Independent Scientists Object to Monsanto-Sponsored Documentary

[Guest guest]

1 Sep 2005 14:18:49 -0000

Independent Scientists Object to Monsanto-Sponsored Documentary

press-release

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

ISIS Press Release 01/09/05

 

20 August 2005

David Hosley

President and General Manager

KVIE Public Television

 

Dear Mr. Hosley,

 

I am writing both in my capacity as Director of the

Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) and a member of the

Independent Science Panel (ISP).

 

ISIS is a not-for profit organisation dedicated to providing

critical public information on cutting edge science and to

promoting social accountability and ecological

sustainability in science. We do this through reports posted

on our website www.i-sis.org.uk and circulated to our

extensive e-mail list, and quarterly magazine Science in

Society, of which I am editor.

 

The ISP, launched 10 May 2003 at a public conference in

London, UK, consists of dozens of prominent scientists from

all over the world, spanning the disciplines of agroecology,

agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine,

ecology, epidemiology, histopathology, microbial ecology,

molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology,

plant biotechnology, taxonomy, toxicology and virology

(http://www.indsp.org/ISPMembers.php). They share a deep

concern over the commercialisation of genetic engineering

and other technologies without the due process of thorough

scientific assessment, informed public consultation and

public consent; and are dedicated to researching and

actively promoting science for a sustainable world through

education, advocacy and social engagement.

 

I and my fellow scientists have long held the Public

Broadcasting Service in high regard for its role in

providing critical and reliable information to the public,

and for maintaining the highest standards of balance and

independence.

 

Recently, members of ISIS residing in the United States have

alerted me to the potentially unbalanced coverage of genetic

engineering in the forthcoming PBS series, " America's

Heartland " .

 

According to a letter circulated by the Union of Concerned

Scientists in the United States, " America's Heartland " is " a

series on American agriculture that appears to unevenly

promote the interests of the series' main sponsors -

Monsanto and the Farm Bureau - two historic proponents of

industrial-style food production. Advance materials indicate

that the series will portray an entirely positive portrait

of U.S. agriculture. Despite an in-depth approach spanning

20 episodes, the series producers appear unwilling to give

time to any concerns about agribusiness, from the impact of

pesticides on human health, to pollution and foodborne

illness caused by industrialized meat production, to the

debate over genetically engineered crops. "

 

ISIS and ISP would like to add our voice to the concerns

expressed. The ISP have reviewed the evidence on the

problems and hazards of genetically modified (GM) crops as

well as the proven successes of sustainable agriculture and

published its report in June 2003 [1]. This report has been

republished in the United States in 2004, and translated

into five major languages.

 

The key findings of the ISP report on GM crops are as

follows:

 

Regulations over the releases of GM crops and products have

been highly inadequate.

 

There has not been a single credible independent scientific

study showing that GM food and feed are safe to eat.

 

Few feeding studies have been carried out, but existing

evidence raises serious doubts over the safety of the

transgenic process itself.

 

GM varieties are unstable; and this may enhance the

horizontal spread of transgenes, with the potential to

create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and to

disrupt gene function in animal and human cells.

 

Many GM crops contain gene products known to be harmful: Bt

proteins incorporated into a wide range of GM crops to

control insect pests are known to be strong immunogens and

allergens.

 

Herbicide tolerant GM crops - accounting for 75 percent of

all GM crops worldwide - are tied to the broad-spectrum

herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium, and will

likely increase their use. Both herbicides are systemic

metabolic poisons linked to spontaneous abortions, birth

defects and other toxicities for human beings and laboratory

animals, and also harmful to wild life and beneficial

organisms in the soil.

 

GE crops have resulted in no benefits to the environment.

There has been no reduction in the use of pesticides, while

herbicide tolerant weeds and volunteers have emerged, and

highly toxic herbicides have had to be brought back in use.

 

Since its publication, all the major findings of the ISP

report have been further corroborated; and the inadequacies

of the US regulatory system identified by US scientists [2].

 

New evidence confirms that most, if not all GM varieties may

be unstable. French government scientists examined five GM

varieties already commercialised, and found all the GM

inserts had rearranged themselves. Belgian government

scientists confirmed those results, and found some of the GM

varieties were also non-uniform [3-5].

 

A paper published in 2002 [6] reported that 22 out of 33

transgenic proteins have runs of 6 or 7 amino acids

identical to known allergens. These include all the Bt

toxins (Cry proteins), the CP4 EPSPS and GOX conferring

glyphosate tolerance, the coat protein of the papaya

ringspot virus, and even marker proteins such as GUS (b-

glucuronidase). A follow-up study confirmed those results

[7], highlighting the inadequacy of current methods to

predict the allergenic potential of proteins new to our food

chain and the need to take these positive findings seriously

until they can be ruled out by further tests to be " false

positives " [8]. This warning is particularly significant as

a string of anecdotal evidence – including feeding trials

presented by companies to regulatory authorities under

" confidential business information " – continue to raise

serious doubts over the safety of GM crops and GM food and

feed [9].

