Scientists suspect health threat from GM maize

[dArKeR]

Scientists investigating a spate of illnesses among people living close to GM maize fields in the Philippines believe that the crop may have triggered fevers, respiratory illnesses and skin reactions.

If preliminary results are confirmed, it would be one of the first recorded cases of serious health problems associated with GM crops, and could damage the reputation of the biotech agriculture industry, which is rapidly expanding in developing countries.

The scientists' findings were immediately challenged by Monsanto, the world's leading GM company, and by the Philippine government.

The concern surrounds an unnamed village in northern Mindanao, where 39 people living near a field of Bt maize -- which contains a pesticide in the gene -- started suffering last autumn when the crop was producing pollen.

http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=31845

[camero]

1. Welcome to the brave new world

Golly I feel like I'm talking to the wall. No, we can't blame corps for anything can we? It's the people who eat what the corps sell that are to blame.

<Heavy sarcasm.>

[bemildred]

2. Sue!!!

Sue the assholes!!!
Sue their ass off!!!
Do it now.

[KittyWampus]

32. Thank You! SUE THE MOTHERF*CKERS

and hire a public relations consultant to make sure every corner of the earth is aware of the case.

[DenverDem]

3. This is one of the biggest threats to survival today.

Just behind the Oil Crash.

Corporations are not genetically modifying to make a better world, they are GM'ing so that they can freaking copyright living things and ultimately monopolize all seeds. That is why they are not worried about cross polination, they will demand control of your crops and seeds because they have a copyright on the DNA. It's some sick corporate shizzle.

Grow heirloom veggies and save the seeds!!

[cprise]

4. Have a look in our Environment forum

You will find extensive fetishes for the application of corporate technology including GE and nuclear power. As in "THE answer".

A handful of pedantic Liberatarian "scientists" will spout reams of genetic engineering notes at you in response to some information you posted about GE's observed failings; and then they will conclude you're wrong.
:eyes:

There is a thread developing in there right now where they're actually proud that corps use viruses to induce within a decade dozens of cross-kingdom gene transfers that would normally take millions of years in nature.

[Phelix_Dacat]

6. GM foods have already killed people...

...and the geniuses involved have already come very close to wiping out all plant life on the planet. It's no secret the press is covering this information up. So adjust your tinfoil cap and go take a look for yourself:

http://conway.cat.org.au/~predator//mol.html

look for "Showa-Denko" and "Michael Holmes".

Then when someone idiot tells you "GM never killed anyone" smack 'em!

[cprise]

14. That was an interesting read

Thanks.

[snowFLAKE]

22. Your post is quite a stretch

Basically, tryptophan produced in a genetically engineered strain of bacteria killed some people but the genetic engineering, per se, was almost certainly not responsible. That's because the same strain of genetically engineered bacteria had been used to produce other batches of tryptophan that were OK - the source and even the identity of the toxic agent in the particular batch that killed people remains uncertain. There are papers in peer-reviewed literature published on this topic, here is a short synopsis that is not copywritten:

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1997/8.96-5.97/msg00748.html


Dr Suurkula has raised a number of questions about the tryptophan case. Most or all of these can be answered with a review of the paper by Mayeno and Gleich 1994 (Trends in Biotechnology, also known as TIB TECH, vol 12, pp. 346-352, as cited by Fagan).

There are three key comparisons in the Mayeno and Gleich paper
that allow us to test whether genetic engineering was the cause of the 37 deaths and even more disabilities. The compound that has been fingered by Fagan is the dimeric tryptophan, which has the short name of EBT. There were actually FOUR modifications to the bacterial strain used by Showa Denko during the years preceding the EMS epidemic (the first three apparently without causing trouble, even though they also increased the production of tryptophan that could dimerize), but let's assume for the sake of assigning blame to genetic engineering that it was the last change, strain V, introduced in December 1988 (page 348). If this was the important
change, one would expect that the marketed tryptophan would generally have a high level of EBT throughout the use of strain V. The first cases of EBT were detected in October 1989 (page 346 of the paper), so Showa Denko would have had no reason to change strains until after that. However, contrary to the prediction that high EBT should be generally associated with the strain V, the EBT levels in August through September 1989 were generally LOWER than recorded in December 1987 through November 1988 (see Figure 4, page 351 of the paper) BEFORE strain V was introduced. This is the first inconsistency
with the genetic engineering explanation.

In addition to the introduction of strain V in December 1988,
the amount of powdered activated carbon was reduced from 20 kg or more per batch to only 10 kg for some batches between October 1988 through June 1989 (page 348). The highest levels of EBT were recorded between February and May 1989 (Figure 4). The time periods over which both the new strain and the carbon changed are closely correlated; however, the best "odds ratio" of EMS development is with the drop in charcoal rather than strain V (page 348), the second inconsistency.

In terms of the 6 contaminants found in the suspect tryptophan,
the contaminant most strongly associated with EMS is "peak AAA", NOT
EBT (page 349), the third inconsistency. In fact there is no statistically significant correlation between EBT and EMS (page 349).

I have already noted the reference by Mayeno and Gleich to the
structural similarities between one of the other tryptophan contaminants, PAA, and a substance (PAP) associated with a similar syndrome, toxic oil syndrome. Contrary to Dr Suurkula's comment, the structures of PAA and tryptophan are very different; they share little more than the (NH2)CHCOOH amino acid group shared by all amino acids. Will everyone who remains interested in this, please look at the diagrams in the paper cited.

