Is Demonizing Monsanto Blocking Real Progress?

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/german...,620492,00.html

Germans are celebrating the fact that the government has banned genetically modified corn. But the country's almost blanket opposition to genetic modification ignores the fact that it might just help scientists find a solution for feeding a swelling global population.

REUTERS

Will opposing genetically modified plants ultimately lead to more people starving?

All's well again in the world of Bavaria's conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) party, an outspoken opponent of genetic engineering and genetically modified (GM) plants. German Agriculture Minister and CSU member Ilse Aigner has slapped a ban on MON 810, a type of GM corn seed produced and marketed by the American agricultural corporation Monsanto, and opponents of the technology are celebrating the victory. Germany's governing Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the CSU's sister party, opposed the ban at first but eventually supported it. Now the CDU hopes that its support will lead more Bavarians to return the favor by voting for the CSU in the upcoming German and EU parliamentary elections.

The inhabitants of rural Bavarian towns, whose fields have become battlegrounds for people for and against genetic engineering, can now breathe a sigh of relief. But the real problems are just beginning -- only in other places.

Outside Bavaria, the world is approaching a scenario first described by the British economist Thomas Malthus in 1798 -- agricultural production can't keep pace with population growth.

Since 2000, the demand for food has been growing faster than the supply. Nearly one billion people are considered undernourished. Refugees from Africa flee over-fished lakes and expanding deserts and arrive in Italy and Spain by the thousands.

In global terms, cultivable land and agricultural productivity have hardly increased. Agriculture is flagging, while the world's current population of 6.8 billion is predicted to reach 9 billion by mid-century. Fields that would normally yield food are now being used to produce biofuel. And it won't be long before the rest of the world will want to consume as much meat and dairy as people in Europe and America do today. But producing one kilogram of beef requires many more kilograms of animal feed.

All this is taking place on a planet whose atmosphere will only grow warmer and more severely affected by extreme weather. Land use is partially at fault for these changes, as they are spurred on, for example, by methane emissions from cattle and carbon dioxide released by burning forests. At the same time, erosion, salinization and desertification are all reducing the amount of cultivable land.

Taboo Topic of Discussion

Some believe that genetic engineering can help solve this problem. But, in Germany, anyone who even asks this question is automatically considered suspect.

Still, it's only thanks to a scientific breakthrough that Malthus' prediction of catastrophic overpopulation has not yet proven true. In the mid-19th century, German chemist Justus von Liebig recognized that adding minerals to soil could massively increase crop yields. He then went on to invent chemical fertilization, which made it possible to feed more and more people.

The current set of circumstances raises a number of questions: Who is making sure that agricultural scientists today can follow in the footsteps of Justus von Liebig? What is Germany -- with its antipathy to genetic engineering -- contributing toward ensuring a food supply for the world's future population? And what are Monsanto's opponents doing to fight back as the corporation tries to monopolize the seed market?

The answers are sobering. Agricultural research funded by the German government is running dry, especially when it comes to studies aimed at finding solutions to global food problems that don't involve genetic engineering. "There's no master plan at the federal level as to how Germany can fulfill its global responsibilities," says Thomas Jungbluth, dean of the Department of Agricultural Sciences at Hohenheim University, one of Germany's largest centers for agricultural research. In recent years, there have been reductions in many professor positions and institutes across the country.

"We're currently destroying our basic tools for these tasks," warns Volker Hoffmann, who is also a professor at Hohenheim University and speaks of an "existential crisis for agricultural research at German universities." For too long, Hoffmann says, politicians at both the national and state level have seen the academic field as "unsexy" and old-fashioned.

At the same time, developing countries suffering from food shortages are looking with high hopes to countries like Germany that are rich, strong in the sciences and have a respected tradition of agricultural research.

Students come to Hohenheim from all over the world, but then they find themselves in a country that gets panicky about every grain of genetically modified pollen -- without engaging in discussion about other ways to develop agricultural technology that could feed 9 billion people in a changing climate.

Germany's four government-funded research institutes and their many branches -- all of which are overseen by Agriculture Minister Aigner -- do have a research plan that lists "seven main goals and 88 primary tasks" for the several hundred scientists they employ. But lacking among them is a concerted effort to find the best concepts for feeding the world.

When riots over ballooning food prices broke out last year across the world, the federal cabinet made a decision to strengthen Germany's agricultural research activities. The government will now spend up to €40 million ($52 million) over five years, but only as one-time funds and primarily for projects unrelated to fighting the causes of the crisis.

