Sustained—and financed—largely on the promise of spectacular success at some unidentified point in the future, the research and development of new types of GMO foods, made with a whole host of new genetic engineering technologies, has gathered pace in recent years.

These days, without most people being aware of it, genetic engineering is spreading from the crops in the field to the animals in the barn.

Using new genome editing (sometimes referred to as “gene editing”) techniques like CRISPR, biotech breeders are proposing to breed a brave new world of farm animals that don’t get sick, don’t feel pain and produce more meat, milk and eggs at a lower cost than ever before.

Not many NGOs are currently working on this issue and it can be hard to find good information to help make sense of it all. But two recent reports provide in-depth information on the mechanics as well as the ethical issues around gene-edited farm animals.

One, from Friends of the Earth, entitled “Genetically Engineered Animals: From Lab to Factory Farm,” is an extensively referenced report that provides key background information and highlights the urgent need for safety assessments of genome-edited animals.

The other, “Gene-edited Animals in Agriculture,” is a report from a day-long roundtable in June 2019, co-hosted by my organization, Beyond GM, and Compassion in World Farming in the UK. The roundtable involved individuals representing a wide range of perspectives. What emerged was a fascinating glimpse into not only the technology, but also the ethics and values systems that underpin that technology.

If you are new to the subject of genetically engineering farm animals for food, if it concerns you or if you just want to know more in order to be an informed consumer, these two reports provide an important starting point.

What are gene-edited animals?

Gene editing is a type of genetic engineering. It is used as an umbrella term for a suite of new technologies, of which CRISPR is the most well-known.

With gene editing, as with older genetic engineering techniques, the organism’s genetic material is changed directly and artificially, by humans using laboratory techniques. This means that gene editing, like other forms of genetic engineering, produces GMOs (genetically modified organisms).

Currently, research priorities for gene-edited animas focus largely on a few high-value animals. Pigs are the priority farm animal, followed by cattle and poultry. Genome-edited fish—particularly salmon and tilapia—are also being developed.

How is gene editing being used on farm animals?

Much of the current research and development is focused on health problems in farm animals raised in intensive, industrial systems. Genome editing has been proposed as a way to protect animals from disease by altering their immune response to diseases like PRRS (Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome) and ASFv (African Swine Fever) in pigs and ISA (Infectious Salmon Anemia, or “salmon flu”) in farmed salmon.

Researchers are also looking at creating animals with desirable commercial attributes, such as the ability to produce more muscle mass (meat) while consuming less feed.

They are also looking for ways to adapt animals to their environments, such as cattle with “slick” coats that protect them from extreme heat.

These problems targeted by the biotech industry are real. But most of them are also manmade—a consequence of the crowded factory farm conditions in which the animals are raised, and the spread of industrial livestock operations into geographical areas (e.g. tropical climates) not well suited to this kind of farming.

Poor health in animals often arises as a result of the systems in which they are kept. Gene editing should not be used to address diseases that primarily arise from keeping animals in stressful, crowded conditions. Such diseases can, and should be tackled by improving things like housing and hygiene, and lowering stocking densities, before turning to selective breeding – of any kind.

What advantages are claimed for gene-edited farm animals?

Genome editing has been proposed as a solution for sustainably feeding a growing world population. Producing animals that grow faster and eat less, argues the biotech industry, reduces input costs for the farmer and, on a global scale, helps reduce the amount of crops diverted to livestock as feed, and may also help to reduce the impact of industrial meat production on global warming.

Gene-editing could be used to control reproduction, for instance to produce more female dairy cows (thus more milk) or more female chickens (more eggs). “Gender skewing” in this way, say biotechnologists, has the added bonus of lowering the number of male cows and chickens culled shortly after birth.

There are also claims that genome editing could be used to “edit out” animals’ ability to feel pain and stress. This, it is argued, would reduce the animals’ suffering in factory farm conditions. Opponents argue, however that this is unethical, reduces the animals to little more than a machine and furthers the interests of those who support factory farming.

Another major argument for gene editing is that it can speed up the breeding process—producing in 2 years an animal that might take 10-15 years via traditional breeding.

This notion of speed, however, may be misleading. Although genome editing is promoted as a fast technology with limitless possibilities, no gene-edited animals have yet made it into farms or the food chain.

Most of the “innovations” you read about in the media are based on studies performed to show what might be theoretically, technically possible. These PR stories are often released by research institutions as a way of attracting the interest of funders that might be interested in financing further work.

But if gene editing can help relieve animals’ suffering, isn’t that a good thing?

Most researchers involved in this work (as opposed to the large biotech companies that eventually market the finished product) are concerned for animal welfare and believe that what they are doing will help animals.

It is worth remembering that those involved in conventional selective breeding believe that they, too, are doing “good.”

However, decades of evidence show that selective breeding for specific traits can have a negative impact on animal health, including skeletal and metabolic diseases, lameness, reproductive issues and mastitis.

The fact is, the more we breed animals to be little more than “production units” in industrial farms, the less likely it is to benefit the animal—whatever the method.

How successful have attempts at gene editing been so far?

Results in animals thus far are not as predictable or reliable as researchers had hoped.

For example, a recent Wall Street Journal investigation reported unintended effects including enlarged tongues and extra vertebrae.

Brazil’s plans to breed hornless dairy cattle, gene-edited with TALENs were recently abandoned when a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed that one of the experimental animals contained a sequence of bacterial DNA that included a gene-conferring antibiotic resistance. In theory, this antibiotic-resistance gene could be taken up by any of the billions of bacteria present in a cow’s gut or body—and from there be spread beyond the farm.

Other recent research has shown that edited mouse genomes can acquire bovine or goat DNA. This was traced to the standard culture medium for mouse cells, which contains DNA from whichever animal species it may have been extracted from. This mix-and-match DNA is potentially a problem for other genome-edited animals, too. And it raises some urgent questions about authenticity and traceability.

Studies like these, which are appearing with ever-greater frequency, suggest that the science of genome editing in animals is a long way from providing watertight solutions to the problems associated with factory-farmed animals.

Are there any gene-edited animals on the market now?

Although it is promoted as a fast technology with limitless possibilities, genome-edited animals have yet to appear on farms or in the food chain.

The only genetically engineered animals currently on the market is the GMO salmon on sale in Canada and the U.S. This was produced using older style genetic engineering.

Can we achieve the same improvements in farm animals with traditional breeding?

Conventional breeding can also produce robust animals that are suited to their geographical locations. Both farmers and consumers are showing increasing interest in these kinds of “heritage breeds.” And supporting them also helps to protect the diversity of the animal gene pool.

Conventional breeding also has the advantage of not requiring complex regulation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is currently trying to “simplify” things by proposing that it, rather than the FDA, should have oversight on genome-edited animals and that these animals should be exempt from regulation.

Given the scientific uncertainty around genetically engineered animals, this kind of blinkered rubber-stamping should alarm consumers.

Surely, gene editing is just another tool in the toolbox. Is it right to discount it entirely if one day it might be a useful tool?

Most people agree that our food system is no longer functioning optimally, that it needs to change and is, in fact, changing. Genetic engineers believe that they have something that can help agriculture change. They often refer to gene editing as a “tool in the toolbox.”

This suggests that rather than being a universal panacea, genome editing may be a technology with useful but limited applications and several caveats—i.e. you don’t use a wrench when you need a hammer.

Arguably, more important than the “tool” is the “toolbox” itself, which is what we use to frame our questions, the points of reference we use and how we organize our thoughts.

All over the world, the “toolbox” is the intensive, industrial farming model—these days referred to as “sustainable intensification.” This model drives much of the thinking and decision-making around agriculture and agricultural policy.

In a world where agroecology and regenerative farming are the dominant systems, decisions around genome editing, about when—or indeed if—it is needed might look very different.

There is now a large body of opinion suggesting that, whichever yardstick is used—welfare, sustainability, environment, nutrition—the industrial farming system is damaging and outdated.

If we envisage the future of farming where the industrial model will continue to dominate, then genome editing may take on a more prominent role.

However, if we envisage a future for farming as largely agroecological, and invest in and work conscientiously towards that kind of system change, then it is possible that gene editing won’t have a role to play.