In sum, it looks like a non-tryptophan non-EBT contaminant was
the cause of the EMS disaster. Where did the contaminants come from? That is probably a multi-million dollar question, but remember this was a fermentation process, not a simple chemical reaction. You add food for the bacteria; this may be contaminated, or contamination could come from biochemical "errors" during processing by the bacteria, or reactions among the products made by the bacteria. It is the "contaminants" in the fermentation of grapes that gives wine its complexity. Whatever was the source of the contamination, Showa Denko apparently thought it was important to purify their product long before the engineered bacterium was used, because 20+ kg carbon was normally used in purification. That this dropped to 10 kg is strongly associated with the illnesses.

If you still think that the EMS tragedy was due to genetic
engineering, look into the papers. A lot of work was done on this; I
count 29 papers specifically on EMS among those cited by Mayeno and Gleich, and they noted that TIBTECH's policy of short reference lists left still more work unacknowledged.

[theoceansnerves]

12. exactly!!

i don't even bother posting, and rarely read that forum anymore. it's like the exact opposite of conservation and "environmentalism."

[NickB79]

5. I find this suspect

The US is the largest grower of GM crops worldwide, especially GM corn. If one field of Bt corn were able to trigger allergic reactions in 39 people living next to it in the Philippines, then we should be seeing tens of thousands of similar cases here in the US every summer when our Bt corn matures. I would think that such an event would catch the attention of the CDC here.

There is always a real risk of allergic reactions when dealing with new protein combinations that arise when you genetically engineer crops. However, those proteins shouldn't even exist in the pollen, just the crop tissues and seeds. In the last paragraph of this article it even states that the Bt toxin has not been detected in pollen. Pollen would contain the genes for Bt, not Bt itself.

I will wait until this is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal before jumping to any conclusions.

[question everything]

7. Well said

All we have to do is think about the potato famine in Ireland that changed so many events in history.

Infection of crop is real and the only way to combat infection of crop fields is with insecticides and pesticides. Is this what the "anti-GM" want? Is introducing a "natural" element like the kudzu better?
Plant geneticists have been genetically improving crops for more than a century now. Using a more sophisticated technique just makes the process cleaner and more efficient.

Just because major corporations leading the field - after all, they do have the resources to study this field - does not mean that it is bad. It would be nice to study all the data instead of just embrace any claim just because it fits with pre-determined sorting where corporations are bad and small farmers in developing countries are good.

[yellowcanine]

8. So do I - Extraordinary claims .......

require Extraordinary proof....

There is lots of Bt corn grown in the U.S. with no reports of human health effects. There are forms of Bt corn that do produce some Bt toxin in the pollen - however there have been no reports of allergic reactions on this scale. Any protein can potentially cause an allergic reaction in humans but for something like Bt toxin one would expect a very low occurence rate, as there is not much opportunity for humans to develop sensitibity to Bt toxin. It would be more likely to happen if someone were actually spraying Bt toxin. But lots of Bt toxin is sprayed in the U.S. as well and I have never heard of a case of an allergic reaction - but as I said it is theoretically possible. I suspect something else is going on here.

[billbuckhead]

9. Genetically modified crops bring monopolistic competition to life itself.

"Frankenfoods designed to put nature out of business. It's all so "Jurassic Park".

[burrowowl]

13. Do you think it would be reported?

Allergies etc. are soaring, why?
We experimented with our soldiers, people near nuke tests in Nevada and only now are reports on the ill-effects coming out.
Many people were sickened by the spraying of DTT at the drop of the hat, children used to play in the mists from the trucks. It took a long time to get DDT banned.
Monsanto is finally stopping manufacture of Scotchguard, whose ative ingrediant has been known for a long time.
Also, the genetically modified stuff is different from grafting or seed selection, it adds stuff that normally you can't add with the preceding techniques.
And the more of this shit there, along with gigantic mono-culture, the less diversity there is and if shit happens (like the Irish potato famine), there are no more substitutes.

[snowFLAKE]

20. Do you have documentation for the many people sickened by DDT?

Preferably, documentation from scientific literature (as compared to the typical sketchy sources cited for the anti-GMO and anti-vaccine threads that seem to be ongoing at this site whenever I check in).

Thanks!

[yellowcanine]

24. DDT wasn't banned because it made people sick

It was banned because of environmental reasons - specifically it caused thinning of eggshells in raptors such as eagles and ospreys.

On edit: and btw, Monsanto didn't make Scotchguard, 3M did.

[burrowowl]

16. And agent orange, etc., etc, etc....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x389339

Same same, be it GM food or other.

[nolabels]

17. A couple of billion years to get this far.

Genetics an ever evolving complex matter with plenty of dead ends that have been demonstrated. Your not thinking very clear when you believe the ape / man to be the end of it. The way things are going man may be a crescendo, but you can almost bet the band will play on.

Taking just a couple hundred years overpopulate the petri dish and not too much to show for it really, not even any enlighted leadership to stand up and take notice. Ecology and natural enemies are part of the mix. Nothing will work, if in the end things can't get replenished through the cycle of ecology. It's all very complex, and just not something you invent

If you break the links, you will fall of the end of branch and down to the bottom of the cliff with the rest of the junk heap that didn't make it. If you don't understand what it means to be borne from the earth instead of in it.