Creating Your Own Monsters

To actually get at the causes would require a systematic departure from current agricultural research, similar to the green revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Farming practices would have to be changed so as to release fewer greenhouse gases and to use less water, which would help protect reservoirs of available drinking water. Likewise, it would be essential to prevent agriculture from expanding into the world's last untouched natural regions, such as rainforests or savannahs. New plant species that are resistant to drought, salinization and pests would have to be found and put into use. At the same time, the hundreds of millions of small farmers who make up the backbone of agricultural production must find a way to make a living instead of seeing their fields fall into the hands of corporations.

But, instead, Germany's narrow-sighted policies have led to a situation in which, in the future, only companies like Monsanto -- which filed a lawsuit against the German government Tuesday claiming that its ban on MON 810 is arbitrary and contravenes EU rules -- will have the strength and expertise needed to develop high performance plant species that can cope with the world's requirements.

And who else could carry out the task? The only possible counterbalances to Monsanto are the botanists and agricultural researchers at government-funded universities and institutes, together with medium-scale plant breeders. If they could develop better species and technologies than Monsanto, they could then secure the patents for the common good and offer them to the general public free of charge.

Still, in order to have a chance of succeeding, they would need to have society behind them and be given some leeway when it comes to deciding whether genetic modification or another breeding method is the best solution for a particular problem.

A modern Liebig wouldn't count on a single cure-all. Instead, he or she would look for more complex solutions -- that is, perhaps, to try to combine the conservational principles of organic farming with the methods of genetic engineering. The much-loved blanket demonization of genetic engineering blocks this path just as much as Monsanto's control over the markets and the patenting of genes.

[alienlovechild 75]

In global terms, cultivable land and agricultural productivity have hardly increased. Agriculture is flagging, while the world's current population of 6.8 billion is predicted to reach 9 billion by mid-century. Fields that would normally yield food are now being used to produce biofuel. And it won't be long before the rest of the world will want to consume as much meat and dairy as people in Europe and America do today. But producing one kilogram of beef requires many more kilograms of animal feed.

All this is taking place on a planet whose atmosphere will only grow warmer and more severely affected by extreme weather. Land use is partially at fault for these changes, as they are spurred on, for example, by methane emissions from cattle and carbon dioxide released by burning forests. At the same time, erosion, salinization and desertification are all reducing the amount of cultivable land.

Still, it's only thanks to a scientific breakthrough that Malthus' prediction of catastrophic overpopulation has not yet proven true. In the mid-19th century, German chemist Justus von Liebig recognized that adding minerals to soil could massively increase crop yields. He then went on to invent chemical fertilization, which made it possible to feed more and more people.

The answers are sobering. Agricultural research funded by the German government is running dry, especially when it comes to studies aimed at finding solutions to global food problems that don't involve genetic engineering. "There's no master plan at the federal level as to how Germany can fulfill its global responsibilities," says Thomas Jungbluth, dean of the Department of Agricultural Sciences at Hohenheim University, one of Germany's largest centers for agricultural research. In recent years, there have been reductions in many professor positions and institutes across the country.

Who cares about starving people in the world? Just tell them GM foods are so bad it's better for you to watch your family to slowly die of starvation.

Or we can just have those poor folks to turn more of their forests into farmland. Too bad to the wildlife and global warming but that's their problem not the countries that gave us the Green Revolution.

The German government is killing agricultural research because no well-fed German can stomach the idea of feeding the world.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A different perspective on GM food

DAVID SCHUBERT / Nature Biotechnology v. 20 p.969 Oct02

As a cell biologist, I am very discouraged by the nature of the ongoing "debate" on the introduction of genetically modified (GM) plants into the marketplace. This discussion has usually pitted irrational emotional arguments against the apparently rational notion that genetic engineering is just like traditional plant breeding, only more specific. In particular, I believe that insufficient attention has been paid to three important issues: first, introduction of the same gene into two different types of cells can produce two very distinct protein molecules; second, the introduction of any gene, whether from a different or the same species, usually significantly changes overall gene expression and therefore the phenotype of the recipient cell; and third, enzymatic pathways introduced to synthesize small molecules, such as vitamins, could interact with endogenous pathways to produce novel molecules. The potential consequence of all of these perturbations could be the biosynthesis of molecules that are toxic, allergenic, or carcinogenic. And there is no _a priori_ way of predicting the outcome. In what follows I outline these concerns and argue that GM food is not a safe option, given our current lack of understanding of the consequences of recombinant technology.

