Guest guest Posted April 26, 2008 Report Share Posted April 26, 2008 GM plants have already been used for population controla and for an overall genocidal programme. I also recommend David Ayoub's Mercury, Autism and the Global Vaccination Program. <http://www.google.com/url?q=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D6890106\ 663412840646 & sa=X & oi=video_result & resnum=1 & ct=thumbnail & usg=AFQjCNFBKVbi2agUTZXc\ 4T-btBL1EeIMsA> *Mercury*, *Autism* and the *Global Vaccine* Agenda<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646> *Mercury*, *Autism* and the *Global Vaccine* Agenda - 91 min - Aug *...* 91 min - [image: Rated 4.8 out of 5.0] video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646 Here is small paragraph from Stephen Lendman's review article on Engdahls's book Seeds of Destruction: Consider how the scheme ties in with Rockefeller Foundation population control strategy. In 2001, it was aided when the privately-owned biotech company, Epicyte, announced it successfully developed the " ultimate GMO crop " - contraceptive corn. It was called a solution to world " over-population, " but news about it vanished after Biolex acquired the company. One way or other, the Rockefeller Foundation aims to reduce population through human reproduction by spreading GMO seeds. It's doing it cooperatively with the UN World Health Organization (WHO) by quietly funding its " reproductive health " program through the use of an innovative tetanus vaccine. Combined with hCG natural hormones, it's an abortion agent preventing pregnancies, but women getting it aren't told. Neither is anything said about the Pentagon viewing population reduction as a sophisticated form of " biological warfare " (to) solve world hunger. " http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va & aid=7849 Global Research, January 19, 2008 Part III This is the third and final part of Stephen Lendman's detailed review of William Engdahl's Seeds of Destruction. The story is chilling and needs to be read in full to learn the type future they plan for us. Seeds of Destruction On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Wani <jocanas wrote: > Eat up your Vaccines. without us even knowing. > > Eat up your vaccines > > Edible vaccines are being touted by the agbiotech industry as an example > of > the benefits genetic engineering can bring to the South. Claims that they > will be cheap, accessible and safe, and eliminate the need for the dreaded > needle, sound like a dream come true. But the vaccine in a banana is still > far from reality, and we will all likely be a lot better off without > itanyway. > > Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) > > _____ > > NOT only have the first generation of genetically modified (GM) crops been > disappointing in terms of their agronomic and economic returns, they have > been a spectacular failure in terms of generating public support for GM > foods. In many countries, the spread of GM crops has largely come to a > standstill. As a result, the agbiotech industry has changed direction and > is > hoping to win the public over with its new collection of designer crops. > > Unlike the first generation, which supposedly delivered benefits for the > producer, the second-generation crops will - we are promised - be designed > with the consumer in mind. > > The second generation is focusing on what are known as 'functional foods'. > Broadly defined, these are products with a claimed consumer benefit, such > as > taste, nutritional value, or as a drug delivery system. Functional foods, > such as chocolate bars with ginseng, are already widely available in > Europe > and the US. To date, the extra 'function' has been added during > processing, > rather than as a result of genetic manipulation, but this is set to change > shortly. All the major agbiotech giants - such as Syngenta (the > agribusiness > company formed in November 2000 from the merger of Novartis Agribusiness > and > Zeneca Agrochemicals), Monsanto and Aventis - are investing heavily in > functional foods. Their agenda is clear. Daniel Vasella, chairman and CEO > of > Novartis, echoes the hopes of the whole industry in his belief that > 'tangible consumer benefits could turn the debate on genetically modified > food.' > > Some of the more ambitious functional foods in the pipeline are those with > pharmaceutical applications. A growing number of companies are starting to > engineer plants to produce therapeutic proteins to be used as drugs and > vaccines. Up to now, mammalian and microbial cell cultures have been used > as > 'bioreactors' to produce these therapeutic proteins, which generate more > than US$18 billion in combined sales per year, a figure projected to > increase by 20-30% this decade. > > The attraction of plant-based systems is that they exhibit good genetic > stability, and are cheaper to develop and easier to scale up for > commercial > production. The US-based company Epicyte Pharmaceutical has a number of > 'plantibodies' (proprietary technologies for producing antibodies in > plants) > in clinical development. CropTech corporation is genetically modifying > tobacco to produce therapeutic proteins and Large-Scale Biology is working > on a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma vaccine. Planet Biology is conducting clinical > trials on a monoclonal antibody produced in GM plants that prevents the > oral > bacterial infection that contributes to tooth decay. > > Edible vaccines > > Of all the work on functional foods, research into edible vaccines has > captured the public's imagination the most. 