In that future, instead of creating genetically engineered animals to fit into factory farms, we will develop sustainable and ecological animal agriculture systems that support animal welfare, preserve and restore biodiversity and protect public health.

• This article first appeared on the Organic Consumers Association website.

Just a few years ago the idea of genetically engineered farm animals seemed like science fiction to most consumers. But it’s a sign of how powerful the industry has become, and how quickly the science is advancing, that we’ve reached the stage where regulators are having to draft new regulations to deal with the influx new applications.

Behind the scenes there have been squabbles over not just what the regulations will say, but which government department should take the lead.

Meanwhile, “pharm” animals – animals genetically engineered to produce drugs – have been around since for more than two decades. But the first genetically engineered animal for human consumption – GMO salmon – was only recently approved. More are on the way, at an alarming pace, and without adequate testing and consideration for the impact these GMO foods will have on human health and the environment, much less for the animals themselves.

Long and winding regulatory road

Currently genetically engineered animals are under the purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – it was the FDA that last year approved genetically engineered salmon. Recently, acting Commissioner Ned Sharpless admitted that the Agency has had to take on more staff just to deal with the scientific evaluation of these biotech creations.

In the background, however, there are questions about why the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which would normally claim jurisdiction over meat products, has been blocked from taking charge or even sharing jurisdiction with the FDA. With lab grown meat, for example, the two agencies have recently agreed to share regulatory oversight.

Regulation of GMO crops is also shared. The FDA, for instance, is responsible for regulating the safety of GM crops that are eaten by humans or animals, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates biopesticides – crops genetically engineered to expresses a pesticide trait such as the Bt toxin – and the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) regulates the planting, importation or transportation of GM plants.

This “coordinated framework” is vital because genetic engineering in food is a disruptive technology that crosses multiple regulatory borders. Yet the FDA now strongly rejects the idea of sharing the regulatory burden of gene edited animal products with other agencies, even though this contradicts previous statements about its commitment to working closely with other agencies.

Since drugs require a higher evidentiary standard than foods, the FDA approach could be good news.  But decades of hard lessons from GMO crops suggest that how these new gene-edited animals are evaluated, what evidence is considered and, importantly, what is rejected, what resulting regulations permit and don’t permit and who ultimately benefits from them should be of concern to every single consumer.

How did we get here?

The USDA’s 2018 decision not to require labels on food created using so-called “new” GMO techniques – now referred to as ‘gene editing’ – would seem to stand in stark contrast to the position of the FDA, which contends that animals whose genomes have been similarly re-engineered should go through a rigorous evaluation before being released onto the market.

But take a closer look at how the regulatory landscape has evolved over the last few years and it’s easy to see how the two agencies have been in lockstep (intentionally or otherwise) to ease older-style GMOs into the market and deregulate the newer, gene-edited products. U.S. regulatory agencies apply different rules for genetic engineering, than they do for gene-editing technologies, such as CRISPR. However, as this Friends of the Earth report indicates, not everyone agrees that the two technologies differ enough that one should be more scrutinized and regulated than the other.

In November 2015, for instance, the FDA gave its first approval for the AquAdvantage Salmon, genetically engineered to grow twice as fast as natural salmon.

By 2016, Congress made the USDA the leading player in the labeling of genetically engineered food.

In 2017, the FDA issued new guidance for the regulation of gene-edited animals stating that all animals whose genomes have been intentionally altered in this way will be evaluated for safety and efficacy under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

By late 2018, the USDA had issued its controversial final rule for the labeling of genetically engineered foods, widely thought to be a disaster for food transparency – not the least because it uses the term “bioengineered,” or BE rather than the commonly understood term “genetically engineered.”

Although the AquAdvantage salmon is included on the USDA’s list of BE foods that must be labeled, numerous loopholes in the rule mean that products made with genetic engineering or containing GMOs will not be labeled. In addition, AquaBounty won’t be required label the salmon as a GMO food until 2022.

In response to the USDA’s new powers over labeling, in March 2019, then-FDA Commissioner Gottlieb reversed the regulation prohibiting the importation of AquAdvantage salmon, effectively opening up U.S. markets to the GMO fish. This means there could, in theory, be a period when the fish are on sale—but not labelled.

Around the same time Gottlieb launched a Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan, a PR offensive to engage “stakeholders.” The plan included public webinars on animal genome editing, and a whole slew of guidance documents on the benefits of plant and animal biotechnology.

The GMO salmon is not produced using newer gene-editing techniques. For these foods – including those from gene-edited animals – the USDA, as already stated, is taking a hands-off approach.

In March of this year, only a few months after the USDA said it would not require labeling on gene-edited foods, Calyno soybean oil made from a gene-edited soybean had the dubious distinction of being the first unlabeled gene-edited food to come on the U.S. market.

‘Pharm’ animals

With hindsight the progression seems obvious. But why is livestock intended for human consumption regulated as a drug? The FDA says it is because “an rDNA construct that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of the resulting animal meets the definition of a drug.”

That may be true but, in reality, the FDA framework provided by the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is also the only one currently in play.

What many consumers don’t realize is that FDA has been regulating animals this way for a decade.

In fact the agency issued its first draft guidance on how transgenic animals (animals genetically engineered with a gene from one or more foreign species) should be regulated as animal drugs in 2008. This decision paved the way for the approval of farm animals genetically re-engineered to produce pharmaceutical drugs.

The first commercial drug produced in this way, ATryn, an antithrombotic (a drug used to prevent blood from clotting) derived from the milk of genetically engineered goats, was approved in February 2009.

Worldwide, there are now ongoing experiments with genetically engineered animals – some of which are being designed as living, breathing bioreactors for producing drugs at industrial scale in their milk, eggs, blood and urine. This is known as “pharming.”

Current FDA guidance for consumers on gene-edited animals makes it clear that there is little to no difference in the way the FDA regulates pharm animals and those intended for the human food chain.

ATryn was only the beginning. In 2014, the FDA approved Ruconest, a drug collected from the milk of genetically engineered rabbits and used to treat hereditary angioedema (swelling under the skin, triggered by an allergy to animal dander, pollen, drugs, venom, food or medication).

In 2015, the FDA approved a genetically modified chicken that makes a drug called Kanuma, used to treat lysosomal acid lipase deficiency – a rare genetic condition that prevents the body from breaking down fatty molecules inside cells.

There are also experimental cows genetically engineered to produce human antibodies.

The big advantage of these innovations, say biotech companies, is lower production costs. Once the animal is reengineered it can simply keep pumping out drugs for the cost of maintaining chickens and goats in cages and pens.

The regulatory framework already in place for these “pharm” animals is undoubtedly what put the FDA in position to take the lead with regard to all genetically engineered livestock.

Is it different for animals?

The regulatory approach to gene-edited non-human animals stands in stark contrast to our precautionary approach to the idea of gene-edited humans. In both cases gene editing has been proposed as a way of altering things like appearance, vulnerability to disease and gender.

For instance in 2018, Chinese biophysicist, He Jiankui, claimed he created the first genetically modified babies. His goal was to gene-edit embryos using CRISPR to give them the ability to resist HIV infection. The claim prompted an international outcry about ethics and safety.

The PR around gene-editing suggests that the technology is precise enough to target only specific areas of the genome. Other claimed benefits center on the idea that gene editing does not involve the insertion of foreign genes, or transgenes. Instead it either uses genes from related species (cis-genes) or simply snips out specific genes (known as ‘knock-out). This latter claim is somewhat misleading since new technologies like CRISPR can also be used to produce transgenic plants and animals.

How much we are willing to believe in these benefits, depends to a large extent on how much we are willing to buy in to the same tired mindsets that underpin older types of genetic engineering. Chief among these is the scientifically-flawed notion that single genes have single functions and that genes are like Lego bricks where you can simply replace a red brick with a yellow one without consequence.

In the case of the gene-edited babies, a group of scientists and bioethicists from seven countries has recently called for a “global moratorium” on gene editing that can lead to changes that can be passed on to offspring. The scientists noted that even efforts at simple genetic corrections, for instance, in order to cure a disease, can have unintended consequences.

