Hello listees all
Greetings from the Antipodes. I'm an amateur beekeeper of
1 decade's experience; a rtd academic (Biochemistry, then Environmental
Studies); and sometime 12-y advisor to successive Ministers of Health on
poisons (on the Toxic Substances Board).
I think GM is more menacing to bees, and to other organisms, than
would be suggested by the post on which I insert comments.
>As I take keyboard in hand to respond to this, I'm admonished by the
>descriptive title of this list: notably "Informed." With the
>understanding that this topic is not strictly "beekeeping," but
>acknowledging that bees and beekeepers may well be affected by GM'd
>plants; and that, while I read a lot and have thought a lot about the
>issue of GM'd plants but claim no expertise at all; then perhaps the
>monitors will let this through. I do think someone has to point out
>that
>there's a lot of uninformed lather being raised about a very important
>topic. As a group we can't afford to be swept up by the hysteria which
>already is rampant.
Fair enough; but in my observation, the more drastic falsehoods
come from the pro-GE PR operatives, not from the sometimes overenthusiastic
critics.
>1) The statement that there's no conceivable danger from pollen of GM'd
>plants has no basis. There may be no appreciable danger, but we don't
>know it yet.
Well put. The question then becomes, who has the onus to prove
anything? If the sceptics have to prove actual harm, there isn't much yet;
but if the proponents have to prove that the danger is very low, they
haven't even tried with relevant tests.
> [A possible danger is severe allergic reaction to a
>component one might not expect to find in pollen. GM, as opposed to
>cloning or strict breeding reginmens which are, in themselves, a form of
>GM, may incorporate components from sources even outside the plant
>world.
>By way of analogy, otherwise benign/helpful vaccines can be deadly to
>people allergic to eggs if that's the medium on which the vaccine is
>produced; someone allergic to Salmon _might_ be adversely affected if a
>gene from that fish shows up in peanut butter or vice versa.]
This is reasonable theorising; and there are a few tests which show
that such possibilities are not merely theoretical.
>2) Some GM'd plants apparently do produce chemicals which are toxic to
>pests. They may also be toxic to other forms of life and probably are
>toxic to some pollinators, managed ones or not. On it's face, this
>would
>be a bad thing. Rumors about Sunflowers come to mind.
Those rumours haven't reached me. What has reached any scientist
seriously interested in this issue is the 1-page paper in Nature by Losey
et al. (1999) ' Transgenic pollen harms monarch
larvae' Nature 399, 214). Monarch-butterfly caterpillars eating leaves
dusted with a GM-maize pollen were - nearly 50% - killed, and the
survivors stunted, compared with the identical experiment using ordinary
maize pollen in which none were harmed.
>3) Some GM'd plants are specifically immune to certain herbicides. What
>part of the plant and what mechanism renders the plant immune, I haven't
>the foggiest. I am not reassured that anyone has done the work. But
>frankly, toxicity isn't my immediate concern (see below).
'Resistant' is a better term than 'immune' - it's a matter of
degree of susceptibility to the herbicide.
The mechanisms of these resistances are known, in outline at least.
What is not known is whether there are other unintended effects of these
transgenic expts.
>4) Not all GM'd plants are sterile. In fact, soy beans, rape seeds, corn,
>and rice, are not sterile: the producer requires an enforceable contract
>which doesn't permit the use of saved seeds. That ruinous bit of
>leverage is, for me, prima facia evidence that the seed is viable and that it
>must retain its GM'd trait(s).
>
>In my view, hyperbole is coming from all sides on the issue of GM'd
>life forms. Not for a moment would I suggest we stop the research. But
>I'd surely reorganize it and enforce strict controls over it and the
>results.
I have personally always taken the same attitude since I became
concerned about GE soon after its invention.
>a) I would prohibit the release of any GM'd plant stock until independent
>researchers, free of any funding by any interested party had cleared the
>plant of any possible adverse effect on other plants, animals, insects
>(other than target pests), people, and the economy of food production.
What could be more reasonable?
What could be more different from what has actually happened?
>Keep in mind that I claim no expertise: "Golden Rice" which contains
>pharmeceutically significant amounts of Beta-carotene not normally
>present in the grain, is
>about to be released on the world. The "inventor," the owner,
>distributor, all of them, have agreed there is overwhelming humanitarian
>good to be done by giving the grain to populations which are otherwise
>deficient in this vitamin. It is felt that certain forms of blindness
>can be cured or controlled if the supplement is provided cheaply. Has
>anyone asked what effect overdoses of Beta-carotene will have on birds and
>seed
>eating mammals which will encounter it in the field? Haven't heard of
>any research. Before migrating fowl is killed off by a gracious gesture, I
>think we should know.
