Genetic engineering

Click a headline or scroll down the page

Government caught approving GM crop with inadequate safety data
GM policing failure
Human breast milk genes in cattle
More GM sleeze at the top
Super-gonorrhoea
New technology which can switch plants’ immune systems on and off
UK field trial of a GM virus taking place
Naked DNA poses serious threat to human health
GM'd honey ...
... and GM'd bees
Superweeds
US Food and Drug Administration cover up over GM safety
Pusztai and Ewen insist GM food not substantially equivalent
More stringent tests needed
Tax payers money used by government to support gm food
Golden rice modified to produce more vitamin A
Super salmon could lead to extinction
GM gets in the back route via animal feed
Breeding resistance
First superweeds found in UK
Biotech heads for the trees
Genetically engineered insulin dangers
GE briefing
GE exploitation abroad
Toblerones recalled

GM Government caught out

Having promised that it would not allow any moves towards the commercial sale of genetically modified (GM) crops whilst its farm-scale GM crop trials were proceeding, the UK Government has been accused by environmental campaigners of trying to get GM crops onto the market through the back door. Luckily, Government plans to allow the seed of a new variety of GM maize, Aventis’ Chardon LL, onto its list of approved seeds were spotted by Friends of the Earth and are now being challenged using a little known and little used National Seed List regulation. The hearing considered presentations from 68 large environmental organisations and concerned individuals, who have each had to pay £90 to have their objections heard.

(7156-57) James Chapman. Daily Mail 2.10.00

Two of the senior scientists on the hearing panel have heavily criticised the Government’s and Aventis’ attempt to get Aventis’ GM maize Chardon LL licensed as a cattle feed in the UK. Professor Bob Orskov, the director of the International Feed Resource Unit at Aberdeen (Scotland), dismissed Aventis’ research data on safety as inadequate for three main reasons: it had not even tested Chardon LL on cattle, only on rats for two weeks and broiler chickens for six weeks; both rats and chickens only have one stomach whilst cows have four; the tests on the chickens did not even include tests for toxicity. He stated that he would not drink the milk from cows fed on GM maize given our current level of knowledge. He also pointed out that there was no obvious demand from farmers for GM cattlefeed, only from Aventis.

Dr. Vyvyan Howard dismissed Aventis’ claims that some of the usual safety tests were unnecessary and that GM crops are not materially different from natural crops (now widely discredited). In the case of Chardon LL he found significant differences in the composition of fat, protein and fibre, as well as in fat and carbohydrate levels.

Even the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food admitted that the safety tests carried out to date may not meet minimum legal requirements.

Ed.- The hearing has now been suspended indefinitely following the discovery that official safety tests by the French authorities had only been carried out for one year rather than the two years required under EU regulations. The defects in the French testing system have serious EU-wide implications.

Beyond human competence?
The US Environmental Protection Agency has stated that it is unlikely to ever again grant a GM crop a ‘partial license’ (i.e. for animalfeed but not human food). Its reason is functional rather than scientific or philosophical: you just can’t trust people where there’s a profit to be made. The manufacturer, Aventis, agreed to label every bag of its Starlink GM corn seed to explain the restricted use but failed to do so, and the corn ended up in human food. Whether the EPA decision was due to distrust of motive or management competence, it is good news for the consumer. Scientists are very concerned that humans might pick up alien genes by eating animals fed GM animalfeed.

(7260-63,7388) Friends of the Earth 18/31.10.00
(7169-70) Timm Kraegenow. Financial Times 9.10.00

back to the top

Milking the science

A New Zealand government research agency is planning to add human genes into dairy cattle with the aim of making their milk more like human milk and “more palatable to consumers”. Opponents are appalled that this has been suggested before any debate on the ethics or health implications of the issue has been undertaken, especially since New Zealand has no food labelling laws to give consumers choice.

