Plant-Pesticides in GE-food

Joe Cummins.
Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University od Western Ontario
Febr. 1997

Much of the emphasis in crop genetic engineering has been in producing
crops containing pesticides or organisms that can be sprayed on crops to
destroy major economic pests of the crops. Such genetically engineered
forms for fighting crop diseases are called 'Plant-Pesticides'. Crops
resistant to insects because they contain Bt Toxin or virus resistance
factors (mainly genes from the viruses) are being marketed. An insect
virus, Baculovirus, is being modified with genes, such as scorpion toxin
gene, diuretic hormone gene, juvenile hormone gene or mite toxin gene to
make a potent insect virus to spray on crop plants to protect the crops
from insect pests.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that
such modified crops and viruses should be regulated like chemical
pesticides but the companies patenting the modified crops argued that food
should not be labeled as being pesticides. Pesticides require extensive
acute and chronic tests to assure that they are safe. Such tests are very
expensive and slow the release of gene tinkered products. The giant seed
company Northrop King (now named Novartis Seed) was fined for importing Bt
tinkered corn seeds from South America that had not been approved by EPA.
The fine was very small ($162,500) and the EPA officials were almost
apologetic about the law breaking. In Canada, government officials try to
avoid upsetting large companies who pay them handsomely (see the last issue
of Gene Tinkering Blues 'Paying Off Agriculture Canada').

The biotechnology industry has launched a huge propaganda campaign warning
of negative consequences if the amount of required safety-testing and
regulation on these 'plant pesticides' is raised. The biotech industry
says increased regulation would result in:
- Increased expense for developing pest resistant forms
- The growth of bureaucracy
- Use of more chemical pesticides
- A competitive disadvantage for US Biotechnology
The biotechnology industry wants its products to be tested by consumers and
they wish to avoid the liability resulting from pesticide poisoning whether
in crops or chemical sprays.

The use of plant- pesticides is not a new idea: 'natural' tolerance to
insects, fungus and bacteria has been selected by plant breeders well
before the science of genetics was understood. Unfortunately such
pesticides are as likely to cause cancer, birth defects, nerve damage or
reduced immunity as their man-made chemical relatives. Celery was treated
with gene damaging chemicals and an insect resistant form was selected. The
natural production of a natural insecticide, psoralen, was enhanced to make
a highly resistant variety. Unfortunately the insect tolerant variety
caused skin problems in celery pickers and produce managers in
supermarkets, the celery caused cancer in experimental mice. The modified
variety had to be withdrawn from the market. The celery incident is typical
of plant-pesticides which are frequently chemicals produced by plants in
response to stress from the attack of pests.

Of the natural pesticides tested, a sizable proportion are carcinogens
while many others are mutagens. The known carcinogens include estragole
(basil), safrole (natural root beer), symphytine (comfrey tea), hydrazine
(mushrooms) and allyl isothiocyanate (brown mustard). These
plant-pesticides are not threatening until their levels are amplified in
the crops using genetic engineering.

There is clearly evidence that plant-pesticides are likely to be cancer
causing and to cause other problems such as skin rashes or nerve damage
typical of the man made pesticides. Such pesticides must be tested to
protect the public.

Agriculture Canada has not been very happy about regulating man made
pesticides and seems to prefer to ignore plant-pesticides. For example, the
herbicide Glyphosate (Round-Up) is used on grains including barley and
wheat, oil seeds including Canola and soybean, along with dry pea, lentil
and white bean during the fall to hasten the maturation of the crop seeds.
A 1994 study showed that about 8% of the crops were treated with
Glyphosate (while 20% of the white beans were sprayed with Glyphosate) even
though such use was not yet allowed by federal registration. The
government responded to such illegal application of a pesticide by changing
the regulation retroactively to permit the illegal applications. The
government would prefer to ignore the clear and present danger posed by
plant-pesticides to allow rapid growth of an unhealthy industry. The
illness and suffering caused by the crops will be ignored for the present.

Average people will have to ensure that the government bureaucrats are
controlled by politicians and not visa-versa. Plant-pesticides must be
labeled in the market and adequately tested in the laboratory.

References:

ISB News Report-January 1997 "EPA Oversight of Plant-Pesticides"

Gene Exchange 7, Dec.1996 "EPA fines Northrup King over Bt corn"

B.Ames, R.Magaw and L.Gold, "Ranking Possible Carcinogens: One Approach to Risk Management " pp1082-1104. Risk Assessment ed.B.Paustenbach, Wiley 1989.

Prof .Joe Cummins, Emeritus Professor of Genetics University of Western Ontario
phone&FAX 519 681 5477

Inmanipulerade insektsgifter kan vara hälsovådliga

Mycket arbete med genmanipulation har lagt ned på att utveckla grödor som är motståndskraftiga mot skadeinsekter.Man har lagt in gener som gör att växterna producerar gifter mot skadeinsekter. En annan variant har varit att genmanipulera insektsvirus så att det bär på en skorpiongiftsgen, vissa insektsgiftsgener eller vissa hormongener. Dessa virus sprayas sedan på åkrarna.

Bioteknikindustrin utövar nu starka påtryckningar för att få myndigheterna att ställa låga krav på oskadlighetstestning av dessa produkter. Om man ställer samma krav som på vanliga kemiska insektsgifter blir kostnaderna mycket höga.

Cummins finner det orimligt att sänka kraven, eftersom de insektsgifter som man "genmanipulerat in" i grödorna inte är mindre farliga än vanliga kemiska insektsgifter. De innebär lika stor risk för cancer, fosterskador, nervskador eller försämrat immunförsvar. Blan de naturliga insektsgifter som man hittills genmanipulerat in är en avsevärd del kända carcinogener (cancerframkallande) och många andra är mutagener (mutationsframkallande). Cummins nämner som exempel bl a estragol från basilika, symfytin från comfrey, hydrazin från svampar och allylthiocyanat från brun senap. Dessa är inte hälsovådliga i sitt naturliga sammanhang, men blir det när halterna flerdubblas genom genmanipulation.

Cummins uttrycker oro över att myndigheterna i Canada och USA visat en påfallande undfallenhet för de multinationella genteknikföretagen och befarar att kraven på oskadlighetstestning kommer att bli otillräckliga för att garantera människors säkerhet.

Kommentar:

Genteknikföretagen har framgångsrikt genom starka påtryckningar fått nationella och internationella myndigheter (inklusive EU) att införa bestämmelser som inte beaktar att genmanipulation kan ge upphov till oväntade gifter och allergener som kan vara svåra att spåra. Detta har lett till principen om "huvudsaklig likhet" (substantial equality) vid oskadlighetsbedömning, som besparar genteknikföretagen de mycket stora kostnader som ordentlig oskadlighetsprövning skulle kräva (se "Skenvetenskaplig oskadlighetsbedömning vid EU). Följden är att genteknikföretagens intressen gynnas på bekostnad av människors säkerhet.

Nu försöker man enligt Cummins samma sak genom att kräva avreglering av oskadlighetstestning för "inmanipulerade" insektsgifter med kända hälsovådliga effekter.