Arpad Pusztai on the Risks of Genetic Engineering

Why is genetic engineering a risky technology?

Gene insertion is a major problem. You cannot direct where the splicing of the genetic construct will happen. It is well known that when you insert a genetic construct into the DNA network of a plant, you create changes in that network. As a result, you will get changes in the functionality of the plant's own genes. They may become more active or silent. The effects will be unpredictable and uncontrollable. It can sometimes cause irreparable damage to the genome. This is insertional mutagenesis.

The biotechnology industry simply overrides this concern. They say we don't have to worry about it, and if you raise your voice, you are called a Luddite.

Fundamentally the science of genetic engineering is crap. One gene expressing one protein is the basis of genetic engineering, but the Human Genome Project discovered 23,000 genes, and there are 200,000 proteins in every cell. With this discovery, genetic engineering should have disappeared into the dustbin, but the biotechnology industry is so strong. Genetic engineering is a product driven technology. If you have enough money to throw at it, you can do many things. But the industry won't waste money on safety assessment.

FUENTE:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18101.cfm

A letter from A. Pusztai to GM Watch

Dear Claire and Jonathan,

I thought that I should write to you on the 10th anniversary of my 150 seconds of TV "fame" and tell you what I think now. It is very appropriate to write to you because you have provided the most comprehensive service to inform people about the shenanigans of the GM biotechnology industry and its advocates.

On this anniversary I have to admit that, unfortunately, not much has changed since 1998. In one of the few sentences I said in my broadcast ten years ago, I asked for a credible GM testing protocol to be established that would be acceptable to the majority of scientists and to people in general. 10 years on we still haven't got one. Instead, in Europe we have an unelected EFSA GMO Panel with no clear responsibility to European consumers, which invariably underwrites the safety of whatever product the GM biotech industry is pushing onto us.

All of us asked for independent, transparent and inclusive research into the safety of GM plants, and particularly those used in foods. There is not much sign of this either. There are still "many opinions but very few data"; less than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published describing the results of work relating to GM safety that could actually be regarded as being of an academic standard; and the majority of even these is from industry-supported labs. Instead we have the likes of Tony Trewavas and others writing unsupported claims for the safety of GM food and defaming people like Rachel Carson who can no longer defend herself; not that she needs to be defended from such nonentities.

In normal times one would not pay much attention to such people desperately trying to be seen as the advocates of true science, but these are not normal times. The mostly engineered (GM engineered) food crisis gives the GM biotech industry and its warriors an opportunity to come to the fore with claims that GM is the only way to save a hungry world; a claim not much supported by responsible bodies, such as the IAASTD. The advocates of GM also now think that they have found a chink in the armoury of people's resolve that they can exploit by telling us that we would not be able to feed our animals without GM feedstuffs. In this way, they hope to bring in GM by the backdoor. Please remember that whatever our animals eat, we shall also get back indirectly. Rather ominously, there has been no work whatever to show the safety of the meat of GM-fed animals.

We must not underestimate the financial and political clout of the GM biotechnology industry. Most of our politicians are committed to the successful introduction of GM foods. We must therefore use all means at our disposal to show people the shallowness of these claims by the industry and the lack of credible science behind them, and then trust to people's good sense, just as in 1998, to see through the falseness of the claims for the safety of untested GM foods.

Let's hope that on the 20th anniversary I shall not have to write another warning letter about the dangers of untested GM foods!

Best wishes to all
Arpad Pusztai

Pusztai on GMO risks

National Regulations Should Reflect Risks of GE Crops

Arpad Pusztai
Scientific Consultant to GenOk, Tromso, Norway
BioSpectrum, January 06, 2006
http://www.biospectrumindia.com/content/columns/10601061.asp

Engineered artificial gene constructs may undergo mutation and evolution to an end, therefore making the safety assessment of GE crops an exercise without a firm predictive scientific basis.

