THE EVIDENCE AGAINST GENETIC ENGINEERING

/in , ,

The evidence against genetic engineering

  • GE foods are not safe! Genetic engineering as used in crop development is not precise, predictable or safe. Unexpected toxins or allergens can be produced in food.
  • We are already eating untested GE foods! No long-term toxicological testing of GMOs on animals or testing on humans is required by any regulatory agency in the world.
  • GE foods are harmful for humans and animals! GE foods have not been tested on humans. They have been tested on animals and shown disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.
  • GE crops INCREASE harmful herbicide use! Over 75% of GE crops are engineered to tolerate applications of herbicides. This has led to massive increases in herbicide use. Roundup, the most widely used herbicide, is NOT safe. It causes birth defects, reproductive problems, DNA damage, and cancer in test animals. Scientists have found an association between Roundup exposure in humans and miscarriage, birth defects, neurological development problems, DNA damage, and certain types of cancer.
  • Insect pests are becoming resistant to GE crops! Pests are becoming resistant to the Bt toxin in GE crops, and secondary pest infestations are becoming common.
  • GE crops will not feed the world! GE crops do not offer higher yields or cope better with drought than GE-free crops.
  • GE crops reduce farmer choice! Once GE companies gain control of the seed market, they withdraw GE-free seed varieties from the market.
  • GE crops reduce consumer choice! GE contamination of GE-free and organic crops has resulted in massive financial losses by the food and feed industry, involving product recalls, lawsuits, and lost markets.
  • Conventionally bred, locally adapted and organic crops are better and safer than GE! Conventional breeding, which continues to outstrip genetic engineering in producing high-yielding, pest- and disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and nutritionally improved super-crops.

Source: “GMO Myths and Truths”, by Michael Antoniou et al.  HYPERLINK “http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58″ 
Soil & Health / Organic NZ supports healthy, organic GE-free food and farming.

New Zealanders won’t tolerate more GE food

/in , , ,

It seems a David vs Goliath battle yet one that New Zealanders repeatedly engage in and win – our right to freedom: whether from nuclear power or legislation that eases the way for more GE food in our food chain.

So, it should come as no surprise that the recent legal ramifications of The Food Bill have created such a public outcry. “While the purpose of the Act is Food Safety, amendments in the latest draft compromise that,” says Soil and Health Association spokesperson Debbie Swanwick.

In the latest draft of the bill, ‘genetic modification of food’, which had been on a list of things requiring food safety consideration under the minister’s regulatory power, was deleted. Now it is up to the trans-Tasman body Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to determine the safety of GE foods and to date, they have approved all of the 53 applications of 71 GE plant lines.

“New Zealanders won’t tolerate our food chain being compromised further by legislation that enables GE food producers easy access to our markets. We need the initial wording reinstated into legislation to secure the safety of our food,” Swanwick says.

The compliance costs of the bill on small organic growers could also disadvantage consumers, whose choice could become skewed toward nutrient-poor GE food produced by multi-nationals because organic growers are being financially ousted by bureaucracy.

The Food Bill 160-2 (2010) raises many issues – food sovereignty being only one. The level of force allowed by food safety officers, their immunity from prosecution and the powers of the minister are others.

The bill has been awaiting its second reading in parliament since February of this year.

Soil & Health – Organic NZ has an Organic 2020 vision – for a GE Free food and environment with clear choice of what is consumed.

Oranga nuku – oranga kai – oranga tāngata. Healthy soil – Healthy food – Healthy people.

Government Must Separate GE Foods In New Zealand Shop Shelves

/in , , ,

New Zealand food labelling of genetically engineered (GE) food components needs to be investigated urgently, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

“Soil & Health challenges New Zealand’s Minister of Consumer Affairs Simon Power, and Minister for Food Safety Kate Wilkinson, to find any accurately labelled food products containing genetically engineered ingredients in super market shelves,” said Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

World Food Day on October 16 is being marked internationally by activities showing the lack of labelling on GE foods, and a push against GE foods by events such as Right2Know and Millions Against Monsanto.(1,2)

Seventy different (GE) food lines and many GE food additives have been approved for New Zealand consumption by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), with no GE food applications having been turned down, although risks to human safety have been shown in animal feeding studies.(3)

Labelling of foods containing GE ingredients in New Zealand is practically invisible although GE soybean imports from the USA and Brazil have increased significantly and are widely used in processed foods including breads.

“USA consumers are calling for legislation to cover GE foods. New Zealand has such legislation, but it is not enforced,” said Mr Browning.(4)

“NZFSA has the role of ensuring foods containing GE/GM are labeled in accordance with the standard in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, but is hopeless at monitoring it.”

“When was there a comprehensive study taken by NZFSA to ensure consumers have the choice between GE and non-GE in their diets?”

“New Zealand should follow the Cypriot Parliament’s lead that gives consumers the choice of whether or not to eat GE foods, especially as reports casts doubt on GE food safety,” said Mr Browning.

The Cypriot Parliament passed a bill in April that will has GE foods placed on separate shelves to non-GE foods, and a French report showed weaknesses in GE food safety evaluation, and pointed to possible kidney, liver and reproductive health concerns. (5,6)

“Democracy, despite pressure from the USA, has led to the people of Cyprus getting the type of consumer choice that New Zealanders should be able to expect.”

