[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[SANET-MG] cover up GM milk
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDNAinMilk.phpISIS Press Release 26/07/05
Cover-up over GM DNA in milk
Syngenta’s GM maize linked to dead cows linked to GM DNA in milk and
scientist involved in what appears to be a major cover-up on behalf of
big dairy producer. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members’
website. Details here
Campaign against GM animal feed
Greenpeace Germany began campaigning against GM animal feed in March
2005. Their main target is Mueller, one of Germany’s biggest dairy
producers and also number one in Britain in yogurt sales. Greenpeace
exposed Mueller’s use of GM soya to feed their dairy cows, which Mueller
does not deny. But the company tried to stop Greenpeace’s campaign, and
especially the use of the term “GE-milk” through the law court. The
company claims it is scientifically demonstrated that no GM DNA could
transfer into the milk, and produced a statement signed by six German
scientists with the title, No transfer of genetically modified
components from animal feed to milk. Greenpeace contacted me for help in
producing a counter-statement. The counter-statement, Transfer of
genetically modified DNA from animal feed to milk cannot be ruled out,
and is a cause for concern, was eventually signed by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Dr.
Arpad Pusztai, Dr. Susan Bardocz, Prof. Joe Cummins and Prof. Peter
Saunders on behalf of the Independent Science Panel (www.indsp.org).
On 5 July 2005, the court of Cologne decided in favour of Greenpeace,
refusing to grant Mueller an injunction. The court stated that as since
Mueller is using genetically modified plants for animal feed, the
products are connected with genetic engineering and therefore the term
GE-milk is perfectly justified. Mueller claimed that GM-DNA fragments
are not present in milk, but Greenpeace countered by saying it was not
yet scientifically decided.
“The report of the ISP was vital to support our arguments!” says
Greenpeace activist Ulricke Brendel. Unfortunately, that’s not the end
of the matter. Mueller has filed a new case against Greenpeace, going
for the highest court in Germany, to prevent Greenpeace from using the
term, “GE-milk”, and also asking for €500 000 in damage compensation.
“For the next 3 to 5 years, that is as long it might take, we will keep
arguing the case,” Ulricke added.
So what’s the current status of the evidence? Is there or is there not
GM-DNA in milk?
Unpublished evidence kept under lock and key
There are several published studies on the transfer of genetically
modified (GM) DNA from animal feed to milk, all of them methodologically
flawed; nevertheless they indicate that it is possible for DNA from GM
feed to transfer to milk. And this is confirmed in an unpublished study
from the Weihenstephen Institute of Physiology and the Technical
University of Munich.
Astonishingly, the lead author of the unpublished study from
Weihenstephen Institute, which found positive evidence of GM DNA in milk
- Prof. Rolf Espanier - is also the lead author of the statement on
behalf of the company Mueller, claiming there is no transfer of
genetically modified components from animal feed to milk.
Furthermore, that unpublished study was done on milk collected from
dairy cows in a farm in Hesse Germany where, between 2000 and 2001, 12
cows died after eating Syngenta’s GM maize Bt 176 (Cow ate GM maize and
died, SiS 21). No proper autopsies were carried out; while this crucial
study dated 20 October 2000 remained under lock and key for more than
three years before it was leaked to Greenpeace [1].
A handful of studies
The first study in the laboratories of Einspanier, Jahreis and
Falchowsky [2] detected “faint signals” of the abundant plant
chloroplast DNA in milk, but not the GM DNA. However, the limit of
detection, i.e., the sensitivity of the detection method, was not
reported. This would involve spiking the milk with increasing amounts of
DNA from the GM feed until a positive signal is obtained.
A second study in another laboratory [3] failed to detect any GM DNA in
milk. But the limit of detection was 30 ng GM soya DNA added to the
milk, which is equivalent to 16 200 copies of the GM soya genome, or the
same number of copies of the GM DNA insert, assuming there is a single
insert in the genome. This is unacceptably high compared to the standard
limit of detection of 10 copies or less; and it indicates that the
method used was far from sensitive enough. A follow-up investigation [4]
did detect plant chloroplast DNA, but not the GM DNA in milk.
Chloroplast DNA outnumbers GM DNA by up to 50 000 copies to 1. The limit
of detection in this study was still unacceptably high; it required the
presence of 2 700 copies of the GM soya genome and 602 copies of the GM
maize genome in 330 microlitres (about three drops) of milk. Another
limitation of these studies was that the feeding trials [2, 3] were of
short duration, lasting only several weeks.
