some months ago by the

German government to give an opinion on this GM maize. Both support

Greenpeace's position that this maize should not receive market

authorisation,

given the data known so far.

 

Conclusion

 

The high number of statistically significant differences between rats

fed MON863 and the control groups in this short feeding trial give

sufficient cause for concern to justify rejecting MON863 outright.

------

2.FIVE YEAR FREEZE CAMPAIGN LETTER

 

Dear Supporters,

 

Please see the press release below just sent out by the Freeze. The

Member States will be voting on Friday 24th June on whether to allow or

overturn the national bans some countries have legally imposed on some

GMOs. The European Commission is urging member states to vote to

overturn the bans. We believe it is the democratic right of countries

to ban

GMOs when they have doubts about their safety and impact.

 

Last time there was a vote on the same issue it was very close and the

Commission narrowly missed a qualified majority AGAINST overturning the

bans. The UK of course voted in favour of overturning the bans. This

time it seems as though the vote will be even closer, and the UK even

more isolated in its pro-GM position.

 

Friends of the Earth have set up an email action you can use to urge

Mrs Beckett not to vote against the national bans. You can also email

other EU environment ministers too and we hear that Spain might change

their vote to No this time, so it would be worth also sending the email

to the Spanish minister. If you would like to take part in this action

then go to www.foeeurope.org/ban_risky_gm_food/#eirEmail

 

With regards,

Carrie.

------

3.Mrs Beckett Urged to Support GM free Zones

FIVE YEAR FREEZE CAMPAIGN

PRESS RELEASE

Immediate Release

 

Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett is being urged by the Five Year

Freeze to use the next EU Council of Ministers to launch proposals for

new laws to allow GM zones to be set up.

 

At the next Council of Ministers on 24th June, EU member states will be

asked to vote on EC proposals to declare the current bans on certain

GMOs in Austria, Greece, France, Luxemburg and Germany illegal and call

for enforcement procedures to begin.

 

Instead the FYF wants Mrs Beckett to put forward proposals to amend the

EU GMO regulations to provide a legal framework to allow member states,

regions and local areas to declare themselves GM free zones. In

their letter [1] the FYF points out to DEFRA that political and popular

support for GM free areas is growing right across Europe. 162 regions

and

4500 local councils and areas have declared their wish to be GM free

[2]. At present there is no legislation to enable member states or

regions to take such a decision.

 

Pete Riley Director of the Five Year Freeze said:

" In the last couple of years the demand for GM free status has taken

off from The Highlands of Scotland to the Greek Islands because

people realise that GMOs do not fit with their type of food production

and

their environment. European politicians need to respond to this demand

by giving local areas the power to declare themselves a GM free zone.

The UK Government should take the lead and start the process instead of

voting with the EC as they habitually do on these

occasions. "

 

The democratic right to claim GM free status should be enshrined in

European legislation, to reflect growing consumer demand.

 

ENDS

 

Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065

 

Notes

 

1. Copy available on request

2. See http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/gmofree/ for details on GM zones

in the EU

 

Carrie Stebbings, Co-ordinator

FIVE YEAR FREEZE CAMPAIGN

94 White Lion Street

London

N1 9PF

Tel: 020 7837 0642

Fax: 020 7837 1141

 

carrie

www.fiveyearfreeze.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----------------