“GE foods, of which New Zealand allows approximately 70 different GE lines, spread through numerous processed products, must now be displayed on separate shelves in supermarkets and shops in Cyprus, with strong fines for non-compliance. The Cypriots are serious.”

“Soil & Health – Organic NZ reported last year that there were 64 plus GE food lines allowed into the New Zealand food supply, consisting of GE corn, soya, alfalfa, potatoes, canola, cotton, sugar beet and rice, and numerous GE processing aids. This has increased to approximately seventy with several applications in process at any one time,” said Mr Browning.

“FSANZ has yet to turn a GE food application down despite growing concern over GE food safety and flimsy food safety studies. Independent studies show very real risks but the same regulators that take decades to ban now discontinued pesticides continue to protect trade interests ahead of consumers.”

“The latest Seralini report uses available data to show that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), that FSANZ and NZFSA look to, is not testing adequately for health risks from GE foods. Independent research has previously shown organ, hormone and reproductive changes in animal GE feeding studies.”(7)

Soil & Health – Organic NZ has an Organic 2020 vision similar to the USA and Cypriot consumers protesting today. It is for a GE Free food and environment with clear choice of what is consumed.

Oranga nuku – oranga kai – oranga tāngata. Healthy soil – Healthy food – Healthy people.

CONTACT:

 

The Soil & Health Association of NZ – Organic NZ

Spokesperson

 

Steffan Browning

021 725655

campaign@organicnz.org

 

Notes

(1) http://organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm

(2) http://www.right2knowmarch.org/

(3) http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/gmcurrentapp…

(4) http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibrary/industry/nzfsa-food-labelling-gui…

(5) http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/separate-shelves-gm-foods-now-law/2011…

(6) http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10/

(7) Seralini et al have conducted studies showing organ damage in rats fed GE food. The latest report is using the material including industry funded studies and shows the food safety authority is not adequately testing GE foods. Extract from latest French report (6): The 90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and the signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could be the onset of chronic diseases. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet obligatory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health protection. We are suggesting that the studies should be improved and prolonged, as well as being made compulsory, and that the sexual hormones should be assessed too, and moreover, reproductive and multigenerational studies ought to be conducted too.

Fonterra’s gutting of organic dairying next step to GE farms

/in , , ,

Fonterra has taken its next step towards genetically engineered pastures, with its announced scaling back of organic production by half, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

Fonterra’s announcement yesterday of a 50% drop in support for organic dairy production, shows the dairy giant’s lack of support for good environmental practice and consumer health, and marks the next step to genetically engineered (GE) farmlands, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.(1)

“Fonterra has never really been committed to organic production, although aiming for 200 farms and a 140% increase in production from 2005. Just 200 farms was a very limited vision. Organic production across all New Zealand’s dairy herd should have been in any long term vision for clean green 100% Pure NZ,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Organic production has been identified as the main obstacle to introducing GE grasses and crops into New Zealand in a Ministry of Research Science and Technology (MoRST, now Science and Innovation) report written by Terri Dunahay, an international biotechnology policy specialist with the United States Department of Agriculture.” (2)

“Government also stopped real support for the organic sector following a briefing to the Agriculture Minister by Dunahay in 2009, yet Dunahay was duplicitous in every presentation I observed her. The misrepresentation of GE internationally, was appalling when Dunahay presented to Dairy NZ and the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand,” said Mr Browning.

“Dunahay and other United States lobbyists, along with New Zealand based pro-GE scientists fail to mention the significant GE contamination of non-GE farms, the loss of markets, the massive increase in herbicide use, the new resistant weeds and disease problems, higher seed and production costs, loss of biodiversity, or the human and animal health problems associated with genetic engineering (GE).”

Yesterday’s shock presentation to organic farmers in Taranaki and the Manawatu that their organically certified milk wasn’t wanted by Fonterra, because of reduced international demand, also included comment that organics caused “conventional” dairy production to be questioned as to its quality.

Best practice organics has improved soil structure and climate resilience, 43% more earthworm counts, 28% higher soil carbon sequestration, improved animal welfare, 33% less energy use, and a massive 58% reduction of nitrate leaching, yet is not valued well by Fonterra, because Fonterra’s conventional farming’s dirty environmental footprint, might be questioned more. (3)

“The KPMG Agribusiness Agenda 2011 released in June, highlighted the potential lost opportunity of high net worth customers globally by New Zealand if support for organic market and production research is allowed to languish.” (4,5)

Organic dairy exports from New Zealand grew 400% between 2005-2009. Organic product sales in the USA grew 7.7% compared with total food sales increase of less than 1% in 2010, yet the New Zealand government is allowing funding for Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) to stop this June, and had already long stopped support for the Green Party initiated Organics Advisory Service that had assisted significant growth in organic certification.

“Fonterra missed retailing organic butter in New Zealand, and has failed to market its organic products well. Where was the Fonterra brands organic butter on New Zealand supermarket shelves? It wasn’t to be found. Blaming reduced markets when there has been continued growth in organic consumption internationally shows a lack of organic marketing commitment by Fonterra, not a lack of customers.”

“Fonterra and the government have spent millions of dollars on GE rye grass development, (6) while support has been stalled for the organic sector.”

“Most of Europe and Scandinavia and many other countries have targets for farm production conversion to organics, because the environmental and social benefits are well recognised, but in New Zealand there appears to be a blind adherence to short term economic benefit including GE, even when non-GE alternatives are proven.”