Original source: Soil and Health(NZ) March 1999;58(2)

(7457) Organic Farming 1.7.00 p7

back to the top

GM’d policing

The UK Government’s Food Analysis Performance Assessment Scheme (FAPAS ) tested 80 laboratories across Europe used by retailers to check for GM contamination and found widespread failure and inconsistency. 20% of the laboratories missed GM ingredients. 60% found them where there weren’t any. One laboratory found 12 times higher levels of GM ingredients in one product than another laboratory.

These findings mean that many products on the shelves labelled as GM-free probably are not, and vice versa, but the UK’s new Food Standards Agency was surprisingly relaxed about it. “We feel the current tests are effective when correctly applied. Detection is only one method of enforcement; there are documentation checks and sourcing.”

(7220-21) Deborah Colicutt. Sunday Times 15.10.00 p7

back to the top

A concerned scientist

Dr. Roger Turner, often presented by the media as head of the UK’s Plant Breeder’s Association or, more recently, as the head of the Government’s “policing organ-isation” for GM technology SCIMAC, has recorded a pension from Rhone Poulenc Rohrer in the new UK biotech regulatory body AEBC’s Register of Members’ Interests. Rhone Poulenc are the parent company of the biotech company Aventis. Norfolk Genetic Information Network, perhaps a smidgeon tongue in cheek, ask readers to accept that this will not affect his public roles and objectivity, or his balanced public statements on genetic engineering like “No reservations at all. It’s great.” Dr. Turner has also expressed his fears that the public are being fed fiction rather than facts - a concern shared by many, including Environment & Health News.

(7600-01) Norfolk Genetic Information Network 15.10.00

Super-gonorrhoea

Super-gonorrhoea

Early in 2000 the European Union rejected an application from Monsanto to sell GM cotton in Europe. It is possible that their rejection was due to strongly worded advice that GM cotton could lead to widespread human resistance to the main antibiotic used to treat gonorrhoea. This advice was received by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food in February 1999 but only made public a year later.

The concern is that the ‘aad gene’ which confers resistance against both streptomycin (a second line antibiotic used for tuberculosis) and spectinomycin (the drug of choice for treating gonorrhoea already resistant to penicillin and third generation cephalosporins) is contained in both Bollgard (insect-protected) and Roundup Ready (herbicide-tolerant) GM cotton. The Neisseria gonorrhoea bacterium could acquire the ‘aad gene’ from GM cotton seed oil (used in processed foods) during infection of the mouth, the small or large intestine, or the respiratory tract. It could also acquire the ‘aad gene’ indirectly from other bacteria in the internal and external environments of animals and human beings, who themselves picked it up from GM cotton plant materials. Every part of the cotton plant is used. The 60% which is cotton seed is used to extract cotton seed oil for human foods, and cotton seed cake for animalfeed.

The GM cotton itself is used, of course, to make cotton, but the applications where it could pass resistance to gonorrhoea bacteria include sanitary towels, tampons, nappies, bandages and other wound dressings. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a geneticist and biophysicist from the UK’s Institute of Science in Society, condemns the UK Government for effectively suppressing this information for twelve months because it could have helped prevent the planting of millions of hectares of GM cotton world wide. She calls for the destruction of all GM cotton crops to protect our fast diminishing armoury of antibiotics.

(7611-15) Norfolk Genetic Information Network 28.9.00

back to the top


Terminator 2?

Scientists working for Swiss biotech giant Novartis have patented new technology which can switch plants’ immune systems on and off using a chemical spray. Novartis claim their only interest is to give farmers greater control but cynics point out that it could equally well be used to force farmers to buy the company’s chemicals each year in order to have a healthy crop. Environmentalists are very concerned that the contamination of the environment through cross-fertilisation would be even more disastrous with this technology than with basic GM technology. Novartis believes the technology could be applied to every crop on Earth and already has plans to develop immune-manipulable barley, cucumber, tobacco, rice, chilli, wheat, banana and tomato.

Ed.- Ironically, given this nightmare scenario, Novartis also manufactures the ‘sweet dreams’ comfort drink Ovaltine!

