About a week ago, The New York Times ran a brief interview with Nina V. Federoff, official "science and technology adviser" to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Not surprisingly, Condoleeza Rice's science czar has a special place in her heart for genetically modified organisms. In the Times interview, Federoff defends GMOs:
There's almost no food that isn't genetically modified. Genetic modification is the basis of all evolution.... The paradox is that now that we've invented techniques that introduce just one gene without disturbing the rest, some people think that's terrible.
Right; GMOs merely mimic nature, and are thus no different than any other organisms. But if that's true, then why do GMOs require such draconian intellectual property protection? Why should Monsanto be able to enforce patent claims on, say, Round Up Ready soybean seeds?
Perhaps Federoff is pushing an open-source approach to GMOs -- the idea that a handful of of companies shouldn't be able to lock up ownership of globe's most widely planted seeds. But given her corporate affiliations -- which the Times didn't see fit to divulge -- that's doubtful.
On taking the job at State in 2007, Federoff stepped down from her post on the "scientific advisory board" of Evogene, an Israeli agriculture-biotech firm. She had held the post for five years. What does Evogene do? According to the company's "about us" page, it's "geared toward developing improved plants for the agriculture and biofuel industries through the use of plant genomics."
And that means working with the very few companies that control the GMO-seed business:
A number of improved plant traits are in relatively advanced stages of development through deals and collaborations with world leading companies, such as Monsanto Company, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta and other [sic].
At the same time, Federoff was also serving on the board of Sigma-Aldrich, a transnational biotechnology company. According to its "about us" page, Sigma-Aldrich's "biochemical and organic chemical products and kits are used in scientific and genomic research, biotechnology, pharmaceutical development, the diagnosis of disease and as key components in pharmaceutical and other high technology manufacturing." In other words, like Evogene, Sigma-Aldrich provides services to the big ag-biotech companies.
At gets up to all manner of dodgy stuff, like projects to "develop cell-lines and transgenic animals that have targeted modifications in a specified gene in a specified species."
In this day and age, it seems perfectly natural that U.S. ag-development policy should be dominated by the agenda of such companies. Let's hope that changes soon.
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
Wolverine Posted 8:29 am
25 Aug 2008
Tom, I realize, or at least hope, that you were being facetious, but considering the massive amount of PR lies the genetic engineering industry has put forth, it's a bad idea to even make a statement like this in jest in a forum where it could easily be taken seriously.
But more importantly and fundamentally, you should explain to readers why genetic engineering does not in any way mimic nature, as a lot of people seem to have fallen for this outright lie. Nothing in nature blasts a cell of one organism into the being of another.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:39 am
25 Aug 2008
"But more importantly and fundamentally, you should explain to readers why genetic engineering does not in any way mimic nature, as a lot of people seem to have fallen for this outright lie."
Viruses can and do transfer genetic information from one species to another. Viruses can be used as a tool for genetic engineering. Bacteria can pick up DNA from their environment, though I don't know whether they do it routinely. Bacteria can and do transfer genetic information from one species to another. Bacteria can be used as a tool for genetic engineering. So, genetic engineering actually does, in some way, mimic nature.
"Nothing in nature blasts a cell of one organism into the being of another."
And your point is?
Genetically engineered plants are created by moving small segments of DNA from one organism to another, not by blasting "a cell of one organism into the being of another". I doubt genetically engineered animals are created by blasting cells together, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
It is an interesting remark, however. Conventional breeding of plants can involve forcing sexually incompatible species together by fusing their cells and regenerating hybrid plants containing a full set of chromosomes from each "parent". The hybrids can then be crossed with one or the other species to move desired traits across species boundaries.
It seems odd that moving a small piece of DNA from plant to plant is rejected by organic agriculture, but violently forcing sexually incompatible species together -- combining thousands of genes that nature would never bring together -- is just fine.
Permalink
Russ Posted 10:32 pm
25 Aug 2008
I thought for a moment I must be reading the script of a Simpsons episode, like the one where Mr. Burns claims the three-eyed fish caught near the nuclear plant is the result of evolution.
The paradox is that now that we've invented techniques that introduce just one gene without disturbing the rest..
Of course anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of genetics knows this is false, that any genetic change can reverberate in unpredictable ways.
