Monsanto
Beyond the Rows is a Monsanto Company blog focused on agriculture. Monsanto employees write about Monsanto’s business, agriculture, biotechnology, and the farmer.
Jul 06, 2009 | Read | 77 Comments » Tags: biotech, Blogging, GM Food, Monsanto, organic, seed lawsuits
Author: Monsantoco By Jeff
There are a lot of things that describe me. PhD scientist, husband, father, biophysicist, biochemist, blogger, history buff, platform lead, poet, Monsanto employee and political progressive. The last two things on that list are a source of great conflict, at least for me recently.
Those that know me well know that my political leanings lie far to the left and they also know that I make no apologies for it. As a result, I read Daily Kos daily. I have met some wonderful progressive activists through that blog and participated in activities that are aimed at making our corner of the world a better place. For those non-political geeks, the dictionary defines progressive in the context of politics thus:
1 a: one that is progressive b: one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action
It is the end of that definition that I identify with most. It is one of my core beliefs that government can be used as a tool to enact social change.
So, what about this conflict? It should come as no surprise to most of you that Monsanto is not a favorite among much of the progressive crowd. Perhaps the opposition to GM crops in Europe spearheaded by Greenpeace is the most well known example of progressive opposition. Over the last couple of years, the local food movement has blossomed in the U.S. The term locavore is now heard regularly in the news and on the Internet. One focus of the local food movement is food security – the availability and access to food. Perhaps now you can start to connect the dots to see how the local food movement – a progressive movement – might be at odds with Monsanto.
As you might imagine, the patenting of seeds is seen by many in the movement as an attempt to control, monopolize even, the access to food. And of course, our attempts to enforce our legal patent rights are also seen in a negative light. In this context, hardly a week goes by without a diary on my favorite progressive blog bashing Monsanto for the work we do. You can see them in the link to this search.
Pick a few of those diaries and read them. Then go and read the comments. I assure you it will be enlightening. You will learn that Monsanto employees are stupid. We’ve been hoodwinked by our employer. Why else would we work here? Not only are we stupid, we’re evil. You must be evil to want to control the world’s food supply. You might also learn that Monsanto employees are still working on Terminator technology. Did you know that we put animal genes into plants? Did you know that pollen from our genetically-modified crops will magically migrate into another farmer’s field and contaminate his crop? When that happens, big bad Monsanto will forcibly move onto that farm and confiscate the crop. Our goons will go and put that small organic farmer out of business. That’s what the evil Monsanto does. As any reasonable blog entry will have links, go check them out. Most of them link to pseudo-science sites or other blogs.
If you can’t tell by now, those particular diaries really make my blood boil. But it isn’t only about anger, it’s about hurt. Because I suspect that those diarists and I will probably agree on more issues than we disagree. Some of those same folks might be standing beside me volunteering at the food bank, organizing online for AIDS relief for Africa, or bringing attention to the restoration of the poor parts of New Orleans after Katrina by lobbying our representatives. So, when those people, MY people call Monsanto evil, call Monsanto stupid, they’re calling ME evil and stupid. And they’re calling other employees evil and stupid. And just as I have a bond with those political progressives, I have a bond with those employees who come to work every day and bust their backsides trying to discover the latest yield gene, or those who sweat their backsides off in a hot Iowa cornfield sampling plants in the summer, or those on the sales force that go the extra mile to make a customer feel like the only customer we have.
We are not stupid and we are not evil. It is not evil to develop drought-resistant maize for Africa. It is not evil to help stop child labor in India. We are not evil for improving the working conditions of migrant farm workers. The Monsanto Pledge is not a bunch of words that make us sound good. In fact, this:
With the growth of modern agricultural practices and crops that generate ever-increasing yields, we are helping farmers around the world to create a better future for human beings, the environment, and local economies.
Sounds pretty darn progressive to me. There’s nothing incompatible with the work we do every day and a progressive vision. And THAT is one of the reasons that I come to work here every day. Those folks in the food security movement would call me stupid for saying it, but we’re just as progressive as they are. Well, they’re going to call me stupid anyway.
I wrote this mainly as a way to vent. I could not write responses to all of the Monsanto bashing that occurs on my favorite progressive blog. First of all, it would take too much time. Second, the people that do try to inject reasoned science into the discussion are dismissed as “evil corporate shills” and ridiculed. Sadly, because of the transparency that we advocate, I would probably not wish to subject my family to any possible fallout from some of these people – and that is rather sad to me given our common progressive ideology.
However, I don’t think that Monsanto as a company can ignore these people or this movement. If we do, I fear it might be at our own peril. A look at the growth of the locavore movement over the last two years tells you that this grassroots movement is gaining in popularity and clout. Recall that such a grassroots movement just elected the first African-American president of the United States. It would behoove us to develop a coherent, reasoned response to this movement and let our side of the story be heard.
