ICIS News

Resources: ICIS News:

September 2003 - Genetic Modification

In this issue:

Editorial

Short News

• What is GM?
• How can we understand GM better – what can we do?
• New EU rules for labelling GM products
• Some facts about GM
• Six reasons for criticising GM crops
• Prince of Wales wants Britain GM free
• GM proponents want public to focus on ‘white biotech’
• Danish GM sugar beet waiting for approval
• Rampant GM contamination detected
• Syngenta facts from Greenpeace
• GM foods – potential human health effects
• GM soy allergies
• GM foods affect bacteria in human gut

Case Story

• Council of Science issues extensive GM report

Feature

• Interview with Tamara Mosegaard: Evaluating the risk of GMOs

EU food supplement directive

• EU bans effective supplements and vitamins

Ecological foods

• Time for ‘selfish ecology’?

ICIS Activities

Resources

Contact ICIS

ICIS CENTRE
Hornbækgaard
Hornbækgaardsvej 2
DK-3100 Hornbæk
Tel (+45) 49 70 43 64

NEW e-mail address: center@iciscenter.org

Editorial

Due to the increased focus on GM in some daily papers, recommending a change in attitude in EU towards the GM issue, we felt it appropriate to remind ourselves and you what GM is about - That if we adhere to the precautionary principle, which is one of the parametres for sustainable development, the politicians should continue to proceed with great caution and demand more time and research before giving in to any pressure.

The risk is too great. Even if the companies producing and selling GM foods could be sued one day for misleading consumers, too much and irreversible damage could have been done to both people and the environment.

For this issue, we have asked Tamara Theresa Mosegaard (TTM), spokeswoman for MayDay, to comment on the latest GM news. MayDay is an organisation which issues information on health and environmental subjects. It supports people’s freedom of choice and their right to take their health into their own hands, among others by choosing natural treatment methods. One of their priority issues is GM technology. MayDay is associated with the UK Alliance for Natural Health.

Another matter:
At the end of this newsletter there is a sign-up function for you to become the receiver of our future newsletters. We have until now mailed it to all contacts but feel that this is not the correct way to communicate the ICIS NeWS!

The newsletter is free and we intend to continue to produce it bimonthly.

Karen Blincoe
Director, ICIS

Short News - Introduction

• What is GM?

GM is genetic modification. It involves the artificial insertion of a foreign gene into the genetic material of an organism in an essentially random way. Very little is known about the side effects of the inserted gene’s random location, how gene function is controlled, and gene transfer into other micro-organisms such as the bacteria in the human gut. The British Medical Association has said that the potential adverse effects have not been sufficiently investigated and strongly recommended caution.

• How can we understand GM better - what can we do?

There are many organisations lobbying for more research, safer directives, and especially more information output on GM. You can find them on the Web (see ‘Resources’ in this newsletter), as well as a host of material on the subject. Information is the most important step toward creating citizen pressure to influence political decisions, changes which are taking place right now, and the financial decisions of large corporations. The more people know about GM, the more sceptical they become. If consumers are sufficiently sceptical, they won’t buy GM products, supermarkets won’t stock them, and producers will have to reconsider their choices. So learn more about GM, tell others what you know, and buy accordingly.

• New EU rules for labelling of GMO products

EU ministers of Agriculture have officially adopted a new set of rules concerning the labelling of genetically modified food products. The decision opens up a possibility to lift the temporary barrier to the approval of new GMO-crops which Denmark and other countries established in June 1999.

Denmark is now concentrating on preparing a proposal for a “coexistence” strategy, stipulating rules to avoid the spreading of GMOs to conventional and ecological fields, and outlining a policy for damage claims in the case of contamination.

TTM, MayDay: First of all, this rule does not protect the consumer. The labelling of GM food products is only applicable to products which are proved to contain over 1% of GM ingredients. Up to that level, nothing will be mentioned on the label. Secondly, this rule marks the likely start of approval procedures for GM products which have not been properly tested over time, and whose long-term health- and environmental effects we do not know. Thirdly, another reason why this rule was adopted is not consumer protection but US pressure to allow GM products in Europe. The US, Argentina, Canada and Egypt are suing the EU for breaking WTO rules with ensuing lost trade, threatening with a potential multi-billion dollar damage claim. Finally, how can we rely on the sound judgement of the EU-Commission, which states officially that “ethical and environmental concerns have diverted the attention from the strategic importance of Biotechnology”? There is no doubt about the existing priorities.