The biological activity of a protein can be modified by gene splicing, which alters the primary amino acid sequence, and by the post-translational attachment of such moieties as phosphate, sulfate, sugars, or lipids. The nature of these modifications is markedly dependent upon the cell type in which the protein is expressed. For example, if the P-amyloid precursor protein, which is involved in Alzheimer's disease, is expressed in glial cells, it contains covalently attached chondroitin sulfate; but when it is expressed in brain nerve cells the protein contains a much simpler sugar (1). This is because each cell type expresses a unique repertoire of enzymes capable of modifying protein structure by mRNA splicing or at the post-translational level. In the case of the P-amyloid precursor protein, its adhesive properties are altered by the attachment of different carbohydrates (2). With our current state of knowledge, however, there is no way of predicting either the modifications or their biological effects. Therefore, a toxin that is harmless to humans when made in bacteria could be modified by plant cells in many ways, some of which might be harmful.

My second concern is the potential for the introduction of a foreign gene to either evoke the synthesis of toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, or allergenic compounds, or downregulate the synthesis of a beneficial plant molecule. Introduction of one gene usually alters the gene expression pattern of the whole cell, and typically each cell type of the organism will respond differently. One example involves the transfection of a receptor gene into human cells. In this case, the protein was a closely related isoform of an endogenously expressed gene (3). Monitoring the pattern of gene expression using microarray technology showed that mRNA levels for 5% of the genes were significantly upregulated or downregulated. Recent studies in transgenic plants showed that the over-expression of a gene involved in pectin synthesis had no effect in tobacco, but caused major structural changes and premature leaf shedding in apple trees (4). Although these sorts of unpredicted changes in gene expression and function are frequently observed, they have received very little attention. Furthermore, they are not unexpected. The maintenance of a specific cell phenotype involves a very precise balancing act of gene regulation, and any perturbation might be expected to change the overall patterns of gene expression. The problem, as with secondary modifications, is that there is currently no way to predict the resultant changes in protein synthesis.

Third, the introduction of genes for all or part of a new enzymatic pathway into plants could lead to the synthesis of unexpected or even totally novel products through an interaction with endogenous pathways. Some of these products could be toxic. For example, retinoic acid (vitamin A) and its derivatives are used in many signaling events that control mammalian development (5). As these compounds have effects at ultra-low concentrations, a GM plant making vitamin A might also produce retinoic add derivatives, which act as agonists or antagonists in these pathways, resulting in direct toxicity or abnormal embryonic development. A relevant example is a genetic manipulation carried out in bacteria during the 1980s to increase the yield of tryptophan for use as a nutritional supplement. The resultant product caused a novel illness that was highly correlated with the aberrant appearance of specific trace contaminants (6).

Given that GM plants will sometimes produce different amounts of proteins, and perhaps totally new proteins, as compared with the parental species, what are the possible results? A worst-case scenario would be that an introduced bacterial toxin is modified to make it toxic to humans. Prompt toxicity might be rapidly detected once the product entered the marketplace if it caused a unique disease, and if the food were labeled for traceability, as were the GM batches of tryptophan. However, cancer or other common diseases with delayed onset would take decades to detect, and might never be traced to their cause. Conversely, plant flavonoids and related molecules have great health benefits (7), and there is evidence that these can be depleted in GM crops (8).

If the above concerns are valid, what can be done to address them? Secondary modifications could be assayed by monitoring of the introduced gene product by mass spectroscopy; changes in gene expression could be assayed by DNA chips; and metabolically active molecules could be measured biochemically. The problem is, of course, that unless we know exactly what to look for, we are likely to miss the relevant changes. To me, the only reasonable solution is to require that all GM plant products destined for human consumption be tested for long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity before being brought to market. These safety criteria must be met for many chemicals and all drugs, and the magnitude of harm caused by a widely consumed toxic food could well be much greater than that from any single drug. However, even extensive animal testing might not detect the consequences of deficiencies in beneficial plant products. As GM crops offer potential benefits, it would be in the industry's best interest to more thoroughly examine these products before continuing with their introduction into the food supply.