'One day children may get > immunised by munching on foods instead of enduring shots,' suggests > Scientific American magazine. 'More important, food vaccines might save > millions who now die for lack of access to traditional inoculants.' > > Edible vaccines are the latest, greatest hope of the floundering biotech > industry, along with Vitamin A or 'golden' rice, to convince a sceptical > public that genetic engineering will help the hungry and sick in the South > as well as the North. Foods under study as edible vaccines include > bananas, > potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, rice, wheat, soybeans and corn. The media > have > delighted in conjuring up images of African families venturing no further > than their garden to pluck a vaccine-laden banana from their homegrown > tree > to protect them from the major killer diseases of the day. Hoechst's > in-house magazine, Future, says that 'We may some day think that getting a > shot against hepatitis is a rather primitive, old-fashioned way to > administer a vaccine.' > > The advantages, says Scientific American, 'would be enormous. The plants > could be grown locally, and cheaply, using the standard growing methods of > a > given region. Because many good plants can be regenerated readily, the > crops > could potentially be produced indefinitely without the growers having to > purchase more seeds or plants year after year. Homegrown vaccines would > also > avoid the logistical and economic problems posed by having to transport > traditional preparations over long distances, keeping them cold en route > and > at their destination. And, being edible, the vaccines would require no > syringes - which, aside from costing something, can lead to infections if > they become contaminated.' > > Medicine's Holy Grail > > Vaccination is one of the medical world's greatest success stories. > > 'Vaccines have accomplished near miracles in the fight against infectious > disease,' proclaims Scientific American. Between 1970 and the late 1990s, > an > international campaign to immunise all the world's children against six > devastating diseases (diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, measles, tetanus > and tuberculosis) increased the number of infants vaccinated from 5% to > about 80%, and reduced the annual death toll from those infections by > roughly three million. But, vaccine proponents argue, the 20% of infants > still missed by the six vaccines account for about two million unnecessary > deaths each year, especially in the most remote and impoverished parts of > the globe. Regions harbouring infections that have faded from other areas > are like bombs ready to explode, and international travel and trade > increase > the mobility of infectious diseases. 'Until everyone has routine access to > vaccines, no one will be entirely safe,' warns Scientific American. > > The World Health Organisation (WHO) has called for new strategies to > deliver > vaccines to reach the populations that existing programmes have failed to > reach. Existing vaccines are expensive, need refrigeration and require a > skilled person to give the injection - with needles that are hard to come > by > in some places. Hence the appeal of edible vaccines. But just how > realistic > or desirable is the dream of the backyard vaccine banana? > > Backyard bounty > > Appealing as it is, reality will probably fall short of the backyard > banana > tree. 'Our main worry with this technology is the dosage,' says Bernard > Ivanoff, global coordinator for vaccines at the WHO. In determining the > right dosage, the patients' weight and age need to be considered, as would > the size and even ripeness of the banana. Charles Arntzen, one of the > pioneers of edible vaccines, acknowledges the challenge of assessing how > much an infant, in particular, ingests. 'A baby may eat a bite and not > want > any more, may spit up half of it, or eat it all and throw it up later,' he > concedes. > > Researchers are now recognising that edible vaccines would be unlikely to > make the role of the vaccine provider redundant, and that attempting to > concentrate the vaccine into a teaspoon of baby food would be more > practical > than administering a whole banana. This, then, begs the question: why > bother > to engineer it into a banana in the first place? > > Big task for a banana > > Because heat denatures (inactivates) vaccines, the food material being > engineered to produce the vaccine will have to be eaten raw. Many current > studies focus on engineering vaccines into potatoes - the potato can > attribute its current popularity to the fact that it is easy