For example, a common variant of the gene SLC39A8 decreases a person’s risk of developing hypertension and Parkinson’s disease, but increases their risk of developing schizophrenia, Crohn’s disease and obesity. Its influence on many other diseases and its interactions with other genes and with the environment, they said, remains unknown.

Unintended consequences

Is it so different for non-human animals?

That’s not a question that has benefitted from much examination. But recently, when Chinese researchers engineered rabbits to make them meatier, the animals developed enlarged tongues; similar experiments on pigs led some to develop an additional vertebrae.

Sheep gene-edited to produce a particular colour of wool had more spontaneous abortions; calves in Brazil and New Zealand, genetically engineered to be less vulnerable to heat stress, died prematurely.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of these adverse effects is that they aren’t unique to genetically engineered livestock.

Genetic selection for high milk yield is the major factor causing poor welfare and health problems in dairy cows. Breeding hens to produce more and more eggs causes osteoporosis creating a substantial risk of fractures, as well as lameness. Likewise, breeding pigs for rapid growth leads to leg disorders and cardiovascular malfunction.

Our system for producing livestock is very broken. But instead of fixing the system, genetic engineering aims to better adapt the animals to crowded, filthy and inhumane living conditions and further entrench a factory farming system that is not fit for a humane and sustainable society.

Slow down the conversation

Gene-editing and other technologies clearly pose a challenge for regulators. Legislative definitions can quickly become obsolete with every new technological development. And in the rush to finalise our regulatory approach, the current debate about genetically engineered livestock seems to skip over several key issues.

It underrepresents the best interests of the animals and fosters the notion that animals which fail to thrive in factory farm conditions as somehow genetically inadequate. Frustratingly, given the potential for distressing side effects, it avoids the question of why the re-engineering of non-human animals is being given less ethical consideration than the re-engineering of humans.

It also hides the real lack of diversity among those academics driving the debate.

For example, a Google search on the topic of gene-edited animals for food will turn up a disproportionate amount of articles by or featuring Dr Alison Van Eenennaam, a specialist in animal genomics and biotechnology at the University of California, Davis—and a former Monsanto employee.

Van Eenennaam believes that requiring regulation for genetically engineered animals is “insane” and has a particular interest in using CRISPR, to eliminate the horns of dairy cows and to breed all-male terminator cattle that will produce only male offspring—a project she calls “Boys Only.” While she is often presented as an independent, one-woman advocate for gene-edited animals, documents acquired by US Right to Know have shown that she coordinates with agrichemical companies and the PR companies on messaging.

That messaging supports the notion of “substantial equivalence” between GMO and non-GMO organisms and thereby discourages research that could provide meaningful insights into the risks that re-engineering an animal at the cellular level may entail for the animals, or for those consuming their meat, milk and eggs.

Importantly it deepens the schism between public concerns about safety, ethics and environment and the academic/scientific/regulatory discussion which is centred mostly on expediency and the profits to be made from tech ‘innovation’.

Regulators around the world are grappling with these issues, while being pressured by industry to come up with quick solutions. It’s worth asking, however, whether the sense of urgency is real or manufactured and whether, given how much there is still to learn, a slower and more nuanced conversation – combined with a moratorium on gene-edited livestock – might shine much needed light on some important issues and produce a better outcome for the animals and for consumers.

• This article was first published on the Organic Consumers Association website. It is reproduced here with permission.

The court’s decision is a big win for public transparency and a firm rejection of the Trump administration’s position that it can unilaterally decide whether to withhold government documents from public and court review.

In 2015, the FDA approved a GE salmon made from the DNA of three different animals: Atlantic salmon, deep water ocean eelpout, and Pacific Chinook salmon. The GE version is intended to grow faster than conventional farmed salmon, reportedly getting to commercial size in half the time.

Even though this is the first time any government in the world has approved a GE animal for commercial sale and consumption, so far the FDA has taken a lackadaisical approach to evaluating the salmon’s potential for harm to wild salmon and the environment. If the GE salmon were to escape, it could threaten wild salmon populations by outcompeting them for scarce resources and habitat, by mating with endangered salmon species, and by introducing new diseases.

The world’s preeminent experts on GE fish and risk assessment, as well as biologists at U.S. wildlife agencies charged with protecting fish and wildlife, heavily criticized the FDA for failing to evaluate these impacts. But the FDA ignored their concerns, so in March 2016, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the agency.

As part of the lawsuit, the FDA is required to compile a record of documents that illuminate the path the agency followed to reach its decision to approve the GE salmon—much like a student is required to show their work for a math problem in middle school.

A complete record is essential in all cases. But it is especially important here because the FDA has so far refused to release most of the documents related to its decision, despite repeated requests for that information from Earthjustice’s diverse set of clients under the Freedom of Information Act.

The public has a right to know how the agency came to this seemingly ill-informed decision, especially because the FDA’s approach will likely serve as a precedent for the assessment of future GE food animals. Withholding that information is illegal because government agencies like the FDA are funded by taxpayer dollars, which means that any records they create, with only limited exceptions, can and should be available to the public and to citizens seeking to hold the government accountable in court.

In January 2017, a US District Court judge agreed, concluding that “the government is wrong to assert that these types of materials…should be excluded” from the record. The FDA is now required to fully complete the record with all relevant documents no later than July 2017. Several months later, the FDA asked the appeals court to override that judge’s decision.

In its petition, the administration made a sweeping argument, with severe ramifications for effective court review of government actions—that defendant agencies can determine unilaterally what information to give to courts reviewing their decisions, and do not have to disclose any internal materials, even if the agency considered those materials in its decision. If adopted, this view would have had far-reaching consequences for public review of agency decisions that have major impacts on everyday life.

The FDA is now required to fully complete the record with all relevant documents. The district court is expected to set a deadline after a hearing in late February. In addition to working to ensure the timely completion of that process, Earthjustice will thoroughly review the full basis for the agency’s decisions.

“Our courts provide a level playing field where not even the federal government is above the law,” says Earthjustice attorney Steve Mashuda. “Federal agencies cannot avoid accountability by omitting inconvenient facts and presenting a fictional account of their decisions.”

• This article was originally published under the title ‘Judges to FDA: Government Must Pull Aside Curtain on Genetically Engineered Salmon’ on the Earthjustice website. It is reproduced here with permission and with a short summary for ease of reading.
• For more on this story see our article: US gives the OK to GMO salmon.

In Altered Genes, Twisted Truth American public interest attorney, Steven Druker, reveals how the US government and leading scientific institutions have systematically misrepresented the facts about GMOs and the scientific research that casts doubt on their safety.

The book features a foreword by the renowned primatologist Dame Jane Goodall, who hails it as “without doubt one of the most important books of the last 50 years”. Both Goodall and Druker were in London last week to speak to the press about the book.

The book’s revelations come at a crucial time when the UK is considering the commercial planting of GM crops following the European Parliament’s decision to allow member states to opt out of the blockade that has barred them from the EU until now. Based on the evidence presented in the book, Druker and Goodall will assert that it would be foolhardy to push forward with a technology that is unacceptably risky and should never have been allowed on the market in the first place.

It also comes at a time when campaigners in the US are fighting for labeling laws and a ‘right to know’ what’s in their food. But the book is the result of more than 15 years of intensive research and investigation by Druker, reveals a situation so serious that our right to know needs to extend beyond food labels and into the very deepest workings of government and food regulation.

Pat Thomas, Director of campaigning group Beyond GM, which facilitated the press launch, said of the book’s revelations: “For a very long time, the pro-GM lobby have insisted that GM is a ‘science issue’. What Druker’s book shows us is that the regulatory processes that allowed GM foods to come to market are based on a perversion of science and that puts a very different spin on what a ‘science issue’ really means.”

Covering up the facts

Druker came to prominence for initiating a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that forced it to divulge its files on GM foods. Those files revealed that GM foods cam to market in 1992 only because the FDA:

• Covered up the extensive warnings of its own scientists about their dangers.
• Lied about the facts.
• And then violated federal food safety law by permitting these foods to be marketed without having been proven safe through standard testing.