[cprise]

11. But it is a virus they suspect

And perhaps the Bt got to them another way, such as the ground water.

Why it would only occur in the Phillipines is an interesting question. It may have something to do with differences in their environment.

[ljm2002]

30. Do you remember

About two years ago, during the summer, there was a large outbreak of unexplained rashes among young people in the Midwest. It was in all the papers. Now of course no one ever attributed it to GMOs, so... we'll never know. But it was across a much wider area than could be attributed to some local contaminant. GMO corn comprises at least 50% of the corn crop, though, so it is very widespread. I'm guessing that was *never even considered* when they were looking into the causes of that outbreak.

Personally, I'm very pro-technology. Except that introducing stuff like this at the rate we are doing is asking for trouble. And the only reason it has been introduced so fast is so that Monsanto et al can get filthy rich. Remember, the crops were going to be engineered to be able to better resist pests and thus farmers would have to use less pesticide, that was one of the original arguments for why GMOs would even be *more* ecologically sound than non-GMO crops? Yet what really happened, was the GMO corn was engineered so that it had a higher resistance to Roundup, so that farmers could use even *more* Roundup on their crops. Somewhere along the way, things got turned around a bit. And, we are so surprised... NOT.

And of course there is the fact that farmers are now required to buy their seed each year -- no saving seed from one year's crop to plant next year's crop, nosiree Bob, that won't do! Gotta rake in the $$ from that patent dontcha know. And as for the argument that these crops won't contaminate non-GMO crops nearby, false. You know it, I know it, anyone who knows how plants are pollinated knows that it just ain't possible to maintain complete separation between two crops grown next to each other. Just ask that Canadian farmer who grew non-GMO crops next door to a GMO farm: his crops were contaminated, and he ended up having to pay Monsanto for the privilege of growing crops containing their *patented* genes... even though he had never intended to do so and had tried not to.

Finally, the argument that "people have been improving plants genetically for hundreds of years" really doesn't wash. Yes, plants have been bred for certain traits. Even related species have been interbred -- usually if not always resulting in infertile hybrids. But there are two differences: one, it was the same or a closely related species; and two, the rate of change is incremental. If you think that the rate of change does not make a difference, consider this: rust and flame are two manifestations of the same process, namely, oxidation. A difference in degree can and often does mean a difference in kind.

Personally I resent having been made the subject of a large scale experiment that I never agreed to, namely, consumption of GMO foods -- pretty unavoidable unless one is very much a stickler about what they eat, since corn products like corn syrup are in so many things these days, and soy products as well.

</rant>

[NickB79]

40. I think I remember that incident

Somewhat vague on it though. There are two major problems I see attributing that to Bt corn production though. First, Bt corn has been in widespread use for at least five yrs, but this incident only occurred two years ago. If it were responsible for the rashes, why did it take three yrs before the outbreak? Secondly, why haven't any further such incidents taken place? We're now growing MORE acres of Bt corn today than we were two years ago. Why did the rash suddenly disappear if the possible source of it actually expanded to cover more ground?

"Yet what really happened, was the GMO corn was engineered so that it had a higher resistance to Roundup, so that farmers could use even *more* Roundup on their crops."

Yes, farmers are using more Roundup on their crops, but in place of other, more dangerous herbicides. In comparison to chemicals such as atrazine/2,4-D, Roundup is much more environmentally friendly. It has a much shorter active lifespan, it is far less toxic to wildlife, less likely to migrate to waterways, and it is degraded rapidly in the soil. Even if a farmer still applies a ton of Roundup to a field in place of a ton of atrazine, there are still significant environmental savings because of the lower toxicity and longevity of Roundup.

"And of course there is the fact that farmers are now required to buy their seed each year -- no saving seed from one year's crop to plant next year's crop, nosiree Bob, that won't do!"

I grew up on a farm, and the truth is that farmers almost NEVER replant their own seed, and haven't for the past 30+ years. Almost all non-GM crops today, especially corn, are still hybrids. Hybrids don't typically breed true from seed, so a field planted with saved seed from hybrid corn would give low yields as many of the plants would not carry the hybrid traits. The only crop I can remember planting from saved seed was oats, and that was just as a cover crop for alfalfa where high yield was secondary to protecting the young alfalfa sprouts.

[BiggJawn]

10. Monsanto has a "reputation"

For anything other than being greedy and "playing god" with their frankenfood crap.

Oh, sure, they're just "hurrying along Nature" a bit, bringing about genetic changes that might occur in a few hundred-thousand years anyway, but while that's going on, our species is not getting a chance to gradually adapt.

Sure, they SAY it's "just BT Maize", but is it?

Just like broadway producers, they see how their new show plays out of town before they bring it home.

[freeforall]

15. Yep, now watch this...

story get squashed real fast.

If preliminary results are confirmed, it would be one of the first recorded cases of serious health problems associated with GM crops, and could damage the reputation of the biotech agriculture industry, which is rapidly expanding in developing countries.

The government won't even label these Frankenfoods - and God knows what kind of effects they will have on us.

