[Pil-pc-oceania] Fwd: The good news is ...

[Robyn Williamson]

(1) The application by University of Leeds for consent to release a  
transgenic potato into the open environment for a field trial has  
been rejected until potential toxicity is fully investigated and  
reported, and taken into account (Prof. Joe Cummins)

(2)  A moral victory:  Percy Schmeiser wins small claims court case  
against Monsanto (the Globe & Mail, Canada)

Begin forwarded message:

> From: SANET-MG automatic digest system <LISTSERV at LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
> Date: 23 March 2008 3:00:13 PM
>
> From: jcummins <jcummins at UWO.CA>
> Subject: transgenic potatoes kill nematodes and?
>
> ISIS Press Release 19/03/08
> Transgenic Potato Not to be Released
> Prof. Joe Cummins
>
> A version of this article was submitted to Advisory Committee on  
> Releases to the Environment (ACRE) 4 March 2008 on behalf of ISIS.
>
> The University of Leeds Centre for Plant Sciences submitted an  
> application to release genetically modified (GM) potatoes to the  
> open environment for a field trial [1]. The transgenic potato  
> plants have been produced using Agrobacterium tumefaciens. All  
> constructs have the selectable marker gene for neomycin required  
> only for selection of transgenic lines for evaluation and according  
> to the application, “known to be biosafe as used.” The potato will  
> express a cysteine proteinase inhibitor (cystatin) from rice and/or  
> a repellent of synthetic origin. Both confer resistance to potato  
> cyst-nematodes. Cystatins limit growth of the nematode while the  
> repellent prevents the nematodes from entering the roots of the  
> potato. Their expression will be under the control of CaMV35S  
> promoter from Cauliflower mosaic virus for constitutive expression,  
> or promoters that restrict expression to roots. The root specific  
> promoters used are from a serine threonine kinase (ARSK1) and the  
> MDK420 gene of Arabidopsis thaliana; they provide expression in  
> roots and at root tips respectively. A signal sequence from the  
> Calreticulin gene of Nicotiana plumbaginifoli are used in lines  
> expressing the repellent to favour its release from root. The nos  
> terminator sequence from Agrobacterium tumefaciens terminates  
> transcription of gene sequences. Six strains of GM potatoes are to  
> be tested: constitutive cysatin, root specific cystatin, root tip  
> repellent, constitutive repellent, root tip repellent plus root tip  
> specific cystatin. and constitutive repellent plus root specific  
> cystatin.
>
> Cystatin
> The cystatin modified potatoes have been studied extensively  
> according to the application for consent [1]. The safety of the  
> protease inhibitor in transgenic potato in the human diet was  
> evaluated in a small rat feeding study [2]. The inhibitor caused a  
> small but significant decrease in the weight of the animals’ liver,  
> but there were few other detectable impacts at the levels of  
> inhibitor studied.
>
> The application for consent failed to mention that that there have  
> been numerous studies published in the medical literature showing  
> that risk of heart failure, atherosclerosis and nephropathy were  
> marked by elevated cystatin blood levels [3-5]. It is presently  
> unclear whether or not elevated cystatin causes kidney damage, or  
> whether it results from kidney pathology of another origin. At any  
> rate, it is unwise to ignore evidence showing that greatly  
> elevating the plant source of cystatin could be harmful to humans.
>
> Cystatin has been found damaged and reduced in activity upon  
> exposure to a common fungicide sodium diethyl dithiocarbamate  
> (Mancozeb) [6]. Carbamate pesticides are used extensively, which  
> may negate the effectiveness of the modified potato’s defence  
> against nematodes.
>
> Synthetic Repellent
> The gene and the peptide that it produces are not fully or well  
> described in the consent application [1]. Additional information  
> was provided [7], which clarified some of the properties of the  
> repellent. However, neither document gave a clear description of  
> the repellent synthetic peptide and its synthetic gene. Little  
> actual information was provided on the organization of the gene and  
> the messenger RNA and the processing of the peptide in the potato  
> cell. Such information is necessary. The mode of action of the  
> synthetic peptide was also not clearly stated in the original  
> application and a brief description was given in additional  
> information [7].
>
> A publication from the Leeds group described producing a peptide in  
> potato to disrupt cyst nematodes, and compared the mode of action  
> of the peptide to an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor aldicarb [8].  
> Aldicarb is a toxic pesticide slated for withdrawal from EU.  
> However, the additional information document [7] compared the  
> synthetic peptide in the application to the anthelminic levamisole,  
> an inhibitor of the nicotinic acetylcholinesterase receptor [9].  
> The synthetic peptide excreted from the potato root paralyses the  