Acceptance of products and associated agricultural practices of the biotechnology industry is running into problems, probably due to the perception held by many scientists that the technical ability of biotechnology industry to produce safe genetically engineered (GE) crops has developed faster than the understanding of the underlying scientific principles of gene splicing. Consumers and scientists alike feel that the possible consequences for health and environment of the spread of GE crops are not properly understood and that without sufficient research funding and having generally agreed methodologies for assessing the unique risks of GE crops, we shall never be able to properly address them. It should not be surprising that societal concerns about genetic engineering of something as basic as our food and how they are produced are high and no matter of patronizing platitudes by the scientific, political and industrial establishments will make these concerns to go away.

Bizzare approach

The approach of the biotechnology industry to the safety of its products or the understanding how society perceives risk is bizarre. The harsh treatment of sceptics and dissident scientists does not demonstrate the establishment's great willingness to listen to views not in tune with their pre-set ideas. Openness is not much helped either that due to the high cost of biological testing, biotechnology companies only do minimal and superficial environmental and health risk assessments. Cost will also be a major factor in their reluctance to finance research to develop scientifically sound methodologies but rather they prefer to declare the present agricultural practices to grow GE crops as safe and that foods prepared from them present no risks for the consumer. The fact that in the decade since the introduction of GE crops only one human feeding study has been conducted and basic academic animal nutritional/toxicology studies published in peer-reviewed journals are also few and far between gives plenty of ammunition to those who oppose GE crops.

Presently there is an intensive scientific and legislative debate in many countries, including India, about the possibility of the large-scale growing of GE crops without jeopardizing the GE-free status of organically or conventionally grown crops. Pro-industry scientists advocate that even with cross-pollinating crop species only a few metres of separation distance between GE and non-GE crops will be adequate to prevent genetic pollution. However, in the laboratory to prevent the escape and proliferation of untested experimental GE organisms, all developmental work is strictly contained. Moreover, to guarantee the purity of certified seeds even the industry specifies considerably larger separation distances. Thus, for contract growers of certified hybrid seeds, such as hybrid corn, distances of 400 m or more are demanded. In contrast, the biotechnology industry proposes to release GE crops into the environment without adequate biological controls to prevent their dispersal or the artificial transgenes they express. According to their proposals, the strict safety guidelines that apply to GE organisms in the laboratory are not deemed to be necessary when these are grown in open fields, but without scientifically justifying this double standard in safety conduct. One might consider that even more stringent safety controls should be enforced in the natural environment than in the laboratory, particularly as we do not have a backup with products of this irreversible technology. Moreover, there is already sufficient evidence to show that engineered artificial gene constructs may undergo mutation and evolution to an end that we are not aware of, and therefore making the safety assessment of GE crops an exercise without a firm predictive scientific basis. Indeed, one cannot safety assess something that has not yet evolved.

Genetic contamination

In the absence of adequate methods to remove inserted transgenes, once the seeds are genetically contaminated, it will be nearly impossible to recover the original uncontaminated seed stock. Under the regulatory systems of most countries, testing of seeds for genetic contamination is done after the event and not before. In the USA and Canada the whole seed system has become contaminated after ten years of large-scale commercialisation of GE crops. Thus, even though only about one percent of the corn seeds sown in Iowa (USA) was StarLink, in the absence of adequate separation between the GE and non-GE cornfields and segregation of the seeds after harvest, about 50 percent of the corn produced contained the StarLink transgene, demonstrating that coexistence of GE and non-GE crops is impossible. The proposal by the MS Swaminathan Task Force that regions in India representing either primary or secondary centres of genetic diversity for major crops such as rice should be conserved for posterity as "agro-biodiversity sanctuaries" and "organic farming zones", is manifestly impractical and will not stop the genetic contamination of rice crops in other areas. In a democracy once the floodgates are opened it is impossible to control who grows what. It also means that other parts of the country will be opened up for GE crops. This therefore is nothing but a back door entry to introduce them by a slight of hand which, on the face of it, appears to give false assurances to people that there is no threat at all that genetic contamination will spread in the country.

Risks of GEOs

In order to satisfy the legitimate demands of the scientific community and society any large-scale growing of GE crops and their coexistence with crops grown using traditional and organic agricultural practices must be based on or at least take into account the scientific guidelines as laid out very recently in the authoritative ESA (Ecological Society of America) Report on the possible risks of GEOs (genetically engineered organisms) because these may create new, and more vigorous pests and pathogens; exacerbate the effects of existing pests through hybridisation with related transgenic organisms; harm non-target species of organisms; disrupt biotic communities, including agro- ecosystems; cause irreparable loss or changes in species diversity or genetic diversity. Therefore GEOs require greater scrutiny than crops produced by traditional breeding.

