GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary

Originally posted by mamahuhu
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Of course I do. I keep about 100 yards away from other fields. I have natural wind breaks in every direction. I keep watch as to what they use, how much they use and the method of application. I do my best to keep the land healthy. It seems to help because I do have my share of pests.

A farmer after my own heart, I come from old school farming/ranching familes on both sides - both families lost their land to big landowners in the first great depression and both sides have had to work in cities since, But it's in the blood somehow. I kept my little plot of land in LA organic house and land for nineteen years before I lost my little place to the man.

Good on you - YOU ARE A REAL HERO.

Originally posted by Phage

While comparison of per hectare productivity is made between North America and Europe (both showing increases),

Okay so you have acknowledged that their is no advantage in yields from the use of GMO's, this is a good start - we do not need to risk feeding our children untested new organisms.

The pesticide use as an argument doesn't really interest me as I know we can produce all the food we need without the use of pesticides.

Lets get back to the science of GMO's - there are people arguing that they know the science here, let's see whether we can hash out what is being done and see if anyone raises any concerns. - This is important I am also trying to work - so bare with me the replies may take a while (and yes I am too not a genetic scientist)

My understanding is that the gene insertion packet contains, viruses, virus fragments, antibiotics, and the novel gene (there is more - haven't the time to check my notes - help please). This gene package is delivered or contained by a bacteria, which is used to insert the whole package into an existing organism.

Any concerns yet? Anybody?

reply to post by Peter Brake

Okay so you have acknowledged that their is no advantage in yields from the use of GMO's, this is a good start

Not exactly. It has not been demonstrated that, if Western European farming (without GMOs) were conducted on the scale of North American farming the yields would be as high.

My understanding is that the gene insertion packet contains, viruses, virus fragments, antibiotics, and the novel gene (there is more - haven't the time to check my notes - help please).

Your understanding is weak. A virus fragment is used in some cases. What is your concern about this process? We are exposed to live viruses continually. We eat them. We breathe them.

My understanding is that the gene insertion packet contains, viruses, virus fragments, antibiotics, and the novel gene (there is more - haven't the time to check my notes - help please).

Your understanding is weak. A virus fragment is used in some cases. What is your concern about this process? We are exposed to live viruses continually. We eat them. We breathe them.


This is so we are interacting with viruses all the time, and with bacteria even more so. Bacteria is the dominant life form on the planet in a teaspoon of soil their is between a million and a billion bacteria. They are in the air we breath, the water and have been found 100's of metres into the soil.

Bacteria also naturally insert genes into organism's as a way of producing proteins on which they feed. Bacteria could be called gods genetic tool kit and is responsible for at least 25% of the genetic variety that exists today.

We have estimates of 100 billion different types of bacteria, so far we have categorised about 10,000. Anybody concerned yet?

reply to post by Peter Brake

We have estimates of 100 billion different types of bacteria, so far we have categorised about 10,000. Anybody concerned yet?

And you think a random bacterium or virus segment is used in the process?

A valuable resource when considering forming an opinion on GM foods. A comprehensive briefing from Friends of the Earth, who oppose the use of GM foods. I agree. Read the article and you will realise that banning such produce from the ecosystem is the only way.

www.foe.co.uk...

Many GM crops contain genes which provide resistance to commonly used antibiotics such
as ampicillin. There is concern that these genes could be passed from food to bacteria in
the guts of humans and animals. In the Netherlands, researchers used a model of a human
gut to look at what would happen to GM food after it is eaten. They predicted that six per
cent of the genes from GM tomatoes would survive digestion9
and considered that the genes
could survive for long enough for bacteria to pick them up. In 2002, research published by
the Food Standards Agency showed this happening for the first time, when GM genes were
found to have been picked up by gut bacteria of human volunteers10. The Government’s
own advisory body on the safety of GM foods has expressed concerns about just this
issue11, but this has not stopped such foods being put on the market.