“When I asked on Friday, why the government had spent tens of millions on GE grasses, but had effectively stopped spending money on organics, Environment Minister Nick Smith told me, “We didn’t think there was any money in it,” “said Mr Browning.

“The planting of 336 GE pine trees by Scion and ArborGen at their Rotorua field trial site last week adds to the sadness of spirit New Zealand is suffering through short term financial aims by giant agribusiness, while it ignores the environmental and social health of Aotearoa New Zealand.”

Soil & Health wishes to express its support for the organic farmers whose livelihoods, dedication and dreams have been shaken by yesterday’s Fonterra announcement.

“Support by Federated Farmers to resist the drive for GE production in New Zealand, a requirement of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), could reignite Fonterra’s interest in organics. The New Zealand environment and consumers of the world will say thanks.”

Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil – Healthy Food – Healthy People and a vision of an organic Aotearoa New Zealand.

References:

(1) http://www.fonterra.com/wps/wcm/connect/fonterracom/fonterra.com/Our+Bus…

(2) http://www.fulbright.org.nz/voices/axford/docs/axford2010_dunahay.pdf

(3) http://www.oanz.org.nz/openz/uploads/organic-report-2010-keyfacts.pdf

(4) Ref page 29: http://www.kpmg.com/NZ/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/agribus…

.

(5) http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/

CONTACT:

The Soil & Health Association of NZ – Organic NZ

Spokesperson
Steffan Browning
021 725655
campaign@organicnz.org

GE grass reports foreshadow potential economic losses

/in , ,

A report analysis showing potential economic losses by introducing genetically engineered (GE/GM) grasses, comes at a time when the government is drying up funding for the organic sector, one of the best value export growth areas, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

The Sustainability Council of New Zealand has analysed two reports considering the introduction of GE  grasses and in an exclusive with the Weekend Herald put a strong economic case against GE grasses.   The Sustainability Council has identified up to $50 million in taxpayer money has been put into projects in developing GE grasses with Fonterra, Dairy NZ, Beef and Lamb NZ, AgResearch and Deer Industry (NZ) and PGG Wrightson also involved. (1)

“The proposed advantages of the GE grasses exist in conventionally bred forages and organic management systems that do not jeopardise our clean green 100% Pure New Zealand brand,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“As a nation reliant on primary production, New Zealand has a significant point of difference internationally with no commercialised genetically engineered (GE) crops. Our best value export markets do not want GE foods or GE fed animal products. “

“The KPMG Agribusiness Agenda 2011 released last week, highlighted the potential lost opportunity of high net worth customers globally by New Zealand if support for organic market and production research is allowed to languish.” (2)

Organic dairy exports from New Zealand grew 400% between 2005-2009. Organic product sales in the USA grew 7.7% compared with total food sales increase of less than 1% in 2010, yet the New Zealand government is allowing funding for Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) to stop this month, and had already stopped support for the Green Party initiated Organics Advisory Service that had assisted significant growth in organic certification.

Recent research has shown GE and herbicide toxins associated with genetically engineered crops are moving through from GE foods into both animal and human blood  including the unborn. Animal GE feeding studies have also shown organ damage and reproductive failure. As research results build showing such negative health effects, market resistance can be expected to build also. Several regions internationally are saying no to GE crops with some having changed from a more permissive approach. (3,4,5,6,7)

PGG Wrightson Seeds currently field trialing GE rye grass in Australia have indicated they want to be global sellers of GE forages with an early push into the large and more permissive Brazilian market. It is hoped that Ngai Tahu who are also considering organic conversion, use their new stake in PGG Wrightson to express a more principled and ecologically sensitive approach to business. New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure brand can be maximised if our exporters show commitment to maintaining that, in their activities both in New Zealand and internationally. (8

Fonterra needs to show leadership and commit to a GE Free future, but is currently implicated by its funding of GE research activities in Pastoral Genomics and not ensuring that GE ingredients are not part of their infant formula products. (9)

Soil & Health aspires to an organic Aotearoa New Zealand that maintains a nuclear free GE free status in line with a clean green 100% Pure Aotearoa New Zealand brand.

AgResearch transgender goats to be milked

/in , ,

AgResearch’s genetically engineered (GE) goat experiments have a new bizarre twist with surviving GE pregnancies producing mostly transgender offspring, that AgResearch staff term ‘goys,’ according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

An AgResearch farm manager recently revealed to Soil & Health and GE Free NZ, during a tour of its Ruakura GE animal field trial site, that most of the GE goats produced were transgender. It appeared that about 75% were “goys” with the remainder female.

“The “goys”, females in sterile male bodies, are to be induced into milking to ascertain whether the intended genetically engineered (GE) human protein will be expressed in the milk,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

Previous GE cattle pregnancies have only 5% success, with the goats reported to have a success rate of possibly 15%, although one flock of about 18 recipient does failed to hold one GE embryo of a particular experiment. AgResearch has a track record of resultant GE offspring prone to a variety of disabilities including arthritis, respiratory distress, deformities and ruptured ovaries.(1)

“The 15 “goys” we saw had four true sisters, with one induced to milking at six months following AgResearch’s in-house ethics committee approval.”(2)

“Although grateful to AgResearch for hosting GE Free NZ President Claire Bleakley and myself for a tour of the AgResearch Ruakura GE animal facility, we were concerned at the continued animal welfare issues and the level of contaminated surface water that was draining off the experimental  property.”

