|
The story began in October 1995 when Scotland’s
Rowett Research Institute began a project looking into the effect of genetically
modified (GM) crops on animal nutrition and the environment. This included,
for the first time, feeding GM potatoes to rats to see if there were any
harmful effects on their health. Dr Arpad Pusztai beat off 28 other tenders
to co-ordinate the project. At the time he conditionally supported the
release of GM crops so long as there were rigorous and independent trials
to assess their safety.
In December 1996, Dr Pusztai was alerted to the inadequate
standards for trials on GM crops when he was asked by the Government's
Advisory Committee on Novel Food Production to assess the validity of
a licensing application for GM maize. He faxed his assessment to the Ministry
of Agriculture warning that tests into nutritional performance, toxicology
and allergenicity were insufficient and inadequate. The Ministry ignored
his warning and subsequently approved the company's application.
Meanwhile, Dr Pusztai's own research was producing unexpected
and worrying results (see box),
convincing him of the need for more research. But in June 1998, the UK
government's Scottish Office and the Rowett Institute declined his funding
request to continue the work. On August 10, Pusztai appeared on a TV documentary
describing his work and warning about the inadequate testing of GM foods.
This marked the beginning of a fiasco that raises serious questions about
the stifling of truly independent research, and the manipulation of governments
and scientific institutions by genetech corporations. Rowett director
Professor Philip James initially praised Dr Pusztai for his contribution
to the TV programme. Two days later he suspended Pusztai, announced that
an emergency audit of his work would be undertaken and apologised for
Pusztai’s release of "misleading information." James
issued false information about the experiments that were undertaken, discrediting
Pusztai's work. The world authority on lectin research was told that his
contract with Rowett would not be renewed and his was issued with a "gagging
order," preventing him from defending or discussing his work.
|
DR
PUSZTAI'S PECULIAR POTATOES
Pusztai's team had been running an experiment
looking at the effects of feeding rats a diet of potatoes engineered
to express a snowdrop lectin gene. Pusztai is a world authority
on lectins. In plants, these proteins act as natural poisons
produced as a defence against predators. Their toxicity varies,
and some lectins are touted as being harmless to humans while
being toxic to insects, making them appealing as potential crop
protection agents. Some lectins (such as the jackbean lectin
gene) are extremely toxic to mammals, whereas others (like the
snowdrop lectin gene) are thought to be harmless, though some
scientists argue that this has not been established unequivocally,
particularly amongst vulnerable subsectors of the population.
A number of different crops have been engineered
to express high levels of lectins, the lectin genes being activated
by cauliflower mosaic virus promoters which are also crafted
into the crops. A number of these crops (including potato, maize,
barley, rubber, walnut, grape and sunflower) have been field
tested in the US and Europe, and more than 50 lectin genes have
been patented.
Pusztai's team fed experimental rats potatoes
engineered with the snowdrop lectin gene, while control groups
were offered potatoes with snowdrop lectin added to them. After
10 days, there were small but significant differences between
the two groups of animals. The group fed engineered potatoes
showed impaired development of organs such as the liver, thymus,
spleen and gut. Their brain size decreased and their immune
systems were weakened.
It is not possible to tell from these preliminary
experiments why the engineered potatoes should produce such
effects, which is why Pusztai recommended that more studies
be done. Since both potatoes contained the equivalent amount
of lectins, the proteins seem unlikely culprits. One possibility
is that the process of inserting the lectin genes disrupted
the behaviour of the potatoes other genes. This could have altered
the plant's biochemistry, causing them to produce high levels
of toxic chemicals. Other possible candidates are the cauliflower
mosaic virus promoter (which is used in most GM crops grown
today) or the process of genetic transformation itself. Either
of these last two, if proven to be the case, would shake the
foundations of the genetic engineering industry and call a halt
to most research and development in transgenic crops.
