|
Dates and Locations for Royal Commission Public Meetings The only opportunity for general public to address the commission in person, in the Auckland area. Check the RC web site for details.
PUBLIC MEETINGS Date
15 November
Date 16 November GM multinationals admit that containment is impossible by Clare Harman, Just Food The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification opened yesterday (16 October) to hear two of the ³big six² multinationals established in the field of GM products admit that it is impossible to guarantee containment. The two companies questioned were cross-examined by the anti-GM groups: Greenpeace, the Green Party, an organic industry group and the Nelson GE-free Awareness Group. The 14-week Wellington commission is the first substantial inquiry into the topic of GM foods in the world, and it is seeking to way up the benefits and the risks of the new crops, dubbed ³franken-foods² by anti-GM protestors. Aventis, the French pharmaceutical giant and manufacturer of the StarLink corn currently causing no end of problems in the US retail sector, stood before the hearing first. Product safety manager, Robert MacDonald, conceded that cross-pollination would occur and agreed that strong regulation ³would be required.² The company recommended a national biotech strategy to ³realise the potential benefits² of the fledgling technology. Naomi Steven s, the head of public affairs, commented that future plants could combat diseases in humans and prove resistant to cold and drought, with the added advantage of improved nutrition and shelf life. She added, however that she was ³not sure² that long term clinical testing would provide conclusive evidence on the allergenic effects of GM foods on human consumers. The US-based DuPont also admitted that there were no guarantees with GM products. Clive Holland, representing the company, commented that: ³nothing in life is risk free but all our data shows we are comfortably way above the line on safety.² To date, he added, no introduced DNA had been transferred into food products by animals reared on GM feed. DuPont accepted that public concerns were rife about the technology, and that: ³While much of these concerns arise from misinformation or alarmist exaggeration, we nevertheless believe that we should proceed with caution. A scientifically impeccable process is needed and as much information as possible should be made available publicly.² This said, the company stressed that GM crops could increase productivity, provide new products and reduce pesticide use. Cereal giant closes plant as consumers wonder what's in our food On October 21, 2000 - Kellogg Company, the nation's largest cereal maker, closed a plant earlier this week over concerns about contamination of the corn supply by a variety of genetically engineered (GE) corn that is only approved for animal feed. According to the Washington Post, the company has not been able to find a supply of corn free from StarLink corn, a GE crop that has been found illegally in at least three supermarket foods. Government food safety experts warn that StarLink corn could trigger allergic reactions, in-cluding fever, rashes or diarrhea. "When you see Kellogg's cereal, you shouldn't have to wonder if animal feed is winding up in your kid's breakfast," said Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Specialist Charles Margulis. "We call on Kellogg's to take the lead against this experiment on our food by eliminating all genetically engineered ingredients from the food they sell to our children." Yesterday, Tyson Foods, the world's largest poultry producer, said it had stopped buying StarLink even for its chicken farms. On Thursday Greenpeace sent a letter to Kellogg's and over 35 major U.S. food companies, requesting information on the steps they are taking to insure that unapproved altered crops are not in the food supply. The letter, co-signed by the GE Food Alert coalition, was prompted by reports that some companies were quietly removing products from stores and taking other action without consumers' knowledge. Kellogg's has been circumspect on the issue - food industry sources told the Post about the plant closing, but the company refused to confirm the report. "Kellogg's brought this problem on itself by supporting genetically altered food," said Margulis. "The company has ignored the concerns of American consumers for too long. Kellogg's has stopped using gene-altered food in Europe, they must now offer Americans the same protection." In the past month alone, Kellogg's has received over 28,000 phone calls and letter from Americans who are concerned about GE food. The company has become a focal point for food safety and environmental protests since Greenpeace launched its efforts targeting Kellogg's last October. According to a Caravan Opinion Research Poll commissioned last year by Greenpeace, only 30% of Americans think that Kellogg's would use GE food. A letter from Kellogg's European Division to Greenpeace says that the company's does not use genetically engineered ingredients in its cereal there, but Kellogg's letters to American consumers acknowledges that its products are "likely [to] include biotechnology-produced grain." About 200 tonnes of US corn product has been imported in NZ this month. The NZ Ministry of Health is liaising with US and Japanese health authorities to identify illegal food stuffs that may contain genetically modified "Starlink" corn not approved for use in food. The move comes after reports were received from Japan of food stuffs from the United States found to contain Starlink corn. Starlink corn is currently only approved for use in animal feed in the United States. Ministry of Health Food Manager, Jim Sim said it would take two or three days to confirm which products allegedly contain the Starlink corn. "Once we have this information we will be able to identify products that may be affected and take action to ensure that these products are removed from sale if any have been imported." Mr Sim said to date, one product called Taco Bell brand taco shells, has been confirmed by overseas authorities as containing the corn. The Ministry has confirmed that this product is not marketed in New Zealand. The Ministry of Health is working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) and the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) to identify and restrict distribution of any products found to contain the corn. Further information is also being sought through the US Embassy. The safety of imported foods is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health.