to engineer - > but it is generally recognised that the potato is unlikely to be a popular > or practical vehicle. > > Bananas are being eyed as the vehicle of choice, particularly for Third > World applications, because of their worldwide popularity, abundance and > baby-friendliness. But bananas have their own problems. They contain very > little protein, so they are unlikely to produce large amounts of > recombinant > proteins (i.e., vaccines). Banana trees also take a few years to mature > and > the fruit spoils fairly rapidly after ripening, making transportation and > storage difficult. Researchers at Cornell University in the US have so far > been unsuccessful in their attempts to engineer a vaccine into a banana > plant. Even if they can be tweaked to produce viable amounts of vaccine, > it > is well known that plants don't grow very well when they are producing > large > amounts of foreign protein. The GM potatoes used in Cornell's human trials > were small - about the size of a thumb. > > Transportation > > One of the big draws for edible vaccines is the potential to drastically > reduce or eliminate transport costs. But the impracticality of the > backyard > banana means that the elimination of transport costs is not a realistic > scenario. Some researchers imagine vaccines being produced in national or > regional greenhouses, which would be an improvement on flying the vaccines > in from overseas, but this could probably better be achieved by > establishing > a conventional vaccine plant in-country. The environmental and ecological > risks posed by edible vaccines (see below) also make it questionable > whether > many countries in the South should be expected to have the facilities and > expertise available to grow the vaccines safely and successfully. > > Needle-free shots > > Another much-hyped advantage ignores the fact that if they could be given > orally, today's vaccines already would be. Few vaccines are absorbed well > from the gut because they are too big to cross the gut wall easily and/or > are broken down by the gut enzymes. Edible vaccines would be subject to > the > same limitations as any other oral drugs. > > Cheap, cheap, cheap? > > One of the key goals of the edible-vaccine pioneers is to reduce > immunisation costs. The theory goes that edible vaccines would be far > cheaper than current injectable vaccines since they would not have to > undergo the expensive purification and refrigeration of traditional > vaccines, and shipping costs would be much reduced. As we have seen, > shipping costs may not necessarily be significantly reduced, and edible > vaccines may still require refrigeration. Even if edible vaccines are > cheaper, it is not clear that this will lead to increased vaccination > coverage, since the cost of the vaccine is a small part of the whole > package. According to the WHO, to immunise a child costs no more than $1 > for > the big six vaccines, but $14 for programme costs (laboratories, > transport, > cold chain, personnel and research). For the newer, more expensive > vaccines, > such as hepatitis B and AIDS, the cost of the vaccine plays a more > significant role, but the nature of the vehicle (banana or syringe) will > still only represent a small part of the total cost. > > Will they work? > > Research into edible vaccines is still at a very early stage and they have > a > long way to go in proving their efficacy. Getting plants to express > adequate > amounts of the vaccine is proving challenging enough, let alone > translating > that into an appropriate immunological response in people. Producing > stable > and reliable amounts of vaccines in plants is complicated by the fact that > tomatoes and bananas don't come in standard sizes. There may also be > side-effects due to the interaction between the vaccine and the vehicle. > In > many countries in the South, stringent quality control standards for > standard drugs are quite a luxury, let alone dealing with the added > complications posed by edible vaccines. People could ingest too much of > the > vaccine, which could be toxic, or too little, which could lead to disease > outbreaks among populations believed to be immune. > > Oral vaccines are also more difficult to formulate than injectables - for > example, the oral polio vaccine is more convenient but less effective than > the injectable one. The vaccines are likely to need cofactors (adjuvants) > such as cholera toxin to enhance their uptake and increase their > effectiveness. In addition, new vaccines have to be tested worldwide, > since > their effectiveness is not uniform in different contexts. When the > tuberculosis vaccine (BCG) was tested in the UK, it proved to be > effective. > > But it did not work in India, probably because tuberculosis is linked to > nutritional status. > > Environmental and health risks > > Over the last two decades, there has been a dramatic increase in outbreaks > of new and re-emerging infectious diseases. One of the factors implicated > in > this phenomenon is the transfer of genes across unrelated species of > animals > and plants. This 'horizontal gene transfer' has