Later in 2000, it was found that a GM maize called StarLink, which was not approved for
human consumption, had contaminated foods across the USA. Suspected allergic reactions
were reported, and more than 300 brands of taco shells, crisps and other maize products
had to be withdrawn from shops. The US Government was forced to buy up stocks and
Kelloggs closed production lines for two weeks. The cost to the US economy has been
estimated at billions of dollars.

More reports of a potentially phenotype altering virus gene 'Gene VI' discovered by INDEPENDENT experts found in GM foods, already in the food chain, that was missed when they were 'assessed' for safety.

A virus gene that could be poisonous to humans has been missed when GM food crops have been assessed for safety.

GM crops such as corn and soya, which are being grown around the world for both human and farm animal consumption, include the gene.

A new study by the EU's official food watchdog, the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA), has revealed that the international approval process for GM crops failed to identify the gene.

A new study conducted by the EU has shown that standard tests for GM foods may be missing a potentially poisonous gene for humans

As a result, watchdogs have not investigated its impact on human health and the plants themselves when assessing whether they were safe.

The findings are particularly powerful because the work was carried out by independent experts, rather than GM critics.

It was led by Nancy Podevin, who was employed by EFSA, and Patrick du Jardin, of the Plant Biology Unit at the University of Liege in Belgium.

They discovered that 54 of the 86 GM plants approved for commercial growing and food in the US, including corn and soya, contain the viral gene, which is known as 'Gene VI'.

In this country, these crops are typically fed to farm animals producing meat, milk and eggs.

Significantly, the EFSA researchers concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI 'might result in unintended phenotypic changes'.

Such changes include the creation of proteins that are toxic to humans.

They could also trigger changes in the plants themselves, making them more vulnerable to pests

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Peter Brake

 

We have estimates of 100 billion different types of bacteria, so far we have categorised about 10,000. Anybody concerned yet?

And you think a random bacterium or virus segment is used in the process?

Not at all, though the insertion place and in many cases places is random. Take a look yourself and see how shoddy the science is. They haven't even tested Agrobacterium Tumefaciens, a common soil bacteria used to transfer the genes in many GMO’s to see what it is doing with these novel organisms.

It is a joke - which you have brought into with your naïve scientific enthusiasm. Years from now we will look back and shake out heads saying how could this have happened? Didn't anybody care? Wasn't it somebodies job to look out for stuff like this?

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

More reports of a potentially phenotype altering virus gene 'Gene VI' discovered by INDEPENDENT experts found in GM foods, already in the food chain, that was missed when they were 'assessed' for safety.

False.
The use of the gene in GMOs has been known of. It was not newly discovered. It is a gene from plant virus. Plant viruses do not affect animals.
www.efsa.europa.eu...

From 2006:

Obtained data did not highlight evidences of dietary DNA transfer in mice. No CaMV35s transcriptional activity was detected in this experimental model

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

From 2000:
www.cals.ncsu.edu...

reply to post by Peter Brake

Not at all, though the insertion place and in many cases places is random.

Sure. And then they raise crops with no idea of the genetic structure of the plant that they have been working on. Use your head.

They haven't even tested Agrobacterium Tumefaciens, a common soil bacteria used to transfer the genes in many GMO’s to see what it is doing with these novel organisms.

Right. They just randomly throw stuff together to see what happens.

Agrobacterium tumefaciens is the most commonly studied species in this genus. Agrobacterium is well known for its ability to transfer DNA between itself and plants, and for this reason it has become an important tool for genetic engineering.

en.wikipedia.org...

Right, no study at all:
Tumefaciens

This article from respected Independent Science News details the risks and research done on 'Gene VI' and summarises that such products should be totally recalled and further research done, also theorising that more research on such products = more hazards will be found .: the research currently held for approval of such products is essentially null and void and it was previous research that allowed them into the ecosystem, foodchain and consumer market.

independentsciencenews.org...

This summary of the scientific risk issues shows that a segment of a poorly characterized viral gene never subjected to any risk assessment (until now) was allowed onto the market. This gene is currently present in commercial crops and growing on a large scale. It is also widespread in the food supply.