Spinning Around The Commission This will probably annoy you. Francis Wevers attempts to spin all over the place, contradicting himself on a number of occasions and bringing in the spin doctors favourite slogan "choice" Its the consumers choice he says. But previously he has already rejected the public choice if it were to decide to reject GE - all we are supposed to be able to choose is whether to buy it or not. I had previous hopes that Wevers was a reasonable individual but it seems he is just a clever wordsmith and the NZLife Sciences network is as thought, a slightly more clever Genepool ...stu Reflections on the first two weeks of a Royal Commission Francis Wevers, Executive Director, NZ LSN 29 October 2000 Our perception is that the greatest moments of history are recorded on glorious battlefields or in vaulted majestic halls and courtrooms. The founding moments of nations and the discovery or enunciation of great ideas should happen in an appropriately grand place. But the reality of often more tawdry and the rooms in which momentous history is made are often non-descript and unremarkable, giving no physical signposts to the importance of the issues being determined. This is often particularly true of the great discoveries in science. So it is with the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification in New Zealand. Meeting in a Spartan space on the 11th floor of a weary office building the greatest issue of the new millennium is being deliberated upon by two men and two women who are expected to exercise the judgement of Solomon for a country, if not for the whole globe. For two weeks now Sir Thomas Eichelbaum and his fellow Royal Commissioners have been listening to, and occasionally questioning, some of the best scientists in New Zealand about the mysteries, the moral dilemmas and the mythology of modern biotechnology; in particular genetic modification. The Commissioners responsibility is to advise the Government of New Zealand on the strategic options for this small island nation, which derives 65% of its Gross National Product from growing plants and animals. In other words to make a choice, either to use the new tools which science has developed or, to adopt a basis for economic development which excludes techniques many are opposed to or fearful of. But, is this a popularity poll where the views of the majority determine the outcome? The Royal Commissionıs Terms of Reference make it clear it is not; though the views of the public are important in coming to an informed opinion, which will have some prospect of political implementation following the presentation of the final report. So it is about the choices we make and the basis on which we make them. As these first two weeks have played out it has been hard not to be excited by the scope and the complexity of the science which is being undertaken in New Zealand. It has also been hard not to be impressed by the dedication of scientists and institutions who are trying to compete in a global knowledge race with frugal financial resources which is made even harder by a regulatory regime which appears to assume all biotech research is inherently harmful. Impressed by the use of GM technology for everything from finding new species of rare and endangered native species of fish and frogs, to providing hope of eradication of introduced pests. Impressed by the use of GM technology to
· Identify a possible cure for stomach cancer in Maori; And impressed by the way the list goes on. But New Zealand is still some distance from commercialising the work of its scientists. And then there are those who doubt (or are opposed). While Greenpeace, the Green Party, the organics industry, Friends of the Earth and others have not had to make their case in opposition yet they have had the opportunity to test the basis of the assertions of benefit made by scientists. Some themes are emerging. The organics people have held, and will probably continue to hold, that their growing niche industry is seriously threatened by any release of GMOs into the environment. Thus far their concerns about GMOs seem to be based on a single proposition; that possible pollen drift and horizontal gene flow has the potential to ³contaminate² organic produce or the soil. This contamination will result in destruction of an organic farmers business. In addition they argue that international markets for organic produce hold much greater potential while markets for GM produce are shrinking, particularly in Europe. The countervailing point of view, expressed by many witnesses so far, has been that organics and other agricultural and horticultural production methods can co-exist in New Zealand as they do elsewhere in the world. In addition, gene technology is essential for identifying and developing new strains of organic plants, which are pest resistant, thereby improving organic yields. The line of questions now appearing from Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission suggests a willingness of the part of the Commissioners to consider how different farming activities might co-exist and what management techniques are available to ensure all interests are protected. Refugia protocols, buffer zones and the agreed separation distances for certified seed cropping may well provide that guidance. Despite their best efforts the organics groups and other critics have not been able to show that horizontal gene transfer is something of