“Considering that a recent report showed AgResearch scientists intentionally corrupting monitoring research of risky microbial horizontal gene transfer (HGT), these unnatural reproductive outcomes and continued animal welfare issues, should spell the end of the Ruakura GE experiments,” said Mr Browning.(3)

“Good animal welfare records and a GE free reputation are very important for New Zealand’s trading image and increasingly demanded by consumers. Cruel experiments for a GE farming future are not what either New Zealanders or valuable overseas consumers want.”(4)

“AgResearch is at the cruel operator end of a business partnership with a dirty drug manufacturer, Genzyme, who has been investigated and fined by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for poor manufacturing practices.” (5)

“Knowing that it would be a nuisance for AgResearch and its overseas partners, the government disbanded the New Zealand Bioethics Council two years ago in full knowledge that distressing animal welfare issues are clearly predictable in GE research. The Bioethics Council had been calling for ethics reviews of all GE animal experiments.” (6)

“The AgResearch Ruakura facility currently is the only active GE field trial operating in the country, although Scion intends planting some GE pine trees at its GE field trial site in Rotorua this winter.”

Closing both field trials could return Aotearoa New Zealand’s environment to a full GE free status.

Soil & Health wants AgResearch’s cruel and unnatural animal experiments stopped immediately, the reinstatement of the New Zealand Bioethics Council, and for the government to move quickly towards desirable high value sustainable, animal friendly, GE free, and organic production.

 

NOTES:

(1) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/no/compliance/agresearch.html ERMA Annual reports on GMF98009 and GMD 02028

(2) Photographs attached and available at a higher resolution.

(3) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/pdf/6(1)-Heinemann-pp3-19..pdf

(4) https://soilandhealth.org.nz/media-releases/kiwi-poll-rejects-ge-animals/

(5) http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2124303620100421

(6) http://www.mfe.govt.nz/website/closed-sites/images/bioethics.jpg New Zealand Bioethics Council, August 2004 Report: The Cultural, Ethical and Spiritual Dimensions of the Use of Human Genes in Other Organisms.

 

CONTACT:

The Soil & Health Association of NZ – Organic NZ
Spokesperson
Steffan Browning
021 725655
campaign@organicnz.org

Unborn NZ children exposed to genetically engineered toxin

/in , ,

New research from Canada has shown that blood in pregnant women and foetuses carried toxins from genetically engineered (GE) foods, that are also allowed into New Zealand, according to the Soil & Health Association.(1)

Bt toxin Cry1 based insecticides are genetically engineered (GE) into several GE food crops (GE maize, soy, potato and cotton), which are increasingly imported and used in New Zealand processed foods. Thirty two different GE insect resistant food lines are permitted for use in New Zealand foods by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (FSANZ).(2)

“The finding that GE toxins and also herbicide residues are being absorbed into consumers and unborn babies blood, shows that organic and GE-free foods should be first choice for families and especially pregnant women,” said Soil & Health – Organic spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Foods from GE insect and herbicide resistant crops, that carry insecticidal properties and grown with regular dowsing with herbicides, have never been declined by FSANZ, from being approved for Australian and New Zealand consumers use.”

“Labelling of products containing toxic GE foods is woefully inadequate and there are very few foods able to be correctly identified in food stores, although GE material is now in very many processed food items.”

“It does not need to be this way and Government could quickly correct the situation, by placing a moratorium on new GE food applications, reassessing or withdrawing the approximately seventy GE food lines approved for use in the New Zealand food supply.”

“Animal GE feeding studies have shown to be inadequate but still presenting disturbing health effects, including failure to thrive, organ damage and reproductive failure, yet FSANZ has continued to lack precaution in its GE food approval process.” (3,4)

“Approved in 2000, Monsanto’s Mon 810 corn became one of the most common GE crops produced, and the Cry1Ab insecticide engineered into it and found in mothers and foetal blood in the Canadian research, was described in the Approval evaluation as, “…equally unlikely that novel genetic material will transfer from GM foods to human cells via the digestive tract…” This has been found to be incorrect, and all GE foods approved must now be reassessed or withdrawn,” said Mr Browning. (5)

“Herbicides such as glyphosate and glufosinate, used on herbicide resistant GE crops, are also increasingly being shown to cause birth and developmental changes. Organic production does not use herbicides on crops.” (6,7)

“GE foods are unnecessary, and are unsustainable in production, damaging biodiversity, soil biology, soil structure, and pollute neighbouring environments. Now evidence shows that the GE toxins and herbicides used on them are polluting generations of people.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that disallows genetic engineering in the food and environment of Aotearoa New Zealand.

 

References: (1) http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13047-bt-toxin-found-in-blood-of-pregnant-women-and-fetuses http://somloquesembrem.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/arisleblanc2011..pdf

(2) http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/gmcurrentapplication1030.cfm

(3) http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10/ Seralini et al have conducted studies showing organ damage in rats fed GE food. The latest report is using the material including industry funded studies and shows the food safety authority is not adequately testing GE foods. Extract from latest French report (2): The 90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and the signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could be the onset of chronic diseases. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet obligatory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health protection. We are suggesting that the studies should be improved and prolonged, as well as being made compulsory, and that the sexual hormones should be assessed too, and moreover, reproductive and multigenerational studies ought to be conducted too.