been pinpointed as being > responsible for the new bacterial strains involved in the cholera outbreak > in India in 1992 and the Streptococcus epidemic in the UK in 1993. > > Antibiotics and traditional vaccines already contribute to horizontal gene > transfer. Recombinant vaccines, like those that would be used in edible > vaccines, would exacerbate such transfer. This is a serious concern for > the > release of any genetically manipulated organism, but particularly > worrisome > in the case of vaccines, because of their disease-causing potential. > > The ecological and environmental risks of edible vaccines seem to have > received little attention, despite the fact that they present major > hazards > (see box). Containing these risks, assuming they are taken seriously, > would > certainly eliminate the possibility of the backyard banana, and greenhouse > facilities would need to be rigidly controlled. The risks associated with > edible vaccines are particularly worrisome given the medical community's > blind faith in vaccination in general and its seeming unwillingness to > take > seriously evidence that has been accumulating related to vaccine safety > (such as the rise of autoimmune diseases). > > Regulators are trying to figure out how to deal with plants engineered to > produce drugs. Some safeguards are already in place. In the US, all field > tests of drug-producing plants require government permits, while some > field > tests of other modified crops require only notification of the relevant > government body. For no particular sound scientific reason, the required > distance by which the drug-bearing plants must be isolated from other > plants > to prevent cross-pollination has been set at double the usual distance. > But, > as with releases of all genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the > parameters considered in determining a product's 'safety' are extremely > limited, and do not inspire confidence in dealing with the many and varied > risks associated with edible vaccines. > > Vaccine movers and shakers > > Much research on edible vaccines is being undertaken in the public sector > at > present (see box). The industry is eager to hype up the benefits of edible > vaccines to win over support for genetic engineering, but this seems to be > more of a public relations exercise than real commitment. As indicated by > the roster of patent applications on edible vaccines ( table not > included), > most industry research is being undertaken by small technology companies, > rather than the big vaccine producers. A few large companies, like Mycogen > (Dow Agrosciences), are looking into edible vaccines, but are more > interested in the livestock market than human application. > > Cornell University's of Cornell's Charles Arntzen, who pioneered the idea > of > edible vaccines, says he has had little success in selling the idea of > edible vaccines to the big vaccine producers. He sees two main reasons for > this. Firstly, his main focus has been on vaccines for the South, such as > diarrhoeal vaccines, which are not seen as a good investment by the > companies. Secondly, they 'have the market sewn up with traditional > injections'. Arntzen believes that a small vaccine start-up will have to > lead the way in proving the viability of the technology, and that the big > companies will follow. > > Historically, profit margins in vaccine markets have been low as compared > to > pharmaceutical markets primarily due to the non-proprietary nature of > common > vaccines. In the 1970s and 1980s, innovation was slowed by the paucity of > resources and competition in this area, primarily due to concerns of > liability and commercial viability. In the US, legislation in the last 10 > years that removed liability from companies except in relation to > manufacturing defects has encouraged re-entry into the market. Vaccine > companies are reaping bigger profits again. The world vaccine market was > estimated to be $3.6 billion in 1999 and is growing at 12% annually. > > The market is highly concentrated, with three pharmaceutical giants > (SmithKline Beecham, Aventis [which has swallowed up both Merck and > Pasteur > Connaught Merieux] and Wyeth Lederle) accounting for more than 75% of > sales. > > The advent of recombinant vaccines, which are being developed against > malaria, AIDS and hepatitis B, means that vaccines are no longer > necessarily > cheap. When it first came on the market in the US, the hepatitis B vaccine > cost $150 a shot. Although the price has now come down to $1, it is still > well out of the range of affordability in developing countries. Some > researchers point to these new recombinant vaccines as possible candidates > for edible vaccines: the injectable vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, > pertussis, and so on are so cheap now that there would be little incentive > to develop edible vaccines for them. But it is just these technologies > that > the corporations would be hugging tightly to their chests for as long as > their patents will allow. > > Vaccine companies are only interested in developing vaccines