Permalink
archigeek Posted 2:20 am
26 Aug 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
berenger Posted 4:12 am
26 Aug 2008
Mainstream scientific thinking now does not say 1 gene = 1 function or trait. That old theory has been revised (see 2007 and definitely suspected before) with our growing knowledge of genetics--and more importantly since the development of gmo crops and foods. The initial approval of GMO crops hinged on the one gene/one trait fallacy. It is now believed that genes operate as networks and even interacting networks. So the insertion or disruption of one gene has an unknown cascading effect.
Permalink
berenger Posted 5:03 am
26 Aug 2008
Bt endotoxin (not from a plant) which is expressed in most if not all cells of plants genetically modified for this trait are not the same as the Bt protoxin used as a spray-form pesticide. Furthermore, the pesticidal spray also breaks down in the sunlight, degrades overtime, and can be washed off. Bt inside the plant is not broken down, has been shown to cause lesions in mammal testing, and is present in much larger quantities than the spray application.
Roundup resistance (not from a plant) is a whole different, but equally, disconcerting bag of worms. Round up residues are not exponentially increased on foods. Roundup has been demonstrated to be an endocrine disruptor and possible carcinogen. Any of this can be accessed fairly easily on the net. Also, roundup resistance is occuring in weeds-especially in the last few years. Now atrazine and the other harmful herbicides RR crops were supposed to save us from are used in conjuction with roundup. How have we benefited from that? And what cost saving has the farmer realized?
Also, there is the issue of pat and bar genes in Liberty Link tolerant crops which convert the herbicide to NAG. Studies demonstrate that NAG can be reconverted back to Liberty Link in the guts of mammals. see
Kellner H-M, StumpfK and Braun R (1993). Hoe 099730-14C Pharmacokinetics in rats following single oral and intravenous administration of3 mg/kg body. Hoechst RCL, Germany, 01-L420670-93. A49978. Unpublished.
Huang, M.N. and Smith, S.M. 1995b. Metabolism of [14C]-N-acetyl glufosinate in a lactating goat. AgrEvo USA Co.Pikeville, PTRL East Inc., USA. Project 502BK. Study U012A/A524. Report A54155. Unpublished.
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pest ....
In one study, for example, protein produced from a gene found in E. coli turned NAG into glufosinate. G. Kriete et al, Male sterility in transgenic tobacco plants induced by tapetum-specific deacetylation of the externally applied non-toxic compound N-acetyl-L-phosphinothricin, Plant Journal, 1996, Vol.9, No.6, pp.809-818.
Your point is an oversimplification to the point of leaving out the real issue. So commonly used by Biotech.
Permalink
berenger Posted 5:10 am
26 Aug 2008
This should have read residues ARE exponentially increased on food crops and fda/usda has according increased the allowable limits, IMO, to accomodate the Industry.
Permalink
berenger Posted 5:57 am
26 Aug 2008
http://www.psrast.org/intro1.htm
Also, I take issue with the fact that the biotech/ag industry lobbies against labelling--our basic right to information about our own food, and the government (made up of and supported by many key people who have or will work for Biotech) supports them in that stance.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:07 am
26 Aug 2008
You raise a whole series of questions regarding whether DNA survives transit through our digestive system, whether it is taken up by human cells, whether it makes its way from the cytosol to the nucleus, whether it is incorporated into the human cell's nuclear DNA, and whether human proteins recognize the promoter.
For now, however, I have to ask several other questions...
If there is even a remote possibility that a bit of plant DNA or plant virus DNA can be imported by a human cell, incorporated into the cell's own DNA, expressed, and affect cell growth, then why, over the past several decades, has no one identified cancerous tumors containing active plant genes? After all, we consume vast quantities of plant material, often including plant viruses (as well as fungi and bacteria). Shouldn't some DNA from some of our food -- GMO or not -- have shown up in a human cell? An what about all of the animals consumed? Shouldn't some of their DNA shown up in a human tumor by now?
Permalink
nosmokes Posted 6:49 am
26 Aug 2008
Support your local family farmers!
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:17 am
26 Aug 2008
Just to clarify, what I was getting at is the following. If Federoff is right that GMOs are really no different than traditional plant breeding, then why the incredibly stringent intellectual property regime? I can go to the farmers market, buy tomatoes, and save the seeds, and plant them, and no one has any claim on me. Why should it be any different with Monsanto's crappy Bt or RR corn?
but if what Monsanto and its few peers is doing is so earth-shaking and new and important that it can't happen without this whole new intellectual property regime, then it should probably be rigorously tested and highly regulated, which of course it isn't. The GMO industry insists on having it both ways. Guess you've got that luxury, when you've got the power and cash to stock the gov't with your cronies.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:18 am
26 Aug 2008
Just to clarify, what I was getting at is the following. If Federoff is right that GMOs are really no different than traditional plant breeding, then why the incredibly stringent intellectual property regime? I can go to the farmers market, buy tomatoes, and save the seeds, and plant them, and no one has any claim on me. Why should it be any different with Monsanto's crappy Bt or RR corn?