I will not abandon my progressive brothers over this issue just as I won’t abandon my colleagues. I hope someday we’ll all be able to work together to make this world a better place.
Jeff is a Senior Research Scientist at Monsanto where he currently leads the Protein Design Platform. Prior to joining Monsanto he was a Robert A. Welch Fellow at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio and a postdoctoral fellow at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Jeff received his PhD in Biochemistry from Texas Tech University. His career at Monsanto has been devoted to both understanding the biological activities of Monsanto’s proteins as well as optimizing proteins for the product pipeline. He is the co-author of 9 peer-reviewed publications, 1 book chapter, and 2 United States Patents.
Jeff is also keenly interested in politics, social justice, and early-American history. He continually draws inspiration from his political hero, Robert Kennedy.
Category: At Monsanto
Tags: biotech, Blogging, GM Food, Monsanto, organic, seed lawsuits
I wish there were projections on how many more people a year worldwide would die of hunger if it weren’t for American mass-production agriculture.
Deborah:-
Yes I’m serious. The linkage between genes being complex and potentially pleitropic, and ecosystems being complex is a tenuous link, chocolate is tasty, and marshmallow can be used for more than one thing – should I therefore conclude that chocolate covered marshmallows are, oh, lets say, gravity defying?
There is a complete lack of logical connection a) between the two statements, and b) between this erroneous linkage, and final conclusion.
On the lawsuit – I’m pretty sure you’re not going to find legal information on google scholar, and it was specifically information on the lawsuit which I was looking for, the quick look on google scholar will turn out results pointing out that Bt cotton outperforms non-Bt in most circumstances (although I think I muddied the water somewhat there mentioning Bt cotton, as the story was about roundup ready… apologies for that) – again, I’ll reiterate that I can’t find any other information around this (I’d also like some) other than the original story or versions of it in which a monsanto spokesperson attributes the poor yield to the weather and not the transgene (I’ll reiterate my hope that someone with more knowledge about cotton, and this case in particular, will say something about it)
Food security – everyone’s. (Take Malawi and corn as a case in point)
Water useage – I’m pretty sure that any increased water useage by GM plants is more a function of the hybrids being used rather than the transgenes, and with drought tolerant transgenes being something which will be released in coming years one can hardly use past performance as a good indicator of transgenics engineered for more efficient water use.
Herbicide useage – when compared to crops grown with other herbicides RR crops use less toxic herbicides and have a lower environmental impact. In an ideal world yes, zero herbicide useage would be great, and whoever develops a system for any of the major crops which allows for no herbicide useage while maintaining the same yields and profitability will become mindnumbingly rich (and no, organic systems categorically do not offer this alternative)
I dont believe I ever stated that a theory that a gene *may* have more than one function was tenuous (what was tenuous was linking this idea with the idea that ecosystems were complex)
Monsanto has invested in performance testing of smartstax – just as they invest in performance testing of every GMO they produce – if the stacks didn’t work they wouldn’t be released, because if they don’t perform, nobody will buy them.
Kelly, you would also have to show that such mass production could only be achieved with gmo’s to solidify your case. And what about the projected damage to be figured in, and how to figure it? How do we quantify–or even prove–some of the resources we have lost? Monsanto’s claim of increased yields is also contentious as many official studies show just the opposite result, decreased yields and increased inputs. Some problems with the use of glyphosate are listed here: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa.nsf/93a98744f6ec41bd4a256c8e00013aa9/02221cb57c86c26eca25739c001727c9/$FILE/45-Harper.pdf
And Ewan, what is your “slightly more logical stance” on nitrogen usage? How about in conjuction with roundup usage? Can you say that you will enhance nitrogen efficiency in one crop while glyphosate and/or roundup usage has decreased nitrogen fixation for 25 years or so?
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/research/s302/S-302_Annual_Report_2004.pdf
Don Huber (IN) reported that glyphosate reduced manganese uptake in soybean. Deficiency can be corrected with foliar Mn applications. Other reported effects of glyphosate included: (1) reduced Mn uptake, (2) immobilization of Mn, (3) reduced root nodulations and N fixation, (4) increased drought stress, (5) earlier maturity, (6) more susceptibility to diseases, and (7) changes in soil microflora (rhizobium, fusaria, disease predisposition). He reported Corynesporum on dead ragweed roots and reduced growth on adjacent soybean plant sprayed with glyphosate. This was not observed on soybean plants 18 inches away.
My slightly more logical stance on nitrogen useage is based on the current investment into development of more nitrogen efficient crops rather than any currently released product (as with water, although the wait for N efficient transgenic crops is going to be somewhat longer) – this is a subject close to my heart as it is the team I work on.
