Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

Lorna Salzman [5 April] has misunderstood my 4 April statement about the risks of some new biotechnologies ['the extreme level of specialized knowledge required to comprehend the risks and possibilities of a particular technology leads us to stake our opinions on incomplete information.']. This is a pity because I think she actually agrees with me.

My point was NOT that scientists should make all of society's decisions. That's a chilling thought. My point is that a certain "democracy of scientists" is required to deliver reliable risk assessments on technologies so complex and profound as GMOs. Communication within such a "democracy" is hampered by the very narrow specializations we pursue, and is sidetracked by the push of corporate money. When we eventually develop an appropriate institutional watchdog, its evaluations should then be the BASIS for truly democratic decisions by the populations at large, to allow for the many ethical, moral, and political facets of the GMO question.

In the meantime, as so many contributors have noted, creating GMOs and releasing them into the environment is a complex (yet promising) operation on several fronts that we don't fully understand. As such:
--the research must continue, and
--the precautionary principle must apply.

Chris A. Geiger, Ph.D
Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy & Management
Div. of Insect Biology
201 Wellman Hall
University of California, Berkeley 94720-3112
(510) 428-1945 (phone) (510) 428-1845 (fax)
cgeiger@firstworld.net (email)

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 4:32 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

Dr. Detlef Bartsch [31 March] wrote: "... the case of gene technology there is substantial evidence for positive environmental effects, with decreased pesticide use and healthier food."

I would appreciate it if Dr. Bartsch would elaborate on these points, and kindly lead me to the substantail evidence.

1. "positive environmental effects"
2. "healthier food"

Specifically, the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis/insecticide Bt: Select GM crops now "produce" this lethal insecticide. Do you consider it completely safe to ingest this plant and, if so, why?

Jeffrey Reel
jeffreyreel@aol.com
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, MA, USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 4:35 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Concerns about GM food crops

My concerns regarding the use of biotech in the growing of GM food crops in developing countries are:

- Impairment of Immune Function: the autoimmune disease SLE, rheumatoid arthritis, and immune complex glomerulonephritis may be enhanced from exposure to foreign DNA fragments and nucleoproteins introduced by GM foods S. Martin, "Immunological Reactions to DNA and RNA," PSRAST, July 2, 1999).
- Evidence that BGH Increases Risk of Cancer: (J.L. Outwater et al., "Dairy Products and Breast Cancer: The IGF-1, Estrogen, and BGH Hypothesis," Medical Hypotheses 48:453-61, 1997.)
- Increased Risk of Heart Disease: (See "Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified Herbicide-tolerant Soybeans," Journal of Medicinal Foods 1:4, 1999.)
- Lethal Food Supplements: a genetically engineered form of L-tryptophan used to treat people with EMS produced toxic contaminants, killing 37 people and permanently disabling 1,500 (A.N., Mayeno: "EMS and Tryptophan Production," Tibtech 12:346-52, 1994).
- Horizontal Transfer of Transgenic DNA: Bacteria in the mouth and pharynx can take up and express transgenic DNA, including antibiotic resistance marker genes. (D.K. Mercer et al., "Fate of Free DNA and Transformation of the Oral Bacterium Streptococcus Gordonii DL1 by Plasmid DNA in Human Saliva," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 65:6-10, 1999.)
- Emergence of New Viral Diseases
- Decline of Birds and other Wildlife, including Insects and Fish. (K. Harding, "The Potential for Horizontal Gene Transfer within the Environment," Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech, 7:31-35, 1998).
- Contamination of Organic and Conventional Crops (already well-established)
- Contamination of Wild Plants (T. Mikkelsen et al., "The Risk of Crop Transgene Spread," Nature 380:31, 1996).
- Decline in Soil Fertility.
- Bt May Remain Active: Genetically altered Bt toxin does not break down as rapidly in some soils at natural Bt. Further, the "naked" DNA remaining in decaying cells in the soil may remain biologically active for thousands of years, which can be eaten by mice, and inherited by offspring or eliminated in feces and eaten by other wildlife. (C. Crecchio and g. Stotzky, "Insecticidal Actvitiy and Biodegradation of the Toxin from Bt Subsp. Kurstaki Bound to Humic Acids from Soil," Soil Biology and Chemistry 30:463-70, 1998).
- Spread of New Viruses
- Emergence of Disease-Resistant Insects (B.E. Tabashnik et al., "One Gene in Diamondback Moth Confers Resistance to Four Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94:1640, 1997).
- Increased Allergic Reactions and Lung Problems (based on 1996 study, University of Nebraska re: modified rapeseed and soybean oils and the use of genes from brazil nuts).
- Altered Pollen Affecting the Lungs: risk assessment so far has ignored the impact of GM pollen in this regard.
- Introduction of Foreign Proteins in the Body.
- Altered or Reduced Nutritive Value: Laboratory studies in Scotland show 20% less protein in GM potatoes. New protein products may alter the bioavailability of essential nutrients.
- Damage to Stomach, Intestines, Blood: I have referred earlier to a study in Lancet.
- Emergence of Drug-Resistant Bacteria
- Denial of Freedom of Choice
- Patenting of Once-Traditional Seeds and Denial of Traditional Communities from Freely Planting.

