From BSE to GMOs – What Have We Learned?
Institute of Science in Society
In working with the Millennium Debate
Most of the world’s 70 million acres of genetically modified crops
are being fed to animals or processed into animal feed products.
Furthermore, the biotech industry depends upon this market for its future
viability. In the UK, the BSE crises has already taught us the lesson of
how a change in the composition of animal feed can have a devastating
effect on both animal and human health.
In this booklet, Dr Harash Narang, a clinical virologist and BSE expert,
adds his voice to the public debate on GMOs. He is especially concerned
about the use of specific genes in transgenic crops, namely antibiotic
resistance marker genes, insecticide and herbicide-tolerance genes.
The aim of this booklet is to inform the public about some of the major
failings in the government’s handling of the BSE crises, and to
demonstrate that a similar scenario is now being repeated with GMOs. Dr
Narang combines his experience with BSE, with his concerns over food GM
foods, to convey an important message to all members of the public.
Dr Harash Narang and BSE
By Angela Ryan
At the height of the BSE crises, Dr Harash Narang held a crucial
position as a government scientist at the Public Health Service
Laboratories (PHSL). In 1989, with over 25 years of research on spongiform
disease behind him, he and his colleague, Dr Robert Perry, a
neuropathologist, provided hard evidence linking mad cow disease (BSE)
with Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) in humans.
Dr Narang went on to devise a brain test for use in abattoirs, and then
a live urine test for sub-clinical spongiform ecephalopathy – to
diagnose BSE in cattle and CJD in humans. This meant that infected cattle
could be detected and prevented from entering the food chain.
The authorities in Ireland adopted the approach of slaughtering the
whole herd in which any clinical case of BSE was detected. Breeding from
affected animals was also stopped so that the infectious agent did not
pass from one generation to the next. These practices succeeded in keeping
the total number of BSE cases in Ireland to below 100.
Advice to adopt the same approach was also available in Britain to the
relevant authority, the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF),
but it was ignored, and breeding from affected animals continued in
Britain. Out of the170, 000 animals confirmed with BSE in Britain, 40, 000
of them were born after the feed ban was introduced in 1988.
The then Ministers of Agriculture, John Gummer and John MacGregor, chose
not to develop and use the diagnostic test, perhaps because it would have
revealed how widespread the disease had become. An effective diagnostic
test would have contained the disease and thereby prevented further
infections. Dr Narang continued to push for its implementation and to
gather further evidence on new variant CJD. He was the first scientist to
use the urine test to identify CJD cases in young persons, which had been
missed by the neurologists.
Meanwhile, other scientists were persuaded to add their voices to the
BSE/CJD link such as neuropathologist Helen Grant, Professor Richard Lacy,
Stephen Dealler and Marja Hovi, but all to no avail. The Government
continued to insist there was no link between BSE and CJD.
Dr Narang was portrayed as a ‘loose cannon’ and eventually
suspended from his post of clinical virologist at PHSL in 1992, under
dubious circumstances. He was made redundant in 1994. Dr Narang was then
able to make his findings public and the story appeared in The Mail on
Sunday in December 1995. This forced the British Government into a U-turn
and it was at this point that they chose to recognise Dr Narang’s
findings and to finally admit the direct link between BSE and CJD.
The BSE crisis continues to this day and is in itself a reflection of
the uneasy relationships between science and government and between
science and industry. BSE continues to pose a problem for the British meat
industry abroad and will continue to do so until such time that the
infective agent is eradicated not only from cattle but also from other
farm animals such as sheep and birds. However, the British government
still fails to recognise the biological nature of the infectious agent
responsible for BSE.
Dr Narang has published all his findings in peer reviewed scientific
journals on the nature of the infectious agent of BSE. The infectious
agent is a slow acting virus that consists of a single stranded (ss) DNA
genome which is associated with the prion protein. Furthermore, the agent
is transmitted maternally from cow to calf via the ssDNA. Without the
implementation of a diagnostic test, maternal transmission has gone
unchecked. This means that the infectious agent may still be widespread
within British livestock while thousands of perfectly healthy cattle may
have been destroyed unnecessarily. Dr Narang has also suggested the need
to develop a vaccine against BSE and new variant CJD.