Can we say that we will enhance Nitrogen efficiency in one crop while roundup has reduced N fixation for 25 years (I question this figure… anyone spraying roundup on N fixing crops prior to the introduction of RR crops was killing their crop, therefore any roundup useage on any vegetation prior to the introduction of RR crops cannot be seen to have reduced N fixation as without a doubt the vegetation, and with it the N fixing microbes, would have been removed by some other method – soil bacteria in other soils treated with glyphosate would I assume be affected by other herbicides, and would most likely recolonize soil relatively quickly considering the speed at which glyphosate is removed from the soil) or so (perhaps you just have very big error bars)?
Yes. I dont see any logical reason why one would preclude the other. If we can develop an N efficient corn (and we believe we can, and invest a lot in this area, and you’ll hear about whether we make any progress or not when Monsanto reports a phase transition for the project) which for instance reduces the requirement of the crop for N fertilizers by say 30-60lbs of N per acre (a tough goal, but within the range of what we’d like to do) would have huge impacts both environmentally and financially (I did a back of the envelope calculation a while back taking into account total US corn acreage, average fertilizer useage, and this average -30 and -60lbs – suffice to say the difference in spend on N fertilizers was in the billions of dollars) and is completely unconnected with any other aspect of what Monsanto does. (keep in mind that corn doesnt fix nitrogen symbiotically (yet – hopefully by 2050 Monsanto (or someone at least)will have pioneered that particular technology also))
I also seem to recall that the effects on symbiotic N fixers in soy was a transient effect with no effect on yield within season or on the subsequent crop (basically you apply the roundup, it knocks out the symbiotic N fixers, but then they return) – this was a I believe in a paper you had previously linked on the same subject.
Ewan Ross Says:
July 27, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Monsanto has invested in performance testing of smartstax – just as they invest in performance testing of every GMO they produce – if the stacks didn’t work they wouldn’t be released, because if they don’t perform, nobody will buy them.
_____________________
What about the safety testing? Too bad that we can’t say that without adequate safety testing we won’t eat them…
Is the absurdity of your chocolate fluff analogy meant to take away from the from the serious risk of modified genes having unforeseen, adverse effects on an organism which then perpetuates its genes, itself, freely in nature…Is it so much of a leap to conclude that one reaction causes another reaction in a fluid, living system? Is it likely that an action will have a reaction?
What would be the odds that a gene constructed with man’s limited knowledge, inserted into an organism he does not fully understand, set loose in a living sytem he does not fully understand– might have negative, unforeseen consequences? I wonder what the odds are that it doesn’t already? You know there have been unforeseen consequences already. How bad they are, only time will tell. The genes are not logically removed from the dynamics of the ecosystem. You are wielding fluff!
Deborah – ‘mass production’ started way before GMO’s were thought of. There are lots and lots of ‘mass produced’ food that are not GMO – for instance – all organic food that you do not grow in your back yard or pick up from the farm yourself.
I like mass produce food – it gets washed before I get it and preserved (frozen, dried or canned) for me so I can eat in the winter.
I like garden fresh too- it is super yummy. I will literally go home tonight and pick green beans an cucumbers for my dinner. I did not grow enought to can this year, however my sister texted my a picture of the pickles she canned last night. I hope she used my grandma’s recipe! – again – super yummy!
Deborah – the absurdity of my analogy is merely meant to mirror the absurdity of the original genes might have more than one effect, ecosystems are complex, therefore GMOs are dangerous.
You hit the nail on the head when you bring probabilities into it. I’d rephrase the “What would be the odds that a gene constructed with man’s limited knowledge, inserted into an organism he does not fully understand, set loose in a living sytem he does not fully understand– might have negative, unforeseen consequences?”
To a more concrete less biased statement along the lines of:-
What would be the odds that a gene inserted into an organism and released into the environment has negative consequences.
(the might have is unneccessary when discussing a probability in the first place)
My guess would be spectacularly low. Especially considering the vast amount we do know about inserting genes, the vast amount we do know about the organisms we are inserting them into, and the vast amount known about the genes being inserted. I get rather tired of the continued repetition that we dont know anything yet blindly go ahead releasing these things willy nilly. Man’s knowledge will always be limited (lets hope so, or the entire field of science will cease to exist), I dont see that we will ever “fully” understand anything, let alone living systems (following your same logic we should never do anything, ever, as we dont understand the system in which we are operating). However we are not in a perpetual state of ignorance. There’s a lot we do know, and a lot we don’t (and we revel in this gap in our knowledge as it gives us something to do) – we bring what we do know to the table, expand on this, and use this knowledge to improve agriculture.
