EC sounds alarm bells over GM crops

Several problems with the reporting in this story:

"Their research found that the crop could result in people and animals developing resistance to certain types of antibiotics which are used to treat diseases."

This is misleading the way it is written. Animals (including humans) do not develop resistance to antibiotics. Antibiotics are used to kill bacteria, and it is bacteria that can become resistant to them. The concern arises when bacteria that are pathogens of animals become resistant to the antibiotics used to treat disease. This story doesn't suggest how this might occur. What, may I ask, is the proposed mechanism for bacteria to gain resistance from GMO crops? How would the DNA from the GMO crop be transferred into bacteria when no known mechanism for this is known to exist? And even if this could happen, why isn't natural plant DNA being transferred to bacteria all the time, resulting in some unpredictable threat to health?

"The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is completely unknown."

This is another misleading and inaccurate statement. Plants naturally produce many defense compounds against pests... ie. natural pesticides. Many agricultural pesticides actually come from the natural pesticides that are produced in plants to defend themselves against insects and other plant pests. Moreover, the BT toxin comes from a naturally occurring soil bacterium that has been coexisting along with plants almost forever. The toxin is only toxic to insects, its mode of action is well known and it is studied extensively. So there is a great deal that IS known about these kinds of crops, although perhaps not everything is known, as the article suggests.

The first known instance of horizontal gene transfer from GM crops was from genetically modified rape seed to bacteria living in the gut of bee larvae. It does happen, I’m afraid, regardless of whether you or I understand how. This piece explains a mechanism and how it has been demonstrated in the laboratory.

Why would GM crops cause antibiotic resistance? It may be because biotech firms use antibiotic resistance as a marker gene in order to test whether the gene they actually wanted to insert has taken. This is a pointless risk which we could easily avoid, but that’s the biotech industry for you.

Regarding your point on the sentence "The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is completely unknown.", you’re right, it would be more accurate to say that "The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is almost completely unknown."

Im sorry, but the article you provide the link to clearly states that "Researchers were UNABLE to demonstrate this type of gene transfer", so it does not support your argument - quite the opposite.

And the article in essence states that "transfer of plant DNA to micro-organisms is theoretically conceivable, but extremely unlikely." I urge all readers to find the time to read it in full.

While one can understand the reasoning for anti-GM sentiment, I think we should also expect a higher standard of investigation and reporting on this website.

I guess it depends on your definition of "extremely unlikely" - probablility theory dictates that even the most unlikely event is certain to happen in the end - and it's just as likely to be sooner as it is to be later. And the article clearly states that "All the studies indicate that there are no insurmountable barriers to horizontal gene transfer between bacteria" and that "so far horizontal gene transfer has been demonstrated under "optimum laboratory conditions" in two safety research projects".

Although transfer of plant DNA to bacteria is characterised as "an extremely rare event" which "could not be demonstrated under natural conditions" - it would be more scientifically accurate to say that it has not yet been demonstrated. Given the potentially disastrous consequences of such a transfer, Greenpeace believes that the precautionary principle should apply in such cases - the onus must be on those who would introduce these genetic modifications to prove that they are safe - not on the rest of us to prove that they are not. Fortunately the EC appears to be supporting our position on adopting this precautionary stance, and not the gung ho approach you appear to be advocating.

But I'm with you on encouraging anyone who's interested to read the article themselves and make up their own minds.

Data on Syngenta's two types of GM maize (Bt 11 and 1507) wasn't much better, with scientists concerned that they could harm wildlife such as butterflies and other insects.

Scientists being concerned is one thing, but are there any studies showing actual harm to butterfly populations? I'd be interested to read the references.

Thanks

Hi Nick,

couldn't find any research relating directly to butterflies but there are examples of other insects being damaged by Bt strains (see Bt Crops Threaten Aquatic Ecosystems for their effect on caddisflies (close relatives of lepidopterans). The Institute of Science in Society also have some good points to make about
links between horizontal gene transfer, and the emergence of infectious diseases in one of their referenced articles.

Cheers,

Joss
GPUK

On 4 June 08, BBC Radio Four Today interviewed Dr Giles Oldroyd of the John Innes Centre (Crop Genetics and Disease and Stress Biology depts) who said that there are absolutely no risks from GM.

Biologists use models to make predictions about scientific data. Biologists have large sets of genetic data and they look for patterns in the data.

In science, you change one thing at a time and look at what happened. In gene technology, you can't turn one thing off at a time because it introduces other reactions.

So until biologists understand how the whole genome interacts, they can't yet make accurate predictions. It could take some time for biologists to have looked at enough of the genome to do this. There are millions of bits of data.

The risk is not in the science: it is in our implementation of it, in budget limitations, unrealistic expectations from management, not sharing data with competitors and time pressures.

Pharma and bio-tech industries have an unclear policy about risk-assessments. A study published in the journal Circulation about the formal testing of new products said that:

1. Companies do not continue to study the long-term effects of a product after it has been released on the market.

2. Product trials only test products used on their own – but most products are used in combination with other products. There is no testing to see what happens when different products are used together.

3. Products hit many “unintended targets” as well as the “intended therapeutic target”. There are no monitoring programmes for the effect on "unintended targets".

4. When investigators know what product is being tested, they tend to report dramatic improvements but with the same product, when investigators don’t what it is, they tend to report less improvement and more negative events. So it appears to be important that investigators must not know what is being tested and are not directly employed by the manufacturer.

How do you factor unintended targets into risk assessments? How can you speculate about risks if you don't know what they are? This makes sense of industry assurances that they are unaware of any risk in genetic engineering.

Is it realistic to expect industry to make product safety their highest priority? Commercial survival has to be their highest priority. Companies need a return from expensive research investment. After ten years patents expire and competitors can make and sell cheaper copies so a new product is only profitable for the inventor in the first ten years of its patent life. So there is pressure to rush to market and to generate credible-looking scientific research before the thing is fully tested. Companies are punished by the stock market if they publish negative findings - so they publish only good data.

The scientific industry must be allowed to discuss its mistakes in the open and not suffer a fall in share price when it admits that it did not have all the answers.

In science, negative results are the most important data - we only learn from mistakes not from successes.

Allowing commercial stock-market-listed organisations to "own" bio-tech, pharma, agri-tech and genetic engineering data is proving to be a public health and safety risk because companies are punished through share price if they publish negative results.

It is unrealistic to expect companies to publish negative data. It is like asking players to referee their own football match.

Existing patent law inhibits the sharing of knowledge in bio-tech, pharma, agri-tech and genetic engineering and means we are creating unsafe products. The stock market rewards dangerous practice.

We need another way of rewarding and encouraging invention.

There is no risk from science - only from our implementation of it.

See: Lessons Learned From Recent Cardiovascular Clinical Trials:

Part I: DeMets and Califf 106 (7): 880 – Circulation
http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/106/6/746

Part II 106 (6): 746 – Circulation
http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/106/7/880

Principles From Clinical Trials Relevant to Clinical Practice:

Part I -- Califf and DeMets 106 (8): 1015 – Circulation http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/106/8/1015

Part II -- Califf and DeMets 106 (9): 1172 – Circulation http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/106/9/1172