Back in 2013, when I was still watching the BBC, I saw a documentary on GMO’s presented by Prof. Brian Cox of Manchester University. His attitude to those who oppose GMO’s annoyed me enough that I decided to write him a letter. Since I am not a scientist, I thought perhaps I ought to do a bit more reading about the subject before putting pen to paper, to avoid looking like a complete idiot. About three or four weeks and 24 pages later, it was good to go, so I sent it off. Sadly I never received a reply (the shock!), but it was a useful exercise in that so much of what I read about concerning the behaviour of the biotechnology industry then is very pertinent with regard to pharmaceutical industry today.
The reason that I have decided to publish this letter 9 years after having written it is because there are serious moves to bring GMO’s back onto the agenda, with the war in Ukraine providing a handy excuse. Combined with what looks like an ongoing attack on farming and food production world wide, and the interest a few well known billionaires seem to have developed in land ownership and animal husbandry, I think perhaps there ought to be more of a discussion as to what the implications of these moves are before we are bounced into yet another response that will benefit a tiny number of people at the expense of everyone else, if not of all life on the planet.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/22/gene-edited-crops-sped-ease-ukraine-food-crisis/
The links in the letter below all worked in 2013, but I have not checked them recently, and I would be very surprised if they work now, or, if the pages do still exist, that they read in the same way as they did back then, especially the links to Wikipedia articles. Also, some of my views have changed a little over the years since I wrote the letter, and I am much more opposed to the idea of genetic manipulation than I was in 2013, especially after what has happened over the last two and a half years. In addition, since it was written, Stephen Drucker has published a book called ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth’, which does a much better job of explaining the issues than I ever could, and is well worth the time spent reading it in my view.
Finally, if these people really were interested in solving the problems of hunger and poverty world wide, and really were concerned about climate change as they all claim, they sure have a funny way of going about it. Personally, I would be looking at permaculture amongst other things, but then I am not party to the mysterious ways and thought processes of power hungry billionaires, so what do I know?
https://www.permaculture.org.uk/ and https://www.permaculture.co.uk/what-is-permaculture/ and https://biochar-international.org/biochar/
Dear Professor Cox,
I am writing to you because I enjoy watching the programmes you have made and find them hugely informative. In the first episode of 'Science Britannica' shown on BBC2 in September 2013, you expressed bafflement at the public reaction to novel scientific research, and in particular the opposition to genetically modified organisms. So I thought I'd return the explanatory favour, so to speak, and try to help you understand why I, as a non-scientist, am opposed to GMOs as things stand now.
I don't oppose genetics, or the science that might lead to useful and safe genetic manipulation, particularly if it is one day able to cure human genetic diseases. My opposition to GMOs is not based on an irrational gut feeling that GMOs are unnatural and evil, and therefore to be stopped at all costs. I don't know any opponents of genetic modification who do think in this way, although no doubt there are some that do. As it happens I am an agnostic, and I have no religious axe to grind, although I am interested in why people believe the things they do. I have to say I am a little tired of seeing the anti-GMO view presented as being solely an irrational fear of the unknown, as if all those who hold such views are ignorant peasants stuck in the middle ages.
When I first heard about GMOs I guess I was in my late 20's. I was pretty indifferent to them at that time, if not inclined to be positive. I remember reading an article in a magazine that claimed fields with GM crops required fewer pesticides and herbicides, so animal species that were no longer found where conventional intensive agriculture was practised were able to thrive where GM crops were grown. That sounded like a good thing to me. I couldn't see what the fuss was about, or why people worried about them.
Some years ago, my mother developed Alzheimer’s disease, so I learned as much as I could about it, just in case there was anything I could do that would help. In the course of that search, many articles came up about other topics, including GMOs. These articles contained information which surprised me and changed my view, so I started to specifically look for information about genetic modification. However, my reading has not just concerned GMOs, but has also been about the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. What I have read has alarmed me deeply, and in case you are wondering, my reading does not usually include the tabloid press. I find tabloids ridiculously funny most of the time, and wouldn't stick to one newspaper anyway, even if I were a regular reader of the press. I read books, magazines on science that a friend gives me from time to time, and articles on the internet. If I have the time I will check the sources quoted in articles, but this usually happens with internet articles as it is so simple to do. I like to know about the writers too. It is interesting and it is always good to know where someone is coming from when you read their stuff. I'm saying this to underline the fact that the view of GMOs I have now is not an hysterical, unreasonable response to scaremongering tabloid journalists. Mind you, you can still think that if you like.
What strikes me as a result of all this reading is:
A handful of biotechnology companies now control the majority of the seeds on which the world's food supply depends through the patents they have taken out and purchasing of independent seed companies.
Contamination of non GM crops by GMOs is increasing, threatening the future viability of organic farming, not to mention biodiversity, with all the implications that has for disease control. There is also the possibility that such contamination may change our environment in unforeseen ways, ways that could be harmful to us and other life forms, and which may well be irreversible.
Many of the arguments made in favour of GM crops seem not to have been borne out in reality.
I'll look at the first two points a little later. For now, I'd like to examine the claims that are made for GMOs, that they will increase crop yields and so end world hunger and poverty; that they will lead to a reduction in the use of pesticides and herbicides; that they have been thoroughly and extensively tested by many independent scientists in many different countries, all of whom agree that they are safe, good for human health and beneficial for the environment; and that the regulators which oversee all of this do their job properly.
The ending of world hunger and poverty is a pretty big claim, and opponents of GMOs are often accused of being somehow in favour poverty and starvation or indeed of promoting it. I'll leave aside the arguments around food distribution which have been made many times elsewhere, and the unbelievably large quantity of perfectly good food that ends up in land fill in the Western world, which frankly is a problem that is never going to be solved by growing GMOs. Instead I give you this quote from an article in Wikipedia called 'Genetically Modified Food Controversies' about the actual benefit of growing GMOs in reality:
“The potential for genetically modified food to help impoverished nations was recognised by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, but as of 2008 they found no conclusive evidence that they have offered a solution.”
Indeed, until recently GM crops had not been designed to increase crop yields. Many of the ones currently in commercial production are designed to withstand higher doses of pesticides and herbicides than their non GM counterparts, thereby enabling biotechnology companies such as Monsanto to increase sales of these products. Alternatively, crops produce their own pesticides, such as Bt cotton, or Bt corn, removing the need for spraying by the farmer. Increased yields might be a secondary effect of reducing the amount of crops lost to insect attack or weed infestation, but it is not the primary purpose of the modification. Regarding increased yields, a report by Professor S. K. Sopory, Vice Chancellor of Jawarharlal Nehru University doesn't paint a very promising picture. He was asked by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) to investigate scientific claims made about GM cotton (BNBt) and his report was presented in August 2012. Here is an extract:
“1.03 Upon commercial release, after the due regulatory approval, BNBt variety and the hybrid 'Bt NHH 44' were cultivated in about 8400 hectares in Khari' 2009. In general, farmers and state seed agencies complained that performance and yields did not match their expectations.
(Report from the committee to examine scientific claims made with regard to the BNLA106 event (genetic transformation of an elite Indian genotype of cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.J for insect resistance)
Given the sky-rocketing rates of suicide amongst India's farmers that have been linked to GM crop failures, the sentence I've highlighted might be something of an understatement. In the same Wikipedia article mentioned above is this paragraph:
“Several studies have documented surges in secondary pests (which are not affected by Bt toxins) within a few years of adoption of Bt cotton. In China, the main problem has been with mirids, which have in some cases "completely eroded all benefits from Bt cotton cultivation". A 2009 study in China concluded that the increase in secondary pests depended on local temperature and rainfall conditions and occurred in half the villages studied. The increase in insecticide use for the control of these secondary insects was far smaller than the reduction in total insecticide use due to Bt cotton adoption. Another study published in 2011 was based on a survey of 1,000 randomly selected farm households in five provinces in China and found that the reduction in pesticide use in Bt cotton cultivars is significantly lower than that reported in research elsewhere, consistent with the hypothesis suggested by recent studies that more pesticide sprayings are needed over time to control emerging secondary pests, such as aphids, spider mites, and lygus bugs. Similar problems have been reported in India, with both mealy bugs and aphids."
It also has this interesting, if rather contradictory, statement:
“The economic value derived from growing genetically modified food has been a major selling point for the technology. One of the key reasons for the widespread adoption is the perceived economic benefit the technology brings to farmers, including those in developing nations. A 2010 study by US scientists, found that the economic benefit of Bt corn to farmers in five mid-west states was $6.9 billion over the previous 14 years. They were surprised that the majority ($4.3 billion) of the benefit accrued to non-Bt corn. This was speculated to be because the European Corn Borers that attack the Bt corn die and there are fewer left to attack the non-GM corn nearby.”
I had to re-read this a few times to make sure I hadn't misunderstood, because it seemed to be saying completely opposite things i.e. that Bt corn had brought an economic benefit of $6.9 billion over 14 years, but most of this benefit ($4.3 billion) actually came from non-Bt corn. They then come up with a quite tortuous explanation that enables them to say actually it's all down to the Bt corn, because if the Bt corn hadn't been there, the non-Bt corn wouldn't have been so successful. That is quite a circuitous way of claiming an economic benefit, and it does leave me wondering if other claims of economic benefit are based on this kind of speculation. It implies the corn borers all decided to ignore the non Bt corn and eat the Bt corn which seems a little odd. It also suggests the major benefit of growing Bt corn is because it will keep your non-Bt corn safe.
Suffice to say I am unconvinced by claims of increased yield and economic benefit if this is how those claims are substantiated. There also seem to be indications of nutritional deficiency within these plants, which I will look at in more detail below. However, it looks like someone could get enough to eat, and still be malnourished. It is possible it is a problem that is entirely due to the herbicides and pesticides that are used together with GM crops, but this is serious as despite the claim that GMOs will lead to a reduction in pesticide and herbicide use, I have to say, it is not a claim that is looking good either. In fact the use of herbicides like glyphosate has increased dramatically since the introduction of GMOs. Here is another quote from the same article in Wikipedia:
“...recent research shows that the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. A 2012 study on pesticide use in the U.S. over the 16-year period, 1996–2011, shows that herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%, largely due to the replacement of older persistent pesticides by glyphosate. As more resistant weeds continue to emerge, some farmers are finding the need to return to the practice of yearly plowing as part of their strategy for weed control.”
Later on in this article, it states that:
“The European corn borer, one of the primary insects Bt is meant to target, has been shown to be capable of developing resistance to the Bt protein.”
So just how effective are Bt crops going to be in the long term, and what are the consequences for the organic farming industry? Bt pesticides that were applied to crops periodically rather than being an integral part of the crop itself were one of the few pesticides that were deemed acceptable in organic farming. Now GM is in the process of rendering it ineffective as insects are exposed to it all the time and have to adapt to survive. This does not look like progress to me. When you think about it, is it really surprising weeds and insects will develop and change in response to the things we do to the environment? Evolution works. We push nature, nature pushes back. So why does anyone think that creating a crop that can resist herbicides or produce its own insecticides will be a long term solution for anything? It will certainly improve the balance sheets of companies selling them, but for everything and everyone else, it will only make things worse in the long run. Indeed, by 2010 so called super-weeds had infested around 11 million acres of US farmland, 5 times more than in 2007. I know the plant geneticist you interviewed, Professor Jonathan Jones of the Sainsbury Laboratory in Norfolk, thinks that GM crops reduce pesticide and herbicide use, but for these reasons I would humbly suggest he is wrong, and that there is nothing environmentally friendly about this increase.