(4) de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726. http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

(5) Page 56 http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Application%20A346%20Draft%20IR..pdf “…It is extremely unlikely that novel genetic material will transfer from GM foods to bacteria in the human digestive tract because of the number of complex and unlikely steps that would need to take place consecutively. It is equally unlikely that novel genetic material will transfer from GM foods to human cells via the digestive tract…”

(6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9178451

(7) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

 

AgResearch misinformation corrected by independent scientists

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association was disturbed yesterday when meeting with MAF-Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) to find an official supporting the misinformation that AgResearch had stated in a Radio NZ Rural Report program. Soil & Health and GE Free NZ met with officials from MAF-BNZ to discuss the possible leakage of genetically engineered (GE)organisms from the AgResearch Ruakura GE animal facility.

AgResearch and MAF-BNZ  have suggested that micro-organisms in the AgResearch offal pits could not be subject to gene transfer from the genetically engineered cattle disposed there, and had stopped ensuring that studies used samples from within the soil surrounding the decomposing GE cattle, as expected by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).

The Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) has issued a media statement correcting AgResearch’s factually incorrect statement.  (1)

A report by INBI evaluating horizontal gene transfer experiments at AgResearch’s facility had been published in the Journal of Organic Systems last week. (2)

“Soil & Health is concerned that independent studies designed to test for gene transfer are not being carried out at AgResearch’s Ruakura GE animal field trial facility. This allows for possible contamination of the wider environment and risks to human safety, and in the absence of appropriate gene transfer research, the AgResearch GE animal research must be discontinued,” said Soil & Health Association spokeperson Steffan Browning.(3,4)

 

References

(1) Media Release 10 May 2011 of Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety

Setting the record straight on monitoring gene transfer from GM animals

The spokesperson for AgResearch made factually incorrect statements to Radio New Zealand’s “Rural Report” on 9 May 2011. He was challenging the peer-reviewed and published results from the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) which found fundamental flaws in the monitoring of horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified animals disposed of in offal pits. Of concern to us was this statement:
“…soil bacteria are normally only found in the top soil layer which is several centimetres in depth which actually contains oxygen and biological matter so we focussed our sampling at a depth to which soil bacteria are actually found and were there any transfer it would take place in that zone where the bacteria were.”

Our response:

1. Soil bacteria and other microorganisms can be found many metres below the soil surface. Microorganisms have been detected in oil reservoirs 3000 metres deep, with metabolically active bacteria found well over 1000 metres deep (Mason et al., 2010). Notably the statement above is contradicted by AgResearch’s own research. In 2004 AgResearch detected over a million aerobic and culturable bacteria per gram of soil at its single deepest sample of 5.5 metres.

2. While the numbers of cellular microbes does decrease with depth, microbes are not absent but are still found in substantial numbers. The number of microbes in topsoil near the surface reaches an estimated 2 billion per gram of soil (Heinemann et al., 2011, Heinemann and Traavik, 2004). At depth, the population reduces by as much as 2/3rds (Fierer et al., 2003) but remains just under 1 billion per gram of soil. Indeed, an estimated 35% of the microbial biomass in the top 2 metres of soil resides below 25 centimetres (Fierer et al., 2003), and thus it is especially poignant that AgResearch mainly sampled at only 15 and 30 cm, thus ignoring a significant proportion of the potential recombinant population.

3. Microbes on and inside the discarded carcasses would have seeded populations of bacteria and other microbes at depth, at numbers that potentially exceed those at surface. These microbes would have been of the highest priority to sample because they would have been in longest contact with the animals.

4. The kind of microbes at depth may differ in proportion from those near the surface. It is again noteworthy that AgResearch restricted their survey to only bacteria, only bacteria that can be cultured, only bacteria that can be cultured in an oxygenated environment, and only those in the top soil layers not in contact with the animals, and thus AgResearch actively excluded from consideration an estimated 99-99.9% of all other kinds of bacteria and 100% of all other kinds of microbes.

5. There is no evidence to support the contention that transfer would be restricted to the top soil layers. It is in fact probably impossible for transfer to take place in the top 30 cm when the genes being monitored were at least 1.7 vertical metres lower. This equates to approximately 1.7 million bacterial body lengths away. With the exception of one self-described “preliminary experiment” in 2004, AgResearch sampled for gene transfer in soil that essentially could not contain the target genes.

Prof. Jack A. Heinemann
Dr. Brigitta Kurenbach
Ms. Nikki Bleyendaal
Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety
University of Canterbury
Fierer, N., Schimel, J. P. and Holden, P. A. (2003). Variations in microbial community composition through two soil depth profiles. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 167-176.
Heinemann, J. A., Kurenbach, B. and Bleyendaal, N. (2011). Evaluation of horizontal gene transfer monitoring experiments conducted in New Zealand between 2004 and 2009. J. Org. Sys. 6, 3-19.
Heinemann, J. A. and Traavik, T. (2004). Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 22, 1105-1109.
Mason, O. U., Nakagawa, T., Rosner, M., Van N., J. D., Zhou, J., Maruyama, A., Fisk, M. R. and Giovannoni, S. J. (2010). First investigation of the microbiology of the deepest layer of ocean crust. PLoS Biology 5, e15399.