 

More reports from the scientific literature indicate that

the natural toxin is not the same as, or " substantially

equivalent " to, the GM toxin. Green lacewings suffer

significantly reduced survival and delayed development when

fed an insect pest (lepidopteran) that has eaten GM maize

containing the Bt toxin Cry1Ab, but not when fed the same

pest treated with much higher levels of the natural toxin in

bacteria [10,11]. These findings again suggest that the

genetic modification process itself may be unsafe.

 

Recent findings indicate that glyphosate is toxic to human

placental cells and Roundup Ready considerably worse [12,

13]. Roundup was found to be extremely lethal to frogs [14,

15].

 

A report drawing on 9 years of US Dept of Agriculture data

concludes that overall, GM crops have increased pesticide

use by 122 million pounds weight since 1996 [16].

 

These uncertainties over the safety of GMO are widely

publicised amid mounting opposition to GM food and feed from

farmers and consumers around the world.

 

In view of the evidence against GM crops and in favour of

all forms of sustainable non-GM agriculture, the ISP has

called for a global ban on further environmental releases of

GM crops and a comprehensive shift to non-GM sustainable

agriculture.

 

The shift to non-GM sustainable agriculture is all the more

urgent as industrial monoculture is showing all the signs of

collapse under global warming; and water and oil - on which

industrial monoculture, and even more so, GM agriculture are

heavily dependent - are both rapidly depleting [17].

 

To respond to these challenges, ISIS and ISP have launched

the Sustainable World Global Initiative to make our food

system sustainable, to provide food sovereignty, food

security and health for all and to mitigate global warming

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SustainableWorldInitiativeF.php;

http://www.indsp.org/SustainableWorldInitiative.php).

 

We hope the PBS will do its part to inform the public as

fully as possible.

 

Yours sincerely, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho Member of ISP Director,

Institute of Science in Society PO Box 32097 London NW1 0XR,

UK

 

References

 

1. Ho MW, Lim LC et al. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable

World, ISP Report, ISIS & TWN, London & Penang, 2003.

http://www.indsp.org/A%20GM-Free%20Sustainable%; republished

as GM-Free, Vitalhealth publishing, Ridgeport, Connecticut,

2004; translated into Spanish, Portuguese, French, Chinese

and German, Italian and Indonesian on the way.

 

2. Freese W and Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of

genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic

Engineering Reviews 2004, 21, 299-324.

 

3. Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez

S, Kebdani N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y.

Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of

useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster presented

at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology

(n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of

Pr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique

du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org

 

4. The Service of Biosafety and Biotechnology (SBB) of the

Scientific Institute of Public Health (IPH) in Brussels

website (http://biosafety.ihe.be/TP/MGC.html

 

5. Ho MW. Unstable transgenic lines illegal. ISIS press

release 03/12/03 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php; also

Science in Society 2004, 21, 23

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php

 

6. Kleter GA and Peijnenburg Ad ACM. Screening of transgenic

proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence

of short amino acid sequences identical to potential, IgE-

binding linear epitopes of allergens. BMC Structural Biology

2002, 2:8 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6807/2/8

 

7. Fiers MWEJ, Kleter GA, Nijland H, Peijnenburg Ad ACM, Nap

JP and van Ham R CHJ. Allermatch TM, a webtool for the

prediction of potential allergenicity according to current

FAO/WHO Codex alimentarius guidelines. BMC Bioinformatics

2004, 5:133 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/5/133

 

8. Ho MW, Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Cummins J. Are transgenic

proteins allergenic? ISIS report (to appear).

 

9. Ho MW and Cummins J. GM food & feed not fit for " man or

beast " . ISP Briefing, UK Parliament, 29 April 2004; ISIS

Press release 07/05/04

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

 

10. Dutton A, Klein H, Romeis J and Bigler F. " Uptake of Bt-

toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and

consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea " ,

Ecological Entomology 2002, 27, 441-7.

 

11. Romeis J, Dutton A and Bigler F. " Bacillus thuringiensis

toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green

lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera:

Chrysopidae) " , Journal of Insect Physiology 2004, in press.

 

12. Richard S, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Benachour N and

Seralini G-E. Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup

on human placental cells and aromatases

 

13. Ho MW and Cummins J. Glyphosate toxic and Roundup worse.

Science in Society 2005, 26, 12,

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php

 

14. Relyea RA. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on

the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities.

Ecological Applications 2005, 15, 618-27.

 

15. Ho MW. Roundup kills frogs. Science in Society 2005, 26,

13, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php

 

16. Benbrook CM. Genetically engineered crops and pesticide

use in the United States: The first nine years. Northwest

Science and Technology Centre, Sandpoint, Idaho. 25 Oct

2004.

http:/www.biotech-info.net/highlights.html#technical_papers.

 

17. Ho MW. Sustainable food systems for sustainable

development. http://www.indsp.org/pdf/SFSSD.pdf; also

Science in Society 2005, 27, 33-35,

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis21.php

 

 

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

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

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LettertoPBS.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 NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM

WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION.

FOR PERMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT enquiries