rn: Can biotech fight world hunger?

2000-07-07

Jan Slakov

From: "Janet M Eaton" <•••@••.•••>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:00:41 +0000
Subject: Can Biotechnology Help Fight World Hunger? [NO  Says  Ho !!]

 GM crops are turning out to be useless as well as unsafe!!

The way to fight world hunger is definitely not GM crops!!

Ecologists are increasingly finding that the more biodiverse the
ecosystem, the greater the carrying capacity , and hence the more
people and wild-life it can support. Biodiverse systems are also more
stable and resilient. The same principles have guided traditional
indigenous farming systems, and are now being re-applied in holistic
approaches that integrate indigenous and western scientific knowledge
 Some 12.5 million hectares around the world are already farmed
in this way. The yields have doubled and tripled and are still
increasing, at the same time reversing some of the worst
environmental, social and health impacts of the green revolution.

In conclusion, GM crops are not safe, not needed and fundamentally
unsound. Far from helping to fight world hunger, they are standing in
the way of the necessary global shift to sustainable organic
agriculture that can really provide food security and health around
the world.          -  Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, June 29, 2000

FYI - Janet 

======================================

Thanks to Biotech Activists (•••@••.•••) for posting the
following text of Dr. Mae-Wan Ho's contribution to the special educational
forum organized by Congressman Tony Hall, 29 June, 2000, on Capitol Hill,
Washington DC.


Can Biotechnology Help Fight World Hunger?

by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society www.i-sis.org
<http://www.i-sis.org> and Open University, UK

Special Forum organized by Congressman Tony Hall, Capitol Hill, Washington
DC, 29 June 2000

Key Words: GM crops, CaMV promoter, horizontal gene transfer, world hunger,
organic revolution in science,

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho:

1. It's a great honor to be invited to speak here. I'm a scientist who
loves science and believes science and technology can help build a better
world and combat world hunger. But it must be the right kind of science and
technology, and it must be decided by people themselves. There is no
alternative to the democratic process of seriously informing and empowering
people. And I congratulate Congressman Tony Hall for putting on this
special forum.

2. I am among the 327 scientists from 38 countries who have signed an Open
Letter to all Governments demanding a moratorium on GM crops because we
have reasons to believe they are not safe (1). We are also  calling for
support of sustainable agricultural methods that are already working
successfully around the world. There is genuine disagreement within the
scientific community. The public are not served by portraying the debate as
science versus anti-science.

3. Let me begin with recent report from Germany that GM genes in GM pollen
have transferred to the bacteria and yeasts in the gut of baby bees (2).

4. This kind of horizontal gene transfer involves the direct uptake of
foreign genetic material. It has been found to happen also in the field.
After GM sugar beet was harvested, the GM genetic material persisted in the
soil for at least two years and was taken up by soil bacteria (3).

5. Not only microorganisms, but animal cells, including human cells can
readily take up the GM constructs and the foreign genes often end up in the
cell's own genetic material, its genome (4).

6. Not so long ago, the pro-biotech scientists were insisting horizontal
gene transfer couldn't happen. Now, they are saying it happens all the
time, so no need to worry.

7. So the crucial question is whether GM genetic material is like ordinary
genetic material. The answer is no. There is a world of difference between
GM genetic material and natural genetic material

8. Natural genetic material in non-GM food is broken down to provide energy
and building-blocks for growth and repair. And in the rare event that the
foreign genetic material gets into a cell's genome, other mechanisms can
still put the foreign genes out of action or eliminate it. These are all
part of the biological barrier that keeps species distinct, so gene
exchange across species is held in check. And that has been so for billions
of years of evolution.

9. GM-constructs are designed to invade genomes and to overcome natural
species barriers. Because of their highly mixed orgins, GM constructs tend
to be unstable as well as invasive, and may therefore be more likely to
spread by horizontal gene transfer (5).

10. GM constructs consist of genetic material of dangerous bacteria,
viruses and other genetic parasites from widely different origins. They are
combined in new ways that have never existed, and put into genomes that
they have never been part of. They include antibiotic resistance genes that
make bacterial infections very difficult to treat. And, you never just put
a gene in by itself. It needs a gene switch or a promoter to work.
Typically an aggressive promoter from a virus is used to make the gene
over-express continuously - something which never happens in healthy
organisms.