The fourth published study [5] established the limit of detection as
between 5 and 10 genomic copies of the GM DNA, but not by adding the GM
plant DNA to milk, which is necessary, as inhibitors of the detection
reaction are often present. Nevertheless these researchers found plant
chloroplast DNA in high proportions, possibly all, of the milk samples
from dairy cows: 86% positives while the rest were ‘indeterminate’. They
claim to have found “no statistically significant” presence of GM DNA in
milk. No information on the length of the feeding trial(s) was given.
Positive evidence for the transfer of GM DNA into milk was presented in
the unpublished report [6] from Weihenstephen Institute referred to
earlier. Two milk samples were analysed, and in both of them, positive
signals for GM DNA were found.
These studies used a wider range of probes for different plant DNA:
Ubiquitin and zein (about 20 and 40 copies respectively in the maize
genome); EPSPS, single copy gene specific for GM soya; rubisco gene in
chloroplast genome (about 10 000 to 50 000 copies); and Bt (CrylA),
single copy gene specific for GM maize
The first milk sample was probed for ubiquitin, rubisco and Bt; the
second sample was probed for all five gene-sequences. The milk was
separated by centrifugation into the cell fraction at the bottom, fat at
the top and solution in between.
The first sample showed that ubiquitin DNA was present in all the cell
and fat fractions, but not in solution. The chloroplast rubisco DNA
could be detected in all cell and fat fractions. The Bt DNA was detected
in all the fractions that were positive for chloroplast DNA, with a
rather similar pattern.
The summary stated, “It was not difficult to prove the existence of
general plant DNA (chloroplasts) in this milk. In addition, positive
signals for the presence of Bt-maize fragments were obtained. This data
indicates the presence of small quantities of Bt-maize gene fragments in
the tank milk.” (emphasis added)
However, the authors made the unjustified assumptions that the Bt-maize
gene fragments came from other sources than the animals producing the
milk and that they have no biological significance, “The presence of
Bt-maize material in the milk supplied is not necessary due to
endogenous factors (i.e., via the animal itself). Thus, the presence of
many different kinds of feed in the tank milk is likely and almost
inevitable in spite of stringent hygienic conditions. The PCR analysis
will also detect dust or aerosols from neighbouring feeding areas. On
the basis of the biological knowledge available to us, the presence of
the very small quantity of Bt-maize DNA identified has only analytical
but no biological relevance whatsoever.”
In the second sample, not only was the Bt gene fragment from GM maize
detected in milk, the EPSPS gene fragment from GM soya - contained in
the animal feed - was also detected. The summary stated, “In this milk,
it was possible to identify sporadic traces of general plant DNA
(chloroplasts) as well as zein and EPSPS gene fragments. As well as
this, slightly positive signals indicating the presence of Bt-maize
fragments were also contained. This data indicates minor contamination
with Bt-maize gene fragments in the tank milk.”
Again, this “contamination” was deemed to have “no biological relevance
whatsoever.”
GM DNA in milk is a cause for concern
The presence of GM DNA in milk is a cause for concern, regardless of
whether it originated in the animal producing the milk, or by
contamination from “dust or aerosols” containing GM feed, which
according to the authors of the unpublished report [6] “is likely and
almost inevitable in spite of stringent hygienic conditions.”
GM DNA is unlike natural DNA in many respects [7]. It contains new
combinations of genetic material that have never existed in billions of
years of evolution, including genes sequences that are completely
synthesized in the laboratory, differing significantly from their
natural counterparts. GM DNA is designed with recombination sequences in
order to break and insert into genomes; it also contains other changes
to overcome genetic differences between species. GM DNA inserting into
genomes causes mutational and other genome rearrangements including
cancer. In addition, GM DNA contains a high proportion of viral and
bacterial DNA, known to cause a range of immune reactions in human [8].
Another source of hazard from GM DNA comes from the gene products
encoded, which have never been part of our food chain. For example, one
study found that two-thirds of all the transgenes have similarities to
known allergens [9, 10] and should be regarded as potential allergens
until proven otherwise.
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR
telephone: [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20 7272 5636]
General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk - Website/Mailing List
press-release@i-sis.org.uk - ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk
MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION,
ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.
Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.