1. Shioi, J. et al. J. Biol. Chem. 270,11839-11844 (1995).

2. Salinero, 0.. Moreno-Flores, M.T. & Wandosell, F. J. Neurosci. Res. 60, 87-97 (2000).

3. Srivastava, M., Eidelman, 0. & Pollard, H.B. Mol. Med. 5, 753-767 (1999).

4. Atkinson, R.G., Schroder, R., Hallett, I.C., Cohen, D. & MacRae, E.A. Plant Physiol. 129, 122-133 (2002).

5. Gronemeyer, H. & Miturski. R. Cell Mol. Biol. Lett. 6, 3-52 (2001).

6. Kilbourne, E.M., Philen, R.M., Kamb, M.L. & Falk, H. J. Rheumatol. Suppl. 46,81-88 (1996).

7. Middleton, E., Kandaswami, C. & Theoharides, T.C. Pharmacol. Rev. 52, 673-751 (2000).

8.

Lappé, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. & Setchell, K.D.R.

J. Med. Food 1, 241-245 (1999).

David Schubert is a professor at the Salk Institute, 10010N. Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037 (schubert@salk.edu)

www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology

Edited February 14, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Dakine 26]

People are puting to much effort on increasng food production when we should put more effort on population reduction and control.

Reduction! Not production.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

People are puting to much effort on increasng food production when we should put more effort on population reduction and control.

Reduction! Not production.

We already produce more food than is consumed. The problem is with distribution.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Three faces of science fraud

By David Schubert

February 16, 2006

The plant biotech industry has repeatedly made false claims about the safety of their genetically engineered, or GE, food crops and has tried to discredit scientists who publish manuscripts showing that they are harmful. For example, several years ago Dr. Arpad Pusztai showed that GE potatoes cause serious health problems in rats, resulting in the harassment by the plant biotech industry and ultimately in his dismissal from his academic position. Since then, several other scientists have shown that different GE food crops cause similar problems, and it was discovered that one of the companies that tried to discredit Pusztai withheld their own data showing that GE corn is toxic to animals.

As a result of this disingenuous behavior of the chemical and plant biotech industries, there is a moratorium in many European countries on the cultivation of GE food crops and a requirement that all new chemicals that are consumed or reach the environment be extensively tested for safety.

The examples outlined above demonstrate that scientific fraud carried out by both industry and government is not uncommon in the United States. Similar behavior in the academic community may also be growing in proportion to the increase in the number of scientists and the competition for limited funding and job opportunities. However, the consequences of industrial and government fraud are far worse than academic misconduct, for the former are often neither self correcting nor reversible until a great deal of damage is done.

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib...e16schuber.html

I wonder if this guy lives in a little wooden shack on the outskirts of La Jolla.

[dakay ♥ 10]

People are puting to much effort on increasng food production when we should put more effort on population reduction and control.

Reduction! Not production.

And also control the construction, build condos on fertile land for agriculture

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Taking Science Seriously in the GM Debate

By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

If there is one thing that distinguishes the Third World from the industrialised countries, it is that they take science a lot more seriously than we do in the GM debate.

I was researcher and university lecturer of genetics throughout the mid-1970s to the early1980s when new discoveries on the fluid genome made headlines every week. Researchers back then were building a new paradigm, dispelling once and for all the notion that a gene is constant and independent of context. The thought that a gene could be patented as an invention probably never crossed their mind. And if it did, they would have dismissed it as a joke. Craig Venter of Celera may have only just discovered that genetic determinism cannot deliver the goods after he's sequenced the human genome. But many of us knew that genetic determinism had died with the revelations of the fluid genome, if not before [1]. And now, almost two decades later, science is in crisis in more ways than one.

The paradigm change that should have occurred, did not. On the contrary, the scientific establishment remained strongly wedded to genetic determinism, which has misguided genetic engineering, making even the most unethical applications appear compelling, such as 'therapeutic' human cloning, for one [2]. Bioethics became a contradiction in terms as rampant commercialisation of science took hold.

Since the 1980s, preoccupation with patenting and start-up companies has compromised the quality of molecular genetics research, stifling basic science and innovation, and failing to serve the public good. Worse still, many scientists are consciously or unconsciously ignoring scientific evidence of the hazards. I got involved in the genetic engineering debate in 1994, to try to inform our policymakers and the public, and to start debate and discussion from within the scientific community.

For the past seven years, I have had to follow developments in genetic engineering science much more carefully and extensively than many of the practitioners, only to find that all my fears concerning the problems and dangers of genetic engineering are being confirmed. I shall highlight some of these before going to discuss what needs to be done.