In Altered Genes, Twisted Truth Druker points out that if the FDA had heeded its own experts’ advice and publicly acknowledged their warnings that GM foods entailed higher risks than their conventional counterparts, the effort to bring GM food to market would have collapsed and GMOs would not have gained traction anywhere.

He also reveals:

• Many well-placed scientists have repeatedly issued misleading statements about GM foods, and so have leading scientific institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the UK’s Royal Society.
• Consequently, most people are unaware of the risks these foods entail and the manifold problems they have caused.
• Contrary to the claims of biotech advocates, humans have indeed been harmed by consuming the output of genetic engineering. In fact, the technology’s first ingestible product (a food supplement of the essential amino acid, L-tryptophan) caused dozens of deaths and seriously sickened thousands of people (permanently disabling many of them). Moreover, the evidence points to the genetic alteration as the most likely cause of the unusual contamination that rendered the supplement toxic.
• Laboratory animals have also suffered from eating products of genetic engineering, and well-conducted tests with GM crops have yielded many troubling results, including intestinal abnormalities, liver disturbances, and impaired immune systems.
• Numerous scientists (including those on the FDA’s Biotechnology Task Force) have concluded that the process of creating genetically modified food radically differs from conventional breeding and entails greater risk.
• There has never been a consensus within the scientific community that GM foods are safe, and many eminent experts have issued cautions – as have respected scientific organisations such as the Royal Society of Canada and the Public Health Association of Australia.

Challenging the science lobbyists

Druker noted: “Contrary to the assertions of its proponents, the massive enterprise to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply is not based on sound science but on the systematic subversion of science – and it would collapse if subjected to an open airing of the facts.”

At the press conference in London, Druker issued an open challenge the Royal Society – the UK’s premiere scientific institution, to confront the facts, apologise for the misleading statements that it and several of its prominent members have issued, and take earnest steps to set the record straight.

It is Druker’s assertion that in seeking to become part of the publicity and lobbying machine for GMOs, the Royal Society, and other organisations like it, has stepped outside the boundaries of acceptable behaviour for a scientific institution undermined good science and even been party to the scientific witch-hunt against those whose research shows significant problems with eating GMOs.

Not just a ‘science issue’

In her foreword for the book Jane Goodall commends it for countering the disinformation and providing much-needed clarity. She states: “I shall urge everyone I know who cares about life on earth, and the future of their children, and children’s children, to read it. It will go a long way toward dispelling the confusion and delusion that has been created regarding the genetic engineering process and the foods it produces…Steven Druker is a hero. He deserves at least a Nobel Prize.”

Pat Thomas, adds: “Under pressure from new legislation and the ongoing TTIP negotiations, the UK and the rest of Europe are on the precipice of making sweeping changes to their historical stance on GMOs. Much of our regulatory framework has been informed by foundations laid down in America in the early 1990s, and the belief that they got it right in terms of understanding the science of genetic modification. Steven Druker’s investigation into the history of fraud and deceit that ushered in the era of GMOs deserves serious consideration before we take actions that will irreversibly alter the European food supply.”

She concludes “GMOs are not a ‘science issue’ any more – they’re everyone’s issue”.

• Altered Genes, Twisted Trust is available on Amazon

Let’s get a big international conversation started on the real and urgent threat of GMOs to our food and farming. Below is the text of the letter.

____________________________

We are writing as concerned American citizens to share with you our experience of genetically modified (GM) crops and the resulting damage to our agricultural system and adulteration of our food supply.

In our country, GM crops account for about half of harvested cropland. Around 94% of the soy, 93% of corn (maize) and 96% of cotton grown is GM.[1]

The UK and the rest of the EU have yet to adopt GM crops in the way that we have, but you are currently under tremendous pressure from governments, biotech lobbyists, and large corporations to adopt what we now regard as a failing agricultural technology.

Polls consistently show that 72% of Americans do not want to eat GM foods and over 90% of Americans believe GM foods should be labeled.[2] In spite of this massive public mandate, efforts to get our federal [3] and state[4]  governments to better regulate, or simply label, GMOs are being undermined by large biotech and food corporations with unlimited budgets[5] and undue influence.

As you consider your options, we’d like to share with you what nearly two decades of GM crops in the United States has brought us. We believe our experience serves as a warning for what will happen in your countries should you follow us down this road.

Broken promises

GM crops were released onto the market with a promise that they would consistently increase yields and decrease pesticide use. They have done neither.[6] In fact, according to a recent US government report yields from GM crops can be lower than their non-GM equivalents.[7]

Farmers were told that GM crops would yield bigger profits too. The reality, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, is different.[8] Profitability is highly variable, while the cost of growing these crops has spiraled.[9] GM seeds cannot legally be saved for replanting, which means farmers must buy new seeds each year.  Biotech companies control the price of seeds, which cost farmers 3-6 times more than conventional seeds.[10] This, combined with the huge chemical inputs they require, means GM crops have proved more costly to grow than conventional crops.  Because of the disproportionate emphasis on GM crops, conventional seed varieties are no longer widely available leaving farmers with less choice and control over what they plant.[11]

Farmers who have chosen not to grow GM crops can find their fields contaminated with GM crops as a result of cross pollination between related species of plants[12] and GM and non-GM seeds being mixed together during storage.

Because of this our farmers are losing export markets.  Many countries have restrictions or outright bans on growing or importing GM crops[13] and as a result, these crops have become responsible for a rise in trade disputes when shipments of grain are found to be contaminated with GM organisms (GMOs). [14]

The burgeoning organic market here in the US is also being affected. Many organic farmers have lost contracts for organic seed due to high levels of contamination. This problem is increasing and is expected to get much bigger in the coming years.

Pesticides and superweeds

The most widely grown types of GM crops are known as “Roundup Ready” crops. These crops, mostly corn and soy, have been genetically engineered so that when they are sprayed with the herbicide Roundupâ – the active ingredient of which is glyphosate – the weeds die but the crop continues to grow.

This has created a vicious circle. Weeds have become resistant to the herbicide, causing farmers to spray even more. Heavier use of herbicides creates ever more “superweeds” and even higher herbicide use.   A recent review found that between 1996 and 2011, farmers who planted Roundup Ready crops used 24% more herbicide than non-GMO farmers planting the same crops.[15]

If we remain on this trajectory with Roundup Ready crops we can expect to see herbicide rates increase by 25% each year for the foreseeable future.

This pesticide treadmill means that in the last decade in the US at least 14 new glyphosate-resistant weed species have emerged,[16] and over half of US farms are plagued with herbicide-resistant weeds.[17]

Biotech companies, which sell both the GM seeds and the herbicides,[18] have proposed to address this problem with the creation of new crop varieties that will be able to withstand even stronger and more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba. However it is estimated that if these new varieties are approved, this could drive herbicide use up by as much as 50%.[19]

Environmental harm

Studies have shown that the increased herbicide use on Roundup Ready crops is highly destructive to the natural environment.  For example, Roundup kills milkweeds, which are the key food source for the iconic Monarch butterfly[20] and poses a threat to other important insects such as bees.[21]  It is also damaging to soil, killing beneficial organisms that keep it healthy and productive[22] and making essential micronutrients unavailable to the plant.[23]

Without healthy soil, we cannot grow healthy plants.

Other types of GM plants, which have been engineered to produce their own insecticide (e.g. “Bt” cotton plants), have also been shown to harm beneficial insects including green lacewings[24], the Daphnia magna waterflea[25] and other aquatic insects,[26] and ladybugs (ladybirds).[27]

Resistance to the insecticides in these plants is also growing[28], creating new varieties of resistant “superbugs” and requiring more applications of insecticides at different points in the growth cycle, for instance on the seed before it is planted.[29] In spite of this, new Bt varieties of corn and soy have been approved here and will soon be planted.

A threat to human health

GM ingredients are everywhere in our food chain. It is estimated that 70% of processed foods consumed in the US have been produced using GM ingredients. If products from animals fed GM feed are included, the percentage is significantly higher.