We shall also have to consider that GEOs may pose risks to the environment because we have little or no prior experience with the trait and host combination; GEOs may proliferate and persist without human intervention; genetic exchange is possible between a transformed organism and non-domesticated organisms; trait confers an advantage to the GEO over native species in a given environment.

If these principles are not taken into account in proposed legislations, the large-scale growing of GE crops can irreversibly harm our environment by genetic contamination of our traditional crops and weeds by cross-fertilization and by horizontal gene transfer respectively. Moreover, in the absence of science-based regulation of the cultivation of pesticide-producing (i.e. Bt-toxin) GE crops, the development of resistance in pests to biopesticides which are also used in organic or traditional agriculture will be speeded up. The uncontrolled large-scale cultivation of herbicide-resistant GE crops will not only contaminate our environment but also lead to the creation of herbicide-resistent superweeds and thus increase rather than reduce the chemical-load of the land and endanger our clean water supply.

Transparency

It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that the environmental and health risks or safety assessments of GE crops/foods should not be carried out only by biotechnology companies but it must also be verified by independent scientists through a transparent funding system. Any controlling legislation must also be based on these assessments and debated by all stakeholders in the society. The basic rule must be that, since we all want to live in a healthy and natural environment and eat foods which will not endanger our health, we are all entitled to scrutinise the evidence relating to the safety of GE crops. Secrecy is therefore against the public interest and unjustified. GE technology is irreversible and therefore we have to seriously weigh up the pros and cons of its introduction. In democracies it is the people's inalienable right that they should be able to decide whether society can afford to take on the very real risks and the possibly dangerous consequences of genetic engineering for the possibly vain hope of some future benefits for society.

Pusztai responds

World Renowned Biotech Critic Arpad Pusztai Answers His Critics

11/27/05GM WATCH dailyhttp://www.gmwatch.org
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/pusztai112805.cfm

---The Syngenta-backed website CheckBiotech has published an article by the well-known Swiss biotechnology supporter, Dr Klaus Ammann, as part of the Swiss debate over the moratorium.

According to CheckBiotech, Ammann, is "calling on heavy scientific ammunition" to attack those supporting the moratorium. Quite a bit of that "ammunition" is aimed at Dr Arpad Pusztai, amongst others, under headings such as "Hysteria without reason".

Here's Dr Pusztai's reply and Dr Ammann's original article. In passing, Dr Pusztai provides a vey interesting summary of the multiple health problems arising from GM crops that scientific research appears to point to.

Dear Jonathan,

I understand the frustration of an all-out, almost religious, believer in GM biotechnology, such as Klaus Amman, now that the Swiss have put a 5-year moratorium on growing GM crops in Switzerland. I still salute the common sense of the Swiss who, despite a huge industry-paid pro-GM campaign, came down on the side of precaution.

You do not have to be an economic genius to see that on its present showing this so-called "precise technology" cannot even predict the outcome of the gene-splicing technique used in the development of GM crops. It also does nothing for the consumer and even less for those farmers who would like to maintain the clean green image of Switzwerland and who do not want to squander this precious heritage handed down to them by their forefathers.

As far as the personal attacks on me are concerned, this is nothing new. I always find that people who run out of factual arguments sooner or later turn to trying to denigrate the scientific integrity of anyone who does not swallow hook-line-and-sinker their arguments in favour of GM crops. As far as I am concerned, I only respond to the, generally, scientifically questionable or even flawed arguments they level against me or against those scientists who prefer to read the evidence presented in peer-reviewed scientific papers than get involved in mud-slinging. I am also not going to get involved in the rights or wrongs of the Percy Schmeiser case as I am sure he can defend himself.

Dr Amman states:

"Hysteria without reason In both of the above cases (i.e. Pusztai and Schmeiser) it would be quite disturbing (?) to examine the scientific literature, because it would soon become clear what the facts are. Between then and now the numbers of publications relating to Pusztais' statements have grown to above 400. ( as an aside: I thought we wrote papers and not statements!)