that will > sell > in the North. As HIV vaccine developer Stanley Plotkin of Aventis Pasteur > explains, 'The keystone of the [global vaccination] system is that the > research costs are recouped in North America and Europe, and the vaccines > are sold in the developing world at much, much lower margins.' Hence, very > little research is undertaken on diseases that have no market in the > North. > > According to the World Bank, funds for global public and non-profit > malaria > research in 1993 totalled about $84 million, with only a small part of > that > devoted to vaccine research. The amount of private sector spending is > 'generally considered to be even smaller.' Because of this, the World Bank > is looking into setting up a $1 billion fund to help countries purchase > vaccines. Such a fund could 'ensure that there would be a market for > malaria, tuberculosis or AIDS vaccines if they were developed, and thus > would create incentives for vaccine research.' > > How effective the establishment of such a fund would be in stimulating > research in the industry remains to be seen, but it would no doubt be > welcomed by the agencies involved in vaccination programmes in the South, > such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the WHO. > > In terms of the potential of edible vaccines, the WHO is cautiously > optimistic. > > According to the WHO's Uli Fruth, the 'WHO is very interested in > technologies which (a) may render vaccines more affordable for use in > developing countries, (b) may allow future vaccine production in > developing > countries and © can be delivered needle-free. All three conditions > appear > to be fulfilled in this case.' The WHO is not investing heavily in > edible-vaccine research, but has provided some seed-funding (Arntzen's > work > on edible vaccines at Cornell) to help establish proof of principle. Fruth > acknowledges that before endorsing such vaccines for human use, the WHO's > concerns related to quality assurance, efficacy and environmental impact > will need to be addressed in a satisfactory fashion. But if the WHO's > position on GM foods is anything to go by, its approach to safety issues > is > unlikely to be very wide-reaching or reassuring. A joint WHO/FAO > consultation on the safety of GM foods recently concluded that the > pre-marketing safety assessment [of GM foods] already gives assurance that > the food is as safe as its conventional counterparts.' > > Just a pipe dream? > > Despite their willingness to present edible vaccines as an example of the > benefits of GM foods, the pharmaceutical and agbiotech industries seem to > be > merely tinkering with the idea at the moment, and are not investing > heavily > in research. A few small biotech companies and university departments are > pioneering the way. It is possible that in time they may convince the > corporate giants to let go of their established technology and invest in > edible vaccines, but this seems unlikely given the complexity of the > challenge of creating a safe, convenient and affordable product. People > all > over the world can breathe a big sigh of relief (at least for now), given > the serious risks that edible vaccines pose. As Norway's biosafety expert > Terje Traavik has pointed out, 'there is a most striking lack of holistic > and ecological thinking with regard to vaccine risks. This seems to be > symptomatic of the real lack of touch between research in medicine and > molecular biology on one hand, and potential ecological and environmental > effects of these activities on the other.' > > The potential for harm that edible vaccines pose highlights the need for > thorough and wide-reaching risk assessments for GMO releases. > > Current frameworks for regulation are woefully inadequate. In addition, > researchers and policy makers need to examine closely the whole field of > infectious diseases. There are other ways of preventing the spread of > infectious diseases (such as breaking transmission chains) and these must > be > given greater attention instead of focusing solely on the technofix > solution > of vaccination. This does not necessarily mean abandoning vaccination > altogether, but developing a more holistic approach to the management of > infectious diseases. > > Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) <www.grain.org > <http://www.grain.org%20%3Chttp:/www.grain.org> <http://www.grain.org>> is > an international non-governmental organisation promoting the sustainable > management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on people's control > over genetic resources and local knowledge, with a special emphasis on > developing countries. The above article first appeared in GRAIN' quarterly > newsletter, Seedling (December 2000). > > Main Sources > > *WH Langridge (2000), 'Edible Vaccines' Scientific American, September > 2000. > > *T Traavik (1999), 'Environmental Effects of Genetically Engineered > > Vaccines,'hird World Network Online, > <http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/vaccine.htm> > > *Mae-Wan Ho et al (1999), 'Sowing Diseases, New and Old', Third World > Network