My name is Tim Roberts. I am a UK patent lawyer, and cannot claim to be an expert in the relevant biotechnology sciences.
However, even limited knowledge is sufficient to query some of the positions taken in the debate. Mr Reel [7 April] asks if (and why) it should be considered " completely safe" to ingest GM crops that produce the "lethal insecticide" BT. Two points on this:
Firstly, it is not "completely safe" to ingest anything. As Paracelsus said "The dose makes the poison". Even pure water is toxic if consumed in sufficiently large quantities. To eat anything is to take a risk - usually quite small. These risks are unavoidable - unless one starves.
Secondly, while it may be strictly correct to call BT a 'lethal insecticide", it is extremely misleading. It is lethal to caterpillars. To humans it is remarkably safe (unlike many conventional insecticides, for example most organophosphorus compounds).
Edible GM plants are tested in comparison with their unmodified counterparts, and in general no relevant differences in food quality are detected. This is the concept of "substantial equivalence". The GM plants are not guaranteed to be 'completely safe', any more than the corresponding unmodified plants. In fact, they may sometimes be slightly safer than unmodified plants, for example where the unmodified plants have been treated with toxic chemical insecticides, or where the unmodified plants have not been protected at all against insect attack (which can lead to the presence of dangerous fungal pathogens).
I'd like to make a more general point. GM technology is extremely powerful. It is right to be concerned about the problems it may cause. Everyone agrees caution is essential - we differ only about how much. GM will not solve all difficulties. Some difficulties would be better tackled in other ways. However, the idea that the technology has no safe use is literally incredible. All technologies (from fire on) are tools, that can be used for good or for ill. The task in every case is to maximise the good and avoid the ill.
Tim Roberts
twr@compuserve.com
[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: Monday, April 10, 2000 5:35 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Concerns about GM food crops
Jeffrey Reel's 7th April contribution will be more balanced if he make a follow up with the other side of the coin.
Since GM is a growing biotechnology developing countries should not be discouraged from benefiting from the technology. If anything they (developing countries) stand a better chance to learn from the mistakes of the developed.
Additionally, most of the traits modified in crops in developed countries would not boost production of small scale holders in developing eg herbicide tolerance. Instead traits that confer tolerance to abiotic stresses like high temperatures and drought are of priority in developing countries.
Peter Mwangi,
Lund University, Sweden
peter.mwangi.507@student.lu.se
[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: Monday, April 10, 2000 5:40 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health
Re BT ingestion: Tim Roberts [10 April] says BT is "remarkably safe" for humans. Perhaps with regard to skin contact, but do you have evidence that INGESTION of Bt for humans is safe? If so, could you cite such studies? (which probably dont exist since they would be unethical). I am amazed that this argument is being used without the benefit of demonstrable proof.
You compare the "safety" of GM plants as better than that of pesticide-ridden plants, as if these were the only two alternatives. If you had read this forum more thoroughly, you would understand that the alternative of farming using neither pesticides nor GM plants is a viable option, and in fact has proven in this country [USA] to be economically and ecologically feasible. That it is more labor intensive is a fact but this makes it all the more appropriate for decentralized agrarian countries.
Lorna Salzman, USA
718-522-0253; 631-653-3387
lsalzman@aba.org
[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: Monday, April 10, 2000 5:43 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health
As requested by Jeffrey Reel [7 April], I would like to give background information to the 'substantial evidence for positive environmental effects, with decreased pesticide use and healthier food':
1. Healthier food with less mycotoxins by Bt corn:
http://www.scisoc.org/feature/BtCorn/Top.html
2. Positive environmental effects by potentially less amount of pesticides used: http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/gmo/
You also may want to ask Prof. Ingo Potrykus about his contributions to sustained food security in developing countries through genetic engineering with rice, wheat, cassava and Sorghum.(e.g. vitamin A rice).
Please note that GM crops are not safe or unsafe per se. It depends case-by-case. I really want to make the point that it is hard to believe dogmatic anti- and pro GM fundamentalists on both sides of the debate.
Additionally, there is an interesting review article available: Beever, D.E. & Kemp, C.F. (2000) Safety issues associated with the DNA in animal feed derived from genetically modified crops. A review of scientific and regulatory procedures. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews Series B: Livestock Feeds and Feeding Vol 70 (3), pp. 175-182. The article's conclusion: "Additionally there is a growing body of scientifically valid information available that indicates no significant risk associated with the consumption of DNA or the resulting proteins from the GM crops that are registered in any of these countries. Based on the safety analyses required for each crop, consumption of milk, meat and eggs produced from animals fed GM crops should be considered to be as safe as traditional practices."
Detlef Bartsch
Biology V (Ecology, Ecotoxicology, Ecochemistry)
Aachen University of Technology RWTH
Worringerweg 1
52056 Aachen
Germany
Tel. +49 241 806676
Fax. +49 241 8888182
e-mail: BARTSCH@RWTH-AACHEN.DE
Webpage:
http://www.rwth-Aachen.de/bio5/Ww/Ag-Barte.html (English)
[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: Monday, April 10, 2000 5:47 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Concerns about GM food crops
Jeffrey Reel in his E-mail [7 April] quotes a number of different articles in which potential problems are associated with genetically modified crops. I have not read all the articles that he quotes but I think we need in response to his very real concerns to focus on how the scientific world actually works since there seems quite often to be a lack of understanding in this respect.
To focus on one particular example which Jeffrey Reel quotes: "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)." This very important study was an extremely crucial one and to me goes a long way in illustrating that SCIENCE WORKS. Ironically it is also a study which is quoted very often as an example of why we should not plant Genetically modified crops. The crux of the matter here is that this study was a study on crops that were undergoing trials and significant testing. As a result of this study, crops containing Brazil nut genes were NOT released. That is, as a result of this study, the GM crops used in the study were found to be unacceptable and therefore not commercialised.
This study is therefore, an example of how science works and works for the safety of the consumer, crops are tested and then the results are published. Sometimes the results may indicate that there are problems, these problems need to be investigated further before a crop containing a foreign gene may be released. The Brazil nut genes used in this study are therefore, an example of genes that should most probably not be used. This study is also an example of how scientists did their job properly and tested the crop before it was released. This study is not an example of why genetic modification is potentially dangerous. To give an analogy, if a car manufacturer comes up with a new tyre, which is then tested and found to be faulty. The tyre is not commercialised but it does not mean that new tyres should not be developed.
A second example is "Emergence of Drug-Resistant Bacteria". This is another example of genes that were identified as problematic. The early crops that were engineered contained drug resistance genes. In response to this problem the next generation of genetically modified crops do not contain bacterial drug resistant genes. Thus this is again a problem that was identified and the scientific community have investigated the concerns and now developed crops that no longer have these genes. Certainly in South Africa no crops have been (nor will be) released which contain bacterial antibiotic resistance genes. Again I fail to understand why this is cited as an example why genetically modified crops are a potential danger to developing countries.
In an earlier E-mail [3 April. Subject: Biotechnology by Africans for Africa] I stressed the fact that we must be very careful not to lump all "genetically modified" crops together. Each crop needs careful evaluation. Some will "fail" the evaluation test while others will not.
In his E-mail Jeffrey Reel gives many more quotes from publications. I do not think that this is the Conference to discuss these. I would suggest that any responsible research group in the area of plant biotechnology would be able to do this with him on a point by point basis. We have been asked to restrict our E-mails in this forum to 600 words and I'm at my limit.
Brenda Wingfield
University of Pretoria
South Africa
Brenda.Wingfield@fabi.up.ac.za
[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 ]