Even now that EFSA’s own researchers have belatedly considered the risk issues, no one can say whether the public has been harmed, though harm appears a clear scientific possibility. Considered from the perspective of professional and scientific risk assessment, this situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure.

But the saga of Gene VI is not yet over. There is no certainty that further scientific analysis will resolve the remaining uncertainties, or provide reassurance. Future research may in fact increase the level of concern or uncertainty, and this is a possibility that regulators should weigh heavily in their deliberations.

To return to the original choices before EFSA, these were either to recall all CaMV 35S promoter-containing GMOs, or to perform a retrospective risk assessment. This retrospective risk assessment has now been carried out and the data clearly indicate a potential for significant harm. The only course of action consistent with protecting the public and respecting the science is for EFSA, and other jurisdictions, to order a total recall. This recall should also include GMOs containing the FMV promoter and its own overlapping Gene VI.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

This article from respected Independent Science News details the risks and research done on 'Gene VI' and summarises that such products should be totally recalled and further research done

That article is a gross distortion of the facts.

3. Was EFSA aware of the existence of fragments of Gene VI in certain GM plants prior to the publication of this paper and have EFSA’s risk assessments of GMOs considered the potential effects of such fragments?

Yes. All GM plant applications assessed by EFSA since its creation in 2002 that contain the inserted fragment of the viral gene in question have included a detailed analysis of the inserted sequence. These applications have also included the extensive data required by EFSA to assess the potential for unintended effects. In its assessment of these applications, no safety concerns were identified in relation to the sequence of the inserted fragment of the viral gene and the potential for unintended effects.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage


According to reports, the 'new' research by the EFSA showed there is potential risk of an unknown quantity.

The EFSA research in 1993 found ''potential risks''.

The retrospective risk assessment in 2012 showed high risk.

The EFSA response was ''yes there is potential risk'' but no recall.

The 2012 risk assessment showed that recall is the right way.

independentsciencenews.org...

The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.

The Choices for Regulators
The original discovery by Podevin and du Jardin (at EFSA) of Gene VI in commercial GMO crops must have presented regulators with sharply divergent procedural alternatives. They could 1) recall all CaMV Gene VI-containing crops (in Europe that would mean revoking importation and planting approvals) or, 2) undertake a retrospective risk assessment of the CaMV promoter and its Gene VI sequences and hope to give it a clean bill of health.

It is easy to see the attraction for EFSA of option two. Recall would be a massive political and financial decision and would also be a huge embarrassment to the regulators themselves. It would leave very few GMO crops on the market and might even mean the end of crop biotechnology.

Regulators, in principle at least, also have a third option to gauge the seriousness of any potential GMO hazard. GMO monitoring, which is required by EU regulations, ought to allow them to find out if deaths, illnesses, or crop failures have been reported by farmers or health officials and can be correlated with the Gene VI sequence. Unfortunately, this particular avenue of enquiry is a scientific dead end. Not one country has carried through on promises to officially and scientifically monitor any hazardous consequences of GMOs (1).

Unsurprisingly, EFSA chose option two. However, their investigation resulted only in the vague and unreassuring conclusion that Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes” (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This means literally, that changes of an unknown number, nature, or magnitude may (or may not) occur. It falls well short of the solid scientific reassurance of public safety needed to explain why EFSA has not ordered a recall.

reply to post by Phage


The hazards of 'Gene VI' in the food chain have been scientifically proven, do you agree?

The EFSA research conclusion is that 'there is potential unintended risk', “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”.

Research has proven that there is potentially significant risk and such products should be recalled.

Which part of this are you not agreeing with?

Monsanto is banned in most countries outside the USA and Canada.

It just goes to show that even as high up as the environment secretary, Monsanto have their supporting politicians bought and paid for.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

The EFSA research in 1993 found ''potential risks''.

You really should go to the cited source. Here it is. Perhaps you can point out where "potential risks" are mentioned. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.

1) They were not EFSA researchers.
2) Science seldom "rules out" anything but the paper does not indicate any risk factor.