Online, <http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/heal-cn.htm> > > *M Hansen (1999), 'Gnetic Engineering is Not an Extension of Conventional > Plant Breeding,'Consumer Policy Institute, > <http://www.consumersunion.org/food/widecpi200.htm> > > *R Glennerster and M Kremer (2000), 'A World Bank Vaccine Commitment' > Brookings Policy Brief #57, May 2000. > > *'Safety Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods of Plant Origin', Report of > a > Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, > WHO, > Geneva 2000. WHO and UNICEF (1996), The State of the World's Vaccines and > Immunisation, <http://www.unicef.org/newsline/vpressr.htm> > > *V Griffith (2000) 'Fighting Disease with Edible Vaccines,' Future > (Hoechst > in-house > magazine), > http://www.archive.hoechst.com/english-3er/publikationen/future/er > naehr/art3.htm > > *A Pollack (2000), 'Ventures Aim to Put Farms in Pharmaceutical Vanguard,' > New York Times, 14 May 2000. > > *J Toonen (1996), 'Seeds of a New Medicine,' Biotechnology and Development > Monitor No.27, pp 12-14, > <http://www.gene.ch/www/pscw.uva.nl/monitor/2707.htm> > > . Wilkins (1999), 'Edible Vaccines I'll Take Mine With a Grain of > Salt,' Biotech Times Vol.5, No.2. > > *Personal communication with Charles Arntzen, Arizona State University; > Uli > Fruth, Vaccines and Biologicals, WHO; and Ted McKinney, Mycogen. > > Box stories > > Who is doing what with edible vaccines? > > . The first human clinical trial of an edible vaccine took place in > 1997, when volunteers ate raw potatoes genetically engineered against > diarrhoea-causing E coli. Ten of the 11 volunteers who received the > vaccine > had fourfold rises in serum antibodies. > > . Researchers from the Boyce Thompson Institute (BTI) at Cornell > University conducted another clinical trial of an edible vaccine in 1999. > Potatoes containing the Norwalk virus (which causes vomiting and > diarrhoea) > fed to volunteers elicited an immune response in 19 out of 20 subjects. > BTI > researchers are attempting to engineer vaccines into bananas and have > produced powdered tomatoes that carry Norwalk virus DNA. BTI scientists > have > also been awarded a Rockefeller Foundation grant - $58,000 for three years > - > to collaborate with Mexican researchers at the Mexican health agency, > CINESTAV. > > . Prodigene and Stauffer Seeds (a spin-off of Staffer Chemical, > formerly a division of Novartis) have conducted clinical trials on pigs > using an edible vaccine for transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) > expressed in corn, and are developing a Hepatitis B vaccine for humans. > > . The US' Large Scale Biology Corporation is developing a > patient-specific non-Hodgkin's lymphoma vaccine in plants. Current methods > for making the custom vaccine require up to a year to produce vaccine for > patient use; LSB thinks its production process could reduce that time to > 6-8 > weeks. > > . Under license from Mycogen, the UK's Axis Genetics was developing > an oral hepatitis B booster vaccine in edible plants, and had plans for > Norwalk virus and diarrhoea. Axis went out of business in 2000, saying > that > protests over bioengineered food had scared off investors. Myocgen > continues > to work on edible vaccines for animals. > > . Under license from Groupe Limagrain, Meristem Therapeutics has > developed industrial processes for the large-scale production of > recombinant > therapeutic proteins in plants. Plants including tobacco, corn, potato and > rape seed are being used as bioreactors for the production of enzymes, > antibodies, and vaccines. > > . The Scripps Research Institute is working on an edible HIV vaccine. > > Initial success has been reported in splicing amino acids from HIV into > the > cowpea mosaic virus (CPMV). When inoculated with CPMV, cowpea plants > reproduce HIV. > > . Scientists in Poland working with the US' Thomas Jefferson > University have tested a hepatitis B vaccine contained in lettuce on human > subjects. > > . In Melbourne, Australia, CSIRO has grown a measles-fighting tobacco > plant and has begun pilot studies with oral plant-based vaccines for > malaria > and HIV. > > Genes going wild > > Genetic engineering is inherently hazardous because it depends on > developing > gene transfer vectors (carriers) specifically designed to cross wide > species > barriers. It promotes the transfer of genes horizontally across species, > instead of vertically within species by inheritance. It is also > increasingly > designed to overcome the species' defence mechanisms which degrade or > inactivate foreign genes. It is still a very crude science, with genes > being > inserted at random points in the host's genetic material (genome), rather > than being carefully pinpointed as happens in traditional breeding. For > these and other reasons, genetic engineering destabilises the genomes of > its > plant and animal hosts, and the effects ricochet through the neighbouring > ecosystem. There is growing evidence that by facilitating horizontal gene > transfer and recombination, genetic engineering may be contributing to the > emergence