1. Increased allergy risk

Claim: "Genetically modified foods trigger allergies.

"The facts: Genetic modification does not result in a rise in the incidence of food allergies. Genetic modification is used to transfer individual genes with known properties from one organism to a known recipient organism, which permits any allergenic potential to be reliably evaluated. In comparison, our immune systems has in the past been challenged by thousands of new proteins, when we first ate vegetable products newly introduced into Europe, such as potatoes, rice, maize, grapes, or more recently, exotic fruits such as papayas or kiwis.
When genetically modified foods are going through the official approval procedure, the applicant must present numerous safety studies that demonstrate the safety of the food from the health perspective. These studies include investigations into the allergenic risk potential. According to current data, there is no increased risk of allergic reactions to GM crop plants that have been approved to date. Neither do the genes and, respectively, proteins (herbicide tolerances and antibiotic resistances, insecticidal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis, or viral proteins) that have been employed so far originate from sources with a known allergenic potential, nor has the comparison with known allergens revealed any similarities.
Most of the proteins in question were already part of our diet.Genetic-modification methods may contribute towards avoiding food allergies by allowing allergens to be deactivated or completely eliminated. Efforts in this regard have been made in Japan, for example, with rice, which contains a protein that triggers an allergic reaction in predisposed Japanese people. These efforts have as yet, however, not produced any significant success.
Genetic modification is also very helpful in elucidating the causes of allergies. A number of drugs to combat allergies have already been developed; these are currently undergoing clinical trials.

2. Safety of field experiments

Claim: "Field experiments are dangerous, since no-one can reliably predict the consequences.

"The facts: There are a number of laws and regulations in the EU that form the basis for the conduct of a release experiment (field experiment). Those of particular interest at the European level are Directives 90/219/EEC and 90/220/EEC (revised and renamed Directive 2001/18). While the former governs the handling of GMOs in closed environments such as laboratories ("contained use"), the latter is applied to the intentional, planned release of GMOs ("deliberate release").
Strict observance of these directives excludes, as far as humanly possible, any risk associated with the release of GMOs into the environment. An application for a release is approved by the responsible national authority only when all prescribed experiments and tests previously conducted in the laboratory have shown that risk for humans and animals can be excluded. The documentation dossier to be presented by the applicant must contain all relevant data, including the type of genetic modification, its effect on the recipient organism, and the biological safety of the GMO. A whole range of other institutions must also declare their approval.
Only then can a license of approval be issued. The public is informed about all licenses that are granted.
Experience gained to date confirms that the step-by-step procedure from laboratory to greenhouse and then into the open fields provides the highest possible degree of safety. In none of more than 20,000 field studies that have been conducted worldwide has it been possible to discern any deleterious effect on humans, animals, or the environment.

3. Gene transfer from crop plants to wild plants

Claim: "Danish researchers have shown that rape seed transgenes can outcross to wild plants. If herbicide tolerance genes can be transferred from crops to weeds, this can result in the emergence of a "super weed". This goes to show how hazardous transgenic plants are for the environment.