Jeffrey Reel
jeffreyreel@aol.com
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, MA, USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 4:39 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Developing Countries Desire for GMO Tech.

This is Peter Mwangi from Kenya, an Msc. student in Theoretical Ecology at Lund University, Sweden. My research is geared toward risk assessment of transgenics.

In response to a contribution [6 April] by Jay Smith about 'terminator' gene compelling farmers to re-purchase new seeds. In Kenya for example small scale holders accounts for 75% of agricultural produce. For various socio-economic reasons including lack of purchasing power most of these farmers sows seeds from the previous harvest (or borrow seeds from their neighbours or friends) especially if production is high. As a result of gene segregation the harvest is usually very poor especially if the seeds are from an improved hybrid variety.

There are few or none frontline extension staff to advise these farmers and removal of agricultural subsidies has worsened the situation. The farmers are not able to buy new seeds and other inputs every season so they revert to UNimproved varieties that have relatively stable seasonal production. Varieties that require new seeds every season might not succeed in such situation and therefore plant breeders and biotechnologists should bear this in mind when improving crops.

You can think what would happen when such farmers sow 'terminated' seeds, we can learn from results of sowing hybrids seeds. The appropriate technology should suit their systems.

In a study by Dr. Njoka J.T et.al (1999) for National Council of Churches of Kenya (NCCK), Food Security, Agriculture and Trade 'The Kenyan Case Study of the Impacts of the Agricultural Sector Reforms on Food Security' (which I was partly involved in) it showed that 74% of the small scale farmers do not use fertilizers or apply sub-optimal doses. These farmers are poor and it will not be possible for them to purchase new seed every season?

The risk of the escape of terminator genes into the wild also brings a controversy between ecologists and bioengineers. Regarding the 'inverse relationship between the wealth of a nation and its farmers' I don't think it is fair to compare large-scale farmers (characteristic of US) who are engaged in processing their products with small-scale farmers (characteristic of developing countries).

Other than increasing production, an appropriate and sustainable biotechnology should go hand in hand with distribution of the farm produce. In Kenya for example, a lot of milk and maize goes to waste during bumper harvest in some areas. Then biotech techniques to improve shelf life of farm produce is the most appropriate technology, in this areas where seasons are not definite such that pre harvest losses can be reduced in such times when it rains before the crops are ready for harvest though mature.

To conclude, I would urge contributors to not put further emphasis on GM since it is only one of biotechnology technique and it seem to have dominated the current debate. It is also (I stand to be corrected) the technique that is associated with most risks, especially when it involve gene transfer between genera or higher orders.

Peter Mwangi
Theoretical Ecology
Lund University, Sweden
Phone +46 (0)70 273 9027
peter.mwangi.507@student.lu.se

Return to Logs of Conference 1 or go to the main Forum pages. Note: you must join the Forum to participate in these discussions.