(7602-03) Norfolk Genetic Information Network 8.10.00

back to the top

GM virus field tests

At least the UK public are aware that, for its own (difficult to understand) reasons, the UK Government is determined to conduct field trials of GM crops in the UK. What most do not realise is that, this year, there is also a field trial of a GM pesticide - actually a GM virus. This virus is a baculovirus, a virus specific to arthropods (insects, spiders and crustaceans) which has probably been genetically modified with a scorpion gene. Even less is known about GM viruses than about GM plants - in particular about their ability to damage the environment or human/animal health. What is known is that their reproduction is unpredictable and prone to creating undesirable variants, and that they are very persistent. Baculoviruses have been used in gene therapy for humans. They can infect the liver and may have implications for auto-immune diseases.

ACTION - Write to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) deploring the introduction of field trials of GM viruses without any public discussion. The address is: DETR, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU.

(7066-67) Natural Law Party 9.5.00

back to the top


Naked DNA

So-called `naked DNA' (DNA stripped of its protein in a laboratory or by exposure to natural detergents or phenols in the environment for use in genetic engineering) poses serious threats to human health. It can be taken up by cells and infect people or animals that are not part of the normal host range of the virus. Anyone exposed to GM crops is in danger, and particularly if exposed to plants genetically modified with a human gene.

Exposure can be through eating the plant, breathing in its pollen, or touching cut, wounded or decaying plant parts. The impact of GM proteins and genes in the contamination of surface and groundwater have been dangerously underestimated. Much further study is needed pending which field trials should be curtailed.

Original source: Unregulated hazards `naked' and `free' nucleic acids. Mae Wan Ho, Angela Ryan, T. Traavic & Jo Cummins. Institute of Science in Society January 2000. This is available on website www.i-sis.org (search for `Jo Cummins').

(7071-73) Professor Jo Cummins 16.4.00

back to the top


GM'd honey ...

Friends of the Earth has identified two examples of GM-contaminated honey from bees in areas where large-scale GM field trials took place last year. This proves the risks suggested by anti-GM campaigners and poses a serious threat to the UK's multi-million pound honey industry.

(6584) Michael McCarthy. Independent 17.5.00 p1

back to the top


... and bees

The German scientist Hans-Hinrich Kaatz has confirmed that his latest study has found that a gene used in GM oilseed rape had jumped species and infected bacteria in the guts of bees which fed off its pollen. He believes that any danger to the bees' health can be ruled out but accepts that there may be implications for human health. He advises people not to panic until the results of current research on the bees' human equivalents are known.

The DNA of bacteria and yeast taken from bees' guts contained the same modified genes as those added to the plants whose pollen the bees had fed on. This shows that modified genes can jump species, the `Pandora's Box' feared by anti-GM campaigners. When the bacteria and yeast were exposed to the herbicide glufosinate they survived, just as the GM plants on which they fed had been genetically engineered to do. Further work is needed to confirm these findings.

(7068) Reuters News Service 30.5.00
(6996-97) New Scientist 3.7.00 p5

back to the top

Superweeds

Cross-pollination between GM canola and wild weeds has produced super-weeds resistant to three major herbicides: Roundup, Liberty and Pursuit. The superweeds were found on a Canadian farm near Sexsmith, Alberta. If the superweeds spread, farmers will have to use stronger and stronger herbicides, further dispelling the myth that GM crops are more environmentally friendly.

(7071) Reuters News Service 25.5.00

GM crops designed to be better able to survive higher doses of pesticides will probably lead to growing resistance to that pesticide in weeds growing amongst or near the crops. The higher levels of pesticides used will, of course, pose a direct threat to the environment. A good example is maize genetically engineered to be resistant to the pesticide glufosinate-ammonium. This toxic pesticide is rightly strictly controlled. In particular, its use is not allowed from the end of September until the beginning of March to reduce the risk of poisoned run-off water contaminating streams and rivers. Apparently, the GM crop trial sites have been granted an unofficial exemption from these regulations and permits to use glufosinate-ammonium were granted for October and November 1999.