Genetic engineering superviruses

The top news in the Jan. 13 issue of the New Scientist [3] was on a deadly virus created accidentally by researchers in Canberra Australia, who were trying to genetic engineer a contraceptive vaccine for mice [4]. They spliced a gene for the protein interleukin-4 (IL-4) into a relatively harmless mousepox virus in the hope that IL-4 would boost the immune system. When they injected the recombinant virus into mice belonging to a strain genetically resistant to mouse-pox virus, all the mice died. IL-4 suppressed both natural killer cells and cytotoxic lymphocytes responses to viral infection. The recombinant virus also killed 50% of the genetically resistant mice that were immunized against mouse-pox virus.

That is not all. The IL-4 gene, spliced into the vaccinia virus, was found to delay clearance of the virus from experimental animals, and to undermine the animals' anti-viral defence [5,6]. Vaccinia and mouse-pox both belong to the family that contains the human smallpox virus, raising the spectre of biological warfare. But the far greater danger lies in the unintentional creation of deadly pathogens in the course of apparently innocent genetic engineering experiments. Some scientists are already creating viruses deliberately in their laboratories, just to show it could be done, or in the course of cloning existing viruses [7]. And dangerous recombinant viruses and bacteria may also be inadvertently created in making vaccines against AIDS, as Yugoslav virologist Veljkovic has been warning since 1990 [8].

The New Scientist editorial [9] accompanying the report remarked that five years ago, when biomedical researchers were asked if genetic engineering could create "a virus or bacteria more virulent than nature's worst", they replied it would be "difficult if not impossible".

Some of us have been warning of 'accidents' such as this for at least the past six years. The basic tools of genetic engineering are bacteria, viruses and other genetic parasites that cause diseases and spread drug and antibiotic resistance. All that fall into the hands of genetic engineers are exploited. Genes from dangerous agents, including antibiotic resistance genes, are profusely mixed and matched, or recombined. As every geneticist should know, recombination of genetic material is one of the main routes to creating new strains of bacteria and viruses, some of which may be pathogens. (The other route is mutation.) Moreover, the predominant orientation of genetic engineering in the past two decades has been to design artificial GM constructs and vectors that cross species barriers and invade genomes, both of which will enhance horizontal gene transfer and further increase the chance for recombination.

We published a detailed review on the possible links between genetic engineering and the recent resurgence of drug and antibiotic resistant infectious diseases in 1998 [10]. We were by no means the first. Those who pioneered genetic engineering declared a moratorium in Asilomar in the mid- 1970s precisely because they were concerned about this dire possibility. Unfortunately, overwhelming pressures for commercial exploitation cut the moratorium short. The scientists set up guidelines, based largely on assumptions that have all fallen by the wayside as the result of new scientific findings. The two most important findings are the persistence of nucleic acids in all environments including the gut of animals, and the ease with which nucleic acids can get into all cells, especially those of human beings, as shown in so-called gene therapy research [11].

Instead of tightening the guidelines, our regulators have relaxed them. Transgenic wastes are being recycled as food, feed, fertilizer and landfills under the current EC Directive on Contained Use [12], and I would not be surprised if this applies also in the US. There is a lesson to be learned from the 650 or more adverse reactions associated with gene therapy trials, including several deaths. The same kinds of constructs are made, whether it is to genetic engineer human beings or plants and animals, and the same crude first generation technology is used.

The instability of transgenic lines

The instability of transgenic lines has been well known since 1994, particularly in connection with gene silencing. This not only affects agronomic performance, but also safety. We have drawn attention to the structural instability of GM constructs in general, which may enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination, especially because the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter, present in practically all GM crops already commercialized or undergoing field trials, actually has a recombination hotspot. We raised our concerns in a series of scientific papers [13 -16].

In the course of debating with plant molecular geneticists in UK's top research institute, the John Innes Centre (JIC), we discovered that the CaMV 35S promoter is active, not only in all plants, bacteria, algae and yeast, but also in animal and human cells [17,18]. None of our critics was aware that the promoter is active in human cells, including a molecular geneticist on the UK Agriculture & Environmental Biotechnology Commission set up to oversee our farmscale field trials [19].