There is an issue with the research, safety and proper testing, not only of GMOs themselves, but of the chemicals that they are used with, or are altered to produce. Scientists who favour GMOs argue they are safe, they have been thoroughly tested and since they have entered the food chain, particularly in America, no adverse effects have been recorded, either in animals or in people. The same claims are made for herbicides such glyphosate, and the commercial product that contains it, Roundup. It is also said that there is no difference between GMOs and their non-GMO counterparts, a claim which makes me wonder what the basis of patenting these GMOs was. I have noticed that there seems to be a tendency in many secondary sources of information (not all by any means, but certainly in ones that are considered 'mainstream' and therefore reliable) to accept all the research which shows GMOs in a positive light uncritically, while those which indicate there might be problems are rubbished. The scientists that come up with negative results are accused of manipulating or fixing these results in order to prove GMOs are bad. They are mavericks in the pay of extreme environmentalists, so what they say should be ignored. The picture presented is of a consensus in the scientific world that all is fine. However, just a small amount of background reading indicates the picture is not quite so black and white, and as for a scientific consensus either in favour or against GMOs, well there isn't one. What there is in the research papers are tentative conclusions and a strong indication that much more research needs to be done. Frankly, that is what I would expect with a science that is a new as this one.
A quick look at the research regarding the safety or otherwise of glyphosate will help to illustrate what I have just said. Glyphosate in the form of Roundup has become one of the most widely used herbicides in the world because many genetically engineered crops in the form of 'Roundup Ready' were designed to withstand it, and it is now out of patent. GMOs and Roundup work together. The manufacturers say it is 100% safe and completely biodegradable. However, there have been many peer reviewed papers over the years that have pointed to the negative effects of glyphosate on the soil, and on the nutritional uptake of plants, whether GM or non GM. Robert J. Kremer, a scientist at the United States Agriculture Department, was asked to assemble a selection of papers for submission to the European Journal of Agronomy that looked at how glyphosate interacted with plants. His paper, Glyphosate interactions with physiology, nutrition, and diseases of plants: Threat to agricultural sustainability? was published in 2009 in a special edition of the journal, and contains peer-reviewed papers based on contributions presented at the international symposium of “Mineral Nutrition and Disease Problems in Modern Agriculture: Threats to Sustainability?” held in Piracicaba-SP, Brazil, 20–21 September 2007. It is available online. In it he writes:
“Although glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide worldwide (Woodburn, 2000), several problems associated with glyphosate interactions with plant nutrient availability, transfer to and effects on susceptible crops, indirect effects on rhizosphere microorganisms and plant pathogens, and development of glyphosate-resistant weeds have raised serious concerns regarding the sustainability of cropping systems in which glyphosate is the primary weed management strategy.”
The report notes that many years of repeated applications of glyphosate has led to problems with plant health and productivity in Brazil, and all over the world. Intensive evaluations have shown that it accumulates in the roots of plants, and from there is released into the rhizosphere (the area of soil directly affected by root secretions and soil micro-organisms. It contains many bacteria that feed on plant cells, proteins and sugars released by the roots. Protozoa and nematodes that graze on bacteria are abundant here, and much of the nutrient cycling and disease suppression needed by plants occurs here). This is a problem because research has shown that:
“...although glyphosate was metabolized by a segment of the microbial population, it was also toxic to several bacteria and fungi; the net effect of glyphosate appeared to be a disruption of soil and root microbial community composition because selected components of the microbial community were stimulated while others were suppressed (Wardle and Parkinson, 1992; Busse et al., 2001).”
In addition, the report says that because glyphosate has the ability to chelate (bind with) metal ions in the soil, it is
“...a critically important factor in nutrient deficiencies of crops observed in production systems heavily reliant on glyphosate for weed management. Römheld and Cakmak (Cakmak et al., 2009; Senem Su et al., 2009; Tesfamariam et al., 2009) discussed impaired micro-nutrient uptake and transport in plants exposed to glyphosate either through root transfer or by simulated drift of sub-herbicidal rates was due to the ability of glyphosate to form immobile stable complexes with Fe (iron) and Mn (manganese) (Eker et al., 2006; Neumann et al., 2006).”
All these problems have been found not just with conventional crops, but with GM Roundup Ready crops too:
“However, the repetitive and dedicated use of glyphosate within a growing season (on GM Roundup Ready crop) and over the past decade has resulted in selection for resistance in several weed species (Johnson et al., 2009) and development of similar crop nutrition and health problems as those observed in non-GR (non glyphosate resistant) systems.”
Rather worryingly, the report also points out that glyphosate was a major factor in the development of plant disease, and the effects persist for years after usage of glyphosate has been discontinued:
“Based on extensive field surveys and large-scale experiments, Fernandez et al. (2009) demonstrated that previous glyphosate applications (ranging from 18 to 36 months prior to planting) was the most important agronomic factor in development of diseases, primarily Fusarium head blight, in wheat and barley crops. Higher Fusarium colonization of wheat and barley roots was also associated with glyphosate burndown applications prior to planting (Fernandez et al., 2007). An unknown but interesting aspect of these observations is the apparent persistent effect of glyphosate on plant growth two or more years after application.”
The negative effect of glyphosate on the soil was reported on recently by the New York Times. In September this year, Stephanie Strom wrote an article that interviewed farmers and scientists on both sides of the debate in Iowa. When comparing the state of the soil in their fields, she found this:
“Dirt in two fields around Alton (Iowa) where biotech corn was being grown was hard and compact. Prying corn stalks from the soil with a shovel was difficult, and when the plants finally came up, their roots were trapped in a chunk of dirt. Once freed, the roots spread out flat like a fan and were studded with only a few nodules, which are critical to the exchange of nutrients. In comparison, conventional corn in adjacent fields could be tugged from the ground by hand, and dirt with the consistency of wet coffee grounds fell off the corn plants’ knobby roots.”
One farmer she interviewed switched back to non GM crops precisely because of this effect the GM crop seemed to be having on his soil. Mike Verhoef had grown GM corn and soy, rotating them with ordinary oats to replenish soil nutrients. He found that because the soil was becoming harder and more compact, he needed to use a bigger tractor to work it, with all the extra petrol that required. In addition, the yield on his oats dropped by about 50%. He worked out that the herbicide he was using to treat the corn and soy was damaging the soil and so killing his oats. Since he switched back, his yields of conventional corn and soy are similar or greater than that of his neighbours, but it has taken much work to restore the health of his soil.
It is not just plant and soil health that is affected by glyphosate. There is much evidence that it affects human health too. A peer reviewed paper published by Anthony Samsel (an independent scientist and consultant) and Stephanie Seneff (a scientist working at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT) in Entropy, in April 2013. In it, they argue that those scientists who believe glyphosate to be harmless to humans are wrong:
“Glyphosate’s claimed mechanism of action in plants is the disruption of the shikimate pathway, which is involved with the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids, phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan. The currently accepted dogma is that glyphosate is not harmful to humans or to any mammals because the shikimate pathway is absent in all animals. However, this pathway is present in gut bacteria, which play an important and heretofore largely overlooked role in human physiology through an integrated biosemiotic relationship with the human host.”
(Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases)
The authors are clearly very concerned with what they have found while reviewing the use of glyphosate and its effects:
“Contrary to the current widely-held misconception that glyphosate is relatively harmless to humans, the available evidence shows that glyphosate may rather be the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies. In addition to autism, these include gastrointestinal issues such as inflammatory bowel disease...obesity, cardiovascular disease, depression, cancer, cachexia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and ALS, among others. While glyphosate is obviously not the only environmental toxin to contribute to these diseases and conditions, glyphosate’s ability to disrupt the gut bacteria, to impair serum transport of sulfate and phosphate, and to interfere with CYP enzymes, logically progresses to this multitude of diseased states, through well-established biological processes.” (p.28)
However, they emphasise the need for further investigations to be undertaken as a matter of urgency, to either confirm or disprove their findings:
“In our opinion, it is imperative that governments around the globe unite in investing significant research funds to support independent studies evaluating the long-term effects of glyphosate. Other researchers should try to reproduce the results obtained … showing tumorigenesis and premature death in rats with life-long exposure to glyphosate. The study on the gut microbiome of chickens needs to be reproduced in other species, and the gene array study on E. coli needs to be reproduced for other common gut bacteria. The novel idea that glyphosate disrupts sulfate transport through its kosmotropic effects, as predicted given biophysical laws, needs to be verified in specific studies among a variety of species.”
Dr. Nancy Swanson, a former U.S. Navy staff scientist, has produced many graphs that show a strong positive correlation between the rise in glyphosate usage and the various diseases and conditions mentioned by Samsel and Seneff. For example, one of her graphs shows a strong positive correlation between the increase in use of glyphosate and the increase in the autism. Some argue that this increase is due to better diagnosis, not environmental factors. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States is one such organisation, even though in 2012 it announced that 1 in 88 children in the US are now diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. This was an increase of 23% over the previous two years, and 78% in the five years leading up to 2012. I have to say, I find it impossible to believe that such a surge in numbers in so short a space of time is the result of better diagnosis. That really stretches credulity to breaking point.
Dr. Natasha Campbell McBride is a medical doctor who currently practises in Cambridge. She also holds medical degrees in neurology and in nutrition, and has practised as a neurologist and a neurosurgeon. Dr. Campbell McBride has developed a theory that there is a connection between autism and damage to the gut bacteria that are necessary for digestion. She calls it Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS). Given what the research of Samel and Seneff suggests, and the graphs produced by Dr. Swanson, I think here is something that needs to be thoroughly investigated as a matter of urgency. Now, I have no idea how Dr. Swanson or any of the others I have just mentioned are rated by their scientific colleagues, or the ins and outs of how any data was collected, or what kind of biases may or may not have been inadvertently introduced into their findings. But I can say exactly the same thing about articles and comments written by scientists in favour of GMOs. So why should I accept only the positive research and reject only the negative research? Is it really the case that only the former is 'good' and only the latter is 'bad'?
A report called 'Glyphosate: Destructor of Human Health and Biodiversity' regarding the toxicity of glyphosate was submitted to the Scottish Parliament in September 2013 by Rosemary Mason MB ChB FRCA, a former consultant anaesthetist and current environmentalist. The title makes it pretty clear where she is coming from, but it is worth reading, and the many references she quotes shows that the 'scientific consensus' about the benefits of GMOs is at best overstated. It also highlights the fact that even the biotech industry's own experiments indicated that glyphosate may harm mammals::
“The Rapporteur Member State (RMS) for glyphosate is Germany. It was discovered that Draft Assessment Report (DAR) studies had found teratogenicity (the induction of malformations, especially in a developing foetus) in mammals. Several malformations were found in rabbits and rats according to the industry’s own teratogenicity studies submitted for the 2002 EU approval of the active ingredient glyphosate. The original industry studies are claimed to be commercially confidential. However, the said industry data were compiled from the 1998 Draft Assessment Report by the German Government. (Germany will remain in this rôle for the next review of glyphosate in 2015.) Malformations include extra ribs, distortions affecting thoracic ribs, heart malformations, kidney agenesia, unossified sternebrae, reduced ossification of cranial centers and sacrocaudal vertebral arches, and also skeletal variations and major visceral malformations, which were unspecified in the DAR.” (p.22)
It was through Mason's document that I found the Samsel/Seneff paper above, and also this interesting report in the Ithaka Journal of findings from an unnamed German university by Dirk Brandli and Sandra Reinacher:
“To determine if only individuals who are in direct contact with contaminated feed or glyphosate laced compounds are at risk of glyphosate poisoning a study was conducted in December 2011 of an urban population in Berlin. The urine of city workers, journalists and lawyers, who had no direct contact with glyphosate, was examined for glyphosate contamination(*). The study found glyphosate in all urine samples at values ranging from 0.5 to 2 ng glyphosate per ml urine (drinking water limit: 0.1 ng/ml). None of the examinees had direct contact with agriculture.”
Brändli D, Reinacher S: Herbicides found in Human Urine - Ithaka Journal 1/ 2012: 270–272 (2012)
Now, the little asterisk in their article takes you to an interesting footnote which reads:
“The editors are in knowledge of the address of the university laboratory undertaking the studies, their analytical values and the evaluation of the analytical methods. Not least due to considerable pressure from representatives of the agrochemical industry and the resulting concern that the work of the laboratory would be compromised, the complete analytical data will only be published later this year.”