but if what Monsanto and its few peers is doing is so earth-shaking and new and important that it can't happen without this whole new intellectual property regime, then it should probably be rigorously tested and highly regulated, which of course it isn't. The GMO industry insists on having it both ways. Guess you've got that luxury, when you've got the power and cash to stock the gov't with your cronies.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 7:19 am
26 Aug 2008
He claims that there are no results showing transfer into human cells.
Well here is a paper showing that Agrobacterium tumefaciens can transform Hela cells via the tumor-inducing plasmid. This plasmid is the same one used when AT is used as a vector for inserting genes during genetic engineering of a number of crops.
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/4/1871
There are a number of other papers and articles discussing the potential problems with horizontal gene transfer.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FSAopenmeeting.php
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6h6nsu
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontalGeneTransfer.php
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/DNA-Transfer-To-Gut1jul0 ...
Just remember that the Biotech industry has claimed over and over again that horizontal gene transfer will either not occur or will occur at such a low rate that it will not be harmful.
Perhaps the reason that "foreign" genes have not been found in human tumours is that no one has looked for them.
Permalink
honeyman Posted 2:09 pm
26 Aug 2008
Of the 181 amino acids which make up bovine growth hormone there is a change of one amino acid to facilitate the insertion of the hormone gene into bacterial cells for growth in a culture medium. Considering that a change of one amino acid in the human protein ,hemoglobin, which contains over 400 amino acids results in a condition called Sickle Cell Anemia, how can they state that GM products are identical to the natural one?
I posited two years ago that the death of honeybee colonies might be the result of the bees collecting pollen from corm containing the bT gene and using that pollen to nurture their young. Interested readers need only to Google, "John McDonald, Honeybees", to get access to the two articles published in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:02 am
27 Aug 2008
"I must admit I should and will learn about this.
You raise a whole series of questions regarding whether DNA survives transit through our digestive system, whether it is taken up by human cells, whether it makes its way from the cytosol to the nucleus, whether it is incorporated into the human cell's nuclear DNA, and whether human proteins recognize the promoter."
I admitted I should learn more about the subject. I indicated there are several questions that should be answered. I DID NOT say there are no results showing transfer of plant DNA into human DNA! I merely expressed skepticism regarding whether it happens... the transfer of DNA from the food we consume into human cells. And I'm surprise that, if it can occur, it has not been documented by now.
So... Thank you for the the links. I will look at the papers when I have time.
(I appreciate your pointing out unsubstantiated claims. I should be able to defend my positions. But I find it rude to accuse someone of doing something they have not done.)
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:25 am
27 Aug 2008
Anti-GMOs people might be surprised to learn that the broad patent rights given to corporations severely interfere with research and innovation at academic institutions.
For example, the corporation that holds the patent on the "gene gun" -- whoever that might be -- also has a say in what can be produced using the "gene gun". As far as I'm concerned, this is like patenting a hammer and then claiming you own a percentage of each building constructed via hammers.
Or... a corporation-- or academic institution, actually -- can patent not only a single gene they might isolate or create, they can extend that to include all genes or the proteins coded for by those genes, similar to that gene or protein, discovered or yet to be discovered, in remotely similar species. I find this absurd.
(Mr. Forrester, I could be wrong. This is what I've heard, but cannot easily document it. I do know patents have interfered with release of plants from this lab, plants that patent holders have no interest in permitting release of because they own a competing technology.)
I would really like to see more environmentalists trying to wrestle the hammer away from the corporations, rather than ban hammers.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:38 am
27 Aug 2008
But I would carry this one step further...
There should be a concise labeling system to indicate -- at least -- whether a product contains GMOs (as in transfer of a gene or a few genes by bacteria, viruses, the gene gun, or similar technology), what sort of chemicals were used (persistence in the environment, herbicide, insecticide, harm to wildlife, etc.), and EXACTLY where the ingredients came from (country of origin).
When a consumer has to choose a bag of potatoes, say, they might read "GMO, zero chemicals", "non-GMO, copper sulfate", "non-GMO, rotenone", "non-GMO, zero chemicals", "GMO, RoundUp", "organic, zero chemicals", et cetera. Then they can make an informed decision based on price, quality, and their personal values.