Oh and you can say that without adequate safety testing you won’t eat them. Buy organic.
jg Says:
July 29, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Deborah – ‘mass production’ started way before GMO’s were thought of. There are lots and lots of ‘mass produced’ food that are not GMO
+++++++++++++++++
jg-I did not say that mass production of food started after gmo’s were introduced. I said that for Kelly to “imply” gmo farming had enabled the feeding of so many people who would otherwise not be have been fed, she would have to prove that the increases in food are caused by the farming of gmo’s specifically and not just mass production of crops. Perhaps Kelly was not making that point, since she did not mention gmo’s. I was assuming that to be her point.
Oh and you can say that without adequate safety testing you won’t eat them. Buy organic.
++++++++++++++++++
I can’t actually say that for certain as we both know organic crops get contaminated and can still be labelled organic. Seed gets contaminated and limited by buyouts.
But what a world this would be if Monsanto were as concerned about safety testing a crop before releasing it as they were about performance testing–I wish farmers would adopt this concern as well.
However Deborah, if you buy organic you vote with your wallet, which is what corporate America listens to, and also any ‘risk’ that did exist with any given GMO would be so diluted as to no longer be a risk (if it was a risk at the miniscule %age which may or may not exist within any organic product then it would be hard to argue that the increased risk from 100% GMO would not have been detected (yet for present GMOs, and in the future under any kind of testing regime)
I’d also argue (or repeat others sentiments on the blogs) that Monsanto are concerned about safety testing crops and ensuring as far as possible that any gene that actually reaches the testing stage (in a crop) is as safe as possible (everything goes through a bioinformatics toxicology/allergen screening before ever being inserted) – there is just a disagreement between what the anti-GMO crowd consider enough testing (but is it safe when grown under a half moon during a leap year within 1500 ft of a major highway to a certain specific cell line in vitro when run by an experimenter named Georgio) and what scientific convention considers enough testing (what is done)
Following from the various ‘not enough testing’ arguements I’m pretty sure one could also argue that performance testing was never ‘fully’ performed because it wasn’t done over 20 years and in every possible growing condition.
Is there any peer-reviewed safety testing of the SmartStax line available, Ewan?
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed”
Mahatma Gandhi
You can pat yourself on the back for what you think you are doing for the hungry, but your capitalist mentality will soon finish us off. Your draconian tactics against farmers, against science, against regulation are causing harm to those you profess to help.
Seeding the FDA and other regulatory agencies with former politicians and cronies is unfair to the American People. Your profits give you power, but your power is hollow. Two or three more exposes by investigative reports like Barlett and Steele and you are sunk.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
I don’t appreciate the patronizing tone of your response to the question of Indian suicides. The link you provided is a cold calculation on the profits in some report in 2004. It seems like in corporations a certain amount of suffering and death is part of doing business.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_in_India
Deborah – not as far as I am aware, I believe that the reasoning behind this is sound in that every trait in smartstax has gone through rigorous safety testing and there is no reason to assume interactions between the various traits in regards to safety.
Matericia – How well informed on projected population growth, projected food demand, and available land for agriculture was Gandhi when he made those statements? In the idealistic world yes, the Earth most likely could support it’s burdgeoning population on what it can produce without help, but what draconian tactics and harsh regulations would we need to impose to make everyone a vegetarian and to cut caloric intake in developed nations to 50% of where they currently are? In the real world, for the forseeable future, demand for food is going to increase faster than population growth (as the developing world catches up to the developed world in terms of what it eats). I dont see that attempting to provide for these demands will in any way “finish us off” – quite the opposite, based on the unrest globally during the onset of the food crisis – lack of affordable food is far more likely to deal a blow to society than an attempt to provide affordable food.
On india (again) http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/03/26/indian-farmer-suicide-the-bottom-line/
and the subsequent discussion likely cover your points – suffice to say the main arguement that Monsanto is behind the deaths is a purely profit or lack thereof based one, therefore it makes sense that the response point out that the introduction of Bt corresponds with huge increases in average cotton farmer income hand in hand with *no appreciable change in suicide rate amongst farmers* – The sad fact is that it appears a higher than average suicide rate is part of farming in India in general, whereas Monsanto’s part in Indian agriculture is to increase the wellbeing of the majority of adopters of the technology. You can read the finer points of the arguement in the link provided.
Ewan Ross Says:
August 6, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Deborah – not as far as I am aware, I believe that the reasoning behind this is sound in that every trait in smartstax has gone through rigorous safety testing and there is no reason to assume interactions between the various traits in regards to safety.
___________________________
Ewan, are you absolutely certain no safety testing was done, but that performance testing was done? If performance could be affected, why couldn’t safety? This doesn’t make sense to me at all. Should corporations such as your own just be making assumptions about the safety of your crop inventions, our food? There is an ultimate disconnect to the very purpose of the endeavor! ALL emphasis and insurance is on the production rather than the product–food safety and quality!
