|
Did Monsanto's GM maize lower the fertility of
mice? _______________________________________________________________________________________
Background of Austrian Mice Study Debate
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
1. General View
For years, Austria's scientifically questionable claims regarding GM foods and crops have repeatedly been rejected by European Commission officials, by scientists with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and by the judges of two European courts.
Government regulators and numerous safety scientists have rejected Austria’s claims about GMOs as well as the country’s attempts to retard EU policy and evade the requirements of European law and decisions. Austrian ministries (as well as their counterparts in the French and Italian governments) have adopted novel tactics that were invented and endorsed by anti-GM activists.
As a result, the global media is regularly fed questionable claims based on reports which have not gone through the process of peer review, or – worse – which have passed a flawed peer-review process 1). Some journals have accepted papers on the premise that because of the publicity given to studies in the media and on websites, the work should be published so that everyone has a chance to scrutinize the findings 2, 3). And, unfortunately, it is also true that lower quality journals will also accept papers that would be found unacceptable by leading journals.
• Short letters to the editor, written by whistle blowers in good faith – or worse in many of the below cases – with a political agenda - on ‘promiscuity of transgenic plants’ (Bergelson) 4) or the toxicity of Bt maize for non-target insects like the monarch butterflies (Losey) 5), but later devaluated as premature apprehensions.
• Critical scientists commenting in a balanced way on negative effects and leaving open other causes than transgenesis (effects of transgenic soybeans on mice by Malatesta 6-8)), but whose work is happily misinterpreted by opponents who make no mention of the researchers careful qualifications of their findings.
• Publications by scientists who have a clearly negative view of GM crops that conduct research intended to reveal highly improbable negative effects. The research protocols and experimental conduct are flawed and the differences they make publicity about are usually not of biological significance or are not even statistically significant. (Seralini) 9), (Pusztai) 10).
• Publications on topics related to epigenetics neglecting zero comparisons, although the findings per see are correctly commented, but in a balance not giving the whole picture. (Myhre) 11) (Latham) 12).
• Uncritical reviews by newcomers in the field of food safety (Dona) 13), (Auer) 14) (Botha) 15) who do not understand some of the cited scientific publications seemingly supporting their negative cause.
• Papers based on new methodological approaches, not following the internationally agreed protocols, which have to be interpreted with great caution and which need to be independently verified (Finamore) 16, 17).
• Prematurely published reports propagated on numerous websites of the anti-gene-technology-community and in sensational newspaper articles, without having been scrutinized properly by peer-review (Ermakova) 18-23). When Ermakova finally revealed her data, it was clear that the research and data did not meet contemporary international standards of experimentation. The high observed mortality of rats in control groups was attributed to mistreatment of the animals. See full details in ASK-FORCE on Ermakova.
2. The Transatlantic Rift
It was among others Anne Marie Thro 24) describing convincingly the transatlantic rift in risk perception of transgenic crops. GM crops are since many years the scapegoat of dissent on cultural and political aspects in agriculture, which have nothing to do with the ecological impact and the food safety of the new breeds per se. The bias is so strong, that it influences persistently the interpretation of scientific data even in peer reviewed papers 1), where often the editor in chief panders to the temptation to publish flawed experimental data for the sake of fostering a ‘public debate’ on highly questionable negative statements. Overall, it is amazing to see how much also biosafety research and resulting regulation is influenced by the transatlantic rift 25).
In this light, we can see again a symptomatic example of premature and hasty interpretation of a feeding experiment with mice in Austria: Even before the report has been properly published and reviewed by peer experts, the political agencies and advocacy groups have prematurely trumpeted out the seemingly negative results. As will be shown in the following discussion, the cases of Ermakova and Zentek cannot be compared directly, since Dr. Ermakova is an anti-gentech activist (despite her hypocrite declaration in Nature Biotechnology: p.1353 “I am not against GMOs …”.). Prof. Zentek as the principal scientist of the study most certainly is not an anti-GM activist. He still intends to publish a peer reviewed paper based on good scientific argumentation, and from what I gather in correspondence, he intends to take criticism into account and publish correct findings.