• Some facts about GM

The Soil Association (UK) produced a report last year, entitled Seeds of Doubt, which provides fact-based evidence on North-American GMO crops. Here are some highlights:

1. GM contaminates organic crops. The two cannot coexist.
2. GM does not increase yields. The US now admits it, after reports from farmers substantiated by scientific studies.
3. GM does not reduce herbicide use. GM volunteers, (i.e. plants that appear after harvest with built-in resistance to herbicides) have spread quickly. Farmers are spraying with more herbicides, sometimes more toxic ones, to control these.
4. Contamination of the whole food chain has occurred within a few years.
5. The recall of foods containing GM Starlink maize cost an estimated $ 1 billion and only happened after many people reported allergic reactions
6. GM crops have destroyed trade: Within two years the US and Canada lost over $ 600 million a year of agricultural exports due to GM crops.
   

• Six reasons for criticising GM crops

Some of the most substantial criticism against GM crops is based on:

1. A lack of openness, information and public insight
2. The absence of democratic decision-making processes
3. A lack of impartial research, since research is entirely dominated by industry interests
4. Unknown long-term effects on human health
5. Unknown environmental consequences
6. The absence of ethical considerations in the treatment of animals

Source: Resistance to GM food in England and the USA, by Jimmy Straten, www.mayday-info.dk

• The Prince of Wales wants Britain GM-free

The Times, Thursday July 2003:
The Prince of Wales has said that he wanted a ban on genetically modified crops. His comments were made in what his aides described as a “private conversation” with a journalist from The Western Mail. Peter Lundgren, a board member of the radical new farming organisation “farm”, said in response to the Prince’s comment: “Apart from the GM companies and the American administration, who is pushing the commercialisation of GM crops? The public won’t buy them. The supermarkets won’t stock them. There are no overriding economic incentives, scientific risks to health and the environment remain unanswered, coexistence is impossible.”

• GM proponents Want Public to Focus on White Biotech

In a recent article, the Danish newspaper Børsen laments that GM discussions are mostly centred on the risks involved in GM crops, cloning and cellular manipulation. The author of the article wants people to concentrate more on what is called “white biotechnology”, or industrial biotech for biological processes. He continues to say that industrial biotech is ‘key to a sustainable development’ and could in time ‘remedy infertility problems and allergic reactions’ due to industrial chemicals by replacing the use of certain chemicals with biotech processes (such as enzyme- and fermentation technologies) – the latest argument being put forward by among others Novozymes, one of the world’s leading producer of biotech enzymes for industry.
Source: Børsen, 14 August, 2003

ICIS comment: It seems natural that people should concentrate on the most potentially harmful aspects of biotechnology, when evaluating the risks of genetic manipulation for their health and the preservation of the environment. As far as the benefits of white biotech go, we need to hear impartial information from other sources than the producers themselves.

• Danish GM sugar beet waiting for approval

Danish companies Danisco and DLF-Trifolium are hoping that they may be able to get a genetically manipulated sugar beet approved by the EU, with the cooperation of US chemical giant Monsanto. The Danish authorities have had their approval of the GM beet ready since 1997, but six countries, including Denmark, have blocked it at the EU level, where approval is needed in order to market the product. In Denmark, even though the current government is pro-GM, the Danish parliament is against. Source: Børsen

• Rampant GM contamination detected

Brussels, Belgium: Greenpeace tests on so-called conventional seeds due for planting in the coming weeks in the EU show they are contaminated with genetically engineered (GM) seeds. The findings add to the mounting evidence of widespread illegal GM pollution in Europe. Tests on three maize varieties in Austria by an independent laboratory show the presence of both Monsanto and Novartis strains of GE seed. Two further cases were uncovered in Germany in August 2003. Source: www.greenpeace.org

• Facts from Greenpeace
  on Syngenta’s (formerly Novartis) GM maize (corn)
  

Syngenta’s maize is grown in Spain despite a majority of citizens saying ‘no’ to GE foods. It contains a genetic construct called Bt 176, consisting of a gene from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis that encodes an insecticidal toxin able to kill the European Corn Borer. It also has a gene that confers increased tolerance to an herbicide and a gene conferring resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin. Several EU member states, prohibited the growing of Bt176 maize due to concerns over detrimental environmental and health effects. The Spanish authorities, however, approved the commercial growing in 1998. While they are still on sale in Spain today, the Bt176 varieties were already withdrawn in 2001 from the list of approved varieties in the USA, a country known for its support for GE crops.
Source: www.greenpeace.org (News: New report slams GM maize in Spain).