11. One viral promoter in practically all GM crops out there, 
including the so-called second generation GM plants such as the 
'golden rice' (6) is from the cauliflower mosaic virus, CaMV for 
short. This CaMV promoter has a recombination hotspot - a site where 
it is prone to break and join up with other genetic material (7). It 
is promiscuous in function (8). Plant genetic engineers thought it 
works in all plants and plant-like species, but not in animals. Just 
last week, we discovered in the scientific literature more than 10 
years old that this same CaMV promoter works extremely well also in 
frog eggs (9) and extracts of human cells (10). It is already known 
to be able to substitute for promoters of other viruses to give 
infectious viruses.

12. What will happen when these dangerous GM constructs spread? Remember,
GM constructs are made from genetic material of viruses and bacteria and
are designed to cross species barriers and to invade genomes. In the
process, there's the obvious potential that they may recombine with viruses
and bacteria to create new strains that cause diseases. The antibiotic
resistance genes may also spread to bacteria associated with serious
diseases such as meningitis and tuberculosis. GM constructs that invade
genomes may recombine with, and wake up dormant viruses that have now been
found in all genomes (reviewed in 8).

13. GM crops are turning out to be useless as well as unsafe. The bacterial
bt-toxins, engineered into many crops, are poisonous for beneficial and
endangered species such as lacewings, the Monarch butterfly as well as the
black swallowtail (11). Bt crops encourage new resistant pests to evolve.
Stink Bugs in North Carolina and Georgia are eating up the bt-cotton crops
(12) and have to sprayed with deadly pesticides. A study in the University
of Nebraska shows that GM Roundup Ready soya yielded 6-11% less than non-GM
soya (13), confirming an earlier Univ. of Wisconsin study which also found
that the GM soya required 2 to 5 times more herbicides.

14. The way to fight world hunger is definitely not GM crops. World
population figures have been wildly exaggerated. The figure of 10 billion
has been bandied about. In fact, figures have had to be revised downwards
several times in the late 1990s. By mid-1998, the UN's estimate was that
world population will peak at  7.7 billion in 2040, then go into long term
decline to 3.6 billion by 2150, less than two-third of today's number (14).

15. Population arguments are based on the ecological concept of carrying
capacity. Ecologists are increasingly finding that the more biodiverse the
ecosystem, the greater the carrying capacity (15), and hence the more
people and wild-life it can support. Biodiverse systems are also more
stable and resilient. The same principles have guided traditional
indigenous farming systems, and are now being re-applied in holistic
approaches that integrate indigenous and western scientific knowledge (16).
Some 12.5 million hectares around the world are already farmed in this way.
The yields have doubled and tripled and are still increasing, at the same
time reversing some of the worst environmental, social and health impacts
of the green revolution.

16. World market for GM crops has collapsed because people all over the
world are rejecting them and opting for organic sustainable agriculture
(17). An organic revolution is rising from the grass-roots and also
sweeping across the disciplines within western science. From quantum
physics to the ecology of complexity and the new genetics, the message is
the same: nature is dynamic, interconnected and interdependent (18).
Proponents of GM technology are stuck in the mechanistic era, it is that
above all that makes the technology both futile and dangerous. It is just
not innovative enough!

17. In conclusion, GM crops are not safe, not needed and fundamentally
unsound. Far from helping to fight world hunger, they are standing in the
way of the necessary global shift to sustainable organic agriculture that
can really provide food security and health around the world.