Does Monsanto have any answers to these specific items regarding SmartStax?
http://www.bmgfj.gv.at/cms/site/attachments/9/7/5/CH0808/CMS1228994124985/ages_stn__-_mais_mon89034x1507xmon88017x59122_public_version.pdf [confidential? parts left out]
A stacked organism has to be regarded as a new event, even if no new modifications
have been introduced. The gene‐cassette combination is new and only minor
conclusions could be drawn from the assessment of the parental lines, since unexpected
effects (e.g. synergistic effects of the newly introduced proteins) cannot automatically
be excluded.
The data submitted for molecular characterisation of GM maize
MON88017xMON89034x1507x59122 consist of southern blots to demonstrate the
presence of the introduced traits (Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, Cry3Bb1, Cry1F, Cry34Ab1,
Cry35Ab1, pat and epsps) by comparative analysis with the parental single events. These
data however are not entirely sufficient to demonstrate that the structure of the inserts
is conserved, and that the likelihood for changes due to interaction of transgenic
elements by recombination is low.
In the technical dossier, the notifier says that the safety of all transproteins, Cry1A.105,
Cry2Ab2, Cry1F, Cry3Bb1, Cry34Ab1, Cry35Ab1, PAT and CP4 EPSPS, expressed in the
test material GM maize MON89034x1507xMON88017x59122 have been discussed in
detail in other applications for authorisation. This concerns, amongst other things,
history of safe use, structural description and digestion in simulated gastric fluid. In
contrast to this, we would like to point out that:
• there is no history of safe use of the new recombinant protein expressed by an
artificially arranged insert such as Cry1A.105.
• concerning all Bt toxins, a history of safe use cannot be argued on the basis of the
safety of Bt sprays applied in organic farming. The inserted genes are truncated
and arranged with expression modulating DNA parts originating from different
organisms and permanently expressed compared to a tight timely Bt spraying
schedule (Lewis et al. 1997; Sexton et al. 2007).
• all eight transproteins used in acute toxicity tests (Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, Cry1F,
Cry3Bb1, Cry34Ab1, Cry35Ab1, pat CP4 EPSPS) originated from microbial
expression systems. Establishing structural and functional equivalence of this test
proteins and the plant derived proteins adds uncertainties to the interpretation
of the animal tests (Spök et al. 2008), thus, only limited information about the
plant expressed transproteins can be obtained.
Additionally, a 90‐day rat feeding study with GM maize 59122 (Malley 2004) showed
alterations of total protein and albumin levels, and we are still of the opinion that this
study should be repeated, as recommended and remarked by Austria in the scientific
comment on triple stack GM maize 59122x1507xNK603 transferred to EFSA in
September 2007.
Furthermore, according to EFSA, a potential for increased toxicity and/or allergenicity to
humans and animals or for modified nutritional value due to the stacked events may
arise from additive, synergistic or antagonistic effects of the gene products or by these
produced metabolites (EFSA 2007). But the safety of all newly expressed proteins in
animal models applied simultaneously and combined was not assessed in the dossier.
Insecticidal Cry proteins produced by GM plants as well as transproteins conferring
tolerance to herbicides constitute a sum of new plant constituents possibly interacting
within the organism. So far, there is absolutely no scientific knowledge about such new
combinations and possibly resulting additive and/or synergistic effects. Therefore, at
least one subchronic feeding study (90‐days) with rodents with the whole GM maize
plant (MON89034x1507xMON88017x59122) should be carried out.
Additionally, the introduction of multigeneration studies focusing on reproduction in the
risk assessment process should be considered, at least on a case‐by‐case basis. So far,
although GM crops have now been grown for over 20 years, only very few life‐term
and/or multigeneration studies have been carried out (Domingo 2007; Dona and
Arvanitoyannis 2009).
Moreover it is suggested to carry out mutagenicity tests on bacteria with the
transproteins.
Furthermore, in the dossier it is remarked, “the history of safe use of the Cry proteins by
humans on agricultural crops for over 10 years, either as the active ingredients in Bt
microbial pesticides and/or in biotechnology derived food and feed crops (maize and
cotton). There are no known reports of allergy or toxicity to Bt or to the Cry proteins” (p.
83). Actually, the simple fact that GM corn has been grown for over 10 years on millions
of hectars, and that no reports about adverse effects have been transmitted is no proof
for safety. The same could have been said about DDT and many other synthetic
agricultural supplies that are now banned. Since GM products have not been labelled in
the USA and Canada, no epidemiological survey of potential effects has been conducted.
Thus, if the GM food may or may not play its part in the increase of nutrition‐related
health distubances such as allergies and food intolerances cannot be clarified.
Additionally, allergic reactions against Bt toxins have been reported in farm workers
exposed to Bt containing pesticides (Bernstein et al. 1999).