concern to knowledgeable scientists. While the phenomenon is acknowledged all the available science holds it to be very rare and unlikely to present problems. Something tells me, despite the scientists being consistent in their analysis, that this issue will not go away. The possible risks, remote though they be, are fundamental to the paradigm within which opponents of the science are working. Therefore to concede this point would be to critically wound their case. Better to try to get a concession from the scientists by piling hypothesis on hypothesis (after all no scientist will assert 100% certainty on anything) than to give even a millimetre. And from these little concessions a mountain will be made. That paradigm is very persistent and not to share it is to be a disbeliever in the true faith. It acts in a way to exclude ideas that may challenge the underlying creed. As an example, when the Life Sciences Network first established it website we were contacted, almost immediately, by GE Free New Zealand proposing that we provide links to each otherıs websites. The Network readily agreed and established the link, which remains to this day. GE Free NZ, after a brief listing, removed the link to the Network. Itıs obviously too dangerous to allow the arguments which run counter to be accessed directly. Interesting too that the Green Party, as a party in Parliament, is participating daily in the work of the Royal Commission. They will have to debate the outcome and deliberate on implementation when it finally comes to Parliament. The constitutional propriety of this appears to stretch several existing boundaries about the interpretation of conflict of interest. The Green Party, extremely sensitive to accusations that GE Free New Zealand means a New Zealand free of any sort of GE, is seeking to draw a line where ³ GM in containment in a laboratory is okay; in the environment is not². It has been hard to argue against the very real benefits identified by New Zealand scientists for New Zealand people. Acknowledging that spurning GM technology for medicines and health benefits is politically dangerous has led to a conundrum for the Green politicians. ³How do we find a way to stay true to the cause, yet not lose too many votes in the process?² So they are concentrating their attacks on uses in agriculture and in food the two areas most important to New Zealandıs future economic well being. So the outward agenda has been to try to find some compromise position. What they will find however is that compromises have to have some internal logic and while logic is not necessarily part of politics it is the basis on which the public makes choices. And this Royal Commission is about choice. Everyone recognises that and we also recognise the inescapable fact that ultimately it is the choice of consumers which will determine how fast, or slowly, we adopt genetic modification as a technology. The opponents are saying the consumers donıt want GMOs. They may well be right because most market surveys and opinion polls appear to show GM technology is not a preference. But that consumer reaction does not make the science or the technology wrong. It merely makes it less preferred at the present time because consumers have not derived direct or indirect personal benefit from the application of the technology. The task for the Royal Commission is to determine whether or not choice should continue to be available or we should exclude an avenue of choice on non-scientific grounds. The religious and Maori opponents have not participated in the formal hearings to date. For Maori this may be because they have an alternative through their hui where, unfortunately, the ideas expressed will not be subject to the scrutiny which cross-examination affords. With 2 weeks gone and 12 weeks of hearings to go it is too early to predict the outcome but we can feel comfortable about the process and the opportunity it has provided for a structured and rational debate. ......... Judas And GM - Its About The Money Interview with Arpad Pusztai. The introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods has generated a debate around the world, particularly in the West. Notwithstanding the fact that GM foods have hit the market shelves in Europe and the United States, there is growing opposition, notably in Europe, to their introduction into the food chain. In this mounting campaign, the treatment meted out to Arpad Pusztai, a biologist from Rowett Research Institute (RRI), Aberdeen, Scotland, by the British scientific and political establishment has become a cause celebre. The 69-year-old Hungary-born Pusztai, who had been working at the RRI for 36 years, was removed from service, his research papers were seized, and his data confiscated; and he was prohibited from talking to anyone about his research work. All this for having spoken - "all of 150 seconds," he says - in a programme called World in Action on Granada TV in August 1998, about his findings on the effects of GM foods that ran counter to the prevalent scientific dogma that they were safe. He had also expressed concern that the testing procedures to establish the safety of GM foods may not be adequate. Pusztai's controversial experiments, which he carried out in collaboration with his colleague Stanley W.B. Ewen, for over 30 months between 1995 and 1998, comprised the use of GM potatoes expressing the gene for snowdrop lectin called Galanthus nivalis a