Sources: Dr Pusztai's alternative
report (see end); Dr. Joe Cummins, Questions and answers
on lectins, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/NewsSept-Oct98/GENews9-19LectinQA.html
|
|
"SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE" AND SAFETY
TESTING
One of the key findings of Pusztai's study was
that the genetically-engineered potatoes used in his experiments
were not "substantially equivalent" to the parent
lines. This finding is particularly important because substantial
equivalence is the key to safety testing for GM crops in the US
and Europe. The genetech industry has long argued that the actual
process of genetic engineering doesn't affect safety - only the
traits that are spliced are of significance. Before field testing,
genetech companies are required to demonstrate that their products
are substantially equivalent to non-GM varieties in terms of their
composition, ie that they contain the same amounts of proteins,
carbohydrates, fats, and so on.
But evidence is accumulating that many GM crops
are not substantially equivalent to non-GM crops. In addition, it
is becoming blindingly obvious that substantial equivalence is only
part of the equation that needs to be examined when considering
biosafety. GM plants can have wide-ranging and unpredictable effects
on the environment, upsetting the ecological balance. Last year,
the Scottish Crop Research Institute reported that ladybirds fed
aphids reared on transgenic potatoes experienced reproductive problems
and failed to live as long as ladybirds fed aphids from ordinary
potatoes. The potatoes were engineered with the snowdrop lectin
gene - just like Pusztai's potatoes.
Scientists from the University of Chicago recently
reported work in wild mustard plants that demonstrated that the
process of genetic engineering can cause dramatic changes in the
transgenic plants. They made the stunning observation that genetically-engineered
herbicide-resistant plants were 20 times more likely to outcross
(interbreed with relatives) than herbicide-resistant plants produced
by traditional breeding. Standard tests for substantial equivalence
only require testing for compositional differences, whereas the
real indicators should be much wider-reaching, including ecological
effects such as these.
Recent research from New York University provides
an example of the kinds of impacts that "substantial equivalence"
testing does not highlight and field testing is unlikely to demonstrate.
Typically, toxins in naturally-occurring Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt) bacteria, and sprays made from them, exist in an inactive form,
which becomes activated once ingested by the target insect. By contrast,
the toxins in many Bt crops are already in the active form. The
researchers found that unlike natural Bt, these active toxins do
not disappear when added to soil, but become rapidly bound to the
soil particles, and are not broken down by soil microbes. The researchers
contend that engineered Bt toxins could build up in the soil, killing
Bt-sensitive soil organisms and increasing selection pressure for
resistance to develop. In addition, a broader range of organisms
is likely to be susceptible to the active, engineered toxins, since
some organisms lack the enzymes to activate the inactive form when
they ingest it, but are still sensitive to the active form.
Another example of how GMO releases might cause
widespread ecological damage is illustrated by work on the Klebsiella
planticola bacterium. The addition of a genetically-engineered
bacterium to a small microcosm consisting of wheat plants and sandy
soils killed the plants, while the addition of the non-engineered
parent did not.
These, and an increasing number of other examples,
make a mockery of the mantra of "substantial equivalence"
that regulators love to repeat over and over. A myriad of different
kinds of tests on GM crops, examining whole range of their primary
and secondary impacts on the environment, are also needed to establish
their safety.
Sources: J Bergelson et al,
"Promiscuity in transgenic plants", Nature 395:25,
September 3, 1998; "Research News: promiscuous pollination,"
Nature Biotechnology 16:805, September 1998; C Crecchio and
G Stotzky, "Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the
toxin from Bt subsp kurstaki bound to humic acids
from soil," Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30: 463-70;
MT Holmes et al, "Effects of Klebsiella planticola
on soil biota and wheat growth in sandy soil." Applied Soil
Ecology 326: 1-12, 1998; A Birch et al, "Interactions
between plant resistance genes, pest aphid populations and beneficial
aphid predators," 1996/97 Scottish Crop Res. Inst. Annual
Report.
|
James has never attempted to defend this extraordinary
behaviour, but it is likely to have had something to do with Rowett’s
business and political connections. Genetech giant Monsanto, which has
big plans for GM potatoes and is known for its strong arm tactics in the
face of barriers to its progress, funds the Rowett to the tune of US$
230,000. Rowett collaborators also have links to the GM business (see
box). There are strong indications that his dramatic turnaround was prompted
by two telephone calls from the British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office.
|
THE SAINSBURY SAGA
Lord Sainsbury of Turville, a junior science minister
in the UK government, has a long-standing interest in GM foods.