(2) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/pdf/6(1)-Heinemann-pp3-19.pdf

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/index.html

EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER MONITORING EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN NEW ZEALAND BETWEEN 2004 AND 2009. Jack A. Heinemann1,2*, Brigitta Kurenbach1,2 and Nikki Bleyendaal1  1Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety and the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch New Zealand  2GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway.  Corresponding author. Phone +64 3 364 2500 email jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz  03 3642926   021 0239 7321

(3) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/1261/should-agresearch-be-charged-with-fraud/

(4) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/1260/erma-swallowed-genetic-bull-from-agresearch/

 

 

CONTACT:

The Soil & Health Association of NZ – Organic NZ
Spokesperson
Steffan Browning
021 725655
campaign@organicnz.org

Should AgResearch be charged with fraud?

/in , , ,

Government must cancel all genetic engineering (GE) field trials by the government funded Crown Research Institute’s, AgResearch, Scion and Plant & Food Research, now that AgResearch has been shown to intentionally avoid critical safety research required of it, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.(1)

Soil & Health also believes charges relating to false pretences or fraud should be considered in relation to AgResearch’s activities.

“Concerns about the risk of new viral and prion diseases, and the potential loss of antibiotic effectiveness, from AgResearch’s GE cattle activities, led to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) 2002 approval including limits on the genetic material to be used in the GE cattle experiments, and requiring all reasonable efforts to monitor for adverse effects,” said Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning. (2)

“However AgResearch has followed a dishonest path of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) research sampling, reporting and media responses’ that has put the public and environment at risk. Scion and Plant & Food Research have previously also misled the government and public about their field trials environmental effects and monitoring practices.”

“AgResearch has more seriously exceeded even Plant & Food’s blatant misreporting of its GE brassica field trial in 2008. The Plant & Food Research GE trial was closed down following Soil & Health and GE Free NZ’s identifying risky approval breaches including illegal flowering of the GE brassicas.” (3)

AgResearch’s genetically engineered (GE) animal field trial site was approved by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) with a control requiring research to try and find evidence of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), transgenes or genetic material from GE cattle carcasses transferring to micro-organisms, at the Ruakura offal pit site.

ERMA in 2002 considered the GE cattle research would have “significant uncertainty as to the magnitude and likelihood of the adverse effect arising,” and “If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted.”

“As soon as AgResearch saw any hint of HGT in 2004 from samples near the buried GE carcasses, they modified their subsequent sampling to avoid that possibility, and annually reported over at several years to ERMA that there was no evidence that HGT was occurring,” said Mr Browning. (4)

“It must be asked, that if by intentionally avoiding detection of HGT from their offal pit, should AgResearch be charged with fraud.”

The Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) at the University of Canterbury has reviewed AgResearch’s reports of its monitoring efforts, as released to GE Free New Zealand (in Food and Environment) under the Official Information Act. (5)

The INBI report published in the Journal of Organic Systems states, “By design of experiments, AgResearch ignored up to an estimated 99.9% of bacteria and all other kinds of microbes.”

“Not only was the sample selection incredibly small but sampling was nearly always taken a considerable distance away from where HGT would be best sampled,” said Mr Browning.

“ERMA required carcasses be buried to a depth of at least 2 metres yet samples were mostly taken at a depth of just 30cm, and as the peer reviewed INBI Report states, “and were so far away on the scale of microorganisms as to have been equivalent to sampling in an arbitrary location hundreds of kilometers from the pits.”

“Further, when considering the AgResearch monitoring reports to ERMA, the INBI Report states, “By repeating the claim that there was no relationship between resistance and depth in multiple years, AgResearch potentially creates the false impression that the 2004 results were replicated when there is no indication that they were.”

Graphics from the Journal of Organic Systems published INBI Report showing annual sample depths relativity to genetically engineered cattle carcasses.

(A) AgResearch sampled soil from offal pits (cylinders in figure) at varying distances from the surface (depth, in metres). The reports did not specify the how close the carcasses came to the surface in the actual pits sampled. The carcasses may have been between 5.8 and 2 m from the surface (they had to be a minimum of 2 m deep to comply with ERMANZ control 1.4). There was no indication of whether any soil sampled was in contact with the carcasses, but it is possible that it was for samples taken in 2004. Depth and year at which samples were taken are shown as black bars.

(B) Soil (grey) subsidence in the pits over time was compensated through the addition of fresh soil (dark grey). The reports made no mention of whether soil was added to pits prior to sampling. Since subsistence takes time, samples taken before the addition of fresh soil to the pits were in most years both likely to have been well above the interface with carcasses (which were about a minimum of 1.7 m lower than sample depth) and to have provided too little time for the appearance of a target population of detectable size. Samples taken after the pits were topped up would have been in fresh soil never in contact with the carcasses.  AgResearch reports a variety of sampling depths. But only in the 2004 report was sampling beyond 30 cm, and in the 2009a report, sampling was to the depth of only 15 cm (Figure 2A).

“All GE field trials in recent years have been involved with major non-compliance of approval conditions, and with AgResearch involved with them all and extremely misleading in its representation of HGT research, safety of GE field trials is in complete doubt and should be stopped immediately,” said Mr Browning.

“AgResearch is now also misleading the media as to its knowledge of the INBI Report and its contents, and an AgResearch spokesman told Country 99TV that AgResearch had only just received the report and could not yet comment.”

“We’ve only just got it ourselves so we’re still putting a response together,” the AgResearch spokesman said.

