Science Society Sustainability
http://www.i-sis.org.uk
ISIS Press Release 25/01/05
PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology
Prof. Joe Cummins and <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
expose the corruption of traditional standards in science reporting
of GM crops
The emergence of genetically modified (GM) foods and crops has
profoundly impacted scientific reporting not only in the popular
media but also in peer- reviewed scientific journals. Public
relations (pr) statements, once confined to the promotion of
commercial products, now frequent the pages of scientific journals.
Science was built on the foundations of full and truthful reporting
of observations and findings; not anymore. If anything, scientific
reports that expose the propaganda of corporations, government and
academic promoters of GM crops are either rejected for publication
outright, or gratuitously attacked when they appear in print; and the
scientist(s) involved mercilessly prosecuted and victimized, as in
the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai and his co-workers in the UK, who lost
their jobs in 1998 or soon after; and Prof. Ignacio Chapela,
researcher from the University of Berkeley, California, currently
fighting to regain his tenure
(<http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,
7843,1392979,00.html>).
In contrast, GM proponents are given free license to make pr
statements posing as science.
No Bt resistance?
In the January issue of Nature Biotechnology, Sarah Bates and
coworkers observe that transgenic plants expressing insecticidal
proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) were first
commercialized in 1996 "amid concern from some scientists, regulators
and environmentalists that the widespread use of Bt crops would
inevitably lead to resistance and the loss of a 'public good,'
specifically, the susceptibility of insect pests to Bt proteins."
But, they continue with apparent self- satisfaction, "Eight years
later, Bt corn and cotton have been grown on a cumulative area >80
million ha worldwide. Despite dire predictions to the contrary,
resistance to a Bt crop has yet to be documented, suggesting that
resistance management strategies have been effective thus far."
The resistance management strategies include planting non-GM acreage
as refuge to slow down the evolution of resistant insect pests and
the use of high toxin dosage along with pyramiding more than one
toxin genes in a crop.
In reality, however, the main reason that insect resistance has not
been detected in the United States - not mentioned in the article -
is that the US Environment Protection Agency has allowed the GM crop
and refuge to be sprayed with chemical insecticides (see "No Bt
resistance?" ISIS Report,
<http://www.i-sis.org.uk/nobtresistance.php>). Spraying with chemical
insecticides protects the crops from pest damage in the refuge, and
also kills off any insects resistant to the GM crops.
The authors also failed to mention other factors that might affect
the evolution of resistance - the use of synthetic toxin genes that
differ in amino acid sequence from the natural toxin in commercial GM
crops, and the variation in toxin production among different GM crops
- although these factors are probably not as significant as spraying
chemical insecticides in the refuge. Nevertheless, they could lead to
underestimating the evolution of resistance by failing to detect
resistant insects. Tests for insect resistance are frequently carried
out using the toxin proteins isolated from bacteria and not the
actual toxin produced in the GM crop.
In Canada, chemical insecticides have not been allowed in the refuge
of Bt crops until the upcoming growing season, but there does not
appear to have been any effort to screen for resistance in that
country.
That paper is just the latest in a string of misleading reports that
have been deliberately selective and incomplete in order to serve pr
purposes.
PR by misrepresentation, permissive substitution and surrogate testing
Advocates have persistently maintained that GM crops are a simple
extension of plant breeding and selection carried on for thousands of
years. That fiction ignores the basic fact that GM crops are produced
in the laboratory by illegitimate recombination ö a process whereby
pieces of foreign DNA break the host genome to insert themselves at
unpredictable places - while traditional plant breeding and selection
depending largely on homologous (legitimate) recombination during
reproduction.
What is seldom stated is that GM crops are produced using synthetic
approximations of natural bacterial genes, whether it is in
conferring resistance to herbicides or to insect pests.
The synthetic approximations of natural genes are used because the
bacterial genes function poorly in plants, which use different codes
for the same amino acids. Hence, synthetic genes could be 60%
homologous with the bacterial genes in DNA sequence and yet produce
proteins that have the same amino acid sequence as the bacterial
proteins. But amino acid sequences are also frequently altered in the
GM plants to increase solubility. C-terminal amino acids (at the end
of the protein chain), too, have been changed on the assumption,
without any proof, that the changes do not affect biological activity.
Also concealed from the public is that "safety" assessment of GM
crops has been performed using protein products and genes from the
bacteria rather than the crops. The regulators have apparently agreed
that the expense of purifying the products from GM crops need not be
incurred as the products can be recovered at little expense from
liquid bacterial cultures. So none of the safety tests have been done
with the proteins and genes in GM crops!
The regulators argued that so long as the crop proteins had active
sites and epitopes characteristic of the bacterial protein, they must
be "equivalent". In this way, they have allowed millions of human
being to be exposed to products that are untested and unknown with
regard to safety. As the GM foods are not labeled, there is no way
that their health impacts on the population can be identified after
they are released.
The regulators seem to presume that the synthetic DNA and RNA
produced are biologically inactive except for making the protein.
That is a specious belief. It is well known, for instance, that DNA
with excess of CpG activates innate immunity and induces
inflammation. Similarly, the regulatory role of small RNA species is
becoming increasingly evident (see "RNA subverting the genetic text"
SiS 24 <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php>). There are numerous
examples of DNA and RNA sequences that have major regulatory roles
apart from coding for proteins. Even freshman students would
recognize the importance of testing the actual synthetic genes and
proteins present in GM crops rather than the surrogates produced in
bacteria.
Finally, the synthetic genes and gene products that have been
assessed as "safe" purely by bureaucracy are new to our food chain
and the ecosystem and to the entire evolutionary history of the earth.
The scientific journals that should have played the leading role in
safeguarding the traditional standards of good science and the public
good have been co- opted into performing the most insidious kind of
pr for unscrupulous corporations and scientists pushing the corporate
agenda. They are no longer to be trusted.
Source
Bates SL, Zhao JZ, Roush RT & Shelton AM. Insect resistance
management in GM crops: past, present and future. Nature
Biotechnology 2005, 23, 57-62/
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HPRPASICB.php
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/