In 1997, the Medical Research Council (MRC) agreed to evaluate Dr Narang’s
diagnostic test (western blotting/ELISA equipment) and set up a special
CJD urine test-committee to oversee his work. The National CJD
Surveillance Unit at Edinburgh was asked to provide Dr Narang with 20
blind samples of urine, 10 samples from CJD cases and 10 from non-CJD
cases, so as to evaluate the test.
However, the National CJD Surveillance Unit failed to provide the urine
samples in the form requested. The test therefore has not been evaluated
by the MRC and no CJD diagnostic test is in use to this day, making it
impossible to monitor the actual number of CJD cases. Dr Narang has found
it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to get funding for
scientific research in this country. He has been forced to pursue his
endeavours abroad.
Dr Narang has published two important books on BSE/CJD: ‘Death on
the Menu", a first hand account of the level of devastation that CJD
brought upon the lives of it’s victims and their families. And ‘The
Link’, which explains, in detail, the history, incidence,
epidemiology and pathology of spongiform ecephalopathy diseases, from
scrapie in sheep, to BSE in cows, to CJD in humans…
Dr Narang’s experience is similar to that of other scientists who
acted with integrity and social responsibility. Professor Arpad Pusztai,
formerly senior scientist of the publicly funded Rowett Institute was also
made redundant and vilified by the mainstream scientific community for
making public scientific findings, which were unfavourable to the biotech
industry. Thankfully, there is still a substantial community of
independent scientists in the world for whom integrity and social
responsibility are paramount.
Dr Narang and Professor Pusztai both belong to a group of more than 100
scientists from 23 different countries all over the world who have signed
onto a the World Scientists’ Statement launched in Cartegena,
Columbia, during the UN Convention of Biological Diversity Conference on
the International Biosafety Protocol Feb 1999, calling on all governments
to:
- Impose an immediate moratorium on further environmental releases of
transgenic crops, food and animal-feed products for at least five years.
- Ban patents on living organisms, cell lines and genes.
- Support a comprehensive, independent public enquiry into the future
of agriculture and food security for all, taking account of the full
range of scientific findings as well as socio-economic and ethical
implications.
The British government has lost control over GM crops in animal feed.
There is no appropriate regulation governing the safety of GM animal feed
and no legal labelling regime. Mr Blair’s policy of consumer choice
is rendered meaningless due to the failure of excluding GM material from
animal feed.
Europe has successfully resisted imports of US hormone treated beef and
rBST milk products despite WTO, GATT and EU treaties and agreements. We
can therefore call upon our government to resist the import of GM food and
GM animal feed products destined for our food chain.
GMOs
Genetically Modified Food and Animal Feed
By Dr Harash Narang
Genetic modification has been presented to us as a key solution for
solving food shortages and feeding the hungry. Biotechnology companies
promote their products as safe, healthy and environmentally friendly.
However, such companies compete vigorously with one another, racing to get
their GM products onto the market in order to avoid being left behind.
Furthermore, the European Union presently funds major research programmes
into genetic engineering for it is considered a source of great economic
growth. More and more university based research groups now depend on
funding from industry that supports their own interests rather than
science. This has compromised scientific research as well as the
credibility of science and scientists; consequently society is put at risk
with regard to health and safety.
>Our food should be treated with the utmost respect. It should have a
high nutritional value and be free from infection and damaging chemicals.
Consumers need to know the basic principles of genetic modification in
order to make informed choices regarding GM food. Food is what fuels our
bodies and if it is good our bodies will work well but if it is bad, our
bodies will suffer.
We are now dependent on a multi-million pound international food
industry which has grown ever more powerful with the advent of modern day
shopping culture. The GM food industry has its own scientific experts and
all these experts speak with one voice and are constantly assuring us that
GM food is safe to eat. They will certainly not spend any time, money or
effort into research, which may prove otherwise. The fundamental safety
issues are not being addressed, but are being swept under the carpet and
avoided.
Governments add to this problem by protecting and defending the
industry, which makes large donations to their election funds. Lord
Sainsbury, Minister for Science, recently donated £2 million to the
labour party, in an obvious conflict of interest. Sainsbury has strong
connections with the biotechnology industry and is patentee of genetic
material used in GM foods. Furthermore, the Sainsbury Laboratory, a
forerunner in research into GM foods, receives substantial funding through
government grants.