"The facts: The gene transfer reported here is based on the following scientific experiment: Danish scientists (Mikkelsen et al., 1996) incorporated a gene into rape seed plants (Brassica napus). Pollen from these transgenic rapeseed plants pollinated one of the forms of wild rape (Brassica campestris). The researchers grew reproductively viable descendants from these hybrid forms and backcrossed them with wild rape. The gene incorporated in the crops - a tolerance gene against the herbicide Liberty - was thus transferred to a closely related plant species within two generations. In addition, Scottish scientists (Scheffler et al., 1995) have reported that oilseed rape pollen is transported by the wind over greater distances that was hitherto assumed. Both teams recommend that these observations be given due consideration in the safety assessment of herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape.
However, they go on to emphasize that wild rape is a plant that grows only in conjunction with the agricultural cultivation of oilseed rape, meaning that the newly introduced gene would not spread from the agricultural into the natural ecosystem.
Thus if one were to plant herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape in the field, it might happen that wild rape develops a tolerance towards the herbicide in question if it were to adopt the herbicide-tolerance gene, and it would not be possible to use the herbicide in question to effectively contain wild rape. This notwithstanding, it is highly probable that the wild rape would forfeit this herbicide tolerance again, since the herbicide tolerance is of benefit for the plant only in locations where the herbicide is actually employed. When the herbicide is not used, the property of herbicide tolerance no longer constitutes a selective advantage, with the result that it disappears in subsequent generations.
The crossing between crops and closely related wild plants is a phenomenon that has been known to science for a long time. The conclusion from the results of the experiments that the cultivation of transgenic plants is principally dangerous is irrational. Based on the possibility of crossing with wild plants, we would have to subclassify crops into various categories. There are several crops (e.g. maize, tomatoes, potatoes) that do not have any wild relatives in our region, precluding the possibility of out-crossing. At the other extreme, in the case of alfalfa, the exchange of genetic material with related wild plants is a phenomenon that occurs frequently.
Plants such as the sugar beet or oilseed rape lie between these two extremes. In the case of the latter two, careful investigations would be needed to ascertain whether the new gene acquired from the crop plant would confer a competitive advantage on the wild plant.

4. Bt maize -effects of antibiotic resistance markers

Claim: "The ingestion of transgenic maize from Novartis results in the transfer of the ampicillin resistance gene to bacteria in the digestive tract of humans and animals. This leads to the bacteria becoming resistant towards ampicillin, which then forfeits its efficacy. This may result in diseases currently treated with ampicillin turning into serious medical problems. According to a report by the WHO, there are more and more resistant pathogens emerging worldwide that can hardly be effectively treated any more.

"The facts: All currently available scientific findings contradict the claim that the ampicillin-resistance gene used in Bt maize (bla gene -> TEM1 b-lactamase) has a negative impact on medical treatment of humans or animals.

1. The stomach forms a natural barrier that effectively deactivates (digests) genes taken up in nutrition. The probability that active antibiotic-resistance genes enter the intestine at all, is extremely small.
   

2. The probability that bacteria take up intact ampicillin-resistance genes and incorporate them into their own genetic repertoire is extremely small.
   

3. Even if such a gene transfer were to take place, the probability that the ampicillin-resistance gene is transcribed into the corresponding protein is extremely small.
   

Even if all these improbabilities were to take place in serial combination, it would not make a significant difference: the ampicillin-resistance gene is already widespread in the natural environment, even without the contribution of Bt maize.
Also, widespread resistance has long since been counteracted by the development of new antibiotics, with the result that this does not constitute a medical problem: there are a range of antibiotic substances available by which bacteria that produce this type of b-lactamase can be effectively contained.Calgene produced a related study based on the kanamycin resistance gene used in the production of the in the FlavrSavr® tomato. A so-called "worst-case scenario" was calculated based on optimal (and hence unrealistic) conditions for the transfer of the kanamycin-resistance gene to intestinal bacteria. The results obtained indicate an increase in the number of kanamycin-resistant intestinal bacteria by 0.00001% due to the ingestion of such tomatoes. The figures for ampicillin are similar in magnitude.
Antibiotic-resistance genes - including the ampicillin-resistance gene - are widespread in nature. Bacteria exchange these genes with each other by a special mechanism called conjugation. Resistance towards specific antibiotics - a very serious medical problem - does not, result so much from the presence of a resistance gene, but to a far greater extent from the use of the antibiotic itself.
When an antibiotic is frequently used, all non-resistant bacteria perish, and only the resistant ones are capable of surviving. These then go on to proliferate rapidly, and since subsequent generations also bear the resistance gene the end result is the emergence of a resistant population within a relatively short space of time.
The fact that antibiotic resistance is spreading - as correctly reported by the WHO - is the consequence of intensive (in some cases abusive) use of antibiotics in human medicine and animal feed, but not of the use of genetically modified plants.

5. Bt cotton is ineffective

Claim: "The genetically modified cotton variety Bollgard® was first cultivated in 1996 over an area of almost one million hectares. According to the producer, Monsanto, it is resistant towards the cotton bollworm. However, several thousand hectares of Bollgard were afflicted by this pest ... The cotton farmers were forced to to spray of the allegedly resistant plants with insecticides" (Gen-Schutz-Zeitung No. 7, January 1997, p 3).