Research shows that Roundup Ready crops contain many times more glyphosate, and its toxic breakdown product AMPA, than normal crops.[30]

Traces of glyphosate have been found in the breastmilk and urine of American mothers, as well as in their drinking water.[31] The levels in breastmilk were worryingly high – around 1,600 times higher than what is allowable in European drinking water. Passed on to babies through breastmilk, or the water used to make formula, this could represent an unacceptable risk to infant health since glyphosate is a suspected hormone disrupter.[32] Recent studies suggest that this herbicide is also toxic to sperm.[33]

Likewise, traces of the Bt toxin have been found in the blood of mothers and their babies.[34]

GM foods were not subjected to human trials before being released into the food chain and the health impacts of having these substances circulating and accumulating in our bodies are not being studied by any government agency, nor by the companies that produce them.

Studies of animals fed GM foods and/or glyphosate, however, show worrying trends including damage to vital organs like the liver and kidneys, damage to gut tissues and gut flora, immune system disruption, reproductive abnormalities, and even tumors.[35]

These scientific studies point to potentially serious human health problems that could not have been anticipated when our country first embraced GMOs, and yet they continue to be ignored by those who should be protecting us. Instead our regulators rely on outdated studies and other information funded and supplied by biotech companies that, not surprisingly, dismiss all health concerns.

A denial of science

This spin of corporate science stands in stark contrast to the findings of independent scientists. In fact, in 2013, nearly 300 independent scientists from around the world issued a public warning that there was no scientific consensus about the safety of eating genetically modified food, and that the risks, as demonstrated in independent research, gave “serious cause for concern.”[36]

It’s not easy for independent scientists like these to speak out. Those who do have faced obstacles in publishing their results, been systematically vilified by pro-GMO scientists, been denied research funding, and in some cases have had their jobs and careers threatened.[37]

Control of the food supply

Through our experience we have come to understand that the genetic engineering of food has never really been about public good, or feeding the hungry, or supporting our farmers. Nor is it about consumer choice. Instead it is about private, corporate control of the food system.

This control extends into areas of life that deeply affect our day-to-day well-being, including food security, science, and democracy. It undermines the development of genuinely sustainable, environmentally friendly agriculture and prevents the creation of a transparent, healthy food supply for all.

Today in the US, from seed to plate, the production, distribution, marketing, safety testing, and consumption of food is controlled by a handful of companies, many of which have commercial interests in genetic engineering technology. They create the problems, and then sell us the so-called solutions in a closed cycle of profit generation that is unequalled in any other type of commerce.

We all need to eat, which is why every citizen should strive to understand these issues.

Time to speak out

Americans are reaping the detrimental impacts of this risky and unproven agricultural technology.  EU countries should take note: there are no benefits from GM crops great enough to offset these impacts. Officials who continue to ignore this fact are guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.

We, the undersigned, are sharing our experience and what we have learned with you so that you don’t make our mistakes.

We strongly urge you to resist the approval of genetically modified crops, to refuse to plant those crops that have been approved, to reject the import and/or sale of GM-containing animal feeds and foods intended for human consumption, and to speak out against the corporate influence over politics, regulation and science.

If the UK and the rest of Europe becomes the new market for genetically modified crops and food our own efforts to label and regulate GMOs will be all the more difficult, if not impossible. If our efforts fail, your attempts to keep GMOs out of Europe will also fail.

If we work together, however, we can revitalize our global food system, ensuring healthy soil, healthy fields, healthy food and healthy people.

 ____________________________

Add your signature (US only): www.theletterfromamerica.org.

Forward the letter to your MP (UK only): www.theletterfromamerica.org.

View the giant billboard at London’s Waterloo Station, advertising the Letter.

See below for Signatories – NGOs, academics, scientists, anti-GM groups, celebrities, food manufacturers, and others representing around 57 million Americans and for References.

____________________________

SIGNATORIES

• Susan Sarandon
• Daryl Hannah
• Robert Kennedy Jr
• Frances Fisher
• Ed Begley Jr
• Amy Smart
• Tommy Hilfiger
• Mariel Hemingway
• Vani Hari (Food Babe)
• Adam Gardner
• Raj Patel
• Wendell Berry
• Alain Braux
• Rachel Parent
• Daniel Bissonnette
• Alicia Serratos
• Alice Waters
• Paul Hawken
• Anna Lappe
• Philip L. Bereano
• Howard Vlieger
• Devon G. Peña, PhD
• Ken Roseboro
• Bob Streit, CPCS, CCA
• Peter Defur PhD
• Robyn O’Brien
• Evaggelos Vallianatos
• Chensheng (Alex) Lu, PhD
• Miguel Robles
• Temra Costa
• Will Allen
• Dr Joseph Mercola
• Dr Michelle Perro
• Carole Bartolotto, MA, RD
• Dr Margaret Flowers
• Dr Andrew Weil
• Sayer Ji
• Sally Fallon
• Melissa Diane Smith
• Mamavation/ ShiftCon
• Allergy Kids Foundation
• Mom’s Voices
• Friends of the Earth US
• Waterkeeper Alliance
• Organic Consumers Association
• Sierra Club
• Food & Water Watch
• FarmAid
• Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)
• Rachel Carson Council
• Food Democracy Now
• Cornucopia Institute
• Weston A Price Foundation
• Move on
• Farm & Ranch Freedom Alliance
• Council for Responsible Genetics
• Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund
• Biosafety Alliance
• Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
• Green America
• Institute for Social Ecology
• Citizen’s Trade Campaign
• Popular Resistance/Flush the TTP
• The Berry Center
• Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association
• etc group
• Demeter USA
• Slow Food USA
• Rodale Institute
• Organic Seed Alliance
• Institute for Responsible Technology
• Corporate Accountability International
• Healthcare Without Harm
• National Black Farmers Association
• Ecological Farming Association
• Food Chain Workers Alliance
• CT NOFA
• The Acequia Institute (TAI)
• Environmental Stewardship Concepts
• Earth Open Source
• Farm Food Freedom Coalition
• Our Family Farms Coalition (OFFC)
• American Academy of Environmental Medicine
• Alliance for Natural Health US (ANH-USA)
• Healthy Child, Healthy World
• Physicians for Social Responsibility
• Care2
• Label GMOs
• GMO Free USA
• GMO Inside
• Teens Turning Green
• Kids right to know
• GMO Free Maryland
• NH Right to Know GMO
• Citizens for GMO Labelling
• GMO Free CT
• GMO Free PA
• California Certified Organic Farmers
• GMO Free New Jersey
• ConnFACT
• Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families
• GMO Free Canada
• Moms Across America
• Moms Advocating Sustainability
• Californians for Pesticide Reform
• Babes Against Biotech
• Green Lifestyle TV
• GMO Free Planet
• GMO Free DC
• Wood Prairie Farm
• GMO Free Florida
• California State Grange
• Living Seed Company
• Seed Library of Los Angeles
• Sweetly Seeds/Taos Seed Exchange
• NOFA NY
• NOFA MA
• Hawai’i Seed
• GMO Free Arizona
• Heirloom Seed Exposition
• GMO Free Nevada
• NOFA New Hampshire
• GMO Action Alliance
• NoGMO4Michigan
• Nature’s Path
• Jimbo’s…Naturally!
• Nutiva
• Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps
• Annmarie Gianni Cosmetics
• NYR Organic
• Good Earth Natural Foods

REFERENCES

Next week Prof Glover, who is the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisor, will join other pro-GM evangelists in Addis Ababa selling their rusted “silver bullets” and snake oil technology packages to African researchers, governments and the “civil society” elites.

In recent years her pronouncements on the safety of genetic engineering technology and the need for it have led to ferocious criticism from European Parliamentarians (MEPs) and NGOs. But her forthcoming trip – originally to be alongside the rabidly pro-GM UK government minister Owen Paterson – has sparked the sharpest attacks on her to date.

Integrity questioned

Dr. Brian John of GM-Free Cymru has raised questions about Prof Glover’s scientific integrity over her denial of evidence for health and environmental risks from genetic engineering technology.

Glover has repeatedly said there is no evidence of such risks and has written that “this has been confirmed by thousands of research projects”.

In a letter which has been posted on several websites, Dr. John asks her to retract these statements and apologise to those independent researchers who have been working hard to gather information about these risks. Prof Glover has replied – in an email exchange which has not been posted – reaffirming her position.