[donsu]

18. kick

nt

[havocmom]

19. Scientists suspect threat from GM grain and likely to be unemployed soon

Not acceptable to Corporate Facists to show evidence that they may be doing harm. BFEE will replace them with more compliatn scientists and remove data from web sites

[twilight]

21. yes or ...

allow such persons to go back and delete (or require) such persons all information and threads about this.

I've already seen this option available on another site I USED to visit. Do not delete my point of view nor a topic I have initiated please. If you do, I go ... far far away ...

:dem:

[question everything]

23. This is not military research

This is pure scientific research reported in scientific journals and in conferences. Besides Monsanto there is Pioneer Hi-Bred (subs. of Dupont) as well as scientists in Land Grand universities in Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and Illinois. You can be certain that these scientists will not cover up anything. If nothing else, Pioneer Hi-Bred built is 100+ years reputation on credible science, starting with Henry Wallace. You know who Wallace was, don't you?

[gate of the sun]

25. I wonder how many

reports of this kind we will here before any attempt at restricting GM foods will be introduced?

[snowFLAKE]

26. The problem will be "Boy crying Wolf"-induced complacency

Anti-GMO activists, who bombard the general public with misinformation may think themselves to be winning converts (and they may indeed be), but they are losing all credibility with and decision makers who base their considerations on facts, not conjecture.

For example, the events related in "original post" in this thread could not have happened as reported - they are a scientific impossibility. However, the popular press is notoriously poor at reporting science-related matters so there might be more going on, or something else going on, than reported.

A more extreme example is Post #6 in this thread titled "GM foods have already killed people..." Not only is this headline mis-information, it is blatantly dishonest. First, the product in question (tryptophan) was not a food, it was a dietary supplement. Second, the fact that people died was entirely incidental to the fact that GM technology was used. I realize that analogies never quite fit the situation, but consider the case where somebody is beaten to death with an aluminum baseball bat. There are baseball "purists" out there (including myself) who hate aluminum baseball bats - however I would be making a fool of myself to use the beating-to-death incident to lobby for the banning of aluminum baseball bats. After all, a good old fashioned baseball bat would have been just as deadly; further the problem really isn't with the baseball bat at all, just how it was used. Similarly, the "deadly" GM-produced tryptophan was deadly not because it was produced in GM bugs (similar, deadly contaminants have been found in non-GMO-produced batches of both tryptophan and melatonin) but rather because corners were cut in the production process. The real lesson to learn is that dietary supplements should perhaps be regulated by the FDA similar to pharmaceutical agents.

The link under post #6 is full of equally dubious anti-GMO anecdotes. By the time one finishes reading it, the obvious conclusion is that that anti-GMO crowd consists of a bunch of complete nutcases; which is unfortunate because there are indeed some legitimate concerns with this (or any novel) technologies. But like the boy who cried wolf, or the president who cried WsMD, their previous mis-representations (to be charitible) or blantant lies (to be a bit harsh, perhaps), renders their future task of alerting society to GMO danger all that much more difficult.

[hedgetrimmer]

27. Dude WTF r u talking 'bout?

Your post is about some crazy-ass tryptophan and not about the maize gate of the sun was refering to... are you trying to mix up the issue and attempt your own boy crying wolf and fucking everyones opposition to gm foods... what is the deal?

[snowFLAKE]

28. I twice mentioned that I was responding to Post #6

A post which made the extraordinary claim that

GM foods have already killed people...

Like somebody else pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - but the GM "food" in question, which was the "crazy-ass tryptophan" you refer to, was not responsible for the deaths.

The deal is that the original post on which this thread is based continues a long trend of hysterical anti-GMO rants that prove not to be based in reality upon closer inspection.

Here are a few more examples to illustrate the trend:

CLAIM: GM crops kill monarch butterflies

Reality: The initial much-hyped study was done under laboratory conditions in which the insects were exclusively fed Bt-containing crops. Of course they suffered adverse health effects. But in a follow-up study under "real-world" conditions, monarchs quickly learned to avoid Bt-crops and go feed elsewhere (for example, Bt-crops are co-planted with non-Bt crops to provide a place for insects to feed to delay the onset of Bt-resistance) and thus suffered no adverse effects.


CLAIM: GM potatoes cause gastrointestinal disease in rats

Reality: The rats were force-fed the GM potatoes to the point where they would almost explode. Similar feeding regimens of completely natural potatoes were equally harmful to the rats.


CLAIM: GM maize has contaminated hundreds of "heritage" strains of maize in Mexico

Reality: The study making this claim was shoddily performed, and has been denounced by almost 200 leading scientists in the field.


There are dozens of these examples where anti-GMO hype just doesn't match the reality. Therefore, although the jury is still out on the claims made in the original topic of this thread - established trends strongly suggest that when all is said and done this will be just another instance of "boy crying wolf."

[Ripley]

29. Just a question.

If bt crops had nothing to do with the massive die-offs of the Monarch butterflys, what did? That study in Mexico may have been denounced by a few corporate shill scientists, but hundreds more would agree that story is true, not been debunked.

Which one do you work for?

[snowFLAKE]

31. Monarch (and other butterflies)

The original paper ascribing harm to Monarchs . . .