So, they did not give the details you might normally expect to find in a scientific report regarding the source of evidence, because the people who provided it were concerned about the pressure that would be put upon them by industry, and that this pressure would compromise their ability to do their work independently. That is not information that eases my concerns, any more than the finding that, despite industry claims regarding the biodegradability of glyphosate, it was found in human urine at significant levels.
Perhaps concerns regarding industry pressure is the context into which Professor Seralini's strange behaviour last year should be put. Seralini, professor of Microbiology at the University of Caen, became the focus of widespread criticism in 2012 when he published a paper with preliminary results of the first and only life time feeding study of GMOs. (Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS (September 2012). "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.”) Part of the criticism directed at Seralini focussed on the fact that he only allowed journalists a preview of the paper if they signed a confidentiality agreement, so they were unable to get the views of other scientists before open publication and a press conference that coincided with it. Maybe he too was worried about the independence of his being compromised before publication. There was certainly nothing stopping anyone commenting on and criticising his work after publication, as he got that with both barrels.
At the time, the BBC News report on this episode took the view that the study was fixed; we should ignore it because the results are all invalid. Seralini has written a very detailed response to all the criticisms made of his research, some of which refer to statistical analyses I am not qualified to comment upon. What is striking is that many of the criticisms could just as easily be directed at those studies which come from industry, but which are accepted. In additon, these criticisms could very easily be addressed by doing another life time feeding study that does all the things Seralini is accused of getting wrong. Given that to date, his is the only life time feeding study that has ever been carried out, and it is the only one in which glyphosate has been tested for toxicity in the form in which it is commercially used (i.e. in Roundup with all the added chemicals, not in isolation), I simply cannot understand why this is not being done. Indeed, I cannot understand why these things were not tested in this manner before their commercial release.
As Seralini says in his response, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, November 2012:
“Some critics have emphasized that no adverse effects have been reported on either farm animals or in the human population of the USA who have consumed an unknown mixture GMO crop derived food. Such claims are scientifically unsound for the following reasons. First, it is important to note that there have been neither epidemiological studies of the human population nor monitoring of farm animals in an attempt to correlate any ill-health observed with the consumption of a given GM crop. Second, it should be recalled that farm animals are not reared to live for the entire duration of their natural lifespan, and thus usually do not live long enough to develop long-term chronic diseases, which contrasts with the rats in our life-long experiment.”
He also responds to accusations that his work suffers from conflict of interest in the same article:
“Some critics raised concerns about the role of the funders of this work, and possible conflicts of interest. Of course, the funders neither played a role in the design and conduct of the experiment, and nor in its interpretation. The data remained confidential to the funders. We recall that in the regulatory assessment of GMOs, chemicals and medicines, tests are conducted by the applying companies themselves, often in their own laboratories. As a result, conflicts of interest exist in these cases. These are even not claimed by authors from the company defending the safety of the tested products (Hammond et al., 2012). Our study does not aim to request commercialization of a new product. In contrast, we wanted to estimate the health risk of these products. It is the most detailed test conducted to date that is also independent from biotechnology and pesticide companies. We encourage others to replicate such chronic experiments, with greater statistical power. What is now urgently required is for the burden of proof to be obtained experimentally by studies conducted independent from industry. This was recommended by regulatory agencies in France that have assessed our work, even though their objective is more to regulate products than to review research. GM NK603 and R (Roundup) cannot be regarded as safe to date.”
Maybe his critics are right, and he really does have a massive conflict of interest, but then they should also be levelling that accusation at studies coming from the biotechnology industry, and dismissing their work on that basis too.
This lack of proper testing and the vilification of scientists who suggest that all is not as well as industry would have us believe is a problem that Rosemary Mason writes about in her report mentioned above. One of the issues she highlights is the lack of monitoring of glyphosate residue in the environment being undertaken by government agencies in any country anywhere because it is assumed the herbicide is completely safe. This is of particular concern as maximum safe levels in food and water are constantly being revised upwards to accommodate its ever increasing use:
“Monsanto Europe asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to raise the import tolerance for glyphosate in lentils “in order to accommodate the authorised desiccation use of glyphosate in lentils in the US and Canada” from 0.1 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg (i.e. 100 times). This was approved on 13th January 2012. A Joint FAO/WHO meeting on Pesticide Residues in 1994 had granted elevated Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for glyphosate on soya (from 5 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg) and soya bean fodder (from 20 mg/kg to 200 mg/kg).”
From 'Glyphosate: Destructor of Human Health and Biodiversity' – p.23
She also says:
“Regulators and Industry have only tested the ‘active’ ingredient glyphosate. The commercial formulations contain an untested adjuvant which is toxic to human cells. The work of independent scientists has been rejected or suppressed by Industry, Regulators or Rapporteur Member States. Industry data are hidden on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. When scientists have exposed the dangers of GMOs many have been vilified or have lost their jobs.” (p.2)
Unfortunately, this kind of statement does not engender confidence that those who favour GMOs behave in a fair and ethical manner. Rightly or wrongly, it leads me to question the validity of their results which show GMOs are great and I really should stop worrying about it. Maybe the tests showing GMOs are bad have been poorly designed, but it doesn't take much to discover that those favouring GMOs are no better. In 1994 the ACNPF (Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes) approved the use of Monsanto's Roundup Ready Soya beans. As it happens this was the first commodity GM crop imported into the EU in 1996. Andrew Rowell, a free lance journalist, published a book called 'Don't Worry – It's Safe to Eat: the true story of GM food, BSE and foot and mouth' in 2003 by Earthscan. In it, he quotes Dr Mayer, who ran GeneWatch UK at the time. She pointed out that Monsanto's application for this Roundup Ready soya stated that :
“the soy beans from which the seed were derived were not treated with Roundup herbicide”.
This was because they wanted to focus their analysis on any effect of the introduced protein that made them Roundup Ready. I don't think you need to be a scientist to see what the problem with testing in this way might be. No farmer using Roundup Ready soya in the real world is going to grow it without using Roundup. How can it be a proper safety study if it doesn't reflect what is going to be done in reality? This is particularly in view of the research mentioned above, which indicates glyphosate may be extremely toxic to animals and the soil, despite claims to the contrary. Now Dr. Mayer used to work for Greenpeace, and maybe that is enough to dismiss her opinion as hopelessly biased, but I think she has a point when she says:
“...glyphosate acts systemically and is taken up into the plant and is in the plant. The genetic modification you have done is to change the way the plant deals with glyphosate. But that chemical may interact with the changed genome. You would just expect that any reasonable person, when you are doing safety testing, that as part of that test you would test the food as it would be expected to be grown and used.”
I honestly cannot see why what she says is unreasonable, just as I honestly cannot see how any reasonable person would consider the Monsanto test of its own product a fair and true evaluation of its safety. So why should I take it on trust that research showing GMOs in a positive light is good, whilst that showing them in a negative light is bad, and poorly designed with a multitude of methodological errors? That is akin to asking me to accept the claims of a religion because their holy books were written by God, so of course they are all absolutely correct.
Nor is this example from Monsanto an isolated case. Professor Sopory's report that I mentioned earlier also highlights shockingly sloppy scientific work. Indeed, I imagine this report, combined with the rise in farmers committing suicide, lies behind the recent decision by the Supreme Court of India to impose a moratorium on open field trials of GM crops. This is what Jhalak Kakkar wrote in the Science and Technology section of the Monthly Policy Review in July 2013:
“According to news reports, the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) has submitted its final report on genetically-modified (GM) crops to the Court. The Committee has reiterated the recommendations made in its interim report of October 2012. The TEC has recommended the following:
Field trials: A moratorium on open field trials of GM crops until:
definitive studies are available on the long term safety of Bt in food crops, and
a proper regulatory and safety mechanism is in place.
The moratorium seems to apply to food crops intended for commercialisation and not for research.
Current regulatory system: Gaps in the current regulatory system need to be addressed. A deeper understanding of the process of risk assessment is needed within the regulatory system to meet the needs of a comprehensive bio-safety evaluation.”
Extract from the Final Report of The Technical Expert Committee, established by Supreme Court - July 2013
I've highlighted the section regarding the regulatory system because it is just so depressing. GM crops have been grown in India for the last 16 years, and only now are they trying to address 'gaps' in their regulation. The sound of bolts slamming home long after resident horses have departed springs to mind. Indeed, just how large some of those 'gaps' are can be seen in Sopory's report to the ICAR:
“5.07 There seemed to be an extreme hurry to come up with a public sector Bt cotton. Agronomic evaluation is normally started when strain(s) are nearly homozygous and homogenous. But in the present case, BNBt was put under field evaluation before the homogeneity was achieved.”
In other words, the pressure to get to commercial production quickly meant field trials for the GM cotton were started before they should have been. The product wasn't ready, but they went ahead anyway. The report also notes that the Bt cotton under investigation (BNBt) had been contaminated with Monsanto's version, known as MON531. As a result of this it concluded that all the biosafety studies and field trials were invalid and BNBt cotton should go through the regulatory process again. It also suggested this contamination was highly unlikely to be accidental, and that the integrated DNA is unstable (paragraph 4.04 “Whatever information has been obtained indicates that there has been significant rearrangement of the integrated DNA during the generation of the event present in “purified” BNBt”) which led the committee to question the commercial value of BNBt.
In addition, they noted that a “minimum of 100 events” (I understand this to mean successful insertions of the foreign DNA into the original genome) should have been generated and the best selected for commercial use, but that only one event was generated; that the UAS (University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad) doing the research had no expertise or technical skill in crucial areas of testing, that there were doubts about the quality of the work done by one of the two private service providers they used to fill in the gaps for them, and that when it came to approving the BNBt cotton for large scale field trials there was a clear conflict of interest, as the scientists involved in developing BNBt were also on the approval committee.
But the public is supposed to accept GMOs are safe because the science is sound and there is proper regulation in place. Are these things just isolated incidents, unusual events that I can ignore? Or is it an indication of how the research and regulation of this new science and industry is conducted everywhere? How am I supposed to tell? Because a government minister says so? Because the BBC says so? Because someone says, trust me, I'm a scientist?
Just to take one point from that list of concerns, BNBt cotton apparently isn't the only one that suffers from instability in its integrated DNA. In his book, Andrew Rowell says that biotechnology is not as precise as some proponents claim. He quotes Belinda Martineau (on p.94, 2004 edition), who worked for Calgene, and wrote 'First Fruit – The Creation of Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Food' in 2000:
“Plant genetic engineers at Calgene and throughout the rest of the ag biotechnology industry have no idea where the genes will end up in the DNA of a recipient plant... insertion could even take place in the middle of the gene, disrupting and mutating it.”
Maybe things have improved in this regard in the last 13 years, maybe they haven't. Certainly Professor Sopory's report makes me think they haven't. The rest of this section in Andrew Rowell's book doesn't exactly fill me with joy and enthusiasm either. He quotes an extract from a 2002 paper published by Dr. J. Pozueta-Romero in 'Fruit and Vegetable Biotechnology' called 'Tools of Genetic Engineering in Plants':
“While there are some plants which show stable expression of a transgene these may prove to be the exceptions to the rule. In an informal survey of over 30 companies... almost all of the respondents indicated that they had observed some level of transgene inactivation..... Many respondents indicated that most cases of transgene inactivation never reach the literature.” (p.94, 2004 edition)
I appreciate that an informal survey is not the same an official one, and I would like to know what is meant by 'almost all', and what happened to the unstable varieties, but how likely would it have been that these respondents would have expressed themselves freely in an official survey? This is especially so given the phenomenon of suppression of unwelcome research data that has been well documented in systematic studies. What effect is this apparent instability and unpredictability likely to have on GM plants, and on animals and people who eat products made from them? Does anyone have any idea? Is anyone even studying it?
