Amsterdam. 31 March 2005-Syngenta has attempted to deliberately
mislead the public with their admission of GE maize (Bt10)
contamination published last week when they neglected to include,
amongst many other relevant facts, that the Bt10 contained an
antibiotic resistance marker gene .
Last week Syngenta declared that "what makes this somewhat
unique is that Bt10 and Bt11 are physically identical and the
proteins are identical". This week following research and
complaints by NGOs and others, the information was to give forth
that Bt10 contains an antibiotic resistance marker gene that
provides resistance to ampicillin.
Ampicillin is an important antibiotic widely used to treat human
and animal infections. The European Community's 2001/18 directive
requires the phasing out of such antibiotic resistance marker genes
(which may have adverse effects on human health and the
environment) in GMOs by the end of 2004. Even the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) , which is rarely critical of GMOs state
that this type of antibiotic "should not be present in GM plants to
be placed on the market" (EFSA, 2004).
Lindsay Keenan Genetic Engineering campaigner for Greenpeace:
"It is unbelievable that Syngenta after 4 months of preparation for
releasing this information should say that these GE crops are
physically identical when one contains an antibiotic resistance
marker gene and one does not."
This Bt10 / Bt11 contamination case exposes the basic
unpredictability of GMOs, the incompetence of Syngenta to handle
GMO seeds safely, the complete lack of regulatory controls in the
US, and the lack of implementation of controls in the EU. It also
exposes the disgraceful attempts of GE companies like Syngenta to
cover-up the bad science with a smokescreen of public relations and
media management.
Greenpeace has a number of questions regarding this GE maize
(Bt10/Bt11) contamination including:
· Why hasn't Syngenta released a testing protocol for Bt10
yet?
· According to the Nature report, Syngenta has said the
antibiotic marker gene is not active in Bt10. On what evidence is
this based?
· What food and environmental safety testing has been performed?
Why haven't the results of any such testing been released?
· What volume of BT11 has been contaminated by the Bt10? In
which countries has it been sold during the last 4 years?
· What testing is the company now doing to ensure that no BT10
is present in food products? What action is the company taking to
recall contaminated food products?
· Will the company be paying costs for any losses suffered due
to the contamination?
Golden Rice - propaganda for the GE industry
The same company that has acted less than honestly over this
scandalous contamination incident is also developing the so-called
"Golden Rice", whose latest research results were coincidently
revealed in Nature Biotechnology on 27th March.
The so-called "Golden Rice" is genetically engineered (GE) to
produce pro-Vitamin A but is technically insufficient to solve the
problem of vitamin A deficiency. Despite this, it is promoted as a
cure for dietary Vitamin A Deficiency, which affects over 250
million people around the world. In fact, Golden Rice is
distracting attention and funding away from better and more
sustainable solutions that already exist.
The new generation of Golden Rice is very far away from actually
demonstrating that it has a real potential to alleviate dietary
Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD). All Syngenta have done is to elevate
the beta-carotene (pro-vitamin A) concentration in the GE rice.
There are still many factors with this GE rice that have not
been addressed. For example, losses of beta-carotene on cooking and
storage have not been quantified. The bioavailability (real uptake
into the human body) of this pro-vitamin A is unknown. Several
scientists have discussed that this Golden Rice is a technological
fix that is unlikely to work. Vitamin A deficiency is a complex
problem, often associated with other vitamin and mineral
deficiencies.
After five years of research there are still no answers to
questions of safety for the environment and consumers. Over the
same period of time, several other approaches to solve VAD have
been shown to work efficiently, but to completely solve VAD, what
is needed is political support. The Golden Rice project continues
to distract public awareness from other real working solutions such
as vitamin A supplementations and home gardening incentives. The
real solution is a diverse diet.
Greenpeace campaigner Keenan continued: "It appears to be quite
clear by now that Golden Rice is a research project designed to
promote the GE industry in an attempt to make their current
environmentally contaminating GE crops more acceptable to consumers
and the media rather than any genuine attempt to solve the VAD
problem".
Notes: ACRE 2004. Advice on a notification for marketing of insect resistant and herbicide tolerant GM maize, C/F/96/05/10 4th February 2004. - http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice46.pdf Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 12 March 2001on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_106/l_10620010417en00010038.pdf EFSA 2004. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the use of antibiotic resistance genes as marker genes in genetically modified plants. (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-109). The EFSA Journal 48: 1-18. http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/catindex_en.html