However, the Journal of Organic Systems – INBI report says AgResearch was provided with a draft copy of the final report nearly 7 months ago on 23 November 2010. (6,7)

“AgResearch has also undertaken HGT research at the Plant & Food Research and Scion GE field trials, with resultant claims of no environmental effects. However that research has also been heavily criticised by independent scientists, and it is time for the government to stop pouring tens of millions of dollars into these risky field trials until the risks are independently studied,” said Mr Browning.(8)

Environment Waikato should reassess its RMA consent to AgResearch to discharge up to 16 cubic metres per day of dairy shed waste water and milk to land from a transgenic cattle containment facility, and any subsequent discharges to air until 20th March 2039. Environment Waikato needs to consider the surface water, leaching and drainage to neighbouring property and Waikato waterways from the AgResearch GE facility, especially now that horizontal gene transfer research has been shown to be effectively non-existent and unknown risks persist. (9)

Soil & Health has a vision of a GE Free Organic 2020, with no risk of novel GE disease organisms or cruel animal experiments, and with government research targeting genuinely sustainable organic systems.
References

(1) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/pdf/6(1)-Heinemann-pp3-19.pdf

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/index.html

EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER MONITORING EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN NEW ZEALAND BETWEEN 2004 AND 2009. Jack A. Heinemann1,2*, Brigitta Kurenbach1,2 and Nikki Bleyendaal1  1Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety and the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch New Zealand  2GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway.  Corresponding author. Phone +64 3 364 2500 email jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz  03 3642926   021 0239 7321

(2)    http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/Documents/GMD02028-decision.pdf  “There are potentially non-negligible risks to the environment that are not related to the ability of the cattle to escape. These risks include unintended insertion of viral cell receptors and creation of new viral reservoirs, and adverse effects arising as a result of HGT” (p. 47 ERMANZ, 2002,). …

“significant uncertainty as to the magnitude and likelihood of the adverse effect arising” (p. 21 ERMANZ 2002).  …

“The Committee’s view is that every reasonable opportunity should be taken to monitor developments such as this for the occurrence of adverse effects and for information on the significance of pathways such as HGT” (p. 21 ERMANZ, 2002).

“Micro-organisms shall be tested for the presence of the introduced genetic modifications at the disposal sites. If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted” (p. 58 ERMANZ, 2002, Bold added). …

(3) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/1097/plant-and-food-research-needs-to-drop-ge/

(4)    Journal of Organic Systems – INBI Report page 7 as in (1).

(5)    GE Free New Zealand (in Food and Environment) Claire Bleakley 06-3089842 / 027 348 6731  Jon Carapiet 021 0507681

(6) http://www.country99tv.co.nz/news/latest-news/2011/5/6/canterbury-scientists-slam-agresearch-ge-testing

(7)    Journal of Organic Systems – INBI Report page 5.  As part of our public service and specifically our formation mission, INBI accepted this task pro bono. Work was initiated in April 2010. On 20 April 2010, INBI submitted supplementary questions to AgResearch (Supplementary Material) with a promise to provide AgResearch with an advanced draft of our final report, to allow AgResearch to register with us any errors of fact before the report was released. AgResearch accepted and released answers to our supplementary questions under the Official Information Act. A draft of this report was then provided to AgResearch on 23 November 2010.

(8)    Heinemann, J.A., and T. Traavik. 2004. Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 22:1105-1109.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0805/S00015.htm

(9)    Copy of Resource Consent Certificate No: 110731 Discharge Consent to discharge up to 16 cubic metres per day of dairy shed waste water and milk to land from a transgenic cattle containment facility, and any subsequent discharges to air.   Expiry 20th March 2039.

ERMA swallowed genetic bull from AgResearch

/in , , ,

ERMA has swallowed a lot of genetic bull from AgResearch. GE Trials Must Stop Immediately!

A Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) report published yesterday shows that AgResearch may have intentionally misled the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and allowed risky genetic contamination in the Waikato Region, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. (1)

Because of the biosafety risk of significant adverse effects to people or the environment, AgResearch was required by ERMA to monitor soil microorganisms for the uptake of transgenes by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) at the offal pits where genetically engineered (GE) cattle were disposed. (2)

“If AgResearch detected HGT, an immediate stop to genetic engineering and the disposal of cattle was required, but AgResearch has sampled in such a way as to avoid any real likelihood of that happening,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.(3)

The INBI report (page 4) states, “The Authority allowed AgResearch to design, conduct and supervise the monitoring of HGT, and this latitude created a potential conflict of interest for AgResearch when set against its funding criteria and overall goal of delivering commercially applicable research results from the development of GM bovine.”

“By using research in such a way to avoid finding the result that they were required to, AgResearch have cheated ERMA and New Zealand, and their genetically engineered (GE) animal trials should be halted immediately,” said Mr Browning.

“ERMA has aggravated the situation by failing to analyse or even sight some AgResearch reports, and accepted AgResearch statements of safety, and then determining that new approvals would not need HGT monitoring.”

“We have consistently called for independence of risk analysis and research monitoring. This situation shows yet again that GE field trial environmental safety monitoring in New Zealand is corrupted.”

Five years of AgResearch monitoring reports, released to GE Free New Zealand under the Official Information Act, have been reviewed by the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) at the University of Canterbury. Following peer review by international experts the INBI report has been published in the Journal of Organic Systems.

“AgResearch has not only breached its approval conditions by not testing as required, but continues to spread  effluent including milk, blood and foetal tissue from GE animals onto its pastures, which are frequently flooded and drain through adjacent farmland, waterways and under Hamilton to the Waikato River.” (4)

“Is the Waikato to be the next site of a new environmental disaster?”