In 2009, the Commerce Commission of New Zealand commissioned Professor Jack Heinemann, Professor of Genetics and Molecular biology at Canterbury University to research and report on the question of whether animals exposed to feed containing genetically modified material could be said to have no GM ingredients. This was in response to adverts that were run by a poultry producer called Inghams Enterprises (NZ) Pty. Limited, that claimed their chicken products contained no GM ingredients, although the chickens had been fed GM soy. As a result of the report, Inghams lost the case, and had to withdraw its claims regarding their chickens. Professor Heinemann gives a very clear and dispassionate review of all the research that had been done up to that point. He concluded:
"The cumulative strength of the positive detections reviewed above leave me in no reasonable uncertainty that GM plant material can transfer to animals exposed to GM feed in their diets or environment, and that there can be a residual difference in animals or animal-products as a result of exposure to GM feed..." (Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed: July 2009)
The whole thing is well worth reading and can be downloaded from the commission's website at http://www.comcom.govt.nz/thecommission/mediacentre/mediareleases/detail/2009/inghamswarnedovergmfreechickenclai. In one section on P10-11, Prof. Heinemann examines a finding made by Flachowsky and others in a review they published in 2007. In the abstract of their review they say:
“to date, no fragments of recombinant DNA have been found in any organ or tissue sample from animals fed GM plants.”
Heinemann says this statement is misleading. He notes that the European Food Standards Agency, which he thinks was heavily influenced by the Flachowsky review in their decision making, have themselves noted that:
“DNA introduced into crops through recombinant DNA technology is not different from other sources of DNA in the diet” (2 EFSA, 2007)
They themselves say non-GM DNA has definitely been found in organs and muscles of animals, so if non GM DNA can get into the organs and muscles of animals, why not GM DNA? As Heinemann says, the proportion of DNA being targeted is tiny in comparison the the total dietary DNA intake of an animal, so:
“any detection of a specific fragment of DNA, which is already at small concentrations in the animal, is actually dramatic evidence that DNA is not thoroughly degraded or digested... “
He points out that Flachowsky and his co-writers are much more cautious about their findings in the conclusion of their paper than they are in the abstract at the beginning of it, as they say:
“However, in the case that plant DNA-fragments should be absorbed, it might be that transgenic DNA-fragments are also absorbed' (p.27). “
Heinemann also says that Flachowsky et al. cite four studies in which a plant-specific DNA marker was found in animal muscle, organs or tissues out of only seven total studies they cite for positive detections of plant-specific DNA in animals. He emphasises that:
“Even in this far from exhaustive survey of the literature, more than 50% of the studies indicated that dietary DNA can pass beyond the GIT (gastrointestinal tract) of animals and it is only a matter of chance whether the detected DNA is natural to the plant or it is recombinant (a product of modern biotechnology). Furthermore, unlike this report their (Flachowsky's) survey of the literature included papers published only up to 2005.”
So between 2005 and 2009, Professor Heinemann didn't find anything that overturned the view that dietary DNA can survive and pass beyond the digestive system of animals. Heinemann also found evidence of protein unique to GM plants in animals fed these plants, and he found metabolic differences in these animals, but not in every study, which he said
“...may be expected because of variations in exposure to GM material and accumulations of protein near the limit of detection.”
Heinemann also makes an interesting observation about some of the studies he reviewed which were more ambiguous in their findings:
“While most other research studies reviewed tested their control diets for contamination by GM plants, there is no mention of independent testing by this research group. It is possible that the results are tainted by contamination, since in other studies where materials are directly sourced from Monsanto the control diets were contaminated with GM material (for example, see Scheideler et al, 2008, Taylor et al., 2003). Contamination of the control diet would most likely cause an underestimation of the number and magnitude of significant differences between diets.”
I find this statement about contamination very interesting, and I strongly doubt it happened by accident. It was something Professor Sopory highlighted (see above), and it is an issue mentioned in passing in another paper call 'Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice' published in November 2008 by Dr. A. Velimirov, Dr. C. Binter, and Prof. Dr. J. Zentek from Austria. They mention:
“In the MGS (multi generational study) three feeding groups were established with diets containing the stacked corn NK603 x MON810 (GM group), the near isogenic line (ISO group) grown in Canada and an additional Austrian GM free reference corn (A REF). The addition of A REF corn was prompted by a slight contamination of the ISO corn and fulfilled the criteria of substantial equivalence. “
It does make me wonder how many researchers have encountered this problem, and if any signs of contamination have been missed by scientists who assumed the control feed was fine. Looking at the results for the MGS feeding group in this study:
“The effects on litter size and weight became more notable in the 4th generation. In terms of production profit the ISO group (control feed with some GM contamination) had more weaned pups, 9% more females with litters (64% vs 73%) and slightly higher average litter weights at weaning in the ISO group (92.6 g vs 102.1 g) (comparisons are with the group fed on GM corn). The additional A REF (GM free) group excelled in number of females with litters (91%) and accordingly more pups weaned as well as a 35% higher body mass production as compared to the GM group.”
This result seems to support what Professor Heinemann says regarding contamination of control diets leading to an underestimation of differences caused by eating GMOs.
Professor Heinemann also makes a good point regarding the amount of research that is being done in this field, and how it is viewed:
“To attempt to argue whether animals exposed to GM plants through feed products are different from animals only exposed to conventional feed, using a simple tally of the number of researchers who detect or do not detect differences would be a mistake. The inconsistency of detection as catalogued in literature reports is an indication that there is uncertainty in what parameters to measure, what feeding regimes are most informative (Pryme and Lembeke, 2003) and what techniques are best suited. The small number of researchers in this field is spread over many different animals, varieties and species of GM plants and parameters to measure, and thus differences in practitioners' technical expertise or knowledge of the biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and physiology involved will be an important contributor to negative results.”
So just saying there are more researchers who say animals and people are not affected by GM food therefore it doesn't affect animals and people is not justified. There is too much uncertainty about what to measure and how to measure it, and the number of researchers actually doing the measuring are too small and too spread out.
The Velimirov/Bintec/Zentec report also specifically mentions the small amount of research being undertaken:
“It is surprising that despite the long use of Bt corn since 1996 and the many controversial discussions about its safety, partly fuelled by anecdotal evidence, only few peer-reviewed multi-generation studies investigating potential effects of delta endotoxins on rodents have been conducted so far. “
They note that:
“The number of feeding studies with rodents is small, and inconsistent differences make it difficult to draw an overall conclusion on the tested GM feed (Hammond et al. 2006). Thus the safety of NK603 x MON810 is based on one poultry study performed by the applicant with the parental lines including 90 day rodent studies, and one poultry study with the stacked event (ACRE 2004). The GMO Panel of EFSA considers it unlikely that NK603 x MON810 maize will have any adverse effect on human and animal health (Opinion of GM Panel, 2005).”
So the EFSA has accepted the safety of GM corn on the basis of only two studies, and one of those was done by the biotechnology company applying to sell the stuff, because in their opinion it is unlikely it will have any bad effects. Well that's alright then; what on earth am I worrying about?
The authors of this study found that GM feed did affect the reproduction of the mice they studied, but that much more work was needed:
“Summarising the study, the maize with the stacked event NK603 x MON810 affected the reproduction of mice in the RACB trial. Whether similar findings could be expected for other animals, needs to be evaluated in studies including reproductive traits. Future studies are necessary to determine the impact of normal and transgenic dietary ingredients on the organism.”
These research papers make it obvious that things are much less clear cut than it at first seems. They all indicate that nowhere near enough research has been done in this field to say with certainty that GMOs, or the products with which they are used, are safe. This peer reviewed paper recently published online says:
“Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. “
Complete genes may pass from food to human blood: Public Library of Science, July 2013 – Spisak S., Solymosi N., Ittzes P., Bodor A., Kondor D., Vattay G., Bartak B.K., Sipos F., Galamb O., Tulassay Z., Szallasi Z., Rasmussen S., Sicheritz-Ponten T., Brunak S., Molnar B., Csabai I.
Their funding came from the Hungarian National Technology Office not a multinational biotechnology company, and they emphasised the need for further study, as just about every research paper I have looked at does. These scientists have undertaken research that has completely upset the standard view of how our bodies work. The implications for genetic modification of food are huge. So when anyone says to me the research has all been done, we know all there is to know about GMOs, and everything is fine, frankly I think they need their head examining.
What strikes me again and again is how new the science of genetics is, and just how little we know for sure about any of it. To take one example: the human genome project began in 1987. At this time some estimates put the number of genes for humans in the region of 2 million. Quite a reasonable estimate given that the number of genes in a fruit fly is around 16,000, and we are much more complicated than those insects. During the course of the project, the predictions were revised down considerably, to between 30 and 40 thousand. The rough draft of the human genome was done by 2000. The sequence of the last chromosome was completed in 2006, just seven years ago. By then, it had been discovered that in fact the human genome consists of approximately 20,500 genes only, the same range as mice, and not much more than fruit flies. So it seems to me genes must do more than one thing in an organism, and they most likely interact with other genes at different times and in different ways in order to do those things. Otherwise how is it that humans are so much more complicated than either fruit flies or mice? But the rough draft of the human genome was only produced 13 years ago. Is it really the case that all those potential interactions have been discovered, let alone fully understood? Have they even been fully understood in plants and animals? And we have been playing around with genetic modification for a good deal longer than 13 years.
Now, add to this the fact that the bulk of the DNA in and on the human body is not human at all, it is bacterial. I watched a fascinating TED talk ('How Bacteria Talk') on this topic given by Bonnie Bassler, a molecular biologist at Princeton University, in February 2009. From this I learned that while I have about a trillion cells that are human, I also have about 10 trillion bacterial cells living in me or on me at any one time. In terms of genes, there are about hundred times more bacterial genes playing a role in my life than human. Humans have a symbiotic relationship with these bacteria; we need them in our gut, and on our skin in order to be healthy. Without them we cannot digest our food properly or absorb the nutrients; our skin becomes chapped, sore, damaged and broken. (I have read that some nurses who frequently use anti-bacterial hand sprays and washes as part of their job find that the skin on their hands is breaking down as a result. When I asked my GP about eating pro-biotic yoghurt because she had put me on a course of anti-biotics, she said, yes, it was a good idea and would help restore my digestive processes.) Horizontal transfer of genes between bacteria is a known phenomenon. However, there has been just one GM feeding study done on humans, back in 2004. It was done in the UK, by scientists from the School of Cell and Molecular Biosciences at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. In the abstract of the report, the authors say:
“The amount of transgene (DNA that came from GM soya) that survived passage through the small bowel varied among individuals, with a maximum of 3.7% recovered at the stoma of one individual.... Three of seven ileostomists (people who have had sections of their intestines removed) showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel..... ”
Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract: Nat. Biotechnol. 2004 Feb;22(2):204-9. Epub 2004 Jan 18. - Netherwood T, Martin-Orue S.M., O'Donnell A.G., Gockling S., Graham J., Mathers J.C., Gilbert H.J.
How the transgene got into the gut of the individuals in this study is not what I'm focussing on now. I will return to this topic below. What interests me at this point is that the study indicates transfer of GM genes to gut bacteria is possible. What happens if a harmful trait is passed onto the bacteria we need to keep us healthy, such as, for example, the trait that enables GM corn to produce its own pesticide? What are the likely consequences for our long term health? Surely there should be more than one study done to investigate these things? This research took place in 2004. How is it nothing like it has been done since, given this is a new science, where the boundaries are constantly expanding, and where so many GMOs are in commercial production?
It also makes me seriously question those who argue labelling of GMOs is unnecessary because while we might want to know what is in our food, we don't need to know as GMOs are safe. Leaving aside the unbelievable arrogance of someone else deciding what I do or do not need to know about my food, I would suggest these findings regarding the presence of GM soy genes in human gut bacteria mean that there are some people who very much do need to know if their food contains GMOs. Just about anyone with any kind of digestive tract problem for example, whether due to surgery or disease. I also wonder if, given the potential for harm that might be caused by glyphosate to our gut bacteria, the combination of glyphosate and GMOs in the form of Roundup Ready food crops is a double whammy for animal and human health. Do glyphosate-resistant crops amplify any potential danger?