He once said: "if someone waved a wand and said I could
be a Nobel Prize winner in plant genetics or a successful chairman
of Sainsbury, I would find it a very difficult choice." Strong
words from the richest man in England, who has reputedly earned
US $5.3 billion in personal assets from his multibillion dollar
supermarket chain.
Blair's choice of Sainsbury to be a science minister
has proved highly controversial, given his bias towards GM foods
and his disproportionate influence because of who he is. In his
supermarket days before joining the government in July 1997, his
company was busy developing GM tomatoes for tomato paste, which
until recently sat unlabelled on the shelves. Today, almost one
sixth of the company's own-brand products contain GM ingredients
or derivatives, and the company has dragged its feet on the labelling
issue. Sainsbury has also invested in a number of other companies
developing GM foods: Diatech, which conducts R&D in natural
science; Innotech Investments, which owns companies involved in
GM crops; Floranova, a UK-based seed and plant distributor; and
Four Oaks Nursery. He also owns the Gatsby Charitable Foundation,
which pours millions of dollars into GM research, including two
of the leading plant genetics labs in the UK. Since 1990, the Gatsby
Foundation has donated more than US $3 million to plant science.
Sainsbury retorts that there is no conflict of
interest in his position. All his business interests were transferred
to a "blind" trust when he joined the Government,
which means that a third party manages the shares and he supposedly
has no idea of what shares are held there. This is something of
a joke, of course, since the interests are unlikely to change. Through
Diatech, Sainsbury owns a "technology promoter"
gene, and Sainsbury made a personal loan to the company several
million US$ to buy a building right at the time that he joined the
government. In another twist, the inventor of Sainsbury's gene patent
is listed as Michael Wilson, who is now Deputy Director of the Scottish
Crop Research Institute. According to The Guardian newspaper,
the Institute, which collaborated on aspects of the Pusztai research
programme, was said to be uncomfortable with Dr Pusztai's preliminary
findings.
The UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has backed Sainsbury
all the way - the least he could do for a man who has donated almost
US$ 5 million to his party.
Sources: Various articles from The Guardian; G
Jones "Political science snares Sainsbury," The Daily
Telegraph, February 17, 1999.
|
The audit report, which was released on October 28, admitted
that the Rowett was wrong in its earlier statements about the nature of
Pusztai's experiments, but still argued that the differences he observed
in the rats were not statistically significant. He was cleared of fraud,
but hardly "exonerated" as James described it. His reputation
was in ruins and he was still under the gagging order. The furor died
down for a couple of months until February 1999, when twenty-one scientists
from 14 countries issued a statement supporting the validity of Pusztai's
work and accusing the Rowett of bowing to political pressure. One of them,
Dr Stanley Ewen, had undertaken his own studies and reported that the
rats which were feed the genetically-engineered potatoes had enlarged
stomachs in addition to the other abnormalities described by Pusztai.
The scientists said that the audit report was hastily put together and
mysteriously lacking in data. As Ewen put it, "The missing data
on organ weights does raise the possibility of deliberate cover-up by
the persons collating the Audit report."
The flood gates open
At this point all hell broke loose in the UK. GM food
issues were the leading news items in the media for two weeks. The public
was outraged. The British Prime Minister was renamed the "Prime
Monster" by the tabloid press, owing to his partiality for genetically-modified
"Frankenstein" foods. Greenpeace dumped 4 tonnes of GM
soybeans outside his London home, saying, "We are taking these
GM soya beans to one of the few homes in the UK where they want to eat
it." There were calls for the science minister Lord Sainsbury
- who also happens to be a billionaire and former chairman of the Sainsbury
food chain - to resign on account of his biotech interests (see box).
English Nature, the government's advisory body on transgenic releases,
called for a three-year on the commercial growth of herbicide-resistant
crops. Another government report on genetically-engineered oilseed rape,
which had been sat upon for two years, was also released, concluding that
the contamination of neighbouring fields is "inevitable"
under current farming practices. In addition, the government's advisory
committee on novel foods predicted that antibiotic-resistant genes in
the crops could escape to the environment.