This year, researchers in JIC admitted in their annual report that GM crops are unstable and prone to recombination. But when we pointed this out [20], they issued a strong denial, and accused us of ignoring one of their papers where they claim to have demonstrated that transgenic rice lines are stable. I have since reviewed that paper in detail [21] and concluded, "A generous interpretation of the data presented would suggest that 7 out of 40 (18%) transgenic rice lines may be stable to the R3 generation." In other words, at least 82% of the lines are unstable. That paper is not at all exceptional in making claims in the abstract, and often in the title, which are not supported by the evidence presented [22]. No reply has come from the JIC since. My colleague, Prof. Joe Cummins has summarised more up-to-date literature showing that all GM crops may be unstable [23].

Roundup Ready soya has consistently performed less well than non GM soya over the years, and this year's seeds are experiencing problems in germination, according to a report from the University of Missouri [24].

Terminator crops at large

Last December, I was asked to act as expert witness in defence of citizens who have taken civil action against GM crops which they strongly believe to be a threat to health and biodiversity. Among the crops were GM oilseed rape varieties used to produce F1 hybrids belonging to AgrEvo UK (now Aventis). At the time, I was also preparing a joint submission, with two other scientists, to the consultation document, "Guidance on Best Practice in the Design of GM Crops" put out by the UK Government's Advisory Committee for Release to the Environment (ACRE). One of the main enabling technologies' for 'best practice' suggested in the document is precisely Agrevo's seed/pollen sterility system, for it prevents GM gene flow.

It soon dawned on us that the GM oilseed rape lines undergoing field trials in the UK are engineered with 'terminator technology' - so named by critics because it renders harvested seeds sterile - for no other reason than to enforce corporate patents on GM seeds. Not only that, according to AgrEvo's application, similar crops produced by the company Plant Genetic Systems (PGS), a subsidiary of AgrEvo, have been undergoing field-trials in Europe since the beginning of 1990.

In the US, similar male sterile lines engineered with the 'terminator-gene', barnase have been tested at least as early as 1992. There have been 115 field trials, the vast majority done without risk assessment, as the first environmental assessment came up with 'FONSI' - Finding of No Significant Impact. Crops modified for male sterility include rapeseed, corn, tobacco, cotton. Brassica oleracea, potato, poplar, chicory, petunia and lettuce. The USDA commercial release data include 4 crops with barnase: a corn and a canola by AgrEvo, a chicory by Bejo, and another corn by Plant Genetic Systems.

Separately, the other genetic component in terminator crops, site-specific recombinase, has also been engineered into corn and papaya, and there have been 14 field trials between 1994 and 1998, with no environmental impact assessment at all.

There are more than 150 US patents listing barnase or site-specific recombination or both, the oldest, on site-specific recombinase, going back to 1987.

The first terminator patents that came to public attention were those jointly owned by US Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land Company, which Monsanto had intended to acquire. The novelty in those patents is the proposal to combine the terminator-gene system with the site-specific recombinase system, giving the company complete control over the hybrids as well as proprietary chemicals that control gene expression.

As a result of universal condemnation and rejection, Monsanto had announced it will not commercialise terminator crops, to everyone's relief. Research and development, however, have continued unabated. Everyone has assumed such crops only exist in theory, when they have been out there for more than 10 years.

It is no coincidence that simultaneous consultation went on in the United States on the USDA-Delta and Pine terminator patents. The USDA has since committed itself to commercial development of the technology, and, like the UK ACRE, also argued in its favour because it could prevent GM gene flow. But it cannot [24], because male sterile lines will be pollinated by non GM crops, and there is no way to prevent horizontal gene transfer.

On the contrary, the increased complication of the constructs may enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination. The genes and gene products themselves are also known to be harmful. The terminator-gene barnase kills cells by breaking down RNA, an intermediate in the expression of all genes. The recombinase, in theory, breaks and rejoins DNA at specific sites, but is far from accurate and can scramble genomes. A male transgenic mouse engineered with only one copy of Cre recombinase was 100% sterile, because the recombinase enzyme managed to scramble the genomes of both daughter spermatids when they are still connected by a cytoplasmic bridge [25]. The mouse genome does not even have the lox sites recognized by the Cre recombinase.

Terminator insects give wings to genome invaders

The US Department of Agriculture has approved field release of GM pink bollworms this summer, made with a mobile genetic element, piggyBac, already known to jump many species. The element was first discovered in cell cultures of the cabbage looper, where it caused high mutations of the baculovirus infecting the cells, by jumping into the viral genome. In experiments in silkworms, researchers already found evidence that the inserts were unstable, and had a tendency to move again from one generation to the next [26].