Doubts about responsibility and trust

The former French Environment Minister and leading MEP Corinne Lepage has been a stern critic of Glover’s position:

“Glover has as such taken on a heavy amount of personal responsibility, going so far as to say the precautionary principle is no longer applicable. If in the coming years, evidence on the toxicity of GMOs comes to light, European citizens would be entitled to ask her for an explanation.

Only time will tell.Meanwhile, her exaggerated stance is not in keeping with science, which progresses through doubt and research, nor what European citizens expect of the European institutions, in which they must put their trust to protect their health and environment, nor is it in the interest of Europe.”

GMO regulators hand in glove with industry

Professor Glover’s perspective would be more convincing if the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA), the body responsible for licensing GM crops in the EU, was genuinely independent, impartial, transparent and evidence based.

Its GM advisory panel has been dominated by GM industry sponsored people.

In the recent past the panel’s chairperson was forced to resign after her close ties to the industry were exposed and the European Parliament refused to sign off the EFSA accounts because of its repeated failures to establish robust protocols to deal with overly cosy industry relationships.

There is a systemic lack of transparency and independent research verification in its evaluation procedures; a working presumption in favour of GM applications and an unwillingness to adopt new investigative methodologies.

Disingenuous

Professor Glover is being remarkably disingenuous to say that there is no evidence that GM has any impact on the environment.

The emergence of “superweeds” and the contamination of non-GM crops in the US are clear to see; evidence of pest resistance is now being reported; as are examples of health disorders in laboratory animals.

At present this does not amount to a conclusive case against GM but it is enough to maintain precaution and is certainly enough to require that publicly funded officials – which Professor Glover is – and EFSA, take a more sober and considered view about GM technology.

Since when has the job description of the EU’s Chief Scientist included the role of lead cheerleader and saleswoman for the GM industry?

Professor Glover says she wants less politics, less emotion and more science in the GM debate. It is ridiculous of her to suppose that decisions about this technology can – or should – be based solely on a scientific perspective.

Citizens deserve honesty not falsification

There is clear emerging evidence of problems and declaring that GM is risk free is profoundly unscientific.

According to Dr John: “The fact of the matter is that there is a powerful case showing that GMOs are harmful, with the findings of many early papers substantiated and confirmed by subsequent research. To deny that case is to perpetrate a falsehood.”

Which is what critics fear will happen in Addis Ababa.

Citizen stakeholders and small farmers will not be at the workshops in Addis Ababa – nor will any other dissenting voices. The workshops have been organised by the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), which purports to be one of the world’s leading scientific bodies. But it increasingly looks and sounds hand in glove with the GMO industry.

The denial of evidence; and misleading to the point of falsification is almost becoming the standard currency of scientists promoting genetic engineering technology. There are obviously notable exceptions but the overall perspective is profoundly disturbing.

Citizens in Africa, in the EU and indeed throughout the world, deserve better.

• This story first appeared on the Citizens Concerned about GM website, under the title Peddling GMOs to Africa: EU Chief Scientist faces sharp criticism as she heads on GM sales trip. We are grateful for their permission to reproduce it on our site.
• If you think Anne Glover’s stance on GMOs in the EU is wrong – why don’t you let her know about it? Her email, as listed on the EC website, is: ec-csa@ec.europa.eu

Clever PR, quiescent journalists and researchers who are cashing in on their patents and selling a product have rehashed an old story that genetically engineered purple tomatoes are a healthy “superfood”. But the claims are questionable and the risks haven’t been assessed.

If you believe the recent reports in the newspapers, UK researchers have developed a genetically engineered tomato which can provide all manner of health benefits – including “keeping cancer at bay”.

But, they say, irrational anti-GM campaigners and overly restrictive EU regulations have prevented it being produced in the UK and the researchers have had to take this wonder to be grown and processed in Canada.

Now – in the form of two thousand litres of juice – it’s about to return to the UK to confirm it is wondrously healthy by being drunk by human volunteers.

A “super food”?

The GM tomatoes are rich in anthocyanins, an antioxidant,  that gives the “purple tomato” its colour. Although there is evidence that anthocyanin-rich foods have health promoting benefits, this evidence is also disputed by some.

[The issue of antioxidants health benefits is complex. Antioxidant supplements may have a very different effect from a diet rich in antioxidant rich- foods; nor can supplements on their own can’t make up for a multitude of other risks to health such as a polluted environment and poor lifestyles – NYR Natural News Ed].

The evidence that this tomato is a “super food” which can “keep cancer at bay” is limited – in fact it is based on one study where 20 mice were given the purple tomato as part of their diet.

That group lived 40 days longer than the controls, which is interesting, but as a basis for all the hype and starting human trials it is flimsy and concerning.

And there are some questions.

Made with antibiotic-resistance genes

The genetic engineering that produced this tomato involved the incorporation of an antibiotic resistance gene into the plant cells.

It is present in every cell of the plant, in the harvested tomatoes and in the juice.

This is not something consumers expect to find in a “health food” and, of course, the researchers avoid mentioning it.

The health impact of these antibiotic resistance genes is a matter of speculation but effects on the human gut bacteria and the potential of contributing to the build up of human and animal resistance to antibiotics have been mooted.

That’s why the EU has a policy discouraging the use of antibiotic resistance genes in genetic engineering – another thing the researchers don’t mention.

Avoiding health risk assessments

They probably feel this is an example of the EU’s overly restrictive approach to GM regulation which caused them to contract out the growing of their tomatoes to a company in Canada.

Canada, they say, is much more rational and sympathetic than the EU when regulating genetic engineering.

The basis for Canadian (and US) assessments of GM crops is a spurious notion known as “substantial equivalence”.

Which means that if a GM crop can be said to be “substantially equivalent” to its non-GM counterpart it does not have to undergo any additional risk or safety evaluation.

This might seem to be a reasonable starting point if more than a few basic components were considered but they rarely are; and consequently few genetically engineered crops are required to undergo compulsory safety testing.

Under this approach a cow affected by BSE would be accepted as “substantially equivalent” to a cow without BSE.

Don’t ask, don’t tell

But it’s clear that this genetically engineered purple tomato is not even slightly equivalent to a conventionally bred one.

First of all the researchers have been granted a patent on it – which must mean that something new, novel and innovative has taken place which is substantially different from anything occurring in a non-genetically engineered purple tomato.

Secondly, genes from another plant (the snapdragon) have been engineered into the tomato causing a significant increase in anthocyanin levels and a change in colour throughout the whole tomato fruit.

This is also substantially different and therefore it not only seems sensible – and regulations in both the EU and Canada require – that robust safety assessments are undertaken before tests involving humans begin.

But to date no safety assessments have been carried out – or if they have, they have not been reported – and none seem to be in the offing.

Not in the EU and not in Canada where the tomatoes have been grown and will be juiced.

The sidestep – an enlightened approach to regulation

Neither Health Canada nor the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have assessed or approved the GM purple tomato.

CFIA issued a permit for a batch to be grown in a contained greenhouse on the basis that they will not be entering the Canadian food chain but were being returned to the UK.

In doing so, some commentators have argued, CFIA seem to have broken their own rules.

Prof Cathie Martin from the UK’s John Innes Centre, the project’s lead researcher thinks this is “truly fantastic”.

She told journalists, “I can’t stress enough how enlightened the Canadian regulatory process towards these types of [genetically modified] foods is”.

A responsible researcher?

In fact, her purple tomatoes could easily have been “bulked up” for research purposes in a contained greenhouse in the UK without much expense and with a minimum regulatory oversight from UK authorities.

But the UK press hasn’t bothered to question her on this.

The narrative of a UK GM researcher having to sidestep onerous UK and EU regulations is far too compelling.

Whether a UK taxpayer funded researcher from a UK taxpayer funded research institution should be sidestepping UK and EU regulations is an issue yet to be adequately addressed.

Using “at risk” volunteers?

Meanwhile Prof Martin seems to be developing a taste for it.

According to a Canadian National Post article which reported an interview with her, the purple tomato juice “when shipped to the UK bypasses GM/environmental regulations because a seedless product can’t reproduce itself”.