This ecologically-aware attitude is incompatible with the
time-scale of the commercial deployments.
Birth defects have certainly been caused in humans by excessive
dosages of vitA.
This 'golden rice', a tour de force of GE to date, has not just one gene
but all those for a small metabolic pathway inserted. The unforeseen
effects have yet to be sought.
>b) Plants which are GM'd to produce toxins to repel or kill certain
>pests, in addition to having unintended impact on related (or not) benign
>species, will be doling out uncontrolled dosages. How long will it be
>before the target pest(s) develop immunity to the toxins?
This has been a main concern all along regarding crops GEd to
produce systemically a modified version of the protein toxin of _Bacillus
thuringiensis_ (Bt for short). See www.ucsusa.org. There is no doubt that
resistant pests will arise.
> Can these
>plants pass the GM'd trait to related species?
Lateral gene-transfer is also a main concern.
> If so what impact will
>that have on insects which are reliant on those plants? Once the genie is
>out of the bottle, there will be no putting back.
Here we come to one of the most serious and intractable threats -
irreversibility.
Prince Charles has emphasised this point.
>c) Plants which are GM'd to be resistant to specific herbicides, thereby
>permitting farmers to apply broad spectrum herbicides even after the
>economic crop has emerged, should they cross with non-economic plants
>(weeds in some contexts), may spawn a plague of destruction which cannot
>be controlled. Before any such seed is released, these questions must
>be exhaustively researched.
In my opinion this is a relatively minor concern. There is no
suggestion that a Roundup-resistant weed will thereby be also resistant to
other herbicides, so the conventional answer is just to resort to a
different herbicide for those weeds (which are already real, not
theoretical).
>Someone has already said that scientists can no longer be trusted.
>That's a broad statement which rings of truth. In my view, what passes for
>science under the control of well-financed vendors, has confused almost
>everyone by dispensing with peer review, the scientific method, and by
>politicizing the research process. Through effective advertising, those
>same vendors sell the resulting pseudo-science at the expense of others
>who do real objective science an much smaller budgets.
Superbly put, and worthy of wide dissemination. As a scientist I
grieve at this state of degradation.
>By its very nature, production of GM'd species is dangerous. GM'ing
>doesn't allow nature time to discard the mistakes. The potential exists
>to overwhelm established species with engineered ones which are
>successful in the short run. I don't believe we have the experience
>yet, possibly the wisdom, and certainly not the knowledge to predict all the
>consequences which may fall out.
Correct.
>Finally, as a group which stands to be adversely affected by chemical
>and biological manipulation, it behooves us to object reasonably to
>experimentation outside the lab. We can tell true tales about escaped
>experiments, can't we? And can't the Aussies speak about rabbits and
>dingoes? And then the grandaddy of them all: Spielberg can tell us
>about velociraptors....
>
>We can offer guidance and support to our governments which will have to
>stand up to some very strong multi-national economic forces. But if we
>don't come up with realistic adverse scenarios which can be subjected to
>independent and rigorous scientific testing, money will eventually
>overwhelm hysteria.
True enough; but the situation now is that several 'adverse
scenarios' have been proposed and studiously ignored.
> As a case in point, there has been some exhaustive
>testing on the use of radiation to kill pathogens in food.
I wish it were so. The testing has not been exhaustive, but there
has been enough to put the US Army (the main funder of that research) right
off. The leader of the main research group, at UC Davis, has pronounced
food irradiation 'infeasible'.
> Some
>countries permit it now, some don't. In those that don't, largely uninformed
>public hysteria, unwilling to acknowledge the scientific research has
>succeeded
>in at least delaying implementation of a valuable public health tool and
>have co-opted the political process to overrule the science. But
>quietly, the food industry has begun to use the process on foods which
>comprise
>the margins of our diet. Sooner or later they will prevail on a larger
>scale.
The way things are going, I'm afraid you're right. But I can
assure you that, contrary to what you've been told, food irradiation is
NOT alright.
>Thanks for your indulgence. The issue will affect us even though it does
>seem to be tangential to beekeeping.
It could become not tengential but central, if the threats implied
by the Cornell expts come home to bees in the form of toxic pollen fed to
our grubs.
Varroa mite has just arrived in my country, and we are immersed in
appraisal of whether to attempt eradication. Our dear friend _Apis
mellifera_ is of extreme ecological and economic importance, but cannot
speak for itself, so we had better advocate on its behalf along the lines
of the above sketch.
R
-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949
|