The number of major studies concerning the safety of these kinds of foods published by experts in peer-reviewed journals has grown to about 30. And they all convey the same message: genetically modified foods are harmless1".

It is interesting how quickly the 400 publications all showing how wrong we were in our GM potato studies is reduced within the next para to about 30 studies. As it so happens, I know the scientific literature reasonably well and studied in detail most of the 19 major papers published between 1996 and mid-2004 on the health aspects of GM rops/foods. Indeed, in the last six years we have written three major reviews of the potential health effects of GM crops/foods. In fact, the last one has just been published. Obviously, Dr Amman and I must have read different papers because with the exception of a few papers written by industry-funded scientists I could not find the message in them that "genetically modified foods are harmless". If he reads our reviews and has the open mind of a true scientist, he will see what I mean.

Just for a taster:

Animals fed GM food had problems with blood and liver cell formation, damaged organs, bleeding stomachs, excessive cell growth, inflammation in lung tissue, and increased death rates. A preliminary (still unpublished) study in Russia reported that most of the offspring of female rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, that at least merits a re-run of her experiments. Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent, and a GM food supplement killed about 100 Americans and cased 5,000-10,000 to fall sick. The only human feeding study ever conducted on GM crops showed that foreign transgenes transferred from food into intestinal bacteria. This has possible long-term implications and raises concerns that antibiotic resistant marker genes might create super diseases.

It has also been shown that transgenic DNA not only survives digestion, but can also found in the blood, liver, spleen and kidneys. DNA can even travel via the placenta into unborn. The crops designed to create the Bt-toxin were based on the assumption that it is not bioactive in mammals but when Bt-toxin was fed to mice, they developed a powerful immune response and abnormal and excessive cell growth in their intestines. Preliminary evidence (not fully published) shows that Philippine villagers living next to a Bt maize field developed a mysterious disease while the crop was pollinating - three seasons in a row - and blood tests also showed an immune response to Bt. The blood of farm workers exposed to Bt also developed Bt-specific antibodies. Together these suggest that Bt does react with humans, and that the assumptions used as the basis for safety claims are erroneous. Consider the implications if Bt genes, like Roundup Ready genes, were to transfer to gut bacteria. That could turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

If Dr Amman wants I can send him the references to all the published studies but he should also be able to get these if he takes the trouble and reads our reviews.

The impact on the environment may be even worse, since GM crops contaminate non-GM varieties and related species, and these and their genetic constructs may persist in the environment for generations. The Bt-toxin may harm beneficial insects and damage soil bacteria. The over-use of herbicides on GM crops can contaminate water and harm humans and wildlife. Foreign genes may transfer to soil bacteria and self-propagate for years. And the reliance on a few crop varieties controlled by multinationals reduces crops diversity and leaves our food supply vulnerable.

I was very interested to learn that according to Dr Amman:

"Among nutritional science experts, the experiments done by Pusztai are being unanimously judged as inconclusive and incorrectly designed".

I am afraid, Dr Amman can by no stretch of the imagination be called a nutritional expert, so I wonder how he came across so many nutritional science experts and had the chance to question them about my nutritional expertise so as to arrive at the unanimous damning conclusion that our experiments were "inconclusive and incorrectly designed".

Dr Amman also states: "This is a paradox when one considers that Pusztai normally has an excellent reputation where publications are concerned".

Unfortunately, as I could not accept his comments damning our expertise because of his lack of nutritional know-how, I must also decline his back-handed compliments.

Finally, we come to the most important part of Dr Ammann's piece, which really shocked me coming from someone who is highly regarded in some scientific and biotechnology circles but who apparently regards "basic research" as "interesting" but "irrelevant where the effect on agriculture and nutrition is concerned":

(Full quote: "For a fair and balanced assessment of risk" "This certainly does not imply that we should discontinue investigating security questions, rather that we should learn to distinguish between necessary applied security research and basic research, which though interesting, is irrelevant where the effect on agriculture and nutrition is concerned.)

Here I rest my case because I cannot come to any sort of agreement with someone who denigrates the role of basic research.
Best wishesArpad