Science |
- molecular scientist and genetic engineer
- co-author of GMO Myths and Truths, one of the most-thoroughly researched and comprehensive books on GMOs ever written
|
- The difference between genetic engineering and GMOs -- containment, no environmental release
- Unpredictability will affect the plant biologically
- No control over where insertion happens
- Genome is a complex interactive ecosystem -- insertion will affect other genes
- Little or no premarket testing anywhere in the world to determine results of this -- released poorly characterized and without effective safety testing
- Transgenic methodology (gene gun or bacteria) and problems
- Random insertion point
- Damage around the insertion point
- Tissue culture (cloning) creates tens/hundreds of thousands of mutations
- No testing for these
-- can't test directly because you don't know what might have been created; need to use well-designed non-targeted animal feeding studies.
- Difference between traditional breeding and GM
- No cross-species/kingdoms transfer that can't occur in traditional breeding
- No risk of genome-wide mutations
- Dr. Zola's proteomics study (Italy)
- Proteomics measures the protein profile
- Monsanto 810 Bt corn: study done long AFTER release to market
- GM vs isogenic (parent w/o GM), grown in same place, same conditions (climate, soil)
- Result: evidence of massive changes in plant biochemistry
- dozens of proteins expressed at higher or lower levels
- truncated proteins (EXREMELY significant evidence of serious damage)
- Known allergen gamma-zain (not present before, apparently turned on by promoter)
- Potential for highly toxic substances
- Regulation
- US: noexistent: Monsanto claims equivalence and safety, FDA accepts without passing judgment
- Europe -- 90-day feeding study (equiv. to just 8-9 yrs human life, not required)
- Monsanto's 90-day rat feeding study -- an example of industry's designed-to-fail studies
- 3 varieties: MON 810, MON 863, Anchors 603
- GMO vs isogenic vs 6 unrelated non-GMO
-
- Diet: 33% or 11% corn (note: some African diets 50-70%)
- Measurements: blood & urine composition, function measurements
- Conclusion: safe (EU accepts)
- Greenpeace lawsuit exposes otherwise secret data
- Statistically significant differences in 50 physiol/biochem parameters
- reflect liver/kidney toxicity, even in the 11% group
- EU response: yes, but biologically insignificant
- That's a rewrite of rules of science: may not know results, but can't dismiss, need further testing
- Response study: Prof. Gilles Seralini (France)
- Calls the bluff that you can evaluate life-long exposure safety on a 90-day rat study
- Similarity: same experimental design, same rat strain
- Differences:
- 2 years (life of rat)
- expanded range of measured parameters
- expanded number of feeding groups
- GMO, non-GMO, and both GMO and non-GMO with low dose of Roundup (to clearly identify any GMO effects unrelated to Roundup)
- Use of Roundup (not just glyphosate) is significant: adjuvants make the glyphosate much more toxic
- male, female
- Results
- Found in both Roundup and GMO groups
- Liver/kidney toxicity (esp. males) worsened during year 1, serious damage by year 2
- Tumors (unexpected!) -- particularly female mammary
- first one appeared shortly after the first 90 days (the standard safety test length)
- Roundup alone at doses found in contaminated drinking water: tumor incidence 3-4x that of control groups (Roundup dilution 0.1 part per billion)
- toxicity re: acceptable drinking water contamination: 1/2 the EU rate, 20x less than US rate
- note: US geological survey in Midwest -- glyphosate in surface water and 60-100% of air and rain samples
- Disturbances to sex hormones in both males/females
- Early death, organ damage, and multiple
tumors are very indicative, but ultimately will need larger study
- But significance clear -- 90 day toxicity study is insufficient, and must test the agricultural formulation
- Response to study
- Ongoing attacks from industry-related scientists started within couple of hours
- Wrong study design, wrong rats, too few rats, results meaningless
- Exactly the same design, rats, and numbers as Monsanto (just increased parameters and time)
- So if his work rejected, Monsanto's must be rejected also
- Attacked as too small for a carcegenicity -- but was always intended as a toxicology study (ignored by the attackers), the tumors were a surprise
- Press picked up the attacks, press blackout of Seralini results in UK and US
- Monsanto published response, Seralini published rebuttal (and Antoniou was front defender in the press)
- Regulatory response
- US EPA increases acceptable residues 30 fold (many parts per million)
- European Food Safety Agency
- At first echoed industry (wrong rats, too few rats, wrong statistics)
- Then called for 3M Euro 2-year carcegenicity study using same design
- French called for 2.5M Euro toxicity study
- Reference to the revolving door between industry and FDA
- GMOs are yesterday's technology, unable to adapt to new understanding of the complex interactions of the genome
- False promise of GMOs
- Increased yields hasn't occurred except in certain limited circumstances
- Reduced pesticide use? -- the opposite
- Solving world hunger? -- yield and adaptability failure and destruction of farm cultures and well-adapted indigenous seeds
- Biotech's better use: traditional breeding augmented with gene mapping
- Acknowledges the complexity of the genome
- Has produced the desirable results: better nutrition, high-yield, tolerance of drought, flood, salinity and heat stress
|