We are told that everything is under control and evidence is being
gathered but when scientific findings run contra to biotechnology
interests the scientists who present those findings are gagged e.g. the
recent Pusztai affair. The political power that the industry commands
should not be underestimated. In the absence of adequate labelling, we
have been given no choice in the matter of GM food and are being used as
guinea pigs in an uncontrolled experiment.
It should be a fundamental human right to know what we are being fed and
the effects it will have on our health. We need to understand enough of GM
food science so as to grasp the environmental dangers and health risks
attached to the products we consume and feed to our livestock.
I am no stranger to GM science. I conducted gene modification
experiments from my laboratory as part of an investigation into CJD and
BSE. I am very conscious of health and safety, and nothing has ever been
used for human or animal consumption or released into the environment from
my laboratory. Nevertheless the Public Health Laboratory Service Board
ordered me to stop all work on genetic engineering the BSE agent, fearing
I might create a ‘super’ bug. I am, therefore, qualified to
discuss genetic modification without being guilty of a mere sentimental
aversion to the technology.
Traditionally, growers and scientists have used crossbreeding for
thousands of years. But today we are introducing genes, which are capable
of producing insecticides and herbicide-tolerant chemicals in our food. We
are incorporating genes from animal sources into non-meat products.
Under pressure to promote their products, scientists from biotechnology
companies claim GM food is safe. But we’ve heard these sorts of
assurances before.
We have all already eaten GM food, and increasingly, industry and
governments realise that consumer confidence is central to the successful
promotion of GM products. That confidence demands credible answers to some
simple questions.
- Is GM Food Safe?
- What is being introduced in GM foods?
- Would only those who eat the food be affected by the genetic
modification
- How would GM crops affect the environment?
Marker Genes
Genetic modification is a random process and highly imprecise. Fewer
that 1 in ever 1000 or even 1 in every 100,000 cells is modified during
the process itself. It is therefore necessary to identify those cells
which have been modified. This entails a technique, which is crucial, but
little commented on. To identify the modified cells, and for this reason
only, an extra ‘marker gene’ is added. This is a passenger gene
and it is carried along with the one for improvement, growth, pesticide
resistance or whatever desired characteristic one is trying to introduce.
Almost all marker genes used in GM are antibiotic resistance genes and
they work by producing a chemical that reacts with antibiotics to protect
the GM cells from the harmful effects of the antibiotic. The marker gene
will be active only in those cells, which have been genetically modified,
and therefore the modified cells can be selected by growing these cells in
the presence of the antibiotic. This is how GM cells are sorted from
non-GM cells. Therefore all GM products contain a gene that produces the
desired trait and something that overcomes the antibiotic, an anti-antibiotic.
The biotechnology companies claim that the quantities produced are too
small to damage human health. But in laboratory conditions, these modified
cells continue to grow when the antibiotic concentration is higher that
that used to treat patients. Furthermore, they produce more that enough of
the anti-antibiotic product to pass resistance on to neighbouring
unmodified cells. Therefore GM food may contain ‘anti-antibiotic’
chemicals in abundance and these chemicals may also confer resistance on
other strains of bacteria that would normally be killed by antibiotics.
Furthermore, antibiotic resistance genes have the potential to spread in
our environment via horizontal gene transfer to other bacteria. In this
process, the genetic material, DNA, is directly transferred to unrelated
species, which may result in new strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
It is known that DNA from GM material can persist in the environment and
is not completely broken down by either processing, decomposition or
digestion. Both GM plant materials used in silage and manure from animals
fed with GM feed may contain fragments of DNA bearing antibiotic
resistance genes. Antibiotic resistance genes may escape from both silage
and manure to bacteria in the gut and in the environment. GM animal feed
serves to greatly increase the potential for new strains of antibiotic
resistant bacteria.
How may this affect humans?
A child who becomes host to such an antibiotic resistant bacteria would
be at an increased risk of developing a disease, such as meningitis, and
of passing on both infection and drug resistance to other children,
whether or not they had eaten GM food or not. The world already faces the
threat of multi-drug resistant bacteria; surely an environment rich in
anti-antibiotics is one to be avoided.