> nematode preventing it from invading the potato. Both of the  
> documents of the application for consent [1,7] measure the peptide  
> in plant and soil by its ability to inhibit an enzyme. However, the  
> loss in ability to inhibit an enzyme does not necessarily mean that  
> the remains of the peptide are not toxic to mammals. Some study of  
> the toxicity of the breakdown products of the synthetic peptide  
> should have been done because such products may pollute ground  
> water. The synthetic peptide and its breakdown products should have  
> should have been studied fuller to determine whether or not they  
> are toxic to mammals.
>
> General considerations
> The application for consent included a discussion justifying the  
> use of the antibiotic neomycin resistance marker in the proposed  
> open field releases even though the antibiotic is still used in  
> medicine [1]. It stated that as the marker was used in food crops  
> released commercially in the North and South America it must be  
> safe. Such reasoning is unsound.
>
> The application for consent seems to have overlooked the important  
> question regarding the potential impact of the modified potatoes on  
> beneficial nematodes that control many insect pests described in  
> two major reviews [10, 11]. The elimination of a natural population  
> of such nematodes from the test site would increase the need for  
> extensive insecticide spraying. It would be wise to carry out an  
> inventory of these nematodes on the test site prior to commencing  
> the actual experiments, and to determine from the experiment  
> whether the loss of beneficial nematodes and the added cost of  
> controlling insect pests exceed the benefits of decreasing the  
> nematode pests.
>
> In conclusion, Consent should not be considered until the potential  
> toxicity (including immunogenicity) of the repellent and repellent  
> breakdown products are fully investigated and reported, and taken  
> into account.
>
> References
> 1. APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO RELEASE GMOs (FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN  
> MARKETING) UNDER THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (DELIBERATE  
> RELEASE) REGULATIONS 2002 – HIGHER PLANTSCentre for Plant Sciences  
> University of Leeds Control of potato cyst-nematodes with minimised  
> environmental impact 2008
>
> 2. Atkinson HJ, Johnston KA, Robbins M. Prima facie evidence that a  
> phytocystatin for transgenic plant resistance to nematodes is not a  
> toxic risk in the human diet. J Nutr. 2004, 134(2), :431-4.
>
> 3. Niccoli G, Conte M, Bona RD, Altamura L, Siviglia M, Dato I,  
> Ferrante G, Leone AM, Porto I, Burzotta F, Brugaletta S, Biasucci  
> LM, Crea F. Cystatin C is associated with an increased coronary  
> atherosclerotic burden and a stable plaque phenotype in patients  
> with ischemic heart disease and normal glomerular filtration rate.  
> Atherosclerosis. 2007 Nov 3 [Epub ]
>
> 4. Lee BW, Ihm SH, Choi MG, Yoo HJ. The comparison of cystatin C  
> and creatinine as an accurate serum marker in the prediction of  
> type 2 diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007, 78(3), : 
> 428-34.
>
> 5. Djoussé L, Kurth T, Gaziano JM. Cystatin C and risk of heart  
> failure in the Physicians' Health Study (PHS). Am Heart J. 2008, 155 
> (1), 82-6.
>
>
> 6. Sharma S, Rashid F, Bano B. Biochemical and biophysical changes  
> induced by fungicide sodium diethyl dithiocarbamate (SDD), in  
> phytocystatin purified from Phaseolus mungo (Urd): a commonly used  
> Indian legume. J Agric Food Chem. 2005, 53(15), 6027-34
>
> 7. APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO RELEASE GMOs (FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN  
> MARKETING) UNDER THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (DELIBERATE  
> RELEASE) REGULATIONS 2002 – HIGHER PLANTS Defra Reference number 07/ 
> R31/1 Control of potato cyst-nematodes with minimised environmental  
> impact Additional information requested by DEFRA GM team 2008  
> regarding potato cyst-nematodes with minimised environmental impact
>
>
> 8. Liu B, Hibbard JK, Urwin PE, Atkinson HJ. The production of  
> synthetic chemodisruptive peptides in planta disrupts the  
> establishment of cyst nematodes. Plant Biotechnol J. 2005, 3(5)  
> 487-96.
>
> 9. Martin RJ, Robertson AP Mode of action of levamisole and  
> pyrantel, anthelmintic resistance, E153 and Q57. Parasitology 2007,  
> Pt 8, 1093-104.
>
> 10. Shapiro-Ilan1.D Entomopathogenic nematodes and insect  
> management Encyclopedia of Entomology 2004, 781-784 DOI  
> 10.1007/0-306-48380-7_1430
>
> 11. Klingen I, Haukeland S The soil as a reservoir for natural  
> enemies of pest insects and mites with emphasis on fungi and  
> nematodes. Progress in Biological Control An Ecological and  
> Societal Approach to Biological Control Volume 2 2006 145-211 DOI  
> 10.1007/1-4020-4401-1
>
> ********************************************************
>
> From: "P.I.N.A." <preservenapasag at SBCGLOBAL.NET>
> Date: 23 March 2008 5:29:59 AM
> Subject: Percy Schmeiser Wins Small Claims Court Case Against  
> Monsanto: A Moral Victory
>