"These artificial transposons are already aggressive genome invaders, and putting them into insects is to give them wings, as well as sharp mouthparts for efficient delivery to all plants and animals... The predictable result is rampant horizontal gene transfer and recombination across species barriers. The unpredictable unknown is what kinds of new deadly viruses might be generated, and how many new cases of insertion mutagenesis and carcinogenesis they may bring." [27].

"Food biotech is dead"

I have presented only a small fraction of the scientific findings indicating problems and dangers specific to genetic engineering, which both the practitioners and regulators are ignoring or dismissing. These and other concerns have persuaded more than 410 scientists from 55 countries around the world to sign an Open Letter to all Governments demanding a moratorium on environmental releases of GMOs because they are unsafe, and a ban on patenting life-forms and living processes because those patents are unethical. They also demand support for non-corporate, sustainable, organic agricultural methods that can truly bring food security and health for all.

Since we launched the Open Letter two years ago, the terms of the GM debate have shifted. It is no longer a moratorium that is needed. GMOs, as currently made, are unsafe and unsustainable, as well as immoral. We must abandon GM crops and all other attempts to genetic engineer plants, animals and human beings with a technology that is widely acknowledged to be unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable.

Even the corporations are coming around to the view that "Food biotech is dead" [28]. One by one, Aventis, Monsanto and Syngenta have announced they will concentrate on genomics and marker assisted conventional breeding. Though meanwhile, they are still forcing the world, especially the Third World to accept GM crops.

But the whole world is in revolt. The governments of Thailand and Sri Lanka, among others, have banned GM crops and GM imports. In Indonesia, armed guards had to be sent to protect Monsanto's shipment of cotton seeds, which have already been shown not to perform as well as the indigenous non GM variety [29]. In the Philippines, mass demonstrations are taking place against GMOs and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) by MASIPAG (Farmer Scientist Partnership for Development) and other ngos. They condemn IRRI for restructuring sound traditional practices over the past 40 years to make farmers dependent on chemical inputs produced by corporations, the same corporations that are now forcing GMOs on farmers with the help of IRRI [30]. People are demanding farmer's rights over the genetic resources in the collection and genebanks of IRRI and they renounce any form of IPR. Those sentiments are widely shared, not just all over the Third World, but in Europe and the United States.

The organic revolution

Europe is fed up with the intensive corporate agriculture that has brought BSE and the food and mouth epidemic now threatening to get out of control, and is going organic in earnest. The annual growth rate in organic agriculture in Europe from 1989 to 1999 averaged 25%, which, extrapolated forward, would lead to 10% of Western European agriculture being organic by 2005, and 30% by 2010 [31]. The same is happening in the rest of the world. As scientists, we must take all evidence seriously.

Organic and sustainable agricultural practices and technologies are succeeding, documented in study after study, despite the appalling lack of research funding compared to the hundreds millions that have gone into biotech. At least 3% of the arable land, some 28.9m hectares in Africa, Asia and Latin America are already farmed sustainably, with impressive gains in crop yield as well as social, economic and health benefits [32]. Organic farming is also working well in the United States and Europe, with yields matching and even surpassing agrochemical agriculture. Organic farms are good for wild-life, supporting many more species of plants, songbirds butterflies spiders, earthworms [33]. We need organic farming for the world to feed itself and for the planet to regenerate and thrive.

Sustainable agriculture is also important for alleviating, if not reversing global warming. A new report shows that sustainable agriculture can contribute significantly, not only to reducing consumption of fossil fuel, but increasing sequestration of carbon in the soil [34].

Sustainable agriculture is predicated on a holistic, ecological perspective anathema to reductionist mechanistic science. Mechanistic science has been thoroughly discredited in the course of the 20th century. Mechanical physics went first of all with relativity and quantum physics. Biology was the last to go with the new genetics.

The new genetics is radically ecological, organic and holistic. That is why genetic engineering, at least in its current form, can never succeed. It is based on misconceptions that organisms are machines, and on a denial of the complexity and flexibility of the organic whole.

The challenge for western scientists is to develop a holistic science to help revitalise all kinds of non corporate sustainable agriculture and holistic medicine that can truly bring food security and health to the world.

Visit ISIS website http://www.i-sis.org.uk for complete list of references.

The Institute of Science in Society

Londonia House, 24 Old Gloucester Street

London, WC1N 3A1 UK

Tel: 44 -020-7242 9831