3. Austria's Position on GM-free zones
Another typical example of the transatlantic rift is the Austrian position on GMO-free zones, claiming new negative evidence against GM crops. The claim was rejected by EFSA in a detailed scientific argumentation, (EFSA) and (Commission): Margot Wallström, Environment Commissioner EU: "We have analysed the Austrian measures in great detail, and, legally speaking, this seems a clear-cut case. The treaty requirements allowing for a derogation from EU legislation are not met". Far from giving up, the Austrian government went into a second round, appealed the decision but lost this time in 2007 in the European court.
On December 4, 2007, the EFSA has once again rebuffed Austrias concern about transgenic maize:
The request from the European Commission related to the safeguard clause invoked by Austria on maize MON810 and T25 according to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC has been answered:
Following investigation of the evidence presented in the Austrian submission, the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) of EFSA concluded that there is no new scientific evidence that would invalidate the previous risk assessments of maize MON810 and T25. Therefore, no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, was provided that would justify the invocation of a safeguard clause under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC for the marketing of maize MON810 and T25, for its intended uses, in Austria.
On 10 June 1999 and on 8 May 2000, Austria invoked Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC (safeguard clause) to provisionally prohibit the placing on the market of the authorised genetically modified (GM) maize events MON810 and T25 on its territory. In February 2004 and November 2007, Austria provided additional information to support the national safeguard measure to be considered under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC. To define whether the information submitted by Austria comprises new information that would affect the environmental risk assessment for the uses laid down in the corresponding consent, the European Commission requested in a letter, dated 18 April 2008, a scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
Finally, EFSA also published, as part of their minutes from the 46th plenary meeting on December 4, 2008 a statement, refuting the study, it is given in the first part in extenso.
It seems that the Austrian government has exhausted all legal avenues, and therefore the ministry of health has decided to take the same route as Irina Ermakova: avoid the peer-review process, announce study results at a conference, hide the data from scientists, and let the activists run amok with the help of some uncritical the media. But there is hope: it is remarkable to see the lukewarm reaction of major media: The time seems to be over when important newspapers just follow every craze of activists regarding GM crops, it is hard to find a major documentation in a reputed newspaper or magazine in Europe at present time related to the latest case.
Deplorably, by adopting Ermakova's tactics, Austria is inviting the same outcome for the Velimirov study.
References
Miller, H., P. Morandini, and K. Ammann, 2008 Is biotechnology a victim of anti-science bias in scientific journals? Trends in Biotechnology, Electronic Prepublication Febr. 17, 2008, Hardcopy available in March: p. 122-125
doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.11.011 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Peer-Review/Miller-Morandini-Ammann-Peer-Review-2008.pdf
Horton, R., 1999 Genetically modified foods: "absurd" concern or welcome dialogue? Lancet, 354(9187): p. 1314-1315
<Go to ISI>://000083149900002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Horton-Lancet-1999-p1314.pdf
Horton, R., C.B. Feldbaum, and R.A. Fisken, 1999 GM food debate - Reply. Lancet, 354(9191): p. 1729-1729
<Go to ISI>://000083652800053 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Horton-Lancet-1999-9191-1729.pdf
Bergelson, J., C.B. Purrington, and G. Wichmann, 1998 Promiscuity in transgenic plants. Nature, 395(6697): p. 25-25
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/25626 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Geneflow/Bergelson-Promiscuity-1998.pdf
Saxena, D., S. Flores, and G. Stotzky, 1999 Transgenic plants - Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn. Nature, 402(6761): p. 480-480
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Saxena-Stotzky-Nature-1999.pdf
Malatesta, M., C. Tiberi, B. Baldelli, S. Battistelli, E. Manuali, and M. Biggiogera, 2005 Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry, 49(3): p. 237-241
<Go to ISI>://000235795800001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Malatesta-Reversibility-2005.pdf
Vecchio, L., B. Cisterna, M. Malatesta, T.E. Martin, and M. Biggiogera, 2004 Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry, 48(4): p. 449-453
<Go to ISI>://000225992500016 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Vecchio-Ultrastructure-Analysis-2004.pdf
Malatesta, M., M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M.B.L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, and G. Gazzanelli, 2003 Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry, 47(4): p. 385-388