The May publication in Nature of a peer-reviewed Scientific Correspondence paper indicating that transgenic pollen kills larvae of the monarch butterfly provoked contrasting responses around the world. While environmental interest groups seized on the findings as demonstrating the harmful effects of genetically modified crops on "nontarget" species in agricultural regions, plant scientists and representatives of life science companies among others criticized the work as premature, incomplete, and unconvincing.

In the controversial experiments, monarch larvae fed on milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from N4640-Bt corn (a commercial variety containing a gene for an insecticidal Bacillus thuringiensis protein as a defense against infestation with the European corn borer) ate less, grew more slowly and had higher mortality than those fed plain leaves or leaves dusted with pollen from a nontransgenic corn line. After four days, survival of larvae exposed to N4640-Bt corn was 56% compared with 100% for the pollen-plus and pollen-minus controls. The monarch, whose larvae feed exclusively on milkweed leaves, is regarded as a particularly sensitive indicator of environmental disturbance.

Critics of the work have particularly highlighted a number of weaknesses of the paper. Continued at . . .

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nbt/journal/v17/n7/full/nbt0799_627.html



Here are a few studies by "corporate shill scientists" - based at universities in three different counties (gawd, to have the corporate reach of Monsanto . . . ) that specifically debunk the original findings:

Study #1

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jul 5;97(14):7700-3.

Absence of toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis pollen to black swallowtails under field conditions.

Wraight CL, Zangerl AR, Carroll MJ, Berenbaum MR.

Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, 320 Morrill Hall, 505 South Goodwin, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.

A single laboratory study on monarch butterflies has prompted widespread concern that corn pollen, engineered to express Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) endotoxin, might travel beyond corn fields and cause mortality in nontarget lepidopterans. Among the lepidopterans at high potential risk from this technology is the black swallowtail butterfly, Papilio polyxenes, whose host plants in the midwestern U. S. are located principally in narrow strips between roads and crop fields. A field study was performed to assess whether mortality of early instar black swallowtails was associated either with proximity to a field of Bt corn or by levels of Bt pollen deposition on host plants. Potted host plants were infested with first instar black swallowtails and placed at intervals from the edge of a field of Bt corn (Pioneer 34R07 containing Monsanto event 810) at the beginning of anthesis. We confirmed by ELISA that pollen from these plants contained Cry1Ab endotoxin (2.125 +/- 0.289 ng/g). Although many of the larvae died during the 7 days that the experiments were run, there was no relationship between mortality and proximity to the field or pollen deposition on host plants. Moreover, pollen from these same plants failed to cause mortality in the laboratory at the highest pollen dose tested (10,000 grains/cm(2)), a level that far exceeded the highest pollen density observed in the field (200 grains/cm(2)). We conclude that Bt pollen of the variety tested is unlikely to affect wild populations of black swallowtails. Thus, our results suggest that at least some potential nontarget effects of the use of transgenic plants may be manageable.

Study #2

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Oct 9;98(21):11908-12. Epub 2001 Sep 14.

Effects of exposure to event 176 Bacillus thuringiensis corn pollen on monarch and black swallowtail caterpillars under field conditions.

Zangerl AR, McKenna D, Wraight CL, Carroll M, Ficarello P, Warner R, Berenbaum MR.

Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.

The widespread planting of corn genetically modified to produce Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxin has led to speculation that pollen from these fields might adversely affect nearby nontarget lepidopterans. A previous study of Bt corn engineered with Monsanto event 810 failed to detect an effect of pollen exposure on the black swallowtail, Papilio polyxenes, in either the field or the laboratory. Here, we report results of a field study investigating the impact of exposure to pollen from a Bt corn hybrid containing Novartis event 176 on two species of Lepidoptera, black swallowtails and monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus. Nearly half of the 600 monarch larvae died within the first 24 h; this and subsequent mortality was not associated with proximity to Bt corn and may have been due in part to predation. Survivorship of black swallowtails was much higher than that of the monarchs and was also independent of proximity to the transgenic corn. However, despite five rainfall events that removed much of the pollen from the leaves of their host plants during the experiment, we observed a significant reduction in growth rates of black swallowtail larvae that was likely caused by pollen exposure. These results suggest that Bt corn incorporating event 176 can have adverse sublethal effects on black swallowtails in the field and underscore the importance of event selection in reducing environmental impacts of transgenic plants.

Study #3

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Oct 9;98(21):11937-42. Epub 2001 Sep 14.

Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment.

Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP.

Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1.

A collaborative research effort by scientists in several states and in Canada has produced information to develop a formal risk assessment of the impact of Bt corn on monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) populations. Information was sought on the acute toxic effects of Bt corn pollen and the degree to which monarch larvae would be exposed to toxic amounts of Bt pollen on its host plant, the common milkweed, Asclepias syriaca, found in and around cornfields. Expression of Cry proteins, the active toxicant found in Bt corn tissues, differed among hybrids, and especially so in the concentrations found in pollen of different events. In most commercial hybrids, Bt expression in pollen is low, and laboratory and field studies show no acute toxic effects at any pollen density that would be encountered in the field. Other factors mitigating exposure of larvae include the variable and limited overlap between pollen shed and larval activity periods, the fact that only a portion of the monarch population utilizes milkweed stands in and near cornfields, and the current adoption rate of Bt corn at 19% of North American corn-growing areas. This 2-year study suggests that the impact of Bt corn pollen from current commercial hybrids on monarch butterfly populations is negligible.