Finally, the Government was forced to drag its ostrich-like
head out of the sand. The Environment Minister gave an open-ended assurance
that commercial growing would not be allowed in the UK until the Government
is convinced that there are no threats to the environment and wildlife.
The Agriculture Ministry, meanwhile, retorted that the government is powerless
to do so. "There is no legal basis for such a move under European
Union (EU) single market legislation," it said. However, it is
likely that the EU would allow a temporary ban while safety tests are
undertaken.
Who pays the ferryman?
In his pleas to the UK public to listen to the voice
of reason (ie his), Blair assured them that “There is nothing
in it for us, other than a desire to get it right.” Why then
did he sound more like an industry spokesperson than an impartial judge?
While accusing NGOs of scaremongering, he never attempted to address any
of the evidence they offered pointing for caution with respect to GM crops.
An important clue to his positioning came in his letter to one of the
national newspapers. “Britain has been at the leading edge of
this new science …. If we were to ban (GM) products, we would stop
British expertise in farming and science leading the way.” Blair’s
support for the biotech industry has been generous, to say the least.
Just before the recent furore erupted, the Government announced that it
was giving US$ 21 million to the biotechnology industry, to help it improve
its profile and win public confidence. His pro-business stance allows
the Government's Invest in Britain Bureau to boast that "the UK
leads the way in Europe in ensuring that regulations and other measures
affecting the development of biotechnology take full account of the concerns
of business."
Prior to the recent eruption of public outrage, Monsanto
and the rest of the biotech industry were probably feeling quite pleased
with the way things were going in the UK, particularly given the already
significant level of public opposition there. The biotech industry has
done a good job of cultivating friends in high places. Dave Hill, one
of the Labour party’s most influential advisors, resigned to work
for Monsanto’s PR firm, Bell Pottinger, where he now lobbies ministers
on the company’s behalf. There he was joined by Cathy McGlyn, who
advised Jack Cunningham when he was Agriculture Secretary. Cunningham,
by strange coincidence, is now in charge of the government committee monitoring
genetic foods. Stranger still is that Monsanto is also a client of the
consultancy run by Philip Gould, the Prime Minister’s confidant.
Zeneca and Novartis have similar stories to tell. Zeneca’s chief
executive sits on the Biotechnology Research Council and Novartis sponsored
the Labour party’s annual conference and paid for a training session
to teach new parliamentarians how to behave. Courting the government is
paying off. According to Friends of the Earth, Monsanto executives secured
17 audiences with ministers in their first year.
This cozy situation is remarkably reminiscent of the
US scene. As The Observer newspaper points out, “Monsanto
has become a retirement home for members of the Bill Clinton’s biddable
administration.” It is practically a division of the government,
with a revolving door in constant spin between the company and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the
Whitehouse. Monsanto board member Mickey Kantor is a former US trade representative
and chairman of Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. Linda Fisher, Monsanto's
Vice-President for Government and Public Affairs, mapped pesticide policy
at the EPA. The list goes on … and on ... and on. “When you’ve
got friends like this,” says Michael Colby of the US NGO Food
and Water, “you don’t have to concern yourself with your
enemies.”
When the Irish Prime Minister visited Washington last
year, the burning issue for discussion with the director of the US National
Security Council wasn't the Irish peace talks. Instead, the issue was
Ireland's pivotal vote on a pending European decision on Monsanto's Bt
corn. In December 1998, when US Commerce Secretary William Daley trumpeted
biotech on his four-nation trade mission to Africa, a Monsanto executive
was also on the plane. It is no wonder that, as St Louis Post and Despatch
writer Bill Lambrecht observed, "Wherever Monsanto seeks to sow,
the US government clears the ground." Having successfully smoothed
the entry of GM crops into the US, Europe is the next big challenge for
the genetech giant. Little wonder, then, that when Blair visited the US
last year, one of Clinton’s requests was that Blair clear the way
for the entry of GM crops into the UK. This gentle word in Blair's ear
may well be one of the reasons that Blair, who usually seems to understand
the issues that really matter to the public, has messed up so badly over
the scandal.