<Go to ISI>://000187834800013 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Malatesta-Fine-Structural-2003.pdf
Seralini, G.E., D. Cellier, and J.S. de Vendomois, 2007 New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Seralini-2007e.pdf AND Rebuttal of EFSA http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/pr_efsa_maize_Mon863.html
Ewen, S.W.B. and A. Pusztai, 1999 Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet, 354(9187): p. 1353-1354
<Go to ISI>://000083149900015 AND doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Ewen-Pusztai-Lancet-1999.pdf
Myhre, M.R., K.A. Fenton, J. Eggert, K.M. Nielsen, and T. Traavik, 2006 The 35S CaMV plant virus promoter is active in human enterocyte-like cells. European Food Research and Technology, 222(1-2): p. 185-193
<Go to ISI>://000233722100028 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/35S/Myhre-Cauliflower-Active-2006.pdf
Latham, J., A. Wilson, and R. Steinbrecher, 2005 Analysis of the unexpected phenotypic consequences associated with plant transformation. Journal of Biotechnology, 118: p. S156-S157
<Go to ISI>://WOS:000231195200540
Dona, A. and I.S. Arvanitoyannis, 2009 Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49(2): p. 164 - 175
http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/10408390701855993 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Dona-Health-Risks-GM-Foods-2009.pdf
Auer, C., 2008 Ecological risk assessment and regulation for genetically-modified ornamental plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 27(4): p. 255-271
<Go to ISI>://WOS:000258048200003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Horticulture/Auer-Ecological-Risk-Horticulture-2008.pdf
Botha, G.M. and C.D. Viljoen, 2008 Can GM sorghum impact Africa? Trends in Biotechnology, 26(2): p. 64-69
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TCW-4RJSHWC-1/1/52f5dc77a65c6b924b19dd9b2be52a27 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Africa-Harvest-Sorghum-Lit-1/Botha-Sorghum-Africa-2008.pdf
Finamore, A., M. Roselli, S. Britti, G. Monastra, R. Ambra, A. Turrini, and E. Mengheri, 2008 Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 0(0 %R doi:10.1021/jf802059w) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf802059w AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Finamore-Intestinal-Peripheral-Immune-2008.pdf
Finamore, A., M.S. Britti, M. Roselli, D. Bellovino, S. Gaetani, and E. Mengheri, 2004 Novel approach for food safety evaluation. Results of a pilot experiment to evaluate organic and conventional foods. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 52(24): p. 7425-7431
<Go to ISI>://WOS:000225358900037 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Finamore-Novel-Approaches-Organic-2004.pdf
Ermakova, I.V., 2005 People eating genetically modified food may have rat-short lifespan, in Prawda: Moscow.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/9136-gmf-0 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Ermakova-Pravda-2005.pdf
Ermakova, I.V. 2005 Influence of genetically modified soya on the birth-weight and survival of rat pups. in Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants and Risk Assessment. Frankfurt a.M. Literaturhaus: Ökoinstitut Freiburg, Greenpeace, © 2006, Öko-Institut e.V., Box 50 02 40, D-791028 Freiburg
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Epigenesis-GP-Ermakova-p-41-2005.pdf
Ermakova, I.V., 2007 GM soybeans—revisiting a controversial format. To the Editor:. Nature Biotechnology, 25(12): p. 1351-1354
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1207-1351 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Ermakova-Reply-NB-2007.pdf
Ermakova, I.V., 2007 GM soybeans - revisiting a controversial format: To the Editor. Nature Biotechnology, 25(12): p. 1351-1354
<Go to ISI>://WOS:000251457800011 AND http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1207-1351 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Ermakova-Reply-NB-2007.pdf
Marshall, A., 2007 GM soybeans and health safety—a controversy reexamined, full controversy, including reply Ermakova. Nature Biotechnology, 25(9): p. 981-987 and 1351 - 1360
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Marshall-Ermakova-et-al-Controversy-NB-2007.pdf
Marshall, A., I. Ermakova, B. Chassy, V. Giddings, A. McHughen, and V. Moses, 2007 GM soybeans and health safety—a controversy reexamined, followup controversy. Nature Biotechnology, 25(9): p. 1351 - 1360
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Marshall-Ermakova-et-al-Controversy-all-reactions.pdf
Thro, A.M., 2004 Europe on transgenic crops: How public plant breeding and eco-transgenics can help in the transatlantic debate. Commentary., in AgBioForum. p. 142-148.
http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n3/v7n3a06-thro.htm AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Thro-Europe-Transgenic-Crops-2004.pdf
Ramjoue, C., 2007 The transatlantic rift in genetically modified food policy. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 20(5): p. 419-436
<Go to ISI>://WOS:000248855000003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Ramjoue-Transatlantic-Rift-2007.pdf
|