(7055-56) John Harvey. Pesticides News 1.6.00 p15

back to the top

US cover up

US lawyer Steven Druker was given access to 40,000 pages of US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) files under public disclosure legislation and discovered that the FDA had suppressed fears from its own scientists that GM plants could produce unexpected new toxic substances. It ignored the views of 11 out of 17 FDA scientists (requiring mandatory testing and a freeze on sales until rigorous tests had been done) when it drew up lax rules on GM food safety, facilitating the US boom in GM crops in the early ’90s.

Ed.- The lawsuit launched against the FDA by a coalition of scientists and religious leaders has uncovered numerous internal documents from the FDA, in which its scientists express concerns about the safety of GM crops and the advisability of classifying GM foods as “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods. Stephen Druker J.D. says in a paper that: “No genetically engineered food has yet satisfied the criteria mandated by US law.”

Examples of internal FDA statements uncovered by the lawsuit include: “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” (Dr. Linda Kahl), and “There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering ...” (Dr. Louis Pribyl).

A selection of these documents may be viewed on the Alliance for Bio-Integrity website: www.biointegrity.org

(6398-6400) Charles Clover. Daily Telegraph 29.2.00 p14

back to the top

Pusztai and Ewen insist

Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai’s study suggesting potential health risk from potatoes genetically modified to include the snowdrop lectin GNA continues to be controversial (lectins are a type of plant protein). In an exchange of letters published in The Lancet, Ewen and Pusztai defend their methods and logic well, and point out that, although their findings cannot be used to link GM crops with any specific disease risk, it adds to the evidence that GM crops are not ‘substantially equivalent’ (pro-GM campaigners argue that they are) to the natural parent plants the GM versions derived from.

The rats which ate natural potatoes from the same batch that were genetically modified to include the snowdrop lectin GNA for the study did not have the changes in the intestinal tract experienced by the rats which ate the genetically modified sample. They mention two other examples of non-equivalence. Monsanto’s own analyses of its glyphosate-resistant soya found that it contained 28% more Kunitz trypsin inhibitor, a known anti-nutrient and allergen. It also contained significantly less phyto-oestrogens.
Because of this, Ewen and Pusztai argue that all GM crops should be first tested for toxicity and unexpected side effects (which is not done at present) and wonder why the stricter testing now recommended for future GM crops is not thought to be necessary, retrospectively, for GM crops already granted licenses given that they have now been recognised as inadequately tested.

Some critics argue that the presence of additional GNA in GM crops is of minor concern on the basis that humans already consume lectins in their diet and that we know which are harmless and which toxic. Ewen and Pusztai disagree. They point out that snowdrops have never been part of the human diet and that, although the specific lectin (GNA) is already in our diet (from, for instance, onions and leeks), levels are 100 times lower than in snowdrops and, indeed, than the levels which would be required in GM crops to repel insects.

They also point out that human consumption of GNA varies daily whereas, as a principal tool of genetic engineering, it would become present in many of our basic foods, leading to chronic exposure. They remind their critics that, whereas other forms of lectins break down quite easily in the human gut (lectins from peas or beans, for instance, are 70% destroyed within an hour), GNA does not (99% remained after one hour).

(6510-14) Lancet 13.11.99 p1725

For more on Arpad Pusztai’s work see: www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/A.Pusztai/index.htm

back to the top

More stringent tests needed

Erik Millstone and colleagues (Science and Technology Policy Research) argue that the outcome of any genetic engineering is unpredictable, and that therefore the most stringent animal-based tests will always be needed. They cite the genetic engineering of oilseed rape, which led to the unexpected discovery of enzymes and regulatory mechanisms affecting the way the body processes lipids (fatty substances), and Roundup Ready soy bean, which tolerated more glyphosate pesticide as planned, but also had reduced tolerance to heat because of unpredicted changes to its lignin content. This made it less suitable for use in many less industrially developed countries, one of the arguments used to justify its development.