If they don't want GMOs, then no one will grow them.
Industrial agriculture made an enormous mistake when they committed themselves to stand in the way of labeling. It does and should make people wonder what they are hiding. They should have permitted labeling and focused all that money on addressing public concerns and, if necessary, making GMOs safer. Also, they could have lowered the cost of the technology and made it more available to farmers who need it.
You will not see me defending this awful behavior... broad patent rights and covering up where our food comes from.
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 2:39 am
27 Aug 2008
I have been a critic of patenting laws for over 25 years. A long time ago I was having lunch with my old PhD supervisor when he asked me (I had moved away from academia had had become an independent "science entrepreneur") what could be done to enhance innovation, especially in "biotechnology" (this was when the term covered a much broader field than it does now).
My immediate response was "get rid of the patent system, it does far more to discourage and prevent innovation that enhance it".
He was shocked by my response since he was of the belief that the patent system protected small innovative companies. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I also agree that GMO's should be labeled as such.
I have found our discussion to be enlightening. I hope that you have not found be too overbearing but the way large multi-national companies have abused science and the regulatory sytem gets me very angry.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:11 am
27 Aug 2008
"I can go to the farmers market, buy tomatoes, and save the seeds, and plant them, and no one has any claim on me."
I'd like to know whether this is truly accurate. Consider the following scenarios...
(1) I intentionally buy an attractive heirloom tomato available from one vendor, save the seed, grow it the following year, and set up my own stand at the farmer's market to sell the fruit. No one will accuse me of stealing their heirloom tomato variety?
(2) I intentionally buy a packet of seed --seed for a known, named, open-pollinated tomato -- from Johnny's or Baker Creek, grow the plants, dry the seed, and sell it to someone else. I put the name of the variety on the packet. Is this legal?
(3) I intentionally buy a packet of seed -- seed from a NEW superior cross of two heirloom tomatoes -- from an organic seed distributor, grow the plants, dry the seed, and sell it to someone else. I even put the name of the new variety on the packet. Is this legal?
Please don't assume I think it is okay to patent GMOs. I do not. But I'm trying to get a grip on when it is okay -- legally, not morally -- to patent a variety of plant and when it is not. Who draws the line?
This is not just a conflict between GMOs and organic. This is a conflict between decades of financially-driven traditional breeding and apparent principles of organic agriculture.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:25 am
27 Aug 2008
Go ahead, collect some plants from distant lands and clone genes. Go ahead, plant GMOs in your own fields. But once that DNA leaves the field, it is fair game for anyone who cares to propagate it and profit from it -- just as the corporations appropriate life from the natural commons and profit from it.
If a corporation wants to lay claim to a component of the natural commons and externalize the costs, they should also accept someone else laying claim to the NEW component of the natural commons and externalize the benefits.
consistency, consistency, consistency
Permalink
Russ Posted 3:52 am
27 Aug 2008
I known that for some time, and it didn't surprise me when I did learn it. It's just one example among a disturbingly long list of ways in which universities become compliant corporate feeding troughs.
Here we're talking about predatory agribusiness, but I could also mention the (increasingly privatized) military-industrial complex, the techno-surveillance complex, the totalitarian brain-scanning industry, industrial irrigation in California (for anyone not familiar with that history, you might not believe how much California irrigation has been state and federally subsidized to benefit a relative handful of big landowners).
In these and other cases, a malevolent corporate force ponies up pennies matched by public dollars and public university research facilities, to develop products and technologies for which the corporation generally walks away with the patent rights (the university might get some measly royalty or fee), which products and technologies are then used to assault our socioeconomic structure, our dignity, and our very freedom.
This is a big part of why I consider America's system of "higher education" to be rotten beyond redemption.
(Off-topic rant concluded.)
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:02 am
27 Aug 2008
It's not going to change.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
berenger Posted 5:44 am
27 Aug 2008
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Horizontal-Gene-Soil.htm
"However, transgenes do often differ in several ways from native genes. This poses problems.
Transgenes often contain DNA sequence homology to prokaryotes thereby increasing their likelihood of integration in bacteria significantly. Many studies have shown that DNA homology is the main barrier to HGT of chromosomal DNA (such as transgenes) in bacteria.
Transgenes are often modified to allow broad expression in a variety of hosts; they often lack introns, contain promoters active across a broad range of hosts (e.g. viral or bacterial of origin), and seldom require extensive interactions with other proteins in the host cytoplasm for functionality. Thus, transgenes may have an increased likelihood of expression if horizontally transferred.