The battle’s aftermath
All this explains the government's extreme resistance
to calling for a moratorium, and Blair's inability to do anything more
than mechanically spout off the biotech industry's rhetoric about proceeding
on the basis of scientific evidence and encouraging public "debate"
rather than taking action. By so obviously siding with industry when the
public were up in arms, he has seriously damaged his credibility and his
standing.
Monsanto also took a heavy beating as the controversy
raged and public doubts about the adequacy of safety testing grew stronger.
It didn't help that right in the middle of the furore, the company was
found guilty of failing to properly contain a trial of GM oilseed rape
in England's heartland. Monsanto's assurances that it undertakes rigorous
and exhaustive research before releasing any of its products fell totally
flat when it was revealed that the company's marketing application for
RoundUp Ready maize to the UK government's Advisory Committee on Releases
to the Environment had to be sent back because the information submitted
was inaccurate. The committee described Monsanto's scientists as "incompetent"
and accused them of submitting sloppy research, "poor interpretation"
and work far below the required standards. Monsanto had to do its homework
again to redefine part of the gene sequence in the product.
One of the most positive aspects of the UK scandal is
that increased credibility of NGOs, scientists and politicians who have
been opposing the introduction of GM crops into Europe. The issue was
discussed in every pub, workplace and supermarket around the country,
and the overwhelming response was for caution. In one countrywide poll,
68% of respondents expressed fears about eating GM foods, 96% felt that
they should be clearly labelled and 77% called for a temporary ban on
commercialising GM foods until more research is done. But even if Blair
stops sweeping aside the increasingly compelling evidence that GM can
and do have serious impacts on the environment and health and moves towards
a more precautionary principle with respect to GM foods, he will rapidly
find that he has tied his own hands. His government, like all Western
governments, has been progressively giving away its power to the dark
shadow of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
If governments seek to prevent corporations from forcing
farmers to grow their GM crops, the corporations will appeal, first to
the European Union, and then to the WTO. And they may well win, because
the WTO rules are quite simple: nothing can stand in the way of free trade.
In cases like this, private profit outweighs public protection. The first
test of this will come all too soon. In 1993, the EU banned milk and beef
from cattle treated with Monsanto's genetically-engineered bovine growth
hormone (rBGH). The WTO has given Europe until May 13 to start importing
rBGH products, and Monsanto is rubbing its hands in eager anticipation.
Maybe the reality of governmental impotence in the face of the global
"enforcer" will be the catalyst needed to wake up the
public and politicians to the absurdity of the WTO and the need to dismantle
its power and reinstate democratic control.
Main sources:
* SOAEFD flexible fund project RO 818. Audit of data
produced at the Rowett Research Institute. Audit date: August 21, 1998.
http://www.rri.sari.ac.uk/press/summary.html
* Pusztai's response to the audit committee report: SOAEFD
flexible Fund Project RO 818, Report of Project Coordinator on data produced
at the Rowett Research Institute, October 22, 1998. http://www.rri.sari.ac.uk/gmo/aj.htm
* The Audit Committee's response to Dr Arpad Pusztai's
Alternative Report of 22 October 1998. http://rri.sari.ac.uk/gmo/gmoaudit7.htm
* Memorandum related to SOAEFD flexible fund project
RO 818 signed by Professor E van Driessche and Prof TC Bøg-Hansen.
* Various articles from the Guardian Newspaper's GM food
documentary topic: http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/food/0,2759,20256,00.html
* Website devoted to the Pusztai case: http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/Pusztaitcbh.htm#Recent
Links
* B Lambrecht (1998), World recoils at Monsanto's brave
new crops, St Louis Post-Dispatch, Sunday December 27, 1998.
* Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Advisory Committee to the Environment (1999), The commercial use of
genetically-modified crops in the UK: the potential wider impact on farmland
wildlife. http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/acre/wildlife/index.htm#summ
* Friends of the Earth press releases: http://www.foe.co.uk/cgi-bin/pressrel/
|
Imprimir