And that, “A group of volunteers at risk of cardiovascular disease has been enlisted to drink the stuff.”

Quixotically bypassing some presumed environmental regulatory burden is one thing, but proposing to sidestep food safety and toxicological evaluation with at risk people is something that even the quirky Prof Martin wouldn’t do.

Or would she? She is certainly giving the media the impression that it’s next on the agenda.

The unquestioning media coverage

Prof Martin does seem to enjoy impressing the media.

As mentioned above, the purple tomato story is not a new one but she has frequently milked it.

One of her earliest efforts takes some beating though. Her Daily Mail article of 8th November 2008 was headed, “How my purple tomato could save your life” .

Since then Martin, her colleagues at the John Innes Centre and the Centre itself have continued to produce rehashed versions of the same story – and the media have bought it again and again; including the “Science Correspondents” on the BBC and the so called “quality” press.

Disturbingly – to anyone who believes we need an intelligent and questioning media – they have rarely, if ever, qualified the claims of Prof Martin and her John Innes colleagues with the views of medical and nutritional experts.

These views are on record, cogently and forcefully refuting Martin’s claims.

Disputed health claims

Following her Daily Mail splash in 2008, Cancer Research UK issued a statement headed “Purple tomatoes won’t beat cancer”.

In the same year the NHS Knowledge Service pointed to the very limited nature of Prof Martin’s research and said it was not sufficient to justify the health claims being made for purple tomatoes.

In their view, partially feeding purple tomatoes to 20 mice was inadequate and more research was needed.

Since then – zilch – no research on purple tomatoes by Prof Martin or the John Innes Centre; only press releases and media interviews.

Nothing on toxicology, nothing on risk, nothing on health claims.

Is it appropriate that the John Innes Centre – a UK government funded research institute –consistently gives its backing to the PR claims made for the GM purple tomato?

Conflict of interest ignored by the media

Norfolk Plant Sciences (NPS) also backs the health claims made for the purple tomato – but NPS is a private company which aims to commercialise it.

NPS was founded and is co-owned by Prof Cathie Martin and her John Innes Centre based colleague Prof Jonathan Jones.

This is the same Prof Jones who the media regularly quote as an independent, impartial scientific expert on genetic engineering.

Prof Jones extolled the virtues of the GM purple tomato and the iniquity of the EU GM regulatory system to the press during this latest PR push, without revealing – or being asked about – his commercial interests.

Public money for private gain

Martin and Jones are taxpayer funded researchers based at a taxpayer funded institution; yet they are able to seek to cash in on taxpayer funded work and intellectual property (patents) they acquired whilst being paid by taxpayers.

The genetically engineered purple tomato might not be up to much but a system that allows public funding to be used for private gain like this – a system that underpins much GM research – needs examination.

Prof Martin told the Times newspaper that she “would like to see society benefiting from something that I’ve done.”

Wouldn’t we all?

GM: a non-solution looking for a problem

The GM purple tomato isn’t it.

Even if anthocyanin has health benefits, do we need a genetically engineered tomato?

There are plenty of fruit and vegetables rich in anthocyanins – blackberries, blueberries, aubergines, red cabbage, red onions and many more – including traditional and non-GM tomato varieties.

[There are also naturally occurring heritage varieties of purple tomatoes which are rich in anthocyanins – NYR Natural News Ed].

The genetically engineered purple tomato is a classic case of a GM “solution” looking for a problem and GM researchers looking for something useful to do.

But did they have to spend £900,000 of taxpayer money doing it?

As they are paid by us – the taxpayers – they shouldn’t be allowed to peddle myths to justify it.

• This story first appeared on the Citizens Concerned about GM website, under the title Who Says GM Purple Tomatoes are a Healthy Option?. We are grateful for their permission to reproduce an edited version on our site with additional comments and links/references.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), representing companies such as ConAgra Foods, Bayer CropScience and Coca-Cola, is filing a Citizen Petition asking the FDA to issue a regulation allowing GMO derived foods to be labelled as “natural” in the US.

They have set out their case to the FDA in a letter in which they argue that most genetically engineered ingredients are from traditional crops like soya, corn (maize), canola and sugar beets and therefore comply with guidelines for the use of a “natural” label.

How can it be “natural” if it’s patented?

The Center for Food Safety, a Washington DC based campaign and advocacy group says “There is nothing natural about genetic engineering…It is an artificial and novel process, which often involves inserting foreign (often bacterial) genetic material into a food plant, crop or animal.”

And they make what ought to be the killer point:

“The US Patent Office has granted numerous patents on genetically engineered plants, finding that they and novel elements in them are not naturally occurring.”

But nothing in the world of genetic engineering is straight forward.

It’s not “synthetic” or “artificial” – so it’s “natural”?

The GMA’s pivotal argument is that the FDA have consistently maintained the position that genetic engineering is simply an extension of traditional breeding methods and;

“There is no material difference between foods derived from biotechnology and their traditional counterparts”.

Which begs the question why in that case have patents and intellectual property rights been granted to them?

Of course the GMA ignores this and focuses on the fact that whilst the FDA have never defined “natural” they have issued guidelines which exclude only “synthetic and artificial” ingredients from using a “natural” label.

GM crops – they argue – are no different from “traditional” crops and are therefore neither “synthetic” nor “artificial” and could be labelled “natural”.

Buying victory in Congress

The situation is a mess.

According to the GMA there are “approximately 65 class action lawsuits that have been filed against food manufacturers over whether foods with ingredients allegedly derived from biotechnology can be labelled “natural”.”

Their letter also refers to various state initiatives to label GM foods.

The GMA has a clear strategy to move the issue of GM labelling onto the federal stage where they believe they can buy victory.

They are confident the strength of the industry lobby in Congress will either remove state and regional powers to label GM foods:

Or will produce a weak federal label with so many loopholes and grey areas it will be meaningless.

And bizarre as it may seem, it is not inconceivable that they will persuade the FDA to allow GMO derived ingredients to be labelled “natural”.

US GMO policy looks shambolic

The FDA is caught on the horns of a dilemma – and they probably won’t thank the GMA for highlighting it.

On the one hand, as The Center for Food Safety points out, “according to FDA policy, food labels can’t be false or misleading”:

And “a reasonable consumer would not expect foods labelled “natural” to contain GE ingredients.”

But it is also FDA policy that there is no difference between GM and traditional crops:

And this policy underpins the entire regulatory system for genetically engineered crops and food in the US and a number of other countries.

It is not a policy they are going to abandon readily.

But it might be that their attempts to “square” this particular circle will expose them to game changing ridicule.

In UK GM foods are “novel” not “natural”

EU countries have taken a very different approach and sidestepped this dilemma.

Whilst the fatuous notion that GM crops are “substantially equivalent” to non-GM ones is accepted, it is acknowledged that GM foods are different.

In the UK, for example, GM foods are clearly categorised as “novel foods” and the Food Standards Agency is explicit;

“The restriction to “foods of a traditional nature” excludes from the concept of “naturalness” foods derived from novel processes, GM or cloning.”

Another trade deal “obstacle” or “opportunity”?

This fundamental difference between the US and EU approach will have to be dealt with at some point in the negotiations for the proposed EU/US trade deal (TTIP).

The likelihood is that negotiators will not want to deal with it openly and transparently but will try to shuffle it off into some dubious “technical annex” where the outcome will be detrimental to citizens’ interests on both sides of the Atlantic.

This is one of a number of issues where GM labelling campaigners and those objecting to GM technology in the US and the EU need to work closely together.

• This story first appeared on the Citizens Concerned about GM website. We are grateful for their permission to reproduce it here.

This follows a seemingly orchestrated campaign by pro-GM lobbyists and scientists. But the journal’s explanation is ambivalent: they found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation and said the results are correct. So is there a health risk or not?

The study, conducted by a team of researchers from the University of Caan led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini, found that rats fed Monsanto’s GM maize NK603 suffered severe toxic effects, including kidney and liver damage and increased rates of tumours and mortality.