The facts: The claim that the Bollgard® cotton variety (with the genetically incorporated Bt gene) has not lived up to its promise and that the cotton farmers were forced to use plant-protection agents is untrue. The facts speak for themselves:
In 1996, the Bollgard® cotton variety was cultivated over an area of 730,000 hectares, which corresponds to roughly 13% of the entire cotton-cultivation acreage in the United States, by more than 5,700 cotton farmers. In 1997, 15% of the total cotton-cultivation acreage in the United States was planted with Bollgard® cotton.After the 1996 harvest, the vast majority of those cotton farmers surveyed were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the result. Only 2% stated that they were intending to revert to the cultivation of conventional cotton varieties the next year.
Sixty percent of the 5,700 cotton farmers were able to forego any use of pesticides to combat the pests tobacco budworm, bollworm, and pink bollworm. Due to the unusually strong infestation with bollworm, the remaining 40% of the farmers were forced to spray their fields once.
By comparison: conventional cotton fields have previously had to be sprayed with insecticides at least four or five times, in some cases even six times.
The cultivation of the Bollgard® cotton over an area of 730,000 hectares resulted in the saving of one million liters (one quarter of a million gallons) of insecticide compared with the amount used in the cultivation of conventional cotton.
The cotton farmers reported an average extra yield of 7% when using the Bollgard® cotton compared to the best conventional cotton variety.In the summer of 1996, the highest ever bollworm infestation was recorded. This was even larger than the maximum infestation pressure artificially created in the field experiments.Pests resistant towards the Bt protein were not recorded.
The Bt protein is produced in the pollen of the Bollgard® cotton variety in only very small quantities, and does not kill the bollworm larvae. This is one possible explanation why some of the insects survive: if a larva eats only pollen during the early stages of its development, it may be the case that it grows to a size at which even large quantities of the Bt protein - which occur in the remaining parts of the plant - are no longer capable of having any sufficient effect.

6. Unexpected consequences in GM petunias

Claim: "In 1990, genetically modified plants were tested in Germany for the first time. The Petunias were modified to bloom red instead of white using a gene from maize. Everything went according to plan in greenhouse trials, but things went wrong in the open-field environment. In July half the plants bloomed white, some pink or red. The petunias also developed other completely new properties not associated with colour, for example they had more leaves and shoots. The foreign gene obviously exerts a much wider influence on the host than had been anticipated.

"The facts: The experimental results in question, involving petunias cultivated near Cologne, are neither an exception nor a surprise. Traditional horticulturalists have known this phenomenon for thousands of years: the cultivation process results in the emergence of many plants with undesired characteristics. Such plants are then excluded from further steps in the breeding programme.
This is also true in the case of genetically modified plants. Since these are tested under the strictest control in the laboratory, the greenhouse, and in the open field, the elimination of undesired plants is far better ensured than is possible using traditional cultivation methods.
The unexpected change in the colour of the blooms was due to the transferred gene having become inactive. The statement: "The foreign gene obviously exerts a much wider influence on the host than had been anticipated" is objectively wrong.
The use of unanticipated results of a scientific experiment as a horror scenario is dubious. The purpose of a scientific experiment is precisely to confirm expectations as being correct or false.
The objective of the experiment in question was to identify jumping genes in the genetic substance of petunias. Jumping genes occur naturally in plants, and get their name due to their ability to alter their position in the genome. The gene into which they "jump" can lose its function as a result. When the function is the emergence of such an obvious characteristic as the colour of the bloom, this betrays the jumping gene involved.
The petunias were modified with a maize gene that lent them an intensive salmon-pink hue. The expectations were that in a small proportion of the petunias jumping genes would "jump" into this colour gene so that it would lose its function, and the bloom would no longer be salmon-pink in colour, but white or mottled instead. The latter case would emerge if the jumping gene were to remain within some colour-genes, but to jump back again in others. Some flower cells would then be white and some salmon-pink, with the result that the flower in general would be mottled.
These expectations were confirmed in the free-field studies: 8% of the petunias bloomed in a pale salmon-pink hue, 92% in a strong salmon-pink hue, and 0.2% displayed the anticipated white or mottled blooms. What followed was a summer heat wave, with temperatures as high as 36 °C (96.8 °F) and incoming solar radiation of over 500 W/m2. After the heat wave had passed, all blooms were severely bleached.
When these petunias sprouted new blooms, now only 37% - as opposed to the previous value of 92% - of these blooms were strongly salmon-pink in colour, while the proportions of white and mottled blooms were similar to before, and the largest proportion of blooms were pale salmon-pink in colour.
This unanticipated result clearly showed that open-field conditions have a distinct influence on the intensity of colour development.
The scientists went on to investigate the mechanism by which environmental conditions influence the regulation of the colour changes between strong salmon-pink, weak salmon-pink, and white. This research led to results that had not been anticipated.
The reason for the change in the colour of the flowers was not jumping genes, as originally thought, but instead a different machanism (methylation), which also explains the results observed in the initial experiment: the parent plants had been subjected to constant greenhouse conditions and had bloomed a strong salmon-pink colour. In accordance with their "hereditary characteristics", the first descendants grown under open-field conditions showed a strong salmon-pink colour until bleached by the sun.
The petunias reacted to this change in environmenal conditions by passing on to their descendants the instruction to directly produce paler flowers; the majority of the descendants thus bloomed a weak salmon-pink hue.