• GM Foods – Potential Human Health Effects

In an article with this title, Dr. Puztai, known for his in-depth GM research, established that it was imperative to study the long-term effects of genetic manipulation; that most research results on GM products so far have mostly involved animals, not humans; and that the effects of DNA manipulated material in GM foods are likely to have the greatest impact on the young, the elderly, people with lowered immune systems and those infected with some form of virus. When we know that 50 % of the world’s population is infected with some form of Herpes, the consequences can be daunting.
Source: ‘GM foods: Potential human health effects’, by Dr. Puztai
(see also www.thelancet.com)

• GM soy allergies

An increase of the number of registered soy allergies has over just one year pushed soy up to number nine in the list of allergy-related food products, together with yeast and nuts. This has happened simultaneously with the replacement of the original soy by GM soy on the supermarket shelves.
Source: Resistance to GM food in England and the USA, by Jimmy Straten (www.mayday-info.dk)

• GM foods affect bacteria in the gut

An article in The Guardian (17 July 2002) stated: ‘British researchers have demonstrated for the first time that genetically modified DNA material from crops is finding its way into human gut bacteria, raising potential serious health problems’. ‘They have shown that this can happen at very low levels, after just one meal,’ said Michael Antoniou, from King’s College Medical School.
Source: The Soil Association, UK
The International Council of Science represents over 100 scientific academies, among which the US National Academy of Science and the UK’s Royal Society (source: Børsen, 16. June 2003).

TTM, MayDay: First of all, an important element in this report is the conclusion that ‘GM foods will change the environment’, though it does not seem to be highlighted. What we need to note here, is that no one knows how, or how much, GM will affect our environment in the long run. Based on the contamination already detected in Europe with only a few GM fields, we can expect widespread consequences. Secondly,"no scientific proof of harm to other species" does not mean that there is no harm done. When GM crops are treated with Roundup, everything else dies, including natural flora in the area. Be it only in this way, GM foods directly affect other plant species. Thirdly, there is evidence suggesting serious potential negative side-effects of GM foods on human beings. Finally, a track-record of eight years is hardly sufficient to eliminate the probability that GM products have serious side-effects. As the report itself confirms, more recent GM products have even shorter track records.

ICIS view: a quick look at the ‘short news’ on GM in this newsletter is already enough to spurn additional doubt as to the report’s apparent lack of emphasis on the present danger of GM to human beings and the environment. Side-effects for human beings are far from excluded, and more and more health conditions around the world are coinciding with the intake of GM foods (see: GM foods affect bacteria in the gut, and GM soy allergies). Environmental effects are already shown to have disastrous potential consequences (see: Rampant GM contamination detected).

Case Story

• Council of Science issues extensive GM report

The most extensive report on agricultural biotechnology to date was recently published by the International Council of Science. It has condensed scientific material from all the leading reports on GMOs. The Danish financial newspaper Børsen summarised it as follows:

1. GMOs are safe to eat based on the lack of negative side-effects detected since 1995, but this is not a guarantee for the future, as more and more food products with new characteristics are developed.
2. Even though GMOs will change the environment, because their pollen spreads, there is as yet no proof that they have harmed other plant species. Scientists disagree, however, about the long-term health- and environmental impact of GMOs.
   
3. Legislation in this area must be improved, and rendered more transparent. According to researchers, the methods used to evaluate the safety of genetically modified food products need to evolve at the same pace as the developments in this area (emergence of new products with new characteristics), and new international standards for environmental risk-evaluation are a must.

The International Council of Science represents over 100 scientific academies, among which the US National Academy of Science and the UK’s Royal Society
(source: Børsen, 16. June 2003).

ICIS view: : a quick look at the ‘short news’ on GM in this newsletter is already enough to spurn additional doubt as to the report’s apparent lack of emphasis on the present danger of GM to human beings and the environment. Side-effects for human beings are far from excluded, and more and more health conditions around the world are coinciding with the intake of GM foods (see: GM foods affect bacteria in the gut, and GM soy allergies). Environmental effects are already shown to have disastrous potential consequences (see: Rampant GM contamination detected).

Feature

• Interview with Tamara Mosegaard: Evaluating the risks of GMOs

What is your personal viewpoint on GMOs?
For me it all comes down to the issue of free will, and the ability to choose. I have not chosen GM, and I don’t need it. A lot of people think along the same lines. The question is how much free choice is left once we are surrounded by GM crops, with the resulting contamination of non-GM fields, and the unforeseeable consequences for our environment as well as for ourselves.

What are the forces at play in the GM equation?
The biotech industries have a lot of money at stake. We are dealing with a major fusion between various industries, for which GM represents tremendous potential gain. There is the food industry, which has partly merged with the pharmaceutical industry, and these have for a large part merged with the GM industry, of which the largest players have stakes in the pesticide industry. Last but not least, there is the functional foods industry (enriched foods, many of them GMOs), which basically cuts across all of these sectors. It’s one big melting pot of common interests. These financial interests affect our socio-economic sphere, and thereby also our politicians’ judgement. Examples of this are the Codex Alimentarius and the EU Supplement Directives, through which the allied forces of the food- and medicinal industries have already managed to greatly minimise the availability of alternative nutrients by setting up new, often prohibitive guidelines for supplements, vitamins minerals and soon also herbal medicines and homeopathic remedies.