“The INBI Report states that HGT includes the movements of gene vectors such as plasmids, viruses and transposable elements that are observed in both prokaryotes (e.g. bacteria) and eukaryotes (e.g., animals, plants and fungi), however AgResearch has effectively avoided any chance of finding this potentially risky movement and ERMA has allowed it,” said Mr Browning.

“The INBI report states, “By design of experiments, AgResearch ignored up to an estimated 99.9% of bacteria and all other kinds of microbes.””

“Not only was the sample selection incredibly small but sampling was nearly always taken a considerable distance away from where HGT would be best sampled. The INBI report (page 13) graphically portrays the avoidance of sampling where HGT may occur.”(5,6)

“The HGT science undertaken by AgResearch, a leading Crown Research Agency, is a national disgrace and follows breaches at all other CRI GE field tests in recent years.”

“This field trial must stop immediately. The risks of new genetic material leaking into the wider environment is too high and because AgResearch have lapsed professionally to such a degree, while cruelly experimenting with animals unnecessarily, and using considerable amounts of tax-payers money to try and produce pharmaceutical products that are already being produced in a much safer manner.”

Soil & Health – Organic NZ is grateful for the diligence of GE Free NZ in identifying the breach and applying to ERMA for a reassessment of the AgResearch approval, and commends Professor Jack Heinemann and the INBI team in producing such a robust report, and for the Journal of Organic Systems for its publication of independent research of this calibre.

References and diagrams.

(1)    http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/pdf/6(1)-Heinemann-pp3-19..pdf

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/index.html

EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER MONITORING EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN NEW ZEALAND BETWEEN 2004 AND 2009. Jack A. Heinemann1,2*, Brigitta Kurenbach1,2 and Nikki Bleyendaal1  1Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety and the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch New Zealand  2GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway.  Corresponding author. Phone +64 3 364 2500 email jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz  03 3642926   021 0239 7321

(2)    http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/Documents/GMD02028-decision.pdf  “There are potentially non-negligible risks to the environment that are not related to the ability of the cattle to escape. These risks include unintended insertion of viral cell receptors and creation of new viral reservoirs, and adverse effects arising as a result of HGT” (p. 47 ERMANZ, 2002, emphasis added). …

“significant uncertainty as to the magnitude and likelihood of the adverse effect arising” (p. 21 ERMANZ 2002).  …

“Micro-organisms shall be tested for the presence of the introduced genetic modifications at the disposal sites. If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted” (p. 58 ERMANZ, 2002). …

INBI Report -Journal of Organic Systems page 4 ; The Authority concluded that “[w]ith these controls in place, the combined non-negligible risks referred to above are considered to be low, even after taking account of uncertainty” (p. 48 ERMANZ, 2002). The Authority directly tied monitoring of soil microorganisms to its risk assessment, and encouraged monitoring to be “as extensive as possible” (p. 21 ERMANZ, 2002), saying of many additional controls that “[i]n general, these restrictions are aimed at removing classes of risk associated with HGT, viral and prion diseases, and antibiotic resistance” (p. 46 ERMANZ, 2002).

(3)    2. “Micro-organisms shall be tested for the presence of the introduced genetic modifications at the disposal sites. If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted” (p. 58 ERMANZ, 2002).

(4)    Attached photographs of offal pits, flooding, drains and drainage sump. All photographs available at a higher resolution. Photographs of GE cattle and goats also available.

(5)    From the INBI Report – Journal of Organic Systems page 13. Therefore, for all but one sampling exercise, the soil was a minimum of 1.7 m from contact with the microbes that would have been in contact with carcasses (Table 1). Because of compensation for subsidence and because AgResearch may have buried the carcasses much deeper, the samples could have been up to 5.8 m from the soil layer in first contact with carcasses11. If the average soil bacterium is about 1 µm (1 one millionth of a metre) in diameter, within the time between filling the pit and sampling, a recombinant bacterium would have to migrate a minimum distance 1.7 million times its size in a dry pit, or the gene would have to transfer a minimum of 1.7 million times, against gravity directly toward the surface in order to have the potential to be detected.

(6)    From the IMBI Report – Journal of Organic Systems Figure 2. Sampling depth and effect on experimental findings.

(A) AgResearch sampled soil from offal pits (cylinders in figure) at varying distances from the surface (depth, in metres). The reports did not specify the how close the carcasses came to the surface in the actual pits sampled. The carcasses may have been between 5.8 and 2 m from the surface (they had to be a minimum of 2 m deep to comply with ERMANZ control 1.4). There was no indication of whether any soil sampled was in contact with the carcasses, but it is possible that it was for samples taken in 2004. Depth and year at which samples were taken are shown as black bars.

(B) Soil (grey) subsidence in the pits over time was compensated through the addition of fresh soil (dark grey). The reports made no mention of whether soil was added to pits prior to sampling. Since subsistence takes time, samples taken before the addition of fresh soil to the pits were in most years both likely to have been well above the interface with carcasses (which were about a minimum of 1.7 m lower than sample depth) and to have provided too little time for the appearance of a target population of detectable size. Samples taken after the pits were topped up would have been in fresh soil never in contact with the carcasses.  AgResearch reports a variety of sampling depths. But only in the 2004 report was sampling beyond 30 cm, and in the 2009a report, sampling was to the depth of only 15 cm
(Figure 2A).