Publication of the study in the Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in November 2012 led to a torrent of abuse and much criticism from pro-GM scientists and commentators; a robust defence from those opposed to GM; and a demand for more research and more regulatory transparency from concerned citizens and scientists.

In response to the controversy – which included accusations of fraud – Dr A. Wallace Hayes, FCT’s editor-in-chief,  instigated a review of the study including all raw data with which Prof Séralini fully co-operated.

As a result of this review FCT has decided to withdraw its publication of the study; in effect it no longer exists as a matter of scientific record and cannot be cited or used as scientifically valid evidence.

But does this mean that the findings were wrong and that we have all been misled?

It doesn’t seem so.

Chronic toxicity unquestioned; carcinogenicity unclear

In a statement FCT’s publishers Elsevier said:

• “Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”.
• But “no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size” (number of rats in the study) and the strain of rat used “regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumour incidence”.
•  The results presented were correct but inconclusive.
• The retraction is based only on this inconclusiveness.

It is very important to note that these comments relate to the study’s findings regarding overall mortality and tumour incidence and not to its findings of chronic toxicity.

The study was established as a chronic toxicity study not a carcinogenicity study and the sample sizes are in accordance with established protocols.

In which case the study’s finding; that males in the treated groups suffered severe liver and kidney dysfunction remain valid.

Liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than in the control group. There were also 1.3 to 2.3 times more instances of “marked and severe” kidney disease.

Even if we set aside the mortality and tumour findings the evidence of chronic toxicity demands that the study is taken seriously and acted upon by the regulatory authorities.

Carcinogenicity findings need further research

But should we dismiss the indications of carcinogenicity in the light of FCT’s retraction?

No; for the following reasons:

It is clear that there are methodological drawbacks about Prof Séralini’s study although he has extensively explained and provided justification in letter published by FCT.

However, what his critics have not acknowledged – including FCT, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and other regulatory bodies – is that his study was set up in the image of the trials used by Monsanto and accepted by EFSA as the basis for approving the genetically engineered maize (corn) NK603.

There is one significant difference: Séralini’s study is a long-term one and those supporting Monsanto’s maize ran for a maximum of 90 days. Therefore:

• If Séralini’s study is flawed and insufficient; so are those.
• If the rats used by Séralini are the wrong strain; so are those.
• If the sample sizes used by Séralini are too small; so are those.
• If FCT retracts Séralini’s study perhaps they should revisit the ones they published which supported Monsanto’s application.

But this is an issue that goes way beyond the matter of publication in a journal.

We are being misled – but not by Séralini

If Séralini’s study is to be dismissed then so should the studies on which EFSA’s assessment of the safety of NK603 is based and its commercial approval should be withdrawn.

The study at the very least raises critical questions which are not going to go away because the GM lobby bullies a journal editor.

So have we been misled by Prof Séralini? Does his study provide evidence of a health risk from genetically engineered crops?

Prof Séralini is possibly guilty of poor PR, but not of misleading.

It would be folly to dismiss the questions his study raises and it is a dereliction of duty for those responsible for regulating GM to do so. The appropriate response to this study from these authorities is to investigate further with new, comprehensive and fully transparent research.

If we are being misled it is by those who insist there are no questions to answer and who manipulate public discourse to protect the GM industry – including its state funded research associates.

• This article first appeared on the Citizens Concerned about GM website. We are grateful for their permission to republish it here.

Why not, instead, just post a lot of nice articles about how good organic is, rather than how bad GM is? What does GM have to do with health anyway?

Well you can bet we will be publishing lots of articles about organic – we believe it is one of the most important contributions to our health, to the health of the soil in which our food grows and to the health of the planet.

This is why the recent UK commitment to growing more GMOs is abhorrent to us. Shame on our government for giving its backing to some of the boldest lies we’ve ever heard. Two days after environment secretary Owen Paterson made his speech, and not to anyone’s surprise, a national newspaper revealed the extent to which our government ministers and regulators have crawled into bed with the biotech lobby. Now, at least, we can fully understand their enthusiasm.

Genetically modified food is begin driven through not because we need it, not because our problems are caused by some terrible lack of GM food, but because people with their eyes on short-term financial gains see it as a potentially profitable niche market.

Haven’t we all had enough of that scenario – and the terrible damage that it does?

A threat to organic

We campaign against GM because once farmers begin the widespread planing of GM it directly threatens the organic supply chain on which we, as individuals who care about health, rely. Once GM crops are out in the open, they cross-breed with other plants.  There is no way to control this, no way to predict it and no way to stop  it.

You can’t tell a bee or a butterfly to avoid GM crops and only pollinate the organic ones. And GM  pollen and seeds don’t obey the legal boundaries between farms. They simply drift with the wind, like all seeds and pollens do.

The closest we’ve ever come to hearing the effect of widespread planting of GM described accurately is to compare it with the widespread release of  nuclear radiation. Once it’s in the environment it’s there for a very long time, if not forever, and you can’t take it back.

That fact alone should set alarm bells ringing and invoke the importance of the Precautionary Principle.

In the US however, they are throwing precaution to the wind – to the extent that the FDA has said it will allow biohackers using a Kickstarter funding programme, to send out packets of GM seeds containing synthetic, man-made DNA.

Synthetic DNA is DNA that does not exist anywhere in nature but which was written on a computer and ‘printed off’ on a ‘bioprinter’ before being inserted it into plant DNA. Potentially 400,000 packets of these seeds could be sent out and planted without any government oversight at all.

We applaud the efforts of the etc group for their clever Kickstopper programme which is trying to do the job the US government should be doing to stop this abomination.

Bland assurances of safety

We also campaign against GM because we absolutely do not accept the bland reassurances of regulators who say it’s perfectly safe.

Such assurances are based on nothing more than wishing it to be true. No proper human trials have ever been conducted on the safety of eating GM food. Such trials as have been conducted in animals have shown disturbing results including tumours, sterility, growth retardation, damage to internal internal organs such as the liver and kidneys, and early death.

Most recently scientists in Australia and New Zealand have shown that GM wheat may cause Glycogen Storage Disease IV, resulting in an enlarged liver, cirrhosis of the liver, and failure to thrive. Children born with this disease usually die at about the age of 5.

In the US which grows half the world’s GM  crops and where GM in in nearly every kind of food bar some fresh fruits and vegetables and some pulses, people are eating so much GM that it would be impossible now to conduct a proper trial. There would be no non-GMO control  group large enough to fully test the effects of eating GM.

That is just one more good reason to keep Europe GM free – to ensure there IS some kind of control group to help us understand the health impacts of this nearly two decade long uncontrolled experiment in human eating.

Public engagement is crucial

We also bang on about GM because we know that there are still people out there who have not engaged with this problem. Probably they think it is too technical or complicated for them and they shy away from it in case they look stupid by speaking out.

This is as much the fault of the pro-GM lobby – which has steadily directed the GM debate away from the public arena and into the muddy waters of modern  corporate-funded science – as it is activists who have allowed this drift to take place. It’s a drift as toxic as the drift of GM pollen and seeds from one field to another and it must be challenged.

Genetically modified food is everyone’s business. We bang on about it because it’s one of the most profound social issues of our time. It dictates the direction of travel for our farmers, our environment, our money, our government policies, our foreign aid, our media mindsets, our diet, our health and out future.

Like air pollution and nuclear radiation it can be hard to see the immediate effects of GM, but they exist and they will be difficult to remedy if we don’t put our feet down now.

Bigger than science

Click to enlarge

Our site contains a lot of well referenced material on GM. We regularly update this page which is a round-up of all our GM articles.

Our sister site Citizens Concerned About GM is a fantastic resource for those who want to delve even deeper.

Having the research on your side is important. But we should make no mistake that as citizens we also have – indeed have always had – a moral and ethical high ground when it comes to GM.  When you are finding the data just overwhelming remember that and do take to heart the words of this GM Manifesto (put together by our website editor, author and campaigner Pat Thomas) which empowers everyone to take a stand.

Together we can stop GM. So let’s get started.

• You can download the .pdf version of The GM Manifesto here.
• Anyone is free to use this on their website, twitter or facebook – but please credit the author and provide a link back to her website Howl at the Moon.