Cover-Up Over GM DNA In Milk

[Guest guest]

Cover-Up Over GM DNA In Milk JoAnn Guest Aug 14, 2005 14:40 PDT

 

7/29/05 Author: Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Source: The Institute For Science In Society

 

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Unpublished evidence kept under lock and key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). 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

 

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page