and re-emergence of infectious, drug-resistant diseases. > > Edible vaccines (even subunit vaccines) will always entail the ingestion > of > recombinant viral genetic material, and hence pose considerable risks to > the > environment and health. Edible subunit vaccines are likely to be less > dangerous than those that may be produced using genetically modified > viruses > and viruses used as vectors (carriers) for the vaccine. But they still > involve the insertion of foreign genes into the plants and the > implications > thereof. Genetically tweaking the pathogen to reduce its potency is even > more risky. It has been demonstrated that minor genetic changes in, or > differences between, viruses can result in dramatic changes in host > spectrum > and disease-causing potentials. According to Terje Traavik of the > Norwegian > Institute of Gene Ecology, 'For all these vaccines, important questions > concerning effects on species other than the targeted one are left > unanswered so far.' There are also considerable risks related to the > possibility of a genetically engineered vaccine virus engaging in > recombinations with naturally-occurring relatives. New viruses resulting > from such events 'may have totally unpredictable characteristics with > regard > to host preferences and disease-causing potential,' says Traavik. > > Naked DNA vaccines, which comprise the genes of the pathogen without the > virus 'shell,' are perhaps the most risky. These short pieces of DNA are > readily taken up by cells of all species, and may become integrated into > the > cell's genetic material. Unlike chemical pollutants which dilute out and > degrade over time, these small DNA fragments can be taken up by cells and > multiply and mutate indefinitely. They are known to have significant and > harmful biological effects, including cancers in mammals. Upon release or > escape to the wrong place at the wrong time, horizontal gene transfer with > unpredictable biological and ecological effects is a very serious, and as > yet unregulated, hazard. > > Sources: T Traavik (1999), 'Environmental Effects of Genetically > Engineered > Vaccines,' Third World Network Online, > > <http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/vaccine.htm>; Mae-Wan Ho et al (1999), > > 'Unregulated Hazards of Naked and Free Nucleic Acids', ISIS report for the > Third World Network. <http://www.i-sis.org/naked.shtml> > > How vaccines work > > Vaccines work by priming the immune system to swiftly destroy specific > disease-causing agents before they can multiply enough to cause symptoms. > To > date, this priming has been achieved by presenting the immune system with > whole viruses or bacteria that have been killed or 'attenuated' (made too > weak to proliferate much). The immune system responds to this vaccine as > if > it were under attack by a fully potent antagonist and mobilises its forces > to destroy the foreign body. Memory cells are then left behind on alert, > ready to unleash whole armies of defenders if the real pathogen ever finds > its way into the body. > > Classic vaccines pose a small risk in that the killed or attenuated > microorganism can sometimes spring back to life, causing the disease they > were meant to prevent. For this reason, 'subunit' vaccines (which contain > no > genes, just proteins derived from them) are now favoured, since they > reduce > this risk. They are, however, often not as effective as live vaccines. > > Subunit vaccines are also expensive, because they are produced in cultures > of bacteria or animal cells and have to be purified and refrigerated. > > Many researchers hope that they will be able to develop edible vaccines > which are similar to subunit preparations, containing only the genes > coding > for certain antigens, not the whole virus or bacterium. One of the main > hurdles to be overcome here is that the antigens could be degraded in the > stomach before having time to act. (Typical subunit vaccines have to be > delivered by injection precisely because of this). Researchers working on > an > edible hepatitis B vaccine suggest that oral doses may need to be 10-100 > times higher than the injectable dose to elicit a comparable immune > response. > > Source: WH Langridge (2000), 'Edible Vaccines', Scientific American, > September > > Edible vaccines > > Professor Joe Cummins points out the risks of edible vaccines now under > development in a variety of common food plants. > > IN the early 1980s, the World Health Organisation called for oral vaccines > that do not need refrigeration and are inexpensive to produce. > > Such vaccines, it was believed, would eradicate most infectious diseases > worldwide. > > During the past 10 years, crop genetic modification has been investigated > as > a means of making edible vaccines that could be produced locally without > refrigeration. Food vaccines have been developed using bananas, potatoes > and > tomatoes, as well as lettuce, rice, wheat, soybeans and corn. Corn and > alfalfa have been developed to provide vaccines for farm animals. For the > most part, the vaccines are developed using selected proteins