The transgenes may represent novel genetic variability due to the use of synthetic genes with new protein domains or encoding novel biochemical pathways that have not been subject to natural selection in their new host environment. Therefore, they may or may not provide a selective advantage i= n the new host. Most likely they will not, but this cannot be assumed in all instances. Mechanisms providing genetic variability in bacteria do not combine DNA sequences from several organisms into a compact functional unit within the time scale done by genetic engineering. Thus, the argument that this is naturally occurring, cannot be used when th= e genetic novelty the transgenes extends beyond simple modifications.
Thus, when compared to any native gene of a divergent organism, transgenes may differ both with respect to their likelihood of HGT, expression in the new host, and selection. The current debate on the likelihood of HGT has been much focused on the likelihood of transfer, whereas, as argued above, transfer does not generate an environmental impact. Selection would, if positive."
***********
Many references are listed at the bottom of this letter to AgBio from 2001. If this author is correct, and gene transfer is occuring and it is only positive selection forces that are or appear to be holding things in check--is this a chance worth taking? We don't even know what the possible outcomes might be. To my way of thinking, it is wreckless and totally irresponsible, for who would be held responsible in the event of a serious mistake.
Further, consider this danger of gentically engineering soil bacteria--and there have already been field trials--esp of nitrogen fixing bacteria. Below is a worst case scenario, narrowly averted:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/klebsiella.cfm
Web Note: In the early 1990s a European genetic engineering company was
preparing to field test and then commercialize on a major scale a
genetically engineered soil bacteria called Klebsiella planticola. The
bacteria had been tested--as it turns out in a careless and very
unscientific mannner--by scientists working for the biotech industry and
was believed to be safe for the environment. Fortunately a team of
independent scientists, headed by Dr. Elaine Ingham of Oregon State
University, decided to run their own tests on the gene-altered Klebsiella
planticola. What they discovered was not only startling, but terrifying--
the biotech industry had created a biological monster--a genetically
engineered microorganism that would kill all terrestrial plants. After
Ingham's expose, of course the gene-altered Klebsiella planticola was never
commercialized. But as Ingham points out, the lack of pre-market safety
testing of other genetically altered organisms virtually guarantees that
future biological monsters will be released into the environment.
Below is testimony from Dr. Ingham on the same:
http://www.biotech-info.net/EI_testimony_NZ.html
Dr. Elaine Ingham's Testimony (Executive Summary) before the (New Zealand) Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Executive Summary
February 2001
Executive Summary of DR. Ingham's Testimony:
Genetically engineered organisms have not been adequately assessed for their environmental or human health effects. It is inadequate to subject ORGANISMS to the tested [sic] required for non-living chemical pesticides, and conclude that there will be no adverse or risky effects from release of those organisms based on that testing.
A graduate student of mine, no longer working in the field of engineered organisms, and I did some research on a particular engineered bacterium that had been approved by the USEPA for field testing. No environmental effects were detected during pesticide or toxicity testing with this organism. However, Michael Holmes discovered that the engineered bacterium, Klebsiella planticola with a additional alcohol gene, killed all the wheat plants in microcosms into which the engineered organisms was added 1 . None of the wheat plants were killed in microcosms into which the not-engineered parent organism or just water were added.
This bacterium was engineered to produce alcohol from plant debris, so alcohol could be produced after raking up grass straw residues instead of burning fields. This organism would have been released to the real world by placing the residue left at the bottom of the fermentation container following grass straw alcohol production on fields as fertilizer. With a single release, we know that bacteria can spread over large distances, probably world-wide.
These bacteria would therefore get into the root systems of all terrestrial plants and begin to produce alcohol. The engineered bacterium produces far beyond the required amount of alcohol per gram soil than required to kill any terrestrial plant. This would result in the death of all terrestrial plants, because the parent bacterium has been found in the root systems of all plants where anyone has looked for its presence. This could have been the single most devastating impact on human beings since we would likely have lost corn, wheat, barley, vegetable crops, trees, bushes, etc, conceivably all terrestrial plants.
It is clear, therefore, that current testing procedures required by US regulatory agencies are completely inadequate in assessing the potential risks involved with genetically engineered organisms. Until such time as adequate testing procedures are instigated and carried out, engineered organisms should not be considered to have acceptable risks.
References
Holmes, M. and E.R. Ingham. (1999) Ecological effects of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola released into agricultural soil with varying clay content. Appl. Soil Ecol. 3:394-399.
Permalink