[P2P-F] Fwd: Are GMO Pesticides Supertoxins? A New Analysis Raises Questions of Food and Environmental Safety (Press Release)

Thu Oct 5 06:58:37 CEST 2017

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jonathan Latham <jrlatham at bioscienceresource.org>
Date: Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:43 AM
Subject: Are GMO Pesticides Supertoxins? A New Analysis Raises Questions of
Food and Environmental Safety (Press Release)
To: bsr-PROJECT-ELIST1 at gn.apc.org

*Press Release:*

*Are GMO Pesticides Supertoxins? A New Analysis Raises Questions of Food
and Environmental Safety*

Oct 4, 2017, The Bioscience Resource Project, Ithaca, New York, USA

*Summary: The chief benefit claimed for GMO pesticidal Bt crops is that,
unlike conventional pesticides, their toxicity is limited to a few insect
species. Our new peer-reviewed analysis systematically compares GMO and
ancestral Bt proteins and shows that many of the elements contributing to
this narrow toxicity have been removed by GMO developers in the process of
inserting Bt toxins into crops. Thus, developers have made GMO pesticides
that, in the words of one Monsanto patent, are "super toxins". We
additionally conclude that references to any GMO Bt toxins being "natural"
are incorrect and scientifically unsupportable.*

New Publication Title: *The Distinct Properties of Natural and GM Cry
Insecticidal Proteins*

Authors: *Jonathan R. Latham, Madeleine Love & Angelika Hilbeck*
(2017), in *Biotechnology
and Genetic Engineering Reviews*, 33:1, 62-96,

DOI: 10.1080/02648725.2017.1357295.

*Background:*

Bt toxins are a diverse family of protein toxins produced in nature by the
bacterium *Bacillus thuringiensis*, which is a gut pathogen of many
species. Naturally occurring toxins (also known as Cry toxins) of *B.
thuringiensis* are believed to all have very limited toxicity ranges. These
toxins exist in nature as crystals packaged around DNA. Through a complex
sequence of unpacking and protein processing steps these molecules are
converted to active toxins and kill their targets by creating holes in the
membranes of the gut lining of their victims.

Commercially, GMO pesticidal corn, cotton, and soybeans are widely grown
around the world. GMO Bt crop varieties constitutively synthesize these Bt
toxins and can contain numerous different Bt transgenes (1), each with
somewhat different pest control properties. For this publication,
we reviewed biosafety application documents for 23 globally traded Bt
pesticidal GM crop events as well as peer-reviewed research and patents. We
sought to compare GM proteins with natural ones. Our analysis is the first
to explore the chemical and functional differences between GMO Bt toxins
and natural ones.

The findings:

Our review describes numerous differences between naturally occurring and
GM Bt proteins. Some are intentionally introduced but others are
inadvertent in origin. First, all GMO Bt toxins are soluble proteins rather
than crystalline structures; many GMO Bt toxins are truncated proteins;
parts of natural Bt toxins are often combined to make hybrid GMO molecules
that don’t exist in nature; GMO Bt toxins often have added to them
synthetic or unrelated protein molecules; GMO Bt toxins may be mutated to
replace specific amino acids. Sixth and not least, all GMO Bt proteins are
further altered inside plant cells. GMO crop plants themselves thus cause
changes to the nature of Bt toxins.

Implications:

Surprising as it may seem, these changes are poorly taken into account in
GMO risk assessment. For example, GMO regulators frequently refer to the
"history of safe use" of specific natural Bt toxins. Regulators also
controversially allow most tests of safety to be on surrogate toxins,
rather than GMO crops themselves (2). Our next question was therefore to
determine whether these physical changes enhanced Bt protein toxicity,
which would imply real world food and biosafety implications.

In the publication, we identify clear theoretical reasons, and sometimes
direct evidence, to suppose that each of the six types of changes noted
above enhances Bt toxin activity. For example, Ciba-Geigy measured their
Bt-176 toxins to be 5-10 times more toxicologically active when inserted
into plants. Monsanto patented a series of novel Bt toxins with up to
7.9-fold enhanced activity and called it these "super toxins" having "the
combined advantages of increased insecticidal activity and concomitant
broad spectrum activity." The most powerful of these is now found in
commercial MON863 corn. Additionally, there are theoretical reasons to
expect all GMO Bt toxins to have broader spectrums of activity. Natural Bt
toxins are large, insoluble, and non-toxic precursors requiring unusual
chemical conditions to become active toxins, but thanks to the processing
undergone by all GMO Bt proteins these are far closer to the
toxicologically active form having bypassed key specificity requirements.

Conclusion:

Apparently ignored by GMO biosafety regulators, Bt developers have been
commercialising pesticide-containing GM crops with increased and broadened
toxicity, undermining the chief safety advantage of Bt toxins over
conventional pesticides.

Quotes:

"We are raising important questions here. This publication reveals
compelling scientific reasons to be concerned about the toxicological
consequences of GM Bt toxins in food and in the environment. But it also
reveals the complex interplay between corporations which carefully select
the data they share with regulators and, on the part of regulators, a
willingness to ignore the science if it threatens to derail a GMO
approval." says Jonathan Latham, Executive Director of The Bioscience
Resource Project.

"Naturalness is a key claim about pesticidal GM crops. But it
is constructed to justify the omission of actual testing of the GMO. "O"
stands for organism, after all, but what we observe in the use of surrogate
proteins for risk assessment is the reduction of biology to
chemistry."--Angelika Hilbeck of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

The publication is available open access from:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02648725.2017.1357295

Citation: Jonathan R. Latham, Madeleine Love & Angelika Hilbeck (2017) The
distinct properties of natural and GM cry insecticidal proteins, *Biotechnology
and Genetic Engineering Reviews*, 33:1, 62-96, DOI:
10.1080/02648725.2017.1357295.

Author contacts:

Jonathan Latham, PhD, Executive Director, The Bioscience Resource Project

jrlatham at bioscienceresource.org

Ithaca, NY 14850, USA

Phone (1) 607 319 0279

Angelika Hilbeck, PhD, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

Zurich, Switzerland

angelika.hilbeck at env.ethz.ch

Phone: (41) 44 632 4322

(1) https://www.rt.com/news/smartstax-maize-germany-approval-428/

(2) Dolezel, M., et al. (2011). Scrutinizing the current practice of the
environmental risk assessment of GM maize applications for cultivation in
the EU. Environmental Sciences Europe, 23, 33. doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-33

END
Jonathan Latham, PhD
Executive Director
The Bioscience Resource Project
Ithaca, NY 14850 USA

www.independentsciencenews.org
and
www.bioscienceresource.org

jrlatham at bioscienceresource.org
Skype: jonathanlatham2
Tel: 1-607-319-0279

_______________________________________________
BSR-project-elist1 mailing list
Info and options: https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/bsr-project-
elist1
To unsubscribe, email bsr-project-elist1-unsubscribe at gn.apc.org

-- 
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20171005/46132725/attachment.html>