Study #4

Trends Genet. 2002 May;18(5):249-51.

The case of the monarch butterfly: a verdict is returned.

Gatehouse AM, Ferry N, Raemaekers RJ.

Dept of Agricultural and Environmental Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.

A publication reporting the harmful effects on the monarch butterfly of maize genetically modified to express insecticidal delta-endotoxins from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) caused much public interest. A series of ecologically based studies were subsequently carried out to evaluate rigorously the impact of pollen from such crops and to quantify the risks. The results demonstrated that the commercial large-scale cultivation of current Bt-maize hybrids did not pose a significant risk to the monarch population. Further studies also demonstrated that Bt-expressing crops posed little risk to other nontarget insects, including beneficial insects such as pollinators and natural enemies.

[KittyWampus]

33. Ah, But The Impact Of GM Maize Isn't THE ONLY PROBLEM

there are other stresses on the Natural Environment.

Thinned foresets in South/Central American contributed to a huge die off of Monarch's not long ago. The weather was unusally cold and the forests were so thinned they couldn't buffer the harsh weather for the resident Monarchs and huge numbers died.

The stupidity of Industrial Science is that it thinks Life happens in its contolled Laboratory.

In any event, every plant grown from GM seed is an exact copy. None of the minute differentiation present that Traditional methods of plant breeding allows.

That alone is Reason enough to ban Genetically Modified Seed.

[NickB79]

41. There are many non-GM crops without genetic variation

"In any event, every plant grown from GM seed is an exact copy. None of the minute differentiation present that Traditional methods of plant breeding allows.

That alone is Reason enough to ban Genetically Modified Seed."

Seedless grapes are the first that come to mind. They are propagated by rooting cuttings from a parent plant, since the parent plant is incapable of reproduction by seed. Thus, every one of the thousands upon thousands of seedless grape plants grown from that original parent vine are all exact copies of one another. Pineapples, some bananas and some citrus friuts are also produced in this fashion. Apples are another example. All Red Delicious apples, as well as all other commerical apple varieties produced around the world, are genetically identical. Twigs from the original Red Delicious apple tree were grafted onto seedling apple rootstocks, and grafts from those trees taken, and so on and so on. The same is true for virtually every named fruit tree grown today, because most fruit trees don't breed true from seed (the resultant seedlings would be a mixture of good and poor tasting forms). Plums, peaches, pears, cherries, etc, all graft-propagated from a few original parent plants and thus all clones of one another. This practice has been carried out for thousands of years.

Should all these be banned as well? I don't want to cut down my apple trees just yet.

[snowFLAKE]

34. Could you kindly list the hundreds who agree the Maize story is true?

Despite your characterization, it's not just a few corporate shill scientists who don't agree with the study - for example the entire Editorial Board of Transgenic Research have raised objections:

These scientists are quite a diverse group:

Editor:
Paul Christou
Fraunhofer IME, Schmallenberg, Germany
Bruce Whitelaw
Roslin Institute, Midlothian, UK

Editorial Board:
Zsuzsa Bosze, Agricultural Research Centre, Godollo, Hungary; Diego Breviario, Consiglio Nazionale del Ricerche, Milan, Italy; Ken Brown, CXR Biosciences Limited, Dundee, UK; Teresa Capell, Fraunhofer IME, Schmallenberg, Germany; Swapan Datta, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Banos, The Philippines; Isabel Diaz, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain; Thomas Doetschman, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA; Rainer Fischer, RWTH Aachen, Germany; Roy Forster, Centre Internationale de Toxicologie, Evreux, France; John D. Gearhart, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Frank G. Grosveld, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Emmanuel Guiderdoni, CIRAD, Montpellier, France; Perry B. Hackett, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA; Lothar Hennighausen, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA; Luis Herrera Estrella, CINVESTAV, Irapuato, Mexico; Elizabeth E. Hood, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, USA; John G. Mason, Florigene Ltd., Collingwood, Vict., Australia; Lluis Montoliu, CNB-CSIC, Madrid, Spain; Mathias Müller, VUW, Wien, Austria; Nickolas Panopoulos, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece; Mario Pezzotti, Università di Verona, Italy; Carl A. Pinkert, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, NY, USA; Christine Pourcel, INSERM, Nantes, France; Hector Quemada, Crop Technology Consulting, Inc., Kalamazoo, MI, USA; Frank H. Ruddle, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Helen Sang, Roslin Institute, Midlothian, UK; Stefan Schillberg, Fraunhofer-Institut for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology IME, Aachen, Germany; Andrew J.H. Smith, University of Edinburgh, UK; David A. Somers, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA; Eva Stöger, RWTH/ Biology VII, Aachen, Germany; Akhilesh K. Tyagi, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India; Jean-Luc Vilotte, INRA-CRJ, Jouy-en-Josas, France; Robert J. Wall, Gene Evaluation and Mapping Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, USA; Ken-Ichi Yamamura, Kumamoto University Medical School, Japan

Here are snippets from their article titled No Credible Scientific Evidence is Presented to Support Claims that Transgenic DNA was Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico

http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0962-8819/contents

On 14th November 2001, a paper
was published in the journal Nature which claimed for
the first time to present evidence that transgene DNA
had introgressed from commercially-released transgenic
maize varieties into traditional landraces. It is
not surprising that a scientific paper with such a strong
claim in the title would be seized upon by the media
and the public, including those who have been working
with transgenic plants for many years. What is
very surprising, however, is that a manuscript with so
many fundamental flaws was published in a scientific
journal that normally has very stringent criteria for accepting
manuscripts for publication. Members of the
Editorial Board of Transgenic Research, and a number
of other scientists with many decades of experience
in the area of transgenics, have provided comments
that indeed demonstrate that the data presented in the
published article are mere artifacts resulting from poor
experimental design and practices. Consequently, this
editorial focuses strictly on a purely scientific analysis
of the data presented in the manuscript.