Deborah – I’m not absolutely sure that no safety testing was done, but as far as I am aware I dont believe this is the case.
The performance testing is needed to ensure that everything that is put into the genome is doing what it should be and that any ‘yield drag’ effects are negligible – also to supply hard data to buyers as to what it is that they are buying.
Getting back to the probabilities mentioned earlier – there are very real probabilities that a given cross between two inbred lines may not perform as well as currently used elite hybrids. There are very real probabilities that a given event may not perform as well as you would like. As these probabilities are very real, and would have a significant impact on the end product, they are tested for, and any combinations which dont work – dont become products. (it may surprise people to learn that a single transgenic event (or stack thereof) is not what goes all the way from conception to product – part of the 10 year development is sorting out the winners from the losers to ensure that only those that actually work make it as commercial products)
The safety side of things however, as far as I see it, does not pose a real probable danger when combining genes (particularly by conventional breeding which the austrian document still has issues with) already proven safe within the genome of the species at question (Zea mays in this case) – the same ‘risks’ of recombination etc exist for genes throughout the genome of the organism (ie no risk at all)
Should performance and safety testing be seen as equal, in that if you do one it should mandate the other? I’d argue no. I work at the very beginning stages of performance testing, when October comes around I’ll be swamped with field performance data. It’s an exciting time because there is so much data, and so many interpretations to make from this data. Different events of the same gene may give wildly different yield results, hundreds (if not more) of man hours are spent pouring over this vast haystack of data to extract a few needles which hopefully will become the products of tomorrow. Performance varies. Hugely. Compare this to (I believe… it was in another blog and I dont have the energy to search for the exact quote) Dr.Dan’s relative ambivalence to the various safety studies – great in that they all come to the same conclusion, but somewhat frustrating to be involved in because the end result is so highly predictable that no doubt it feels like you are wasting your time.
Should corporations be making assumptions about the safety of the crops they produce? Not in a vacuum, no. Government (and independant)scientists should also be assessing the validity of these assumptions (which as far as I am aware results in a majority accepting the validity, with the obvious vocal minority providing the impetus for your opposition), there should also be a framework in place whereby if these assumptions prove to be wrong the consequences be dire (in this case for the company involved).
Will anyone at Monsanto address the specific comments of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, those which I listed above, regarding the questionable safety of consuming SmartStax corn?
1. A stacked organism has to be regarded as a new event, even if no new modifications
have been introduced….data however are not entirely sufficient to demonstrate that the structure of the inserts is conserved, and that the likelihood for changes due to interaction of transgenic elements by recombination is low.
2. There is no history of safe use of the new recombinant protein expressed by an artificially arranged insert such as Cry1A.105. [IS THIS TRUE?]
3. Concerning all Bt toxins, a history of safe use cannot be argued on the basis of the
safety of Bt sprays applied in organic farming. The inserted genes are truncated and arranged with expression modulating DNA parts originating from different organisms and permanently expressed compared to a tight timely Bt spraying
schedule (Lewis et al. 1997; Sexton et al. 2007).
4. All eight transproteins used in acute toxicity tests (Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, Cry1F,
Cry3Bb1, Cry34Ab1, Cry35Ab1, pat CP4 EPSPS) originated from microbial expression systems. Establishing structural and functional equivalence of this test proteins and the plant derived proteins adds uncertainties to the interpretation of the animal tests (Spök et al. 2008), thus, only limited information about the
plant expressed transproteins can be obtained.
5. Additionally, a 90‐day rat feeding study with GM maize 59122 (Malley 2004) showed
alterations of total protein and albumin levels, and we are still of the opinion that this
study should be repeated, as recommended and remarked by Austria in the scientific
comment on triple stack GM maize 59122×1507xNK603 transferred to EFSA in
September 2007.
6. Furthermore, according to EFSA, a potential for increased toxicity and/or allergenicity to
humans and animals or for modified nutritional value due to the stacked events may arise from additive, synergistic or antagonistic effects of the gene products or by these produced metabolites (EFSA 2007). But the safety of all newly expressed proteins in animal models applied simultaneously and combined was not assessed in the dossier.
Insecticidal Cry proteins produced by GM plants as well as transproteins conferring tolerance to herbicides constitute a sum of new plant constituents possibly interacting within the organism. So far, there is absolutely no scientific knowledge about such new
combinations and possibly resulting additive and/or synergistic effects. Therefore, at
least one subchronic feeding study (90‐days) with rodents with the whole GM maize
plant (MON89034×1507xMON88017×59122) should be carried out.
Additionally, the introduction of multigeneration studies focusing on reproduction in the risk assessment process should be considered, at least on a case‐by‐case basis. So far, although GM crops have now been grown for over 20 years, only very few life‐term and/or multigeneration studies have been carried out (Domingo 2007; Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009).
