PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology

[Guest guest]

25 Jan 2005 17:11:00 -0000

califpacific

 

 

PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology

press-release

 

 

 

The Institute of Science in Society Science Society

Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

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

 

 

ISIS Press Release 25/01/05

 

 

 

PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology

***********************************

 

Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho expose the corruption

of traditional standards in science reporting of GM crops

 

The emergence of genetically modified (GM) foods and crops

has profoundly impacted scientific reporting not only in the

popular media but also in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Public relations (pr) statements, once confined to the

promotion of commercial products, now frequent the pages of

scientific journals.

 

Science was built on the foundations of full and truthful

reporting of observations and findings; not anymore. If

anything, scientific reports that expose the propaganda of

corporations, government and academic promoters of GM crops

are either rejected for publication outright, or

gratuitously attacked when they appear in print; and the

scientist(s) involved mercilessly prosecuted and victimized,

as in the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai and his co-workers in

the UK, who lost their jobs in 1998 or soon after; and Prof.

Ignacio Chapela, researcher from the University of Berkeley,

California, currently fighting to regain his tenure

(http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,

1392979,00.html).

 

In contrast, GM proponents are given free license to make pr

statements posing as science.

 

No Bt resistance?

 

In the January issue of Nature Biotechnology, Sarah Bates

and coworkers observe that transgenic plants expressing

insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus

thuringiensis (Bt) were first commercialized in 1996 " amid

concern from some scientists, regulators and

environmentalists that the widespread use of Bt crops would

inevitably lead to resistance and the loss of a `public

good,' specifically, the susceptibility of insect pests to

Bt proteins. " But, they continue with apparent self-

satisfaction, " Eight years later, Bt corn and cotton have

been grown on a cumulative area >80 million ha worldwide.

Despite dire predictions to the contrary, resistance to a Bt

crop has yet to be documented, suggesting that resistance

management strategies have been effective thus far. "

 

The resistance management strategies include planting non-GM

acreage as refuge to slow down the evolution of resistant

insect pests and the use of high toxin dosage along with

pyramiding more than one toxin genes in a crop.

 

In reality, however, the main reason that insect resistance

has not been detected in the United States - not mentioned

in the article - is that the US Environment Protection

Agency has allowed the GM crop and refuge to be sprayed with

chemical insecticides (see " No Bt resistance? " ISIS Report,

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/nobtresistance.php). Spraying with

chemical insecticides protects the crops from pest damage in

the refuge, and also kills off any insects resistant to the

GM crops.

 

The authors also failed to mention other factors that might

affect the evolution of resistance - the use of synthetic

toxin genes that differ in amino acid sequence from the

natural toxin in commercial GM crops, and the variation in

toxin production among different GM crops - although these

factors are probably not as significant as spraying chemical

insecticides in the refuge. Nevertheless, they could lead to

underestimating the evolution of resistance by failing to

detect resistant insects. Tests for insect resistance are

frequently carried out using the toxin proteins isolated

from bacteria and not the actual toxin produced in the GM

crop.

 

In Canada, chemical insecticides have not been allowed in

the refuge of Bt crops until the upcoming growing season,

but there does not appear to have been any effort to screen

for resistance in that country.

 

That paper is just the latest in a string of misleading

reports that have been deliberately selective and incomplete

in order to serve pr purposes.

 

PR by misrepresentation, permissive substitution and

surrogate testing

 

Advocates have persistently maintained that GM crops are a

simple extension of plant breeding and selection carried on

for thousands of years. That fiction ignores the basic fact

that GM crops are produced in the laboratory by illegitimate

recombination – a process whereby pieces of foreign DNA

break the host genome to insert themselves at unpredictable

places - while traditional plant breeding and selection

depending largely on homologous (legitimate) recombination

during reproduction.

 

What is seldom stated is that GM crops are produced using

synthetic approximations of natural bacterial genes, whether

it is in conferring resistance to herbicides or to insect

pests.

 

The synthetic approximations of natural genes are used

because the bacterial genes function poorly in plants, which

use different codes for the same amino acids. Hence,

synthetic genes could be 60% homologous with the bacterial

genes in DNA sequence and yet produce proteins that have the

same amino acid sequence as the bacterial proteins. But

amino acid sequences are also frequently altered in the GM

plants to increase solubility. C-terminal amino acids (at

the end of the protein chain), too, have been changed on the

assumption, without any proof, that the changes do not

affect biological activity.

 

Also concealed from the public is that " safety " assessment

of GM crops has been performed using protein products and

genes from the bacteria rather than the crops. The

regulators have apparently agreed that the expense of

purifying the products from GM crops need not be incurred as

the products can be recovered at little expense from liquid

bacterial cultures. So none of the safety tests have been

done with the proteins and genes in GM crops!

 

The regulators argued that so long as the crop proteins had

active sites and epitopes characteristic of the bacterial

protein, they must be " equivalent " . In this way, they have

allowed millions of human being to be exposed to products

that are untested and unknown with regard to safety. As the

GM foods are not labeled, there is no way that their health

impacts on the population can be identified after they are

released.

 

The regulators seem to presume that the synthetic DNA and

RNA produced are biologically inactive except for making the

protein. That is a specious belief. It is well known, for

instance, that DNA with excess of CpG activates innate

immunity and induces inflammation. Similarly, the regulatory

role of small RNA species is becoming increasingly evident

(see " RNA subverting the genetic text " SiS 24

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php).

There are numerous examples of DNA and RNA sequences that

have major regulatory roles apart from coding for proteins.

Even freshman students would recognize the importance of

testing the actual synthetic genes and proteins present

in GM crops rather than the surrogates produced in bacteria.

 

Finally, the synthetic genes and gene products that have

been assessed as " safe " purely by bureaucracy are new to our

food chain and the ecosystem and to the entire evolutionary

history of the earth.

 

The scientific journals that should have played the leading

role in safeguarding the traditional standards of good

science and the public good have been co-opted into

performing the most insidious kind of pr for unscrupulous

corporations and scientists pushing the corporate agenda.

They are no longer to be trusted.

 

Source

 

Bates SL, Zhao JZ, Roush RT & Shelton AM. Insect resistance

management in GM crops: past, present and future. Nature

Biotechnology 2005, 23, 57-62/

 

 

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

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HPRPASICB.php

 

If you like this original article from the Institute of

Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving

articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation

or purchase on our website

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/donations.

 

ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation

dedicated to providing critical public information on

cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability

and ecological sustainability in science.

 

 

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

CONTACT DETAILS

 

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London

NW1 OXR

 

telephone: [44 1994 231623] [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20

7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED FOR ANY PROFIT FREE

PURPOSES WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS

ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-

sis.org.uk/.

ANY COMMERCIAL USE MUST BE AGREED WITH ISIS