A careful analysis of the data presented in the
paper strongly suggest the following:

• Sample contamination is the most likely explanation
for the observed results.

• Rather than rely on questionable PCR results,
plants that were alleged to contain introgressed
DNA should have been grown out and subjected
to more reliable confirming studies.

• The inverse PCR results are technically flawed.

• Cross pollination and introgression would not produce
these results.

[flavorself]

35. Another view of this

Full article at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/hgt.php

Paper at end of article :

Transgenic Pollution by Horizontal Gene Transfer?

The evidence that landraces growing in remote regions in Mexico have been contaminated by transgenic maize1 deserves further consideration.

Four of the six samples (cobs) tested positive for the CaMV 35S promoter used in all transgenic crops commercialised, while the blue maize of Cuzco Valley in Peru and seed samples from historic collection in Sierra Norte de Oaxaca tested negative.

Sequence analysis at the site of transgene insertion by inverse PCR yielded 1 to 4 DNA fragments differing in size in each sample. The sequences downstream of the CaMV 35S promoter were diverse. Two sequences were similar to synthetic constructs containing regions of the adh1 gene found in transgenic maize currently on the market, such as Novartis Bt11. Other sequences represented the criollo maize genome, including retrotransposon regions, whereas others showed no similarity to any GenBank sequence.

As a moratorium on planting transgenic maize has been in place in Mexico since 1998, it was suggested that the contamination might be due to "loose implementation of the moratorium", or to "introgression before 1998 followed by the survival of transgenes in the population".

However, simple cross-pollination cannot explain the fragmentary, diverse nature of the transgene contamination, which is a sign of horizontal gene transfer and recombination.

It is significant that all the contaminated samples had acquired the CaMV 35S promoter, with the rest of the transgenic construct either missing or recombined. This observation is consistent with our warning that CaMV 35S promoter has a recombination hotspot, and is hence expected to enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination.2-4 We have demanded all transgenic crops with CaMV 35S promoter to be immediately withdrawn in 1999. Since then, researchers who have discovered the CaMV 35S recombination hotspot have recommended that the promoter should no longer be used5 but fell short of calling for existing crops containing it to be withdrawn.

Quist, D. & Chapela, I.H. Nature 414, 541-543 (2001).
Ho, M.W., Ryan, A. & Cummins, J. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 11, 194-197 (1999).
Ho, M.W., Ryan, A. & Cummins, J. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 12, 6-11 (2000).
Ho, M.W., Ryan, A. & Cummins, J. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 12,189 (2000).
Christou, P et al, John Innes Centre & Sainsbury Laboratory Annual Report 1999/2000.

[snowFLAKE]

36. Thank you for providing this information

I should have done so myself to avoid doing exactly what the anti-GMO crowd does - namely, provide only one side of the argument.

Basically, your "Another view of this" outlines what was published in the now-discredited Nature article (Quist, D. & Chapela, I.H. Nature 414, 541-543 (2001)).

Unfortunately, the i-sis website is not a scientific site, but is rather a political advocacy site that only provides one side of the issues. As I posted above, the vast majority of scientists who have weighed in on this issue have been skeptical of the findings that were presented. In fact, even Nature has had second thoughts about this work:

Editorial note (from http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v416/n6881/full/nature738_fs.html)

In our 29 November issue, we published the paper "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico" by David Quist and Ignacio Chapela. Subsequently, we received several criticisms of the paper, to which we obtained responses from the authors and consulted referees over the exchanges. In the meantime, the authors agreed to obtain further data, on a timetable agreed with us, that might prove beyond reasonable doubt that transgenes have indeed become integrated into the maize genome. The authors have now obtained some additional data, but there is disagreement between them and a referee as to whether these results significantly bolster their argument.

In light of these discussions and the diverse advice received, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper. As the authors nevertheless wish to stand by the available evidence for their conclusions, we feel it best simply to make these circumstances clear, to publish the criticisms, the authors' response and new data, and to allow our readers to judge the science for themselves.

Editor, Nature

I believe I posted the link for PUBMED above in this thread, but I'll do so again here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

At this site, sponsored by the NIH, you can find unfiltered original research papers. Basically, by carefully cherry picking evidence that supports a particular viewpoint, such as is done by the i-sis people, you can find information to support almost anything. However, if you care to take the time to determine the consensus of the scientific community, you'll often find that reality is quite different.