7. Moreover it is suggested to carry out mutagenicity tests on bacteria with the
transproteins.
8. Actually, the simple fact that GM corn has been grown for over 10 years on millions
of hectars, and that no reports about adverse effects have been transmitted is no proof
for safety. Since GM products have not been labelled in the USA and Canada, no epidemiological survey of potential effects has been conducted.
Thus, if the GM food may or may not play its part in the increase of nutrition‐related
health distubances such as allergies and food intolerances cannot be clarified.
Deborah – I’m not going to address all the points, just a couple (hopefully someone better qualified will cover the rest, although it may have to go via suggestions, I dont know – perhaps a smartstax specific blog will result?)
2. – http://ps.fass.org/cgi/reprint/86/9/1972
or http://ps.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/9/1972
if the full article isnt publicly available
Shows a safety study with the Cry1A.105 protein – I assume the arguement being made is that there is no history of safety in terms of comparison to the other Bt proteins which have proven safe used in organic ag, and in transgenics since their release (that or the author cant do a spectacularly simple search)
3. If true then surely 2 is pointless? I dont agree with the assertion, the mode of action of the proteins is the same whether sprayed or inserted into the plant, the safety of one gives a pretty good guarantee of the safety of the other.
4. I’d personally guess that as the proteins are initially microbial, and work in plants, that the structure cannot be overly dissimilar (if plants altered the structure to a great degree the proteins would cease working)
6. I dont see a credible reason to believe the proteins produced would interact synergistically or alter metabolite profiles of the transgenic plants in any significant way – the enzymes introduced are well characterized and serve the same function as the enzyme which the herbicide knocks out – as such I see no reason to suppose some additional as yet uncharacterized function. The insecticidal proteins are non-enzymatic, therefore I cant see a massive cause for concern in changes in metabolite levels, and interactions with other proteins in the plant proteome seem unlikely due to the high specificity proteins require to interact in a meaningful way – considering the evolutionary distance between the source organism and the plant it is unlikely that such specific interactions would exist.
7. As all the transproteins (as far as I know) are sourced from bacteria it seems to me that testing for mutagenicity is somewhat an odd request, why would bacteria express mutagenic (to themselves) proteins.
8. Equally then there is no proof of safety of any crop grown. I’m pretty confident that if any real effect was there that it would have been observed and tested by now.
Hmm… that appears to be somewhat more than a couple… anyway hopefully someone with a little bit more expertise can come in and give a somewhat more official stance on these.
For starters, Ewan, the study you cite is not a safety study; it is a performance study. The two are not at all the same. From your bird finishing study:
“Both studies were conducted to compare bird performance (feed intake, BW,and adjusted feed:gain), carcass yield, and meat quality
of the birds fed the diets containing the test corn, control corn (genetic background similar to the test corn), and conventional corn.”
This is not how a safety study is conducted. Safety is not measured by carcass yield and meat quality.
I hope someone with more expertise can come in and give a more official stance because your guesses and lack of scientific vision are not addressing the issues. Maybe you don’t see a credible reason to test for synergy, etc, but others in the scientific and consumer community do. What are your qualifications? And number 4, the fact that the proteins from bacterial production vs the protein expressed by the plant differ is an issue. They are different and can not therefore logically be assumed the same. It doesn’t make sense. They might very well still be toxic and work insecticidally, but have other toxic effects as well–because they are different.
Ewan Ross Says:
August 11, 2009 at 2:42 pm
7. As all the transproteins (as far as I know) are sourced from bacteria it seems to me that testing for mutagenicity is somewhat an odd request, why would bacteria express mutagenic (to themselves) proteins
****************
I believe what the Austrian Ministry of Health is referring to in this point:
“7. Moreover it is suggested to carry out mutagenicity tests on bacteria with the
transproteins.”
is an Ames Test–The Health Ministry is not concerned that the proteins would be mutagenic to the bacteria producing them in Nature. It is people and animals about whom and which they are concerned: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AmesTest.html
“The use of the Ames test is based on the assumption that any substance that is mutagenic (for the bacteria used in his test) may also turn out to be a carcinogen; that is, to cause cancer.”
This is standard safety screening testing.
Of course, other important bacteria and life forms besides animals may be adversely affected by these transproteins as well. I don’t mean to exclude that risk.