A bioinformatic analysis was performed to assess the safety for human and animal health of putative translation products of gene VI overlapping P35S. No relevant similarity was identified between the putative peptides and known allergens and toxins, using different databases.

www.es.landesbioscience.com...
In other words the study showed no risks.

The EFSA research conclusion is that 'there is potential unintended risk', “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”.

Please point out where it is stated in the research paper that there is "there is potential unintended risk". Do you know what phenotype changes are?

Research has proven that there is potentially significant risk and such products should be recalled.

No. Research has not proven that. By a long shot.

reply to post by Phage


I will let the article from the scientists that authored the article answer your quotes from the EFSA FAQ site.

All of your quotes are answered on this page. I have inserted quotes from the first question answered on this page, there are many more. This report was made after the EFSA response in January 2013.

independentsciencenews.org...

In this second article we now question the two statements being offered to the public and journalists by EFSA and FSANZ. The credibility and effectiveness of regulators rests on their actions being based on 1) scientific knowledge, 2) scientific integrity, and 3) the public interest. We assess the EFSA and FSANZ statements and find them to be both scientifically misleading and also inadequate to meet the public interest concerns raised by the discovery of Gene VI. This is due to their reliance on scientifically unverifiable assertions and logical fallacies. We also here draw attention to important scientific questions raised by the recognition of Gene VI within the CaMV promoter that regulators have yet to address.
Regulators Misrepresent the State of Scientific Knowledge
The following six quotes are extracted from the statements by EFSA and FSANZ

1) “Human exposure to DNA from the cauliflower mosaic virus and all its protein products through consumption of conventional foods is common and there is no evidence of any adverse health effects.” (FSANZ)

In order for this statement to be supported by scientific data there would have to exist controlled experiments feeding CaMV DNA, or its viral proteins, to experimental subjects (animal or human). In addition, there would also have to be epidemiological data linking CaMV consumption (which as FSANZ notes appears to be common enough for this to be done) with human health status. To our knowledge, experiments have not been done in either area, and we challenge FSANZ to provide scientific references for this statement. Without relevant experiments absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is especially inappropriate given the high and sometimes increasing rates of diet-related chronic illness in countries consuming the most GMOs.
FSANZ’s conclusion also contradicts that of Podevin and du Jardin, who first discovered the problem. These authors specifically do not state that there is “no evidence of any adverse health effects.” On the contrary, their analysis implied Gene VI might be both an allergen and a source of harm as a viral gene. They found that Gene VI “is a potential allergen” (this finding, perhaps because their results were contradictory, was in the conclusions amended to “is most likely not a potential allergen“) and further, they stated that some versions of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes” (Podevin and du Jardin 2012).

Whether one looks at the larger picture, or the details, there is no scientific case for the strong reassurance offered by FSANZ.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

In order for this statement to be supported by scientific data there would have to exist controlled experiments feeding CaMV DNA, or its viral proteins, to experimental subjects (animal or human).

Silly argument. People have been consuming the DNA for as long as they have been consuming cauliflower and various other plants.

From the arguments above, there is no evidence that the
CaMV 35S promoter will increase the risk over those
already existing from the breeding and cultivation of conventional
crops.. There is no evidence that the 35S promoter,
or other retroelement promoters, will have any
direct effects, in spite of being consumed in much larger
quantities than would be from transgenes in GM crops.
Furthermore, there are compelling arguments to support
the view that there would be no more risks arising from
potential recombination than there are from existing nontransgenic
crops.

www.microbecolhealthdis.net...

reply to post by Phage


I think you should read some more about GM foods not being safe.

Refusal to believe any of the research that suggests and proves GM food is unsafe is something that I will never do, nor most people.

wakeup-world.com...

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

I think you should read some more about GM foods not being safe.

I've read quite a bit actually. But I tend to stay away from sensationalistic claims and look for the science behind it. It turns out that those claims are usually gross distortions of what the science says and the studies which do indicate areas of concern do not advocate the immediate cessation of the use of GMOs. They do not indicate any terrible dangers.

I think you should look at the claims with a critical mind instead a fearful one.