gglutinin (GNA) as feed to rats. (Snowdrop is a small white flower that hangs from a bulb and blooms in spring; lectin is a protein normally obtained from plants that have antibody characteristics.) This, he found, resulted in impairment in the condition of the rats. This was a surprising finding for Pusztai, because in six years of work with the lectin itself, he had found no toxic effect when it was mixed with feed as a protein supplement. But when genetically expressed it showed health effects. Even before his work was published, based on incomplete information and data, it was denounced at various levels, including the Royal Society and the Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology. Also, a campaign was unleashed in the media to discredit Pusztai. But it was a slap in the face of critics when Pusztai's paper got accepted for publication in The Lancet. This, in fact, prompted a senior biologist of the Royal Society to threaten The Lancet's editor with dire consequences. After the publication of the paper, there was a spate of letters to The Lancet attacking Pusztai's work. Pusztai responded adequately and forcefully. The comments by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, in response to remarks by the President of the Royal Society, are illuminating. He wrote in November 1998: "Aaron Klug defends the Royal Society's wish to damn Ewen and Pusztai's work in the absence of both investigators. What he cannot defend is the reckless decision of the Royal Society to abandon the principle of due process in passing judgment on their work. To review and then publish criticism of these researchers' findings without publis hing either their original data or their response was, at best, unfair and ill-judged." Considering the all-round assertion in scientific circles as well as by biotechnology companies that GM foods and crops are safe, it may be shocking to know that there are just five papers that have been published in peer-reviewed journals until June 200 0 (Jose Domingo, Science, June 9) and the Pusztai-Ewen Lancet paper is one of them. Irrespective of whether Pusztai's findings stand scientific scrutiny and the test of time, and whether GM foods are safe or not, the case reflects how those in the citadels of science administration have abandoned ethics in order to defend a biased agenda - in this case promoted by biotech multinationals. It also shows how, contrary to the cardinal principles of academic freedom and objectivity, any research that went against the dominant view evoked collective intolerance. Pusztai, who has authored nearly 300 research papers and nine books, says his scientific credibility is still intact. Since the termination of his services at the RRI, he has been offered visiting professorship in three countries: Brazil, Hungary and Norway but, for the present, he has decided to stay in Aberdeen and accept short lecture tours. He was in India recently on one such tour to attend meetings on GM foods. He spoke to R. Ramachandran. Excerpts from the interview: What was the gene product and how was it tested previously? product and how was it tested previously? This is a lectin from snowdrop. We don't eat snowdrop, nor do we eat bacillus thuringiensis (BT) toxin. We now have genetically modified BT corn and BT potatoes. We don't eat a lot of these things in GM foods that are now being sold. So it should be in o ur interest to get it properly tested. Before we did the genetic potato work, what we did was to isolate this gene product from the snowdrop bulb to see whether it did have any effect on the absorption of normal diet. We have high quality animal feedstock. If you use some animal protein like egg protein or casein from milk mixed with it, we can measure with great precision how well they are utilised. For example, egg albumen will be utilised with 92-94 per cent efficiency. This is very high efficiency. Now you can do the same thing with pota toes. Does the lectin reduce the efficiency of the diet or does it interfere with the immune system? We tested with as high a concentration - at milligram level per gram level. It still did not do any harm. In case of genetic modification we need it only at a concentration that is 100-fold less. We expressed it at lower levels of micrograms per gram in the potato and wanted to know what kind of possible effects it can have. We had two kinds of potatoes - on e GM and the other non-GM. I had expected that the GM potato, with 20 micrograms of a component against the several grams of other components, should not cause any problems. But we found problems. Our studies clearly show that the effects were not due to that little gene expression, but it depended on the way the gene had been inserted into the potato genome and what it did to the potato genome. That is why industry and politicians reacted so strongly against me. We had two successful lines, both coming from the same genetic transformation of the parent line at the same time. They were going through the same laboratory tests and were growing in the fields for two years done in the South of England. And when we lo oked at the two lines, we found that against our expectations they were different. They were different compositionally. For example, one of the lines contained exactly the same amount of protein as the parent line but the other line, even though it was a s successful in protecting the plant against aphids nematodes, it contained 