Do you have arguments in favour of GM?
Just like many other technologies, it could prove to have some positive potential in well-defined areas, provided that it has been scientifically studied over an appropriate length of time*, is used under controlled circumstances, by knowledgeable and ethical people (not motivated by the forces of power or financial gain) and that it is applied wisely for the benefit of humanity. We have yet a long way to go before being able to use this technology wisely.
*In this case 20 years, in case of genetic mutation affecting the next generation, maybe twice that number.

What is your greatest concern with GM?
We are letting a powerful technology loose at its infancy, long before it has matured, with no idea of the consequences and without a recall button. We are talking about permanent changes, of which the worst possible scenario is genetic mutation and other previously unknown phenomena which are irreversible and can continue to affect subsequent generations. Once such effects are out there, there is no way back. So the issue of labelling becomes an illusory matter. What difference will it make once our crops are infected with GM material?
My other concern is that GM technology is being adopted in countries where more than half of the population is sceptical toward it. Their scepticism is not being addressed, and much of the time people don’t even know that GM crops are being grown in their backyard. We know from experience that the more people know, the more sceptical they are in the face of GMOs. So information is the key here, and people aren’t getting it from their governments.

EU food supplement directive

• EU bans effective supplements and vitamins

The EU Food Supplements Directive has silently passed in to EU member country laws (July 2003). The ban it inflicts on 300 effective and bio available nutrient forms present in over 5000 safe vitamin and mineral products will happen in August 2005. The EU outlines various phases, including the development of restrictions on other supplements, such as herbs, fatty acids, amino acids and homeopathic remedies. As of 2007, consumers won’t be able to buy some of the most effective supplements on the EU markets any more. This will eventually include people who for example treat their kidney stones with high doses of vitamin B6 and magnesium, avoid herpes outbreaks with Lysine, or strengthen their immune system with natural fatty acids. The list of ailments which are alleviated by the use of natural supplements is long. When the Supplements Directive truly kicks in, it will be difficult to stop it. The producers who stand to gain from this development are mostly large pharmaceutical industries which also produce low-dosage, high-additive, non-organic and synthetic supplements. Many innovative and small to medium-sized organic supplement producers will have to stop their production, so there will be no more access to essential nutrients.
Source: www.alliance-natural-health.org

Ecological foods

• Time for ‘selfish ecology’?

According to the Danish financial newspaper Børsen, it seems that the time has come for ecological products to target a new consumer segment: the people who purchase ecological goods as much for themselves as for the greater good of the world. Børsen's journalist writes that the market for ecological goods in Denmark is far from saturated, but the 20-25 percent segment of the population which purchases out of idealistic motivations has topped. Producers now have to reach mainstream consumers with updated products whose taste or qualities are appealing in many more ways. Examples to be cited are the booming sales of a low-fat ecological Jersey milk produced by the dairy farm Thise, as well as the success of a tasty, crisp ecological carrot grown especially by Ahlgren.

TTM, MayDay comments: Ecological consumption patterns move in sinus curves, and it has been noted that, since 1999, we’ve had a gradual drop in Denmark, followed by a period of stagnation (right now). We probably situate ourselves at a low point. Therefore, I don’t believe that the ideological consumer segment has ‘topped’. Also, our own (Danish) Ministry of Health has done nothing to boost the curve. Instead of issuing proper material about the nutritional value of ecological foods, they have sown doubt about them by issuing incomplete information which confused the users. If they published accurate and clear data people would know that food without poisons is healthier, and buy more of it. Finally, the market helps define what people buy: if people can’t find ecological milk, more of them will buy the non-ecological kind and vice-versa. When supermarkets drop the prices on eco-milk, sales soar (Føtex, a couple of years ago). This says something about the role of supply and demand in the equation.

ICIS View: In other words, if we add the growth potential within the idealist consumer segment to the potential for ‘selfish ecology’, ecological products are indeed a very safe and attractive bet for producers.

ICIS Activities

1. MC 303 Report - Sustainable Architecture masterclass (August 2003)
   
2. Seminar on CSR, Corporate Social Responsibility, with buhl UnLtd.
   (September 2003 - report to follow)
   
3. Teaching Sustainable Design masterclass (September 2003 - report to follow)

Resources

• Following are a few web resources which can shed light on some of the topics discussed in this newsletter.

Main references
www.greenpeace.org
www.mayday-info.dk
www.alliance-natural-health.org

Contact ICIS

New e-mail address for ICIS NeWS:
info@iciscenter.org

Sign up for e-mail announcements (summaries) of future ICIS NeWS

ICIS NeWS editors:
Karen Blincoe, Henning Wettendorff, Karen Svensson