[Ripley]

37. Okay.

I stand corrected that the reasoning for the butterfly decline does not appear to be bt corn this time. However, it is due to deforestation.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/26/1048653746894.html

Why would anyone want to contaminate entire crops not only regionally, but globally with a strain of pesticide or whatever modifier is used when the effects are not yet known? The push for Monsanto to bt the entire world sounds like PNAC for science. We don't need to go slow, evaluate and watch for any unexpected consequences, we need to rush this to every continent...NOW!

That doesn't sound prudent to me, and if it was such a great idea, how come no small farmers want this stuff? Don't you think farmers who have been living off the land for generations know what the consequences could be? Not just monetary. Not just loss of biodiversity. Nature cannot be tamed as a lab experiment as someone noted above.

[snowFLAKE]

38. Rationale risk analysis

Suggests that it is much more dangerous to introduce billions of pounds of pesticides freely into the environment than to have them contained within the host organism. In theory, therefore, GM crops are environmently beneficial compared with the alternative (i.e., spraying massive field, and the Mexican workers who happen to be there at the time, with pesticides). In practice, clearly there should be careful evaluation whether reality meets expectations - this site:

http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/pesticide.html

summarizes whether or not pesticide use is actually reduced with GM crops. If not, there will be no financial incentive for farmers (or corporations masquerading as farmers) to continue growing GM crops and it won't happen. Evidence now suggests that in some cases, such as for soybeans, pesticide use is significantly reduced; in other cases use actually increases.

Perhaps in an ideal world, neither type of pesticide would be used. After all, plants are quite capable of producing their own pesticides, and do so when challenged with insects. A brief discussion of this topic can be found at:

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1990/v1-511.html

The downside is that even these natural compounds are far from benign - for example, nicotine is a natural pesticide and its effects on human health are well known to be rather negative. There are hundreds of similar compounds, and although their health effects are less studied, they are suspected to be rather bad (for more information, check out Bruce Ames' research from the University of California, Berkeley).

[Jose Diablo]

43. Monsanto is free to do a "Rationale risk analysis"

with my life? Where the fuck do these people get-off thinking they can experiment on me and its "Rationale risk analysis".

The question raised earlier and not answered is, what corporation do you work for snowFLAKE?

Is your interest more and better knowledge, or is your interest obscuring knowledge for some corporate interest and furthering its economic interests?

As for Monsanto, from the history of safely handling PCB to its handling of growth hormone in bovine and the dairy industry, I would say its far past time to cancel its corporate charter and hold the shareholders economically liable for any and all fuckups these folks are doing. Maybe the shareholders will take an interest if their homes are put on the block for Monsanto's mistakes.

I don't think these folks are as smart as they think they are when it comes to manipulating genetics. And if they fuck-up, I can hear it now, "Oh, soll solly". I ain't buying, nor should anybody else.

[Jose Diablo]

44. As for implanting a 'gene' to manufacture a pesticide in a food crop.

I cannot even begin to find a rational reason to do this.

Ah, I see, we want to stop the bugs from eating the food before we can harvest and sell the crop.

Uh, do you think its a good idea to take our food and have some pesticide built in it? Would pesticide be OK for humans to consume? What would the long term effects be of ingesting pesticides?

Let me see, we need to do a study of this issue would be the answer to this question.

Crap, people can be so intelligent and still be idiots.

[snowFLAKE]

45. Is the second link I provided in post #38 not working for you?

If not, let me know and I can email the information separately.

Basically, plants produce a huge number of "built-in" pesticides themselves - particularly in "organic"-grown foods where no artificial pesticides are provided. These "natural" pesticides are every bit as dangerous to human health as "artificial" pesticides - for example, nicotine is hardly a benign compound. Furthermore, these pesticides have all the cancer-causing properties of some of the nastier organic chemicals used as pesticides.

Therefore, a "rationale" reason for implanting a gene to manufacture pesticide in a crop is to avoid the use of both the "spray-on" artificial pesticides that widely contaminate the environment as well as keeping the plants from producing their own noxious pesticides. Further, the pesticides introduced into crops are indeed "OK" for humans to consume - the Bt gene, for example, produces a protein that binds to certain forms of complex carbohydrates found on the surfaces of the cells that line the guts of certain insects. Upon binding, the toxin can then kill the insect, otherwise it is harmless. Humans do not have the particular carbohydrate that serves as a binding epitope for the Bt protein, therefore it is simply digested in the human gut like all of the other myriad types of proteins that you eat every day. What is the long-term effects of ingesting this pesticide? Well, if you're an Atkins diet aficionado, then I suppose that the slightly increased protein intake is a good thing.

[NickB79]

39. n/t

deleted

[dArKeR]

42. Villagers blame GM crops for mystery illness

THE GUARDIAN , KALYONG, THE PHILIPPINES
Friday, Mar 05, 2004,Page 5

The recently planted rows of pineapple plants in the one-and-a-half-hectare field on one side of the Malayon family home look neat and well-tended, but are otherwise not really worth a second glance.

But what occurred last year on and around this plot in Kalyong village, on the southern Philippine island of Mindanao, is threatening to turn this unremarkable field into a battleground in the war over genetically modified crops.

For the first time there are indications that the pollen from the bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize sown here last year may have contributed to human illness.

Dr. Terje Traavik, the scientific director of the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, who was asked last October to analyze blood samples from 39 of the 100 people who fell ill, has said that a link might exist between GM crops and human health.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/03/05/2003101211