(Ed.- Lignin provides rigidity in plants and, together with cellulose, forms the woody cell walls of plants and the cementing material between them).

(6520-22) Nature 1.2.00 p6

back to the top

(6324-28) Pesticides News 1.3.00 p8

back to the top

Golden rice

GM crop manufacturers have so far failed to convince many consumers in MIDCs that their products are worthwhile. A new development, the so-called Golden Rice, laced with the genes required to make provitamin A, may demonstrate the appropriate use of genetic engineering. Developed using public and private funds, it is to be made freely available to the communities which need it most: the rice-eating nations of LIDCs.

See next item.

(6491) British Medical Journal 29.1.00 p324

Concerned about the unknown risks of producing vitamin A through genetic engineering, Dr. Vandana Shiva, a respected Indian scientist, points out that much better sources of vitamin A stem from agricultural biodiversity, including planting green leafy vegetables. She says that such sources have already been diminished by the Green Revolution, and that “golden rice” is simply an extension of the problem. She is also concerned that in countries where rice is a dietary staple, vitamin A overdosing is a severe potential health hazard. See vitamin A and osteoporosis.

(6574) Vandana Shiva. Vitamin 14.2.00

back to the top


Super salmon

Biologists in the UK and US are genetically engineering salmon to grow quicker and larger by introducing the human growth hormone gene hGH. As yet no-one has started to produce them commercially. Two researchers from Purdue University in Indiana (US), William Muir and Richard Howard, wanted to test the long-term effects of such engineering. Genetically-modifying Japanese Medaka fish (a fish widely used in research), they also created faster and greater growth, and higher levels of eggs in the females. The weakness of the GM fish, however, was that only two thirds survived to reproductive age.

Aware of several studies showing that larger fish, including salmon, attract up to four times as many mates as their smaller rivals, Muir and Howard turned to computer modelling to predict what might happen to the salmon population. The prediction was that, because the GM fish would pass on their short-life genes to 80% of the population, it would be extinct within 40 generations. Muir comments, “You have the very strange situation where the least fit individual in the population is getting all the matings - this is the reverse of Darwin’s model”.

Ed.- Recent news reports suggest that commercial production of a sterile ‘super salmon’ is imminent in the UK.

(6436-38) Matt Walker. New Scientist 4.12.99 p4

back to the top

GM by the back route

While some progress has been made to ensure that products containing GM ingredients are labelled as such, one major way by which consumers may take in GM produce has been totally ignored - GM crops in animal feed. GM crops have been used in UK animal feed for the last three years. Over half of the world’s 70 million acre GM crop is fed to farm animals - cattle, pigs and poultry - and Scottish farmed salmon. Because, so far, the US has refused to separate GM maize and soya from natural maize and soya, farmers are unable to say whether their animal feed has GM ingredients or not.

Nobody knows the consequences of feeding GM feed to farm animals, nor of humans later eating the animals or their products (e.g. milk, cheese, fats). If any research has been done it has not been made public. The UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’s (MAFF’s) animal feed unit is reported to be “very worried indeed” and responded to two applications from Monsanto to sell two new GM products to animal feed producers by calling for full toxicology tests.

Of particular concern are antibiotic-resistant marker genes in GM crops. The British Medical Association believes that they are “a completely unacceptable risk, however slight, to human health”. The Royal Society, The UK Government’s Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, and the National Farmers Union agree. They fear that these genes will increase resistance to antibiotics in both animals and humans.

Some scientists have argued that any GM DNA in animal feed will be destroyed by (i) the silaging process, (ii) the feed production process, and (iii) passing through the animal’s gut. The first two assumptions are seriously questioned by the findings of tests undertaken by Leeds University on behalf of MAFF. They found that neither silaging nor current heat treatment practice would break down DNA. (Current heat treatment is carried out at temperatures of 85°C or below. Dry heat and steam heat processes at 95°+ for at least five minutes would be necessary.)