from the > virus > or bacterium being protected against. In some instances, plant viruses > such > as alfalfa mosaic virus or tobacco mosaic virus are modified to produce > antigens (proteins eliciting immune reaction) of mammalian virus or > bacterial disease. The modified plant viruses rapidly produce high levels > of > antigens for oral immunisation against mammalian viruses or bacterial > pathogens [1]. Many edible vaccines are poised for release and clinical > trial, even though numerous important questions remain unsolved. > > One complication with oral vaccines is 'oral tolerance'. When antigens are > taken up in food repeatedly, the production of antibody in the immune > response may be suppressed. In autoimmune diseases such as arthritis, > diabetes and multiple sclerosis, antigens are produced in tissues which > are > attacked by the body's own immune response. When quantities of the target > antigen, such as collagen in arthritis, are eaten, the autoimmune disease > is > suppressed, and many patients experience relief. Indeed, antigens for > autoimmune disease are being introduced into crop plants to treat the > symptoms of autoimmune disease. For the same reason, however, oral > vaccines > in food may lead to undesirable suppression of immunity to the disease > normally protected by the vaccine [1,2]. > > Food crops containing vaccines may readily contaminate crops that are used > as food. This point has been made previously [3]. For example, it is > assumed > that potatoes do not spread by pollination or by over-wintering tubers. > > Actually, both modes of transfer are known. Genes for the vaccines may > also > spread horizontally by sucking insects and by transfer to soil microbes. > The > genes and proteins may be released during plant wounding or breakdown of > roots and rootlets and pollute surface and ground water. The vaccines may > provoke allergic responses if humans or other mammals or birds are > repeatedly exposed to the allergen. > > In addition, many instances of recombination between viral transgenes and > viruses have already been reported (reviewed in [4]). Have these plants > been > assessed for their ability to generate recombinant viruses? When genes of > viruses infecting human beings are incorporated into plants, are we not > increasing the potential for generating new recombinant viruses that may > cross from plants to human beings? > > The crops modified to produce edible vaccines should be scrupulously > maintained for that purpose alone. Recently corn modified as an edible > vaccine for a swine virus was promoted by the company inventing it. It was > promised that the genetically modified (GM) corn would be grown under > 'rigorously controlled conditions, and used only for the expressed purpose > of vaccine production' [5]. Such a commitment is essential but such > promises > should be viewed in the light of StarLink corn that was approved only for > animal consumption but appeared in foods for human consumption. > > GM crops as edible vaccines should be restricted to plant tissue culture > or > to contained plant growth chambers or high-security greenhouses. During > epidemics such as the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, there is likely to > be > pressure to widely grow GM alfalfa modified with foot-and-mouth virus > structural proteins [6]. However, widespread and prolonged exposure to the > virus antigens is likely to defeat the purpose of the vaccine. There is > also > the risk of creating new strains of foot-and-mouth virus as well as > viruses > that cross between plant and animal kingdoms [3]. > > In conclusion, edible vaccines made up of GM crops modified with genes > from > disease organisms are inexpensive to produce and do not need > refrigeration. > > However, careless releases of GM vaccine crops to the environment and > general food supply are likely to produce undesirable side-effects such as > greater disease impact or allergy to the food. Edible vaccines in GM crops > should be strictly confined to laboratory tissue culture, growth chambers > or > greenhouses. > > 1. Landridge,W. (2000). 'Edible Vaccines'. Scientific American online, > September. > > 2. Weiner, H. (1997). 'Oral tolerance for treatment of autoimmune > diseases'. Ann Rev Med 48,341-51. > > 3. Ho, M. W. and Steinbrecher, R. (1998). 'Fatal Flaws in Food Safety > Assessment'. Environmental & Nutritional Interactions 2, 51-84 > > 4. Ho, M. W., Ryan, A. and Cummins, J. (2000). 'Hazards of transgenic > plants with the cauliflower mosaic viral promoter'. Microbial Ecology I in > Health and Disease 12, 6-11. > > 5. 'Edible Vaccine Success'. In Brief, Nature Biotechnology 18,367,2000. > > 6. Wigdorovitz, A., Carrillo, C., Dus Santos, M., Trono, K., Peralta, A., > Gomez, M., Rios, R., Franzone, P., Sadir, A., Escribano, J. and Borca,M. > (1999). 'Induction of a protective antibody response to foot and mouth > disease virus in mice following oral or parenteral immunisation with > alfalfa > transgenic plants expressing the viral structural protein VP1'. Virology > 255,347-53. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.