20 per cent less protein. Now this was a totally unpredictable effect. You mean to say that genetic engineering, in addition to expressing the foreign protein, leads to other differences as well? Yes. Now this is well accepted that there are other unintentional changes. Consider the human genome project. It is a great project. I'm really very much for it. But it is totally overclaimed because it will get us about 5 per cent of the total genome be cause the genes are only about that much. The 95 per cent, which is the junk DNA as they used to say, is not junk. That's what controls the genome. Now you shoot at it. Now you don't know where it is it going to land. You have a big parasitic element con taining the construct going in and it could land anywhere. So in the two genetically modified lines which were different, what I think happened was that the lectin gene landed in two different places. The question is how well you can find out what is happening. This is possible if you know the whole sequence. No w if you don't know the sequence and you don't know what exactly is the job of the sequence, then we cannot know. So all the selection after genetic modification is empirical. Does it grow? Does it do the job? Does it have enough proteins? Does it do us any harm? This last bit has never been investigated. In your paper you had suggested that there were problems like immune system malfunction and growth malfunction. What do you think was the mechanism of action? In my opinion - it is an opinion and not an established fact - we have somehow destabilised the potato genome. It is no longer functioning as previously. Some of those things which make the other parts toxic (for protection against insects, for example) are now making the tuber toxic. This is the best we can come up with. Now this toxicity is very important. For any food the effect can be anywhere along the alimentary canal. Now in our case as well as in the Flavr Savr tomatoes, which is the only thing the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has ever looked from the safety point of view, and the BT toxin potatoes investigated in Egypt, similar effects seem to have occurred. The FDA had found that the Flavr Savr tomato had caused "mild" gastritis rats. T hey scored the effect on a scale of 4. The effect found was between 2 and 3. Now you can decide whether one can call it mild. Even though the FDA suppressed this information, it had to come out with its data because it was sued and I could get the data. All these three studies found something very similar in the stomach. Some sort of proliferative response, as if you are stimulating production of something - usually acid. The FDA never went further down. But we did and so did the Egyptians. And we found , in fact, that the most useful part of the digestive tract - the small intestines where 99 per cent of useful absorption occurs - was also affected. And we took it even further down into the colon and that was affected too. How do you quantitatively determine the effect? It is a proliferative response of making more of the gut. You take out the guts, if it weighs x grams in the control, it weighs x + y grams after feeding with GM food. There is mention in the literature over the Internet that Rowett had got large funds from Monsanto. Though they did have contracts with Monsanto, I had nothing to do with it. What was most important is at the time when the potato business blew up, they were also trying to set up a major research project with Monsanto and that fell through because Monsa nto got very annoyed with Rowett. I had done some independent work, not sponsored by any commercial concerns and that's the reason I could speak because it was publicly funded research. But when your suspension came about, how did the scientific community in general react? This is a question of ethics of science and scientific administration. Obviously there was some reaction. But the trouble was I could not tell them because I was gagged. I was not even allowed to talk to the scientific community. I did not have any data since they had confiscated my data. It was only when they wrote the aud it report and I said that I had the right to respond to it but I had no data. So then they started to give me back some of my data. In fact, I could recover all my data only because my wife was the head of the research group and she still stayed there. She only took early retirement this year. And she managed to collect back all my data, the primary data from the laboratory notebooks from the technicians and all the others. What is your stand on GM foods at present? I am not against genetic modification. I am against their dismissal of our rights. They push something which is not properly tested and is potentially dangerous on to us and give us no choice. They have no right to do that. They have only the right to do scientific studies. When I started my experiments I was for GM foods. But after what they did to me, my sympathies are with people campaigning against GM foods. All I am saying is adequate studies have not been done. Because the companies when they rele ased these things never tested them properly, it is our job to see what potential hazards we can have. It does not mean that, by definition, it must occur in nature, but it might occur. With irreversible GM technology this becomes even more important because you have no chance of having a remedy. That is the main point.
|