"Useful Genes"
So far "useful genes" have remained hypothetical, except for
those prolonging the shelf life of tomatoes which do not benefit consumers
at all. Ordinary potatoes consist mostly of starch. It is claimed that GM
potatoes can be produced to contain 20% protein. To the consumer, these
two types of potato would be indistinguishable, posing a problem for those
who need to know the caloric value of their food. A bigger threat is for
those who cannot tolerate high protein diets. But how active is this
protein gene?
On a microscopic level, such a protein gene would have to be abnormally
active during growth for the potato to have such a protein boost. Of the
total weight, 20% is additional protein produced by the inserted gene. But
remember, along side the protein gene may be the marker gene producing the
anti-antibiotic product. How much anti-antibiotic product will be
produced compared to the 20% additional protein? This question remains
unanswered. Such investigations have not been carried out and we simple
don’t know.
Insecticide and Herbicide Tolerance Genes
Almost all GM crops now available have been modified to protect them
from insects and or herbicides by inserting insecticide and
herbicide-tolerance genes. Revealingly, less is known about the
insecticide and herbicide-tolerance chemicals, as well as herbicide
residues that we can expect to consume from these plants engineered. Such
chemicals may not have noticeable effects on adults but for children, the
effects may be more serious.
The major insecticides used are Bt toxins isolated from the soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Suspensions of the bacterium
have been used by organic farmer as an occasional spray to control pests.
The GM plants, however will be producing this insecticide continuously in
all parts of the plant, including pollen and nectar. Studies have shown
that the monarch butterfly and lacewings are harmed by this toxin as well
as bees. Bee honey will also be contaminated, harming the next generation
of bees, which will feed on it in the hive. Humans who eat such honey will
also be affected.
Furthermore, the Bt toxin is released from transgenic plants directly
into the soil, where it cannot be broken down by sunlight, as is the case
when organic farmers use bacterial suspension. It cannot be broken down by
soil microbes and will therefore build up in the soil and will have
harmful effects on soil insects. As the population of butterflies and bees
drop sharply this will have a dramatic effect on the rate of pollination.
The level of biodiversity will be reduced by the widespread use of such GM
crops.
Build up of toxic chemicals in the body
Many chemicals taken in by the body cannot be excreted. Therefore, their
concentration will increase over time. Such a build up of insecticide and
herbicide residues in our bodies may be enough to produce cancerous
effects. There is also evidence to suggest that such chemicals are
excreted in mother’s milk, which will not be good for baby.
Herbicide residues in food are already a serious issue.
Herbicide-tolerant GM crops are engineered to be tolerant to
broad-spectrum herbicides which kill all other species of plants
indiscriminately. Insects, birds and mammals, which depend on those
plants, will also die out. These herbicides will have drastic effects on
biodiversity.
GM companies engineer crops to be tolerant to their own herbicide.
Studies on glufosinate, one such herbicide, shows that when ingested by
pregnant females it causes birth defects and defeats in behaviour and
learning in offspring. Furthermore, fathers exposed to glufosinate also
gave birth to children with birth defects while exposure to most other
pesticides did not cause such effects. Glyphosate, another broad-spectrum
herbicide contained in a formulation commonly known as Roundup Ready, has
been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Claims by officials that the
herbicides used with GM crops have no harmful side effects are false.
What have we Learned?
Fundamental safety assessments regarding GMOs have yet to be carried
out, including comprehensive feeding and environmental impact assessments.
The present generation of GM crops may indeed have adverse affects on the
organisms that consume them. They contain antibiotic resistance marker
genes and in addition, some are producing harmful insecticides in high
doses in every single cell. Toxic herbicides are used with
herbicide-tolerant GM crops and over time, these products will build up in
our environment affecting both human and animal health. Any increase in
antibiotic resistant bacteria or any additional harm to our already
troubled biodiversity or any more build up of carcinogenic chemicals in
our bodies, is to be avoided at all costs if we are to secure a
sustainable future for coming generations.
In my view, the current generation of GM crops are unacceptable in terms
of risks to health and biodiversity. A five year moratorium will give time
for vital research to be conducted so as to overcome the above mentioned
hazards of GM crops.
I have given you some fundamental principles of genetically modified
food science. Based on this knowledge it is up to you to decide whether GM
food is safe to eat and whether it is justifiable to continue with the
field trials of these GM crops.
| 