The third assumption - that DNA cannot pass intact through an animal’s gut - has now been disproved. Dutch research predicts that 6% of the genes in GM tomatoes would survive, and recent research published in The Lancet showed that the snowdrop GNA lectin (the gene for which has been spliced into experimental GM crops) binds strongly with human white blood cells (a key component of the immune system). The Open University’s Dr. Mae-Wan Ho confirms that DNA can survive passage through the gut, readily finding its way into the bloodstream and into all kinds of cells. Once inside the cell, the DNA may insert itself into the cell’s genetic material “causing all manner of disturbances, including cancer”.

(6016) GM-Free 1.11.99 p2

back to the top


Breeding resistance

Insects which have developed a resistance to pesticides produced by GM plants tend to mate with each other rather than with non-resistant ones, thus firmly establishing a resistant strain in the environment. The tendency was found in moths which had become pesticide-resistant. Their larvae take five days longer to hatch, thus missing the boat as regards non-resistant faster-hatching potential partners.

(5849) Greenfiles 1.9.99 p11

back to the top


Superweeds

Monsanto has finally admitted that GM crops can crossbreed with native plants, creating hybrids resistant to some weedkillers. The first superweeds in the UK have been found in Cambridge, where GM oilseed rape plants bred with wild turnips.
(6005) Genetix Update 1.6.99 p3

back to the top

Biotech heads for the trees

The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) fears that GM trees may lead to silent forests devoid of insects, flowers and birds. It is concerned that GM trees may be more for the profit of a few than for the benefit of humanity at large, and that not enough is known about their potential effect on the environment.

Trees are being genetically modified to reduce lignin content (to make them easier to pulp for paper production), to grow rapidly, to resist pests and rot, or to be sterile. There have been 166 trials on 24 species of GM trees since 1988. Of the 116 trials to date, 70 have been in the US, 31 in Europe and 5 in Britain. The numbers are increasing, with 44 in 1998 alone. The WWF is concerned that commercial planting could begin at any time in China, Chile and Indonesia, and calls for a global moratorium until safety concerns have been properly addressed.

The problems around GM trees are the same as for GM crops, but bigger. Pollen from GM pines could carry 375 miles rather than 3. The longer life of trees also creates far greater potential for environmental damage. The WWF report states: “A combination of time and location factors would allow escaped GM trees engineered for fast, aggressive growth to become invasive weeds with the ability to out-compete naturally occurring vegetation for sunlight, water and nutrients”.

There is also the concern that GM tree plantations will increase the use of fertilisers and pesticides.

WWF has called on its network of 100 companies who have already pledged to only use timber from sustainable sources to ban GM wood products. Sainsbury’s - one of these companies - has already taken the pledge.

(5988-90) Nick Nuttall. Times 1.11.99
(6006-07) Paul Brown. Guardian 10.11.99 p4

back to the top


Genetically engineered insulin

Thousands of diabetics transferred from animal insulin to genetically-engineered (GE) insulin in the early ’90s are still unaware that they have been put under a far higher risk of death. Many doctors are also unaware of the problem. The reason? The British Diabetics Association suppressed a report it itself had commissioned because it considered it “too alarmist”.
Worse, many doctors who have become aware of the problem have still not returned their patients to animal insulin because they believe that it is no longer available. The two companies manufacturing GE insulin (by feeding nutrients to e-coli bacteria) deny that there is any danger. Anecdotal evidence from 3,000 diabetics who have suffered because of GE insulin casts doubt:

• 50% said that they had no early warning of passing out with ‘hypos’ (hypoglycaemic episodes) with the GE insulin
• 25% said that ‘hypos’ were more frequent
• 20% said that ‘hypos’ were more severe
• 13% said they passed out at night
• 5% suffered convulsions
• 10% had memory loss
• 9% were unable to concentrate

There was also strong evidence that the problems were reversible. 99% of those who returned to animal insulin reported improvements.