It does not help that some people seem more concerned with indulging in character assassination and mud slinging than with science. It just serves to cloud the issues involved. The only ones who benefit from this obfuscation are the biotechnology companies. When claim and counter-claim are thrown back and forth, it is very easy for genuine concerns and problems to be lost along the way. Just because some anti-GMO protesters make wild accusations it doesn't mean that everything said by those who oppose GMOs is wrong or stupid. It is no more true than the idea everyone who favours GMOs is a self-serving, money grabbing monster, bent on the destruction of the planet for their own economic benefit. But as long as enough doubt and uncertainty is created, biotechnology companies can keep on selling GMOs and herbicides and pesticides, because everyone is distracted by the shouting. After all, we are not very good at thinking and shouting at the same time. I oppose GMOs because of everything I have outlined above, not because I think the scientists involved are inherently evil.
Seralini and others have made it clear no-one is monitoring the long term effects of eating food containing GMOs for humans or animals. Feeding studies for animals that do not go beyond 90 days are far too short. Really, what isn't present in the available research is as telling as what is. There simply is not enough of it, particularly as designing the studies that should be measuring the things we need to know about is clearly very hard indeed, and something that needs much more work. We need many more studies so we can form a clearer picture of what is going on. There are so many variables to account for and so many possible explanations that it amazes me anyone is able to come to any conclusion at all, let alone the tentative ones that have been made. And really, the science should have been worked out properly before this stuff was given to animals to eat, let alone us, but apparently not.
In addition, I have only been able to look at research that is publicly available. Much, if not most, of it is not. The majority of research is carried out by the biotechnology companies themselves, or by labs they fund whether university based or commercial, or by scientists with strong commercial ties to this industry. Generally the results are not submitted to peer review, and the results are not made available to independent scientists on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. I am not trying to suggest that everyone in this situation is necessarily corrupt, although it would be naïve to believe that none of them are, but there is a clear connection between the source of research funding, and the outcomes of that research that has been shown many times, whether those involved want to believe it or not. Here is another extract from the Wikipedia article Genetically Modified Food Controversies:
“The value of current independent studies is considered by some to be problematic because, due to restrictive end user agreements, independent researchers sometimes cannot obtain GM plants for study. Cornell University's Elson Shields, the spokesperson for a group of scientists who oppose this practice, submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency protesting that "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology". Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. “
Maybe you have read “Bad Pharma” by Dr. Ben Goldacre? If not, I can thoroughly recommend it. He gives a very clear and detailed explanation of what has gone wrong with medical research, from missing data, ghost writing of important medical papers and systematic biases within the research as a result of close ties between the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry, to the utter failure of regulators and legislation to address these problems. (By the way, he isn't opposed to these ties per se, just the way things are working now, or rather, not working). Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that research into GMOs will be any different. Biotechnology too is a multi billion pound industry, with the same commercial pressures to bring products to market quickly, and little incentive to investigate potential problems thoroughly. Indeed there is an overlap between the companies involved in these fields, such as Bayer and AstraZeneca, parent company of Syngenta. Why would anyone think that a company which does not conduct its medical research properly and transparently is going to behave impeccably when it comes to researching GMOs? The Consumers Union of Japan says in the same Wikipedia article mentioned above:
“truly independent research in these areas is systematically blocked by the GM corporations which own the GM seeds and reference materials.”
Furthermore:
“Independence in research has been studied by a 2011 analysis into conflicts of interest which found a significant correlation between author affiliation to industry and study outcome in scientific work published on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products.”
In addition, there is revolving door between people who work for biotech firms and people who work for the various regulatory bodies, such as the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) in the United States. For example Michael Taylor was a Monsanto lobbyist who was appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety in 1991. He then returned to Monsanto as its vice-president, and then in 2009 was once again working for the American government as a Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the FDA for the Obama administration. That's a pretty amazing conflict of interest right there, and this really isn't an isolated example. Regulation? What regulation?
Yet Owen Paterson Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since September 2012, can still say GMOs are the most regulated product in the world and Americans have been happily eating GM food without apparent ill effect for the last 20 years. Is this the same America where food related illnesses apparently doubled between 1994 and 2001? The same America which has a burgeoning obesity crisis and the unhealthiest population in the developed world? And whose health is in sharp decline? Really? The same America where GM food is not labelled so most Americans don't know they are eating it, even though 93% of Americans when asked say they want labelling? The same America where the biotech companies pour millions of dollars into anti-labelling campaigns so that Americans cannot know when they are eating it and so cannot make an informed choice as to whether to consume it or not?
People might argue that we have all these problems here, and we don't have GM food in our diet. Indeed, I'd guess most people in the U.K. think that Europe is GM free, and should any GM food be allowed into our country, it will be properly labelled. However, this is not necessarily the case. As mentioned before, the EU approved the sale of GM soya quite some time ago, back in 1996. Interestingly, the introduction of this type of soya apparently coincided with a 50% increase in allergic reactions to soya products. Just coincidence? How can we know for sure, the stuff isn't labelled. About 20% of the maize grown in Spain is GM. Portugal also grows GM corn and the EU does not require the labelling of meat that comes from animals fed on GM fodder, although as indicated by Professor Heinemann back in 2009, these animals can be changed by their diet. In addition, supermarkets this year admitted on the BBC News that they could not guarantee the meat they sold was not from animals fed a GM diet, but there is no indication on any labels that this is the case because there is no requirement to do so.
Now the authors of the Newcastle study I mentioned earlier say something apparently in passing which really struck me. The paper was published online, but it is not free, so I have only been able to read the abstract, and therefore cannot be sure they do not discuss the implication of their discovery in greater detail within the main body of the report. The abstract also leaves me with other unanswered questions. For example, they say there were 7 participants in the trial. All had had a large section of their digestive tract removed and a colostomy bag fitted. However, they also imply there were participants that had intact digestive systems included in the trial, but how many is not stated. For this reason I include the whole of the abstract now:
“The inclusion of genetically modified (GM) plants in the human diet has raised concerns about the possible transfer of transgenes from GM plants to intestinal microflora and enterocytes. The persistence in the human gut of DNA from dietary GM plants is unknown. Here we study the survival of the transgene epsps from GM soya in the small intestine of human ileostomists (i.e., individuals in which the terminal ileum is resected and digesta are diverted from the body via a stoma to a colostomy bag). The amount of transgene that survived passage through the small bowel varied among individuals, with a maximum of 3.7% recovered at the stoma of one individual. The transgene did not survive passage through the intact gastrointestinal tract of human subjects fed GM soya. Three of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel before their involvement in these experiments. As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment.”
Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract: Nat. Biotechnol. 2004 Feb;22(2):204-9. Epub 2004 Jan 18. - Netherwood T, Martin-Orue S.M., O'Donnell A.G., Gockling S., Graham J., Mathers J.C., Gilbert H.J.
So three of the seven participants had DNA from GM soya in their microflora before the trial started. How did it get there if not from the food they were eating? As I have already mentioned, horizontal gene transfer between bacteria is a known phenomenon, which is why the study was undertaken in the first place. The researchers may have concluded that the gene transfer did not take place during the feeding experiment, but they could hardly conclude it didn't take place at all. Why was it such a study was only undertaken eight years after GM soya was approved in the EU (never mind the U.S.)? Why has it not been repeated with more participants? This is particularly in view of the fact that some members of this team had previously worked together on a study that looked at gene transfer in the gastrointestinal tract of birds. Their findings included the discovery that the testing method used could underestimate the rate of gene transfer. This is from the abstract:
“Our findings demonstrate that in vitro methods, such as forced filter mating and liquid mating, underestimate the in vivo rates of gene transfer.”
Gene Transfer in the Gastrointestinal Tract: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 November; 65(11): 5139–5141. PMCID: PMC91691 - Trudy Netherwood, R. Bowden, P. Harrison, A. G. O'Donnell, D. S. Parker and H. J. Gilbert.
So testing gene transfer in a test tube will give misleading results, and will underestimate the rate of transfer that will actually take place in the gut of a living bird. However, the problems don't end there. They go on to say in the study itself that:
“Therefore, the in vivo conditions actually represent the worst-case scenario for gene transfer rather than the optimized in vitro conditions. However, this presents a problem in assessing the risk of the GMO probiotic, as the methods used to detect transfer in vivo have severe sensitivity limitations and tend to underestimate the true rate of transfer in vivo.”
and they add:
“In conclusion, our findings indicate that the true gene transfer rates in vivo are higher than the rates determined in vitro, which means that there are indigenous effects in the GI tract that promote a higher rate of transfer than the rate observed in vitro. Similar “hot spots” for gene transfer have been identified in the environment (for example, the bean phylloplane) and are characterized by the availability of nutrients and high bacterial densities.”
So back in 1999 there was an indication that the testing method chosen might lead to an underestimate of the rate of gene transfer from the GMO to the gut bacteria. Have the safety tests carried out since then taken this information on board and been adjusted accordingly, or are the bulk of the tests still done in test tubes, so making GMOs appear safer than they actually are? Given the tendency of the biotech and pharmaceutical industries to downplay problems with their products, I am inclined to believe the latter, and I wonder if anyone is really checking this properly. After all, the FDA has said the onus is on the biotechnology companies to prove their products are safe, and leaves all the safety testing to them. What incentive is there for any company in a competative market to use tests which increase the likelihood of horizontal gene transfer being detected, thereby casting doubt on the safety of their product? They are going to use the test that makes it more likely they can show the DNA from GMOs is completely broken down in the digestive tract and therefore cannot cause problems to the organism eating it. Of course, that's if they are doing any testing at all. Who checks? The FDA doesn't.
This statement from the same Wikipedia controversies article doesn't inspire confidence either:
“Food derived from GMOs is not tested in humans before it is marketed as it is not a single chemical, nor is it intended to be ingested in specific doses and times, which makes it difficult to design meaningful clinical studies.”
Well it certainly can't be tested properly after it has been marketed if there is no labelling. As Seralini says in response to his critics who argue no problems have been reported anywhere:
“as there is no labeling of GMO food and feed in the USA, the amount consumed is unknown, and no “control group” exists. Thus, without a clear traceability or labeling, no epidemiological survey can be performed. …”
So it is impossible to say there are no problems, because nobody actually knows for sure. No study can be performed to discover it because without labelling you cannot do any study. Here also is one very good reason why biotech companies pour so much money into anti-labelling campaigns. As long as the food isn't labelled, no-one can prove anything. In addition, although it is often repeated that no adverse effects have ever been reported, this is not true. Here are a selection. It is by no means an exhaustive list:
In 2000 in the U.S. a type of GM maize called Starlink found its way into the human food chain. It was not approved for human consumption because the particular Bt protein that it contained lasts longer in the digestive system and so could be an allergen. Some people got sick, and the contaminated products were recalled. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention said that 28 people had 'experienced apparent allergic reactions', but later concluded no allergic reactions had occurred. One of the people that had been ill disputed the CDC's findings. She said she'd eaten all the same stuff since the recall without any problem.
On the 29th April 2002 the 'Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman' published a report on pig farmer Jerry Rosman. He said farrowing rates in his sow herd had dropped by nearly 80%. Rosman discovered that other pig farmers within a 15 mile radius had the same problems. A common denominator was that “all of the operations fed their herds the same Bt corn hybrids.” When one farmer switched back to non-GM feed, apparently the problem disappeared.
In 2005, Irina Ermakova, of the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller and could not reproduce. Ermakova also says that when she reported these findings she was was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research.
In 2010 a study conducted by Alexei Surov of the Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences together with the National Association for Gene Security reported preliminary findings that hamsters fed a diet of Monsanto GM soy over three generations showed that by the third generation they had lost the ability to have pups. They also had slower growth and higher mortality among the pups. As far as I am aware, he has not reported any threats made against him or pressure to stop his research.