Deborah – my point around the Ames test is that it just doesn’t seem logical that a bacterial protein would be mutagenic to bacteria. Obviously to scientifically prove this the test would have to be done, although it seems from the outset to be a waste of resources.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/Ames_Causes.html
(following your link to a nice logical conclusion) also undermines to a certain extent the validity of positive Ames tests in making any kind of safety decisions, and, in an unrelated note, gives a good authoritative statement around fears of pesticide residue toxicity compared to lack of fears around a single cup of coffee. (so thanks for that, not a comparison I’d come across before)
On number 4 again – you state as ‘fact’ that these proteins from plants and bacteria differ and that this is an issue – what evidence of difference do you have beyond a concern that there may be a difference? I still think it logically holds that if the proteins still work in the way that the bacterial protein works, and the coding regions are the same (in terms of amino acids, at a guess there may be some codon differences to achieve proper expression in plants) then the proteins themselves will also be the same (working on the assumption that modifications made by the plant to the protein would reduce or eliminate efficacy of the protein)
What are the differences you are proposing? Why would you believe that these differences would then end up being harmful rather than either doing utterly nothing, or simply reducing or eliminating protein function.
I’ll concede that no, the broiler study isnt directly a safety study, and that on a second look I’m not having much luck finding published info on the Cry1A.105 protein (I did find a safety level quoted for it in one paper, but unfortunately the reference was to unpublished research by Monsanto) – I still believe that the broiler study can be considered as a safety study to a certain extent (I think this came up in another posting in which Dr.Dan (I think…) explained the utility of broiler studies in looking at feed safety) although clearly not first choice.
I’m also somewhat confused by your statement about a lack of scientific vision. Unless you’re defining scientific vision as seeing boogeymen under the bed and harm in everything we haven’t tested under every condition we can imagine. My coverage of the points was intended to address the points from a somewhat scientific stance (at least utilizing current scientific knowledge combined with a little logic – not exactly the scientific method at work, but good enough for a debate on the points I feel – or does only one side of the arguement get to attempt this style of debating?)
Dear Jeff,
Maybe you really believe in what you say. I really don’t understand one thing.. Why is Monsanto insistent on cumbersome FDA labeling for GM foods, when it is my fundamental right to put only what I wish in my body? If Monsanto really believes in what they say why not proudly emblazon GM modified right across the packet? Perhaps it is because Monsanto’s track record is nothing to be inspired by….it was the same company that claimed in the 1960s that Agent Orange did not have any effect other than defoliating trees!
Roger,
Earlier on the blog we have addressed our stance on labeling, found here. You can also find it on our For the Record page of Monsanto.com.
Ewan Ross Says:
August 17, 2009 at 8:40 am
I’ll concede that no, the broiler study isnt directly a safety study, and that on a second look I’m not having much luck finding published info on the Cry1A.105 protein (I did find a safety level quoted for it in one paper, but unfortunately the reference was to unpublished research by Monsanto) –
++++++++++++++++++=
It’s not even indirectly or anything close to a safety study and you should know that. Are there any real safety studies? If not, how does this get approved?
Deborah
It categorically is an inderect safety study. Not as powerful perhaps as a study designed specifically around safety, but a toxic/unsafe substance in the feed would most certainly effect the various growth parameters.
Taking a bit of a better look around I came across this passage:-
Monsanto Canada Inc. has submitted data from dietary toxicity studies on the effect of Cry1A.105 or Cry2Ab2 protein on non-target invertebrates, including the honeybee larvae and adult (Apis mellifera), minute pirate bug (Orius insidiosus), ladybird beetle (Coleomegilla maculata), a parasitic wasp (Ichneumon promissorius), and earthworm (Eisenia foetida). Collembola (Folsomia candida) were fed an artificial diet containing 50% of MON 89034 leaf tissue. In all cases, the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins were demonstrated to be safe to these indicator species at doses equal to or exceeding 14 times the estimated environmental concentration of Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins in the diet of non-target invertebrates feeding on MON 89034 tissues or exposed to MON 89034 corn via their preys. In addition, no adverse effects were observed when the aquatic invertebrate Daphnia magna was exposed to MON 89034 corn pollen at a concentration of 100 mg/L, which indicates that no hazard is anticipated to aquatic invertebrates from exposure to MON 89034 corn pollen.
Data was also submitted on non-target vertebrates including the mouse, the bobwhite quail and broiler chicken. No adverse effects were detected when mice were exposed to a single oral dose of 2,072 mg Cry1A.105 protein/kg body weight or 2,198 mg Cry2Ab2 protein /kg body weight. These doses represent several thousand times the worst-case daily dose of Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins to humans or livestock feeding on MON 89034 grain. No adverse effects were detected when bobwhite quail or broiler chicken were fed a diet containing 50% MON 89034 corn grain for 8 days and 42 days, respectively.
In
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dd/dd0874e.shtml#a11
which a) shows there is more data available, at least to the regulatory bodies (acceptance by a regulatory body is a form of peer review, as the regulatory scientists can be considered peers – ideally though it would be nice if this data were also peer reviewed in a publically available scientific journal (it may be and my ability to find it may be the issue))
b) shows that regulatory bodies do consider broiler studies as a form of safety study.