(5723-25) Paul Brown. Guardian 9.3.99 p6

back to the top

GE briefing

Genetically engineered foods contain genes derived from pigs, fish, insects, viruses and bacteria. The first ones to have appeared are tomatoes, corn, soya products, milk products, yeast and oils. This range will be further extended to replace hundreds of traditional varieties of fruit and vegetables. Many geneticists have warned that these products may permanently damage human health. The reasons genetically-engineered foods may be dangerous are:

• Given the huge complexity of genetic coding no-one can possibly predict the effects of introducing new genes into any organism, nor the effects on the health of any person who eats it. The transposed gene may react differently in its new host, the original genetic intelligence of the host may be disrupted or the genes of the host and the transposed gene may combine together with unpredictable effects.

• Biotechnologists claim that their manipulations are no different from natural genetic changes but Nature would never allow the cross-species transfers that are being achieved today, e.g. between pigs and plants, fish and tomatoes. These may allow diseases and weaknesses to cross species with unpredictable effects.

• Biotechnology companies claim that their products are safe and controllable. In fact the risks have been scientifically assessed as unlimited. Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination gene pollution cannot be cleaned up. The toxic effects of genetic mistakes will be passed on to all future generations of a species.

• Biotechnology companies say that the risks posed by their products are similar to the risks posed by all foods, but experience has already shown that genetically engineered products create dangerous new allergens and toxins into foods which were previously safe. Genetically engineered tryptophan (a food supplement that aids sleep) killed 30 people and permanently disabled 1500 more.

• Genetic research shows that many diseases have their origins in tiny imperfections in genetic coding. Tinkering with the genetic code in any way may upset the delicate balance between our physiology and the foods we eat.

• Biotechnology companies claim that governmental regulatory bodies will protect public health (although they were unable to do this with DDT, thalidomide, L-tryptophan, bovine growth hormone and BSE.)

• After introduction into plants, bacteria, insects and other animals new genetic information may cross into related life forms through processes such as cross-pollination, or displace existing species from the ecosystem with disastrous effects, like klebsiella bacteria.

• UK research institutions have little protection to ensure that experimental genetically engineered organisms are not escaping (e.g. seeds on the wind or by birds). No person, farm or country can isolate themselves from the possible effects of genetic manipulation.

• Transnational biotechnology companies already control large segments of the world’s food supply (including food patents, seed companies). Almost every food we eat will contain genetically modified ingredients within a few years. Compared to the slow evolution over thousands of years that has produced our traditional foods this represents a radical change in our environment with which the human body may not be able to cope.

(1615-20) Natural Law Party. 1.11.96

back to the top

GE exploitation

An alarming report from Greenpeace researcher Iza Kruszewska expresses concern that less than scrupulous western organisations, including De Monfort University in Leicester, may be exploiting the lack of regulation in Eastern European countries to carry out genetic experiments their own countries would not allow without explaining the possible risks or installing safeguards. In Poland carp with human genes have been swimming in open ponds since 1994. There are also reports of transgenic rabbits. A wide range of genetically-modified crops are being grown, including potatoes, tobacco, maize, rape and alfalfa in Hungary and alfalfa in Bulgaria, where the institute of Genetic Engineering is allegedly half-funded by De Montfort.

(2231) Living Earth 1.4.97 p20

back to the top

Swiss surprise

Hundreds of tons of Toblerone were recalled from stores after a routine check found that they contained illegal genetically modified soya bean materials in the lecithin (an emulsifying agent). The manufacturers, Kraft-Jacobs-Suchard, were shocked and stated that they had been assured by their German supplier that the lecithin was free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

(This demonstrates three things: it IS possible to detect genetically-modified organisms in foodstuffs, contrary to earlier claims from the US; GMOs can be hidden in the smallest ingredients in food; commercial motives make it extremely difficult to trust suppliers (or suppliers of suppliers - Ed.)

(2263) Clare Gardner. Independent 22.5.97 p13

back to the top

home • contact us • free sample • links
The Environment-Health Trust