I am well aware this is not evidence of a proper scientific standard proving GMOs are the cause. Surov himself says his findings could have many factors causing them, not just GMOs. But neither is it 'no reports' of adverse effects either. In the light of these things, I do think someone should at least be trying to find a way to test what the consequences of eating GMOs long term really are, tests that can be accepted by any reasonable independent scientist, and then actually do those tests. Until this is done, I just don't see how anyone can claim GM food is completely safe, especially in light of the increase in health problems in the U.S. where so much of it is consumed. How can anyone say something is safe when no-one is carrying out the checks?
Scientists in favour of GMOs and the biotech companies themselves argue, as Professor Jones did in your programme, that:
“The crop is basically the same, so to suggest there is anything fundamentally different about them is just stupid.”
This argument for approval of GMOs on the basis “substantial equivalence” is summed up by a quote from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) which was one of the agencies that developed the idea:
"Substantial equivalence embodies the concept that if a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety (i.e., the food or food component can be concluded to be as safe as the conventional food or food component)".
and this quote from the Wikipedia article- 'Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms':
“The starting point for the safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies is to assess if the food is "substantially equivalent" to their counterparts, which themselves are the products of genetic manipulation via traditional methods of cross-breeding and hybridization. “
I have wondered if I could claim chimpanzees are substantially equivalent to us, and so should be awarded the vote, since we share more than 98% of our DNA (maybe even 99.4% as one Radio 4 guest said recently), but I digress. Didn't Professor Jones say to you that with GMOs:
“You can put in genes that you cannot put in by breeding...”
It seems to me there is a fundamental difference here that is being glossed over, or was he being 'stupid' when he said this? Anyway, to continue with how substantial equivalence works in practice:
“To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of components such as toxins, nutrients, or allergens that are present in the unmodified food. The manufacturer's data is then assessed by a regulatory agency, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. That data, along with data on the genetic modification itself and resulting proteins (or lack of protein), is submitted to regulators. If regulators determine that the submitted data show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then the regulators will generally not require further food safety testing.”
But what about the problems outlined above regarding biotech companies restricting access to their data and products for independent research and the evidence that their data is skewed towards the positive? What about the very close relationships between the regulators and the regulated outlined above? What about the very good point that Dr. Goldacre makes, that you need many eyes on an issue in order to spot potential problems, not just a restricted few with a vested interest in the outcome, if only to reduce the possibility of straightforward human error? Given this, how on earth is 'substantial equivalence' a reliable and effective method of establishing the safety of these GMOs, and the food products that are made from them?
The same article in Wikipedia reports the views of scientists who oppose substantial equivalence:
“In 1999, Andrew Chesson of the University of Aberdeen warned that substantial equivalence testing "could be flawed in some cases" and that some current safety tests could allow harmful substances to enter the human food chain. The same year Erik Millstone, Eric Brunner and Sue Mayer argued in a commentary in Nature that the substantial equivalence standard was pseudo-scientific and was the product of politics and business lobbying—they claimed it was created primarily to reassure consumers and to aid biotechnology companies in avoiding the time and cost of more rigorous safety testing. They suggested that all GM foods should have extensive biological, toxicological and immunological tests and that the concept of substantial equivalence should be abandoned."
I know others have objected to their claims, but given the problems outlined above, I tend to think they have a point. After all, how many genetic diseases and disorders are caused by just one faulty copy of a gene? One mistake in the genome can have mild or devastating consequences for the individual concerned. I am 'substantially equivalent' to someone with cystic fibrosis, say, but there is a huge difference between us in terms of our health and life expectancy. Or am I being stupid?
So, on the basis of substantial equivalence it seems to me that the safety testing of GMO products is effectively 'light touch', and not the rigorous and robust process that some politicians and scientists say exists. Finally, if these GMOs are substantially equivalent, on what basis are Monsanto and other biotech companies awarded patents for their GM seeds? If these GM crops are so similar to their non-GM counterparts that they don't need to be subjected to extra testing, how is it that they are different enough to be patented?
This patenting of seeds that I mentioned at the start of this letter causes me great concern. We have arrived at a situation where a handful of multinational companies now own the majority of the world's seed necessary to support the world's food supply. By 2010 just 5 biotech companies had bought up 200 previously independent companies, allowing them to control access to seeds. In the U.S. the big four" biotech seed companies (Monsanto, Dupont/Pioneer, Syngenta, and Dow Agrosciences) own 80% of the corn market and 70% of the soybean business. These companies exist to make money. They do not exist to feed the world's hungry or lift the world's poor out of poverty. They are not charities. That such a basic thing should be the property of a profit making company horrifies me.
Famers used to share seeds, and save them year after year for the next crop. Where farmers have switched to GM seeds, this is no longer possible. They must buy the seeds each year, and cannot share them. It is a condition of the licence agreement they have to sign when they buy the seed. These seeds have not produced the increased yields promised by the companies who sell them, and so some farmers fall into debt, particularly in developing countries. The catastrophic effect of the arrival of GM cotton on India's small farmers has already been mentioned. It has caused many to lose their land to the companies who own the seed patent, because they cannot pay what they owe. The ownership of seeds means biotechnology firms can set prices, and it gives them tremendous bargaining power over governments when it comes to policy making. So, for example, Dr. Charles Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University's Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, wrote that between 2000 to 2010 the price for GM soy increased by 230% . Obviously price hikes by biotech companies is not the only component of that increase, but there is no doubt they have some responsibility for it. In America some farmers have protested against Monsanto for market manipulation, because they have bought up seed companies, patented seeds, and then raised seed prices. In addition, it is extremely damaging for seed variety in agriculture, magnifying the potential threat from any new disease. It also raises the question of what happens when contamination occurs.
When people in the U.K. first started protesting against GMOs, one of the points they raised was the possibility of contamination of non GM crops and wild seed varieties. A major concern was that novel gene traits might transfer from the GM crop to nearby plants, creating hybrids with new characteristics that could be a problem. This article from Wikipedia, Genetically modified organism containment and escape writes about one such instance which fortunately seems not to have had a long term effect:
“In 2005, scientists at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology reported the first evidence of horizontal gene transfer of pesticide resistance to weeds, in a few plants from a single season; they found no evidence that any of the hybrids had survived in subsequent seasons."
While in this particular instance the trait was passed on by horizontal gene transfer, protesters were also concerned that GM plants might breed with non GM plants, and cause the spread not just of pesticide resistance, but of other traits that could be harmful to us and our environment in the long term. For example, when GM crops were first developed, they were produced with genes giving resistance to antibiotics as marker genes, in order to easily see if the modification process had been successful. The antibiotic marker genes served no function in the plant and could have been removed during a later stage of the genetic modification procedure, but this would have delayed their commercialisation, so they were left in. If these genes were to transfer to disease causing organisms, many antibiotic treatments would become ineffective and we have lost enough of these treatments as it is. Cross-breeding between GM and non GM plants increases the probability of this happening, simply because there are more opportunities for it to happen. At the time the possibility of this happening was very much played down by government ministers and scientists, and the biotech companies themselves who insisted there were proper safeguards in place, such as buffer zones, which would make this kind of contamination extremely unlikely, if not impossible. Since then, it has become apparent that these reassurances were false.
In 2001, Dr. Ignacio Chapela, an assistant professor at Berkeley, and his graduate student, David Quist published a paper in Nature which reported the presence of genes inserted into GM maize (35S Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoter and nopaline synthase terminator (NOSt) recombinant sequences) in non GM maize grown in 2000, in the Sierra Juárez region in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico. It showed that Mexican maize had been contaminated with GM maize. One of the reasons this was a worrying development is that Mexico is the centre of origin for maize. It is where corn was first domesticated about 10,000 years ago, and contamination threatened Mexico's unique maize genetic diversity. They had also concluded that the GM DNA seemed to have randomly fragmented in the genome of the maize, indicating the transgenes were not stable.
Andrew Rowell does go into their story in great detail in his book, particularly the backlash against their findings, before and after the official publication, so I will not repeat those details here, although the reaction before official publication helps to explain why Seralini might have been so insistent on confidentiality agreements. You can either accept their story as a worrying example of what happens to scientists who stray from the script that all is well, or reject it as an unbelievable thriller, best suited to a Hollywood film. That is not what concerns me at this point. What does concern me is that their findings regarding contamination were substantiated by later studies. The most recent of these that I can find is a paper called Transgenes in Mexican maize; molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations, published in Molecular Ecology in 2009. (Pineyro-Nelson, A., Van Heerwaarden, J., Perales, H. R., Serratos-Hernandez, J. A., Rangel, A., Hufford, M. B., Gepts, P., Garay-Arroyo,., Rivera-Bustamante, R. and Alvarez-Buylla, E. R., Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations. Molecular Ecology, 18: 750–761. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03993.x ). In the Discussion section of the paper, the authors write:
“This study has confirmed transgene presence in 2001 and 2004 in landraces from the Sierra Juárez region in Oaxaca, Mexico. Our results further suggest that transgenes are present at relatively low frequencies. Given the uncertainties revealed in the present work, however, more research is needed to allow for the reliable estimation of transgene frequencies in maize landraces. Future studies should provide precise estimates of local transgene frequencies from 2004 onwards. These studies are needed in order to monitor the persistence and frequency change of transgenes, both in Oaxaca and other parts of Mexico, where landrace maize samples with transgenic markers have been reported (Serratos et al. 2007), as well as in other parts of the country where no systematic studies have been undertaken. At present, we may only conclude that the failure to detect transgenes in individual studies should not be taken as evidence of their absence based on the sampling and analytical methods used up to now. Unintended transgene flow into Mexican maize landraces has been confirmed in this paper, and thus it is urgent to establish rigorous molecular and sampling criteria for biomonitoring at centres of crop origination and diversification.”
The following reports on contamination events came from either the Wikipedia article Genetically modified organism containment and escape or the website www. historycommons.org, which organises events into time lines, and is run along similar lines to Wikipedia. I have included the details for the sake of completion, and because there are some very interesting comments made by some of the people affected. However it does make the list rather long, so if you don't wish to read them, just glancing through the underlined bits will be enough to give an overview of the problem. This is what I have found after just a small amount of research. It is quite possible that this list should be far longer.
In October 1999, Thai scientists find GM wheat in a grain shipment - it was reported by staff writer Hannelore Sudermann in the Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA) that scientists in Thailand claimed they had discovered glyphosate-resistant GM wheat in a grain shipment from the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The grain was not yet approved for release and the transgenic wheat had never been approved for sale and was only ever grown in test plots. No one could explain how the transgenic wheat got into the food supply.