Notes and References

1.      Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments calling for a
moratorium on GMOs <www.i-sis.org>
2.      Barnett, A. (2000). GM genes 'jump species barrier' The Observer
May 28, 2000.
3.      Gebhard, F. and Smalla, K. (1999). Monitoring field releases of
genetically modified sugar beets for persistence of transgenic plant DNA
and horizontal gene transfer. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 28, 261-272; see
also "Horizontal gene transfer happens" ISIS News #5 www.i-sis.org
<http://www.i-sis.org>
4.      Reviewed by Ho, M.W., Ryan, A., Cummins, J. and Traavik, T. (2000).
Unregulated Hazards: 'Naked' and 'Free' Nucleic Acids, ISIS and TWN Report,
Jan. 2000, London and Penang www.i-sis.org <http://www.i-sis.org>
5.      See Old, R.W. and Primrose, S.B. (1994). Principles of Gene
Manipulation, 5th ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford; Kumpatla, S.P.,
Chandrasekharan, M.B., Iuer, L.M., Li, G. and Hall, T.c. (1998). Genome
intruder scanning and modulation systems and transgene silencing. Trends in
Plant Sciences 3, 96-104.
6.      This can be seen in the scientific report itself: Ye, X.,
Al-Babili, S., Kloti, A., Zhang, J., Lucca, P., Beyer, P. and Potrykus, I.
(2000). Engineering the provitamin A (?-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into
(carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287, 303-305; see also ISIS
Sustainable Science Audit #1: The Golden Rice - An Exercise in How Not to
Do Science www.i-sis.org <http://www.i-sis.org>
7.      Kohli, A., Griffiths, S., Palacios, N., Twyman, R.M., Vain, P.,
Laurie, D.A. and Christou, P. (1999). Molecular characterization of
transforming plasmid rearrangements in transgenic rice reveals a
recombination hotspot in the CaMV 35S promoter and confirms the
predominance of microhomology mediated recombination. Plant J. 17, 591-601;
Kumpatla, S.P. and Hall, T.C. (1999). Organizational complexity of a rice
transgenic locus susceptible to methylation-based silencing. IUBMB Life 48,
459-467.
8.      Ho, M.W., Ryan, A. and Cummins, J. (1999). Cauliflower mosaic viral
promoter - a recipe for Disaster? Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease
11, 194-197; Cummins, J., Ho, M.W. and Ryan, A. (2000). Hazards of CaMV
Promoter? Nature Biotechnology April; Ho, M.W., Ryan, A. and Cummins, J.
(2000). Hazards of transgenic plants with the cauliflower mosaic viral
promoter. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (in press).
9.      N Ballas,N., Broido, S.,  Soreq, H., and   Loyter, A. (1989).
Efficient functioning of plant promoters and poly(A) sites in Xenopus
oocytes Nucl Acids Res 17, 7891-903.
10.     Burke, C,  Yu X.B.,  Marchitelli,  L..,  Davis, E.A., Ackerman, S.
(1990). Transcription factor IIA of wheat and human function similarly with
plant and animal viral promoters. Nucleic Acids Res 18, 3611-20.
11.     Wraight, C.L., Zangerl, R.A., Carroll, M.J. and Berenbaum, M.R.
(2000). Absence of toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis pollen to black
swallowtails under field conditions. PNAS Early Edition www.pnas.org
<http://www.pnas.org>; see also "Swallowing the tale of the swallowtail"
and "To Bt or Not to Bt",  ISIS News #5 www.i-sis.org
<http://www.i-sis.org>
12.     "Research Shows Roundup Ready Soybeans Yield Less". News Release
from IARN News Service, University of Nebraska
<•••@••.•••>
13.     See Biodemocracy News #27 www.purefood.org <http://www.purefood.org>
14.     World Population Projections to 2150, UN Population Division, New
York, 1998.
15.     See Tilman, D., Wedin, D. and Knops, J. (1996). Productivity and
sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature
379, 718-720.
16.     See Altieri, M., Rosset, P. and Trupp, L.A. (1998). The Potential
of Agroecology to Combat Hunger in the Developing World, Institute for Food
and Development Policy Report, Oakland, California; also Rosset, P.
personal communication.
17.     Over the past four years, US corn exports to the EU have fallen
from $360 million a year to near zero, while soya exports have fallen from
$2.6 billion annually to $1 billion- and expected to fall even further as
major food processors, supermarkets, and fast-food chains ban GM soya or
soya derivatives in animal feeds. Canada's canola exports to Europe
similarly fell from $500 million a year to near zero. From Biodemocracy
News #27 www.purefood.org <http://www.purefood.org>
18.     See Ho, M.W. (1998). The Rainbow and The Worm, The Physics of
Organisms, 2nd ed., World Scientific, Singapore; Ho, M.W. (1998, 1999).
Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare? Gateway, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin.

__________________________________
Richard Wolfson, PhD
Consumer Right to Know Campaign
for Mandatory labelling and long-term
testing of genetically engineered food
500 Wilbrod Street, Ottawa, ON  Canada  K1N 6N2
email: •••@••.•••
http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic
subscription to genetic engineering news of 12 months
is $35 (payable to BanGEF at above address)
__________________________________