>> The Globe and Mail (Canada) Thursday, March 20, 2008
>>
>> Grain Farmer Claims Moral Victory in Seed Battle Against Monsanto
>> by Matt Hartley
>>
>> Percy Schmeiser's decade-long legal odyssey has finally come to an  
>> end - and he's got a cheque for $660 to prove it.
>>
>> The 77-year-old Saskatchewan farmer and his wife, Louise, became  
>> international folk heroes for their legal struggle with  
>> agribusiness giant Monsanto Canada Inc., after the company sued  
>> them for violating its patent on genetically engineered canola  
>> seeds in 1997.
>>
>> Although the Schmeisers eventually wound up losing their court  
>> battle with the St. Louis-based company in a landmark Supreme  
>> Court of Canada decision in 2004, the couple have now earned a  
>> moral victory that they hope will encourage others to carry on  
>> their cause.
>>
>> Yesterday, Monsanto agreed to pay the Schmeisers $660 to settle a  
>> small-claims court case they brought against the company for costs  
>> associated with removing the patented Roundup Ready canola from  
>> their field in 2005.
>>
>> "After 10 years, finally justice has been served," Mr. Schmeiser  
>> said in an interview last night. "I really feel that if a farmer  
>> is now contaminated, he has a right to go after Monsanto for  
>> liability and to clean up the contamination. By settling out of  
>> court, Monsanto now realizes the seriousness of the liability issue."
>>
>> Monsanto agreed to pay the costs associated with removing the  
>> canola back in 2005. However, the Schmeisers refused the offer  
>> because the company insisted the couple sign a release stating  
>> they would never talk about the terms of the agreement.
>>
>> "That release form they sent us was a gag order," Mr. Schmeiser  
>> said. "We could never talk to anyone for the rest of our lives  
>> about what the terms of the settlement were. There was no way we  
>> were going to give up our freedom of speech to a corporation."
>>
>> Several other Western Canadian farmers have agreed to sign  
>> Monsanto's standard release form, including 16 in 2007, according  
>> to a statement issued by the firm yesterday. The Schmeisers' deal  
>> does not stop them from talking about the terms of the settlement.
>>
>> "Although we are pleased Mr. Schmeiser finally approached us and  
>> agreed to settlement terms, it is frustrating that he essentially  
>> accepted the same offer we put before him in 2005," Monsanto  
>> public affairs director Trish Jordan said. "This entire matter  
>> could have been resolved more than 2¦ years ago and Mr. Schmeiser  
>> would have saved himself some legal costs."
>>
>> The Schmeisers became international causes célèbres because of the  
>> David and Goliath nature of the case. Mr. Schmeiser has been  
>> invited to speak at universities and parliaments all over the  
>> world, and appearance fees have helped to pay for much of the  
>> couple's court costs. In December, they were awarded the Right  
>> Livelihood Award - unofficially considered to be the alternative  
>> Nobel Prize.
>>
>> The Schmeisers' saga began more than 10 years ago, when Monsanto  
>> sued them after plants grown from genetically modified canola  
>> seeds were found on the couple's farm near Bruno, Sask., about 90  
>> kilometres east of Saskatoon.
>>
>> The company said the Schmeisers violated its patent on the seeds,  
>> which had been genetically modified to resist Monsanto-brand  
>> herbicide, and that the couple knowingly planted them without  
>> paying the technology fees. Monsanto's claim sought damages  
>> totalling $400,000.
>>
>> But the Schmeisers denied using the Monsanto seeds, arguing that  
>> the seeds blew onto their property from a nearby road or  
>> neighbouring farms.
>>
>> In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favour of Monsanto,  
>> stating that plant genes and modified cells can be patented.  
>> Although the Schmeisers lost the case, the court ruled they did  
>> not have to pay damages.
>>
>> The following year, more of the genetically modified canola  
>> appeared on the Schmeisers' farm. They pulled it out themselves  
>> and sent Monsanto a bill for $660.
>>
>> Mr. Schmeiser doesn't grow canola on his farm any more, only wheat  
>> and oats, and he rents out most of the land to other farmers.  
>> Although he said he's looking forward to spending more time with  
>> his family, he hopes the fight to bring awareness to the issues  
>> surrounding genetically modified foods will continue.
>>
>> "This is a great victory for farmers all over the world," he said.  
>> "Now they have at least an opportunity to have some recourse on a  
>> corporation when they are contaminated."
>>
>> © 2008 The Globe and Mail
>
> "An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard- 
> of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish  
> that mine had not been guilty of it."
> -- Erwin Chargoff, eminent biochemist who is often referred to as  
> the father of molecular biology, writing about genetic engineering
>
> ********************************************************

Robyn Williamson
Education Team
Permaculture Sydney West
Ph/Fx:   02 9629 3560
Mobile:  0409 151 435