May 2000: Seed imported from Canada contaminated with genetically modified seed - Canadian canola seeds sold to Europe by Advanta Canada are discovered to be contaminated with a small percentage of genetically modified (GM) seeds. [Canadian Press, 6/4/2000] The contamination resulted from pollen that was blown in from a farm growing GM crops more than a kilometer away. European citizens and governments are outraged and farmers in some of the countries plough their crops under. [Globe and Mail, 5/25/2000; New Scientist, 12/23/2000] Source: historycommons.org
June 2000: Organic Farmer's Crop Contaminated with Genetically Modified Genes - Pierre Gaudet, owner of a 400-hectare organic soya farm and president of the Quebec Federation of Organic Producers, learns that four percent of his 60-ton crop contains genetically modified soya. His crop was apparently cross-pollinated by his neighbor’s fields. He loses $33,000 when he is forced to sell his contaminated crop on the conventional market, which pays only $190/ton compared to the $750/ton rate that is paid for organic soya. “There is no insurance for that. I can’t sue my neighbor—he followed all the rules,” Gaudet says. “All the companies tell us that cross-pollination [of soya] is impossible, so I didn’t take any special measures.” [Gazette (Montreal), 10/5/2002] Source: historycommons.org
2002-2003: Canadian Study shows GM Contamination of Pedigreed Seeds - A study conducted by three University of Manitoba biologists finds that contamination of Pedigreed canola seed with seeds containing transgenic genes is widespread. In the study, seed was collected from several pedigreed seed lots that were supposed to be free of genetically altered genes that make plants herbicide-resistant. The seeds were used to plant 33 fields, which were then sprayed with Roundup, Liberty, and the Smart-trait herbicide. After the herbicide application, only one field contained no survivors. Of the 27 seedlots, 14 had contamination levels exceeding 0.25 percent and therefore failed the 99.75 percent cultivar purity guideline for certified canola seed. For three of the seedlots, contamination levels were higher than 2.0 percent. “That means one wrong seed in 400, if a farmer is seeding between 100 and 120 seeds per square yard. That means you would have a Roundup-resistant plant every couple of square yards,” explains plant biologist Lyle Friesen. “In a less competitive crop where you can mix products like 2,4-D or MCPA, that becomes a real problem and the volunteers set seed and become a real problem for next year.” Friesen tells the Manitoba Co-operator that, as far as canola is concerned, the “genie may be out of the bottle.” [Manitoba Co-operator, 8/1/2002; Friesen, Nelson, and van Acker, 2003] Source: historycommons.org
Summer 2002: Australian Study finds Canola Pollen Can Travel 3km - An Australian study published in the Journal Science finds that wind or insects can carry canola pollen up to three kilometers (1.87 miles). In Canada, where the contamination of non-transgenic canola with genetically modified (GM) genes has become a serious problem, the present isolation distance of GM canola is a mere 100 meters. “The study underlines a clear risk,” the report says. “Once transgenes are introduced they can’t be completely controlled.” [National Post, 6/28/2002; Rieger et al., 7/4/2002; Manitoba Co-operator, 7/4/2002] Source: historycommons.org
Late June 2002: Agriculture Canada Study Finds Widespread GM Contamination - Agriculture Canada publishes a study on the contamination of conventional crops with proprietary genetically modified genes. The study says that scientists in Saskatoon tested 70 certified canola seed lot samples for the presence of genetically modified genes and found that almost half were contaminated with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready gene and 37 percent with Pioneer Hi-Bred’s Liberty Link. Fifty-nine percent contained both. The study warns that “unless canola pedigree seed growers take extra care to control canola volunteers in the years between canola pedigree production, such volunteers could raise the presence of foreign genes to unacceptable levels.” [Manitoba Co-operator, 7/4/2002; Natural Life, 10/2002] Source: historycommons.org
In 2006 American exports of rice to Europe interrupted because of GM contamination - it was found that the crop was contaminated with rice containing the LibertyLink modification, which had not been approved for release. An investigation was not able to determine the cause of the contamination. Source: Wikipedia
In 2007, Scotts Miracle-Gro fined $500,000 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture because of GM contamination - GM material from creeping bentgrass, a new golf course grass that was being tested by Scotts, was found within close relatives the plant, as well as in native grasses up to 21km away from test sites. Source: Wikipedia.
In 2010, widespread contamination of wild canola found - a study was published by scientists from the University of Arkansas, North Dakota State University, California State University and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency showing that about 83% of wild or weedy canola tested contained genetically modified herbicide resistant genes: “According to the researchers, the lack of reports in the US suggests inadequate oversight and monitoring protocols are in place in the US.” Source: Wikipedia.
In 2013, GM wheat found growing as a weed - glyphosate resistant genetically modified wheat not yet approved for release was discovered on a farm in Oregon growing as a weed, or 'volunteer plant. The wheat was created by Monsanto, and field tested between 1998 and 2005, but was withdrawn owing to concerns that importers would avoid the crop. Since the U.S. is the world's largest wheat exporter, and its exports totalled $8.1 billion in 2012, loss of this market would have a major impact on the American economy. “According to Monsanto it was 'mystified' by its appearance, having destroyed all the material it held after completing trials in 2004 and because they did not think that seed left in the ground or pollen transfer could account for it. Later in the month, Monsanto suggested that the presence of the wheat was likely an act of 'sabotage'.” Source: Wikipedia
There is one quite famous case, that of Monsanto Canada Inc vs Percy Schmeiser, that I have left off this list because it is worth examining more closely. This case helps shed light on two things. Firstly, there could be sound economic reasons from the biotech industry's point of view for encouraging widespread contamination. This might sound counter intuitive given the potential for legal proceedings to be conducted against them, but this is not as much of a disincentive as it might seem. In the 2013 contamination event mentioned above, Monsanto was liable for fines of up to $1 million, if violations of the Plant Protection Act were found. It sounds a lot, but in comparison to Monsanto's turnover (its income is measured in billions, not millions), or indeed the potential cost to the American economy, it is pretty small beer. Secondly, it highlights just what a serious thing patenting this technology is and how inadequate patent law is for dealing with it.
Monsanto vs. Schmeiser is a well known case, and one that polarises opinion. Percy Schmeiser is a Canadian from Saskatchewan who has farmed canola for more than fifty years. I've seen articles which call him a liar who deserved everything he got, and others which see him as a hero, standing up to an overwhelmingly powerful foe. There is an online film about him which is freely available, called 'David vs Monsanto'. It falls into the latter category.
The bare bones of the legal battle are as follows. In August 1998, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against Schmeiser, alleging that he had illegally obtained Roundup Ready canola seed from an unnamed Monsanto licensed farmer in 1997, planted his fields with it, then saved the seed and planted it the following year without paying the licence fee, so infringing Monsanto's patent. Monsanto were obviously not able to prove he had deliberately acquired their seed, so sometime between late 1998 and 2000 they amended their statement of claim so that the element of deliberate action on the part of Schmeiser was dropped:
“...the question of how Monsanto’s gene came to be present in Schmeiser’s fields is no longer of any concern to the company. Whether Schmeiser’s possession of the gene was a result of deliberate action or uninvited contamination has no bearing on the question of infringement, according to Monsanto. It asserts that the mere action of planting seeds containing Monsanto’s patented genes and cells—their presence intentional or not—infringed on the company’s patent. [Washington Post, 5/2/1999; Federal Court of Canada, 6/22/2000, pp. 14 ]” (historycommons.org)
The case came to court in June 2000, and in March 2001 Federal Judge Andrew Mackay found in favour of Monsanto. Mackay ordered Schmeiser to pay Monsanto the profit he had made from the sale of his 1998 crop, plus interest. In April 2002 the total figure Schmeiser had to pay Monsanto was set at just over $170,000 CAD by the court. In May 2002, Schmeiser took his case to the Canadian Federal Court of Appeals. His lawyer, Terry Zakreski, cited 17 grounds for the appeal of Judge MacKay's 2001 decision. Schmeiser lost again in September 2002. The panel of three judges said they:
“agree with MacKay that the question of how Monsanto’s gene came to be present in Schmeiser’s 1998 crop is not relevant to the issue of infringement. The court also concurs with MacKay that Schmeiser infringed on the patent even though he did not use Roundup on his 1998 crop. The judges agree that the mere presence of the gene in Schmeiser’s crop was in and of itself an infringement.”
Nevertheless, Percy Schmeiser decided to continue with his battle and in May 2003 Canada’s Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal that he infringed on Monsanto’s rights as a patent holder when he planted and harvested canola in 1998 that he “knew or ought to have known” contained the company’s Roundup-resistant gene. Unfortunately for him, he lost this case too, but narrowly, as the nine judges came down by 5 votes to 4 in favour of Monsanto in 2004. However, they did find in his favour regarding the money he was required to pay Monsanto by the lower courts. Monsanto had been trying to increase the amount Schmeiser had to pay them, but the judges found he owed them nothing, as he had derived no economic benefit from that part of his 1998 crop that had contained Monsanto's genes.
The details of the legal arguments are set out in historycommons.org, which includes newspaper reports from the time. Reading these I do think Schmeiser got a bit of a raw deal, particularly in that all the courts accepted as fact his 1998 crop was 95 to 98% Roundup Ready canola, which he must have planted deliberately, however the seed originally arrived on his land. These figures were arrived at on the basis of tests done by Monsanto employees, not an independent third party, which seems to me to be manifestly unjust in itself. In addition, Schmeiser's lawyer was able to provide evidence that the testing was deeply flawed and highly suspect in many areas. In the original case, Zakreski pointed out:
“...the samples had been taken illegally and were invalid because they were not obtained, stored, or tested in a scientific manner or by independent parties. Schmeiser’s lawyer also raised questions about the authenticity of the samples noting multiple contradictions in the observed properties of the samples as they changed possession from one person to another. The judge dismissed all of these concerns insisting that certain “conclusions of fact” could nonetheless be “drawn from evidence of the various tests.[Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Percy Schmeiser, 3/29/2001, pp. 34 ; Star Phoenix (Saskatoon), 3/30/2001] ”
So I am not really surprised that Schmeiser kept pursuing his case through all the courts, even though he kept losing. However, what is interesting is that the basis of Monsanto's case was that a breach of patent occurred however their seed ended up growing in a farmer's field if that farmer then used the seed in the manner in which farmers have been doing for millennia without paying them money. Accepting this hands biotechnology companies an enormous amount of power, and I think Monsanto, in bringing this case to court, was trying to establish this principle in law rather than simply trying to protect its patent.
In the original case Zakreski argued Monsanto had effectively given up its patent rights when it lost control of its product by allowing it to be planted unconfined in the environment. MacKay rejected this argument, as he thought they had taken all reasonable steps to contain their product by limiting:
“...the use of the invention to only those plots of land farmed by licensed farmers for which the technology use fee has been paid; the company’s efforts to enforce the terms of its Technology Use Agreement; and the company’s efforts to remove plants that have invaded the properties of other farmers. MacKay makes little of the several photographs that Schmeiser had taken of Roundup-resistant Canola volunteers (plants growing where they are not wanted) that he discovered scattered though out his community. [Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Percy Schmeiser, 3/29/2001, pp. 40-44 ]”
In the appeal, Zakreski made some very good points in response to this part of MacKay's judgement:
(Zakreski) says that several of the steps undertaken by Monsanto cited by MacKay were responses prompted by the fact that the gene had already spread. Thus Monsanto’s actions are evidence that Monsanto had “already lost control of their own product.” Zakreski also notes that where Monsanto had an opportunity to reduce the risk of gene drift, it chose not to. For example, (1) Monsanto’s Technology Use Agreement “places no restrictions on growers aimed at reducing (much less preventing) the escape of genetically modified canola,” does not require seed segregation, does not require a buffer zone, and did not require methods of transport that would have prevented seed loss; and (2) at Monsanto’s informational meetings, which all new Roundup Ready Canola growers are required to attend, farmers were not warned about cross-pollination, not instructed to maintain a buffer strip, not told to warn neighbors who grow non-transgenic canola, not told to segregate seed, and not told to prevent seed loss during transport. [Star Phoenix (Saskatoon), 6/21/2001; Memorandum of Fact and Law of the Appellants, Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. Percy Schmeiser v. Monsanto Canada Inc., 12/3/2001, pp. 29-35 ]
Indeed, the case mentioned above of the organic soy farmer, Pierre Gaudet, whose crop was contaminated in June 2000 indicates Monsanto may well have been actively putting farmers off from taking measures to reduce the possible spread of its products:
“All the companies tell us that cross-pollination [of soya] is impossible, so I didn’t take any special measures.”
It is not as if the biotechnology companies were unaware of the possiblity of cross pollination. If proper tests had been carried out at the research stage they must have known about it, and in an interview with the Washington Post in 1999 Ray Mowling, vice president for Monsanto Canada in Mississauga, conceded that some cross-pollination does occur between Monsanto’s genetically modified plants and other plants:
“Mowling “acknowledges the awkwardness of prosecuting farmers who may be inadvertently growing Monsanto seed through cross-pollination or via innocent trades with patent-violating neighbors,” but explains that Monsanto believes that Schmeiser’s case is “critical” to win in order to protect its patent rights against the use of its seed by farmers who have not paid Monsanto’s technology use fees. [Washington Post, 2/3/1999]”
In addition:
“Monsanto scientist Robert Horsch has acknowledged in court testimony that the company’s dominant Roundup-resistant gene would be present in any pollen from a Roundup Ready Canola plant and therefore could pollinate non-transgenic plants. Zakreski also cites the testimony of Monsanto witness Keith Downey that “one hungry bee” is capable of traveling a great distance. [Star Phoenix (Saskatoon), 6/6/2000; Federal Court of Canada, 6/22/2000, pp. 28 ; Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Percy Schmeiser, 3/29/2001, pp. 16 ]”
So clearly people working for Monsanto at least were aware cross pollination was possible, and therefore the uncontrolled spread of its product was not only possible, but likely. So, if what Pierre Gaudet says is true, it raises serious questions regarding the motives of the biotechnology industry.
This is why it seems to me that in deciding to sue Percy Schmeiser, Monsanto was testing the legal waters. I doubt very much they were doing it for the money they could extract. If they had succeeded in claiming the profit from his crop as their own, it would most likely have bankrupted Schmeiser, but in terms of Monsanto's turnover, the sum was chicken feed. It seems more likely that they were trying to see how far they could push their patent rights, and they picked on Schmeiser as a means of doing so. Firstly, Schmeiser was never going to be a Monsanto customer. His preferred method of weed control was to kill the weeds in the soil before they started to grow The logic of this being once the weed is growing, it has already taken water and nutrients from the crop, so it is better not to let it grow in the first place. Using Roundup Ready canola means allowing the weeds to grow first, then killing them with Roundup spray. In addition, Schmeiser noted that Roundup is thought to leave a residue in the soil that kills mycorrhiza, a beneficial fungus that helps plants absorb nutrients in the soil. Secondly, Schmeiser's neighbours were growing Roundup Ready canola, and trucks carrying the seed drove on the roads running alongside his property, so contamination of his crop was highly likely. In fact his neighbour testified in court to the fact that the tarpaulin on one of his trucks came loose, and he lost a lot of seed in this way.
I do think Schmeiser was aware there was Roundup Ready canola mixed in with his seed, but I doubt very much it even occurred to him that planting this seed with his own would breach Monsanto's patent, or that he was committing an illegal act. Why would it? Agriculture has been in existence for between 9 and 12,000 years. In all of that time it has been an acknowledged right that farmers save and share the seed from their crops, and plant it for the following year's harvest. As far as the farmer is concerned, the crop on his land, the seed, is his to do with as he wishes, whether planting, sharing or selling. It has been this way for millennia, so why would Percy Schmeiser think things had changed in 1998? I seriously doubt he knew the ins and outs of patent law back then. After all, these things were argued over in three court cases to establish exactly what was and was not Monsanto's property, and at the end of it all, to my mind there is still a grey area. In the original case Judge MacKay wrote:
“a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbor’s land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell.” [Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Percy Schmeiser, 3/29/2001, pp. 40-41 ; Star Phoenix (Saskatoon), 3/30/2001; Natural Life, 5/2001]
So Schmeiser would own the Monsanto seed or plants that grew on his land, but he wouldn't be able to use them as he wished. I think this makes it quite difficult for farmers who wish to continue saving and planting their own seed, because it puts the onus on them to test their crop and seperate the GM from the non GM seed in order to continue doing this. That is quite a large additional cost for the farmer to bear, given that there is no obviously easy way of seperating the two other than by spraying, which would kill off the farmer's own seed. Also, in the June 2002 Agriculture Canada Study mentioned above, of 70 supposedly conventional canola seed lot samples tested, almost half were contaminated with Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene, and 37% with Pioneer Hi-Bred's Liberty Link. 59% contained both. That is a lot of seed that a GM free farmer is no longer able to save and sow again, and in the long term it must render non GM farming unviable. That is quite an economic benefit to hand to the biotechnology industry.
The supreme court decision doesn't clarify the situation, as the five judges who found for Monsanto did so on the basis that they believed Monsanto's testing of his 1998 crop was fair and accurate, and that Schmeiser had deliberately set out to plant Monsanto's GM seeds. These judges said:
It is important to note that the majority says this decision does not concern “the innocent discovery by farmers of ‘blow-by’ patented plants on their land or in their cultivated fields.” The majority makes it clear that they do not accept Schmeiser’s claim that his property was “contaminated” with Monsanto’s genes. [Percy Schmeiser v. Monsanto Canada Inc., 5/21/2004, pp. 5] For them it is accepted fact that (1) “tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,0[3]0 acres of canola crop [in 1998] was made up of Roundup Ready plants”
The four judges who found for Schmeiser dissented from the majority verdict on the basis that:
“The minority opinion disagrees that any of Monsanto’s rights as a patentholder extend to plants, seeds, and crops. It accepts that Monsanto’s patent claims for the genes and cells are valid, but says that none of the protections afforded by the patent extend “to the plant itself, a higher life form incapable of patent protection.” According to the minority, “In order to avoid the claim extending to the whole plant, the plant cell claim cannot extend past the point where the genetically modified cell begins to multiply and differentiate into plant tissues, at which point the claim would be for every cell in the plant, i.e., for the plant itself.” Consequently, only the original genes and cells produced by Monsanto in the lab and contained within the original seed are protected by the patent—the resulting plant, its seeds, and the plants that grow from those seeds, are not. “Therefore saving, planting, or selling seed from glyphosate-resistant plants does not constitute an infringing use,” the minority concludes.[Percy Schmeiser v. Monsanto Canada Inc., 5/21/2004, pp. 22]
I have to say, I wish this opinion had been the majority, but I think in the end it was probably fear regarding what the consequences might be for patent law that swung the pendulum in favour of Monsanto:
“Lawyers for Monsanto’s interveners said that invalidating the company’s patent would harm Canada’s economy and undermine its patent system. “Patents create a climate that favors new research,” argues A. David Morrow, a lawyer for the Canadian Seed Trade Association. [Associated Press, 1/20/2004]”
And this from Anthony Creber, a lawyer for Biotech Canada:
“I’m nervous that if you don’t give (patent protection) for seeds and cells, you will have a hollow Patent Act with severe economic consequences.” [Star Phoenix (Saskatoon), 1/21/2004]”
Patent law originated in an era when the inventions to be protected were mechanical objects with no possibility of a seperate life of their own. As we progress technologically, case law adapts to accommodate new kinds of inventions, but I think patent law is wholly inadquate to cope with a technology that manipulates the basis of life itself. At the supreme court, Monsanto's lawyer argued they were not trying to patent an entire plant, and therefore a higher lifeform not able to be patented, but just one of the plant's ingredients. He compared the company's gene to a special patented steel that is used for an automobile where the inventor’s rights extend only to the steel, not the entire car. The judges challenged this steel analogy by asking the lawyer where Monsanto's patent rights would end since plants have the ability to reproduce themselves and hence the inventions contained within them. It seems to me that this is the heart of the problem. Patent law was made to protect intellectual property that cannot reproduce itself without outside intervention. Genes can, so it is inevitable that in enforcing intellectual property rights to particular genes you will end up extending those rights of ownership to things which no-one has any business claiming as their property. Patents also add to the pressure on biotech companies to commercialise a product quickly, because patents are time limited and run out. This must work against good scientific research because such research requires time in order for it to be done properly. Good science needs time and patience, and in the short term it is more expensive than doing a quick, shoddy experiment. Patent law drives science in the opposite direction, as any company that does try to do the right thing will inevitably lose the benefit of its work when the patent runs out before they have recouped their research costs. So I think a new kind of law to protect intellectual property that deals specifically with biotechnology is necessary, and it really should have been done 20 or 30 years ago. Patent law is simply the wrong law to use.
To return to my original point, I think Monsanto was looking for a fall guy to see what they could legally claim under their patent, and unfortunately for Schmeiser he was it. Interestingly, in August 1998, at about the same time Monsanto was starting the legal process against Schmeiser, canola farmers Ed and Liz Kram of Raymore, Saskatchewan said three of their fields had been spray bombed with herbicide, destroying about half an acre in each field:
“They believe the herbicide was Roundup and that the bombing was done on behalf of Monsanto to determine if they were growing Roundup Ready Canola without having paid Monsanto’s $15 CAD/acre fee. The Krams believe Monsanto was involved because one of the company’s investigators visited them before the incident inquiring about their canola crop. A government representative who comes out to the farm to investigate the incident suggests the crop damage was caused by lightening strikes. “You think lightening struck in the center of all three of my canola quarters?” Kram asks. (!) ... Testing indicates the presence of a chemical, but is presumably unable to determine what kind. Monsanto denies any connection to the incident. [Canadian Business, 10/8/1999] “
Maybe if a substantial part of their crop had survived, they would have been the ones in court. Monsanto might not have won the right to Schmeiser's crop solely on the basis of the presence of their invention in it, but they did win the right to curtail his use of that crop, which, as I have argued above, is quite an economic benefit to them, and an incentive for them to promote the 'accidental' spread of their product as far as possible. Nor is this the only incentive that exists. Consumer distrust of GMOS in food is undoubtedly very high, and affects willingness to buy products containing GMOs. Obviously, this has a serious effect on the profitability biotechnology. There are two ways a biotech company can deal with this problem. Firstly, you can make sure labelling GMOs in food is not a legal requirement. However, this still leaves foods that are certified organic as an alternative to your product. Actually, one of the arguments against labelling is precisely this, that it is an unnecessary expense because organic alternatives are available. Quite where that leaves people on low incomes I don't know, and why adding one more piece of information to nutritional labels that already exist should be so prohibitively expensive is not explained, but that's the claim. Either way, organic foods remain an unwanted competitor whose market share is growing as people become increasingly concerned about just what is in their food. This brings us to the second way in which biotechnology companies can deal with the problem. Contaminate everything. Spread your product as far as possible, until even organic food has a genetically modified element in it. Then everyone will have to eat GMOs because there will be no way to avoid them, and the only competitors you have are in the same industry as you. The biotech industry could look on this as simply levelling the playing field.
There was of course a third option. That would have been to do proper peer reviewed research in an open and transparent way, so that what worked and what didn't work could have been properly figured out. Something good, something of benefit to us all might have been done. But, that would have taken too long, and cost too much money. So here we are now, in a mess of fear, ignorance, greed and uncertainty, and absolutely no public trust. Maybe things will work out okay in the long run. Maybe they won't. Maybe we'll be lucky and no long term harm will be done. Maybe we won't. Who knows? One thing you can be sure of though, if it turns out that this rush to commercialisation has created serious unforeseen, but entirely foreseeable problems for us and our environment, Monsanto and their ilk won't be the ones clearing up the mess, that is always assuming it can be cleared up. In 2005, Percy Schmeiser found Roundup Ready canola growing in a section of his fields again. Since the original court case he had been under an injunction that barred him from growing any plants containing Monsanto's patented genes and cells. He called Monsanto and asked them to remove the plants. They sent a team, but before they would do so, they asked him to sign a legal release that would prevent him from speaking publicly about the settlement terms and release the company of all liability. Schmeiser refused. With neither side willing to budge, Schmeiser removed the plants himself in October 2005. Monsanto's spokeswoman Trish Jordan insisted:
“...the company is under no legal obligation to remove plants that show up in fields uninvited. [Western Producer (Saskatoon), 10/26/2005] “
Eleanor Dobson, October 2013
Post Script:
Bayer merges with Monsanto:
The German drugmaker and chemical company Bayer has finalized a $66 billion blockbuster deal to gobble up the agricultural behemoth Monsanto.
https://www.businessinsider.com/monsanto-beyer-merge-drop-monsanto-name-2018-6?op=1&r=US&IR=T
https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-the-bayer-monsanto-merger/a-44110352
Thanks Interesting Times...a detailed read indeed!