7. GM soybeans containing Brazil-nut protein

Claim: "As a measure to develop soybeans with a raised methionine content (methionine is an essential amino acid for animals and humans), the American company Pioneer Hi-Bred International introduced a gene of the Brazil nut that codes for a methionine-rich protein into the soybean. After this soybean was put on the market as a food, other researchers discovered that the product of the introduced gene causes severe allergies in humans. The company subsequently withdrew the soybean from the market.

"The facts: It is correct that Pioneer Hi-Bred International developed a transgenic soybean with the aim of enhancing the soybean's content of methionine. It is equally true that the gene introduced into the soybean originated from the Brazil nut and that it was converted into a small protein with a high methionine content in the soybean.
The transgenic soybean was destined for use as an animal feed to render the addition of methionine to conventional animal feed superfluous. Pioneer Hi-Bred considered the possibility that the nut protein might find its way into human nutrition and therefore commissioned investigations to elucidate whether the Brazil-nut-gene product possessed any allergenic potential.
After the studies confirmed allergenic potential, the company immediately cancelled the breeding programme. The soybean was never put on the market. This serves to illustrate how allergenic hazards associated with transgenic plants can be precisely investigated.

8. Increased use of herbicides on herbicide-tolerant plants

Claim: "The seed industry develops herbicide-tolerant plants to market them together with their own herbicides. Since these plants are the only ones capable of surviving the use of the herbicide in question, the future will see an even more indiscriminate use of herbicides.

"The facts: There are several reasons why this claim is untenable:

1. In the United States for example, GM herbicide-tolerant soybean is enjoying commercial success. The soybean farmers there prefer to cultivate genetically modified soybeans and in 1999, for example, roughly 55% of soya cultivation in the United States were Roundup Ready® soybeans. Virtually all the seeds available have been sold. The quality and economic viability of the system were convincing arguments
   

2. The farmer still has the choice of using transgenic plants or not, since traditional seeds remain on the market. What is more, many transgenic plants can - if the farmer thinks it a viable solution - be cultivated in just the same way as non-modified plants and treated with conventional plant-protection agents.
   

3. There are seed producers who develop herbicide-tolerant plants without necessarily manufacturing the corresponding herbicides themselves. Here the developments are being made under the assumption that the new plant provides decisive advantages and that it will thus prevail in the marketplace.

9. Provitamin-A rice -fewer blind children

Claim: "Attempts are being made to solve the problem of vitamin-A deficiency in tropical countries by means of genetic modification. In fact the problem can be tackled far more easily. Instead of cultivating provitamin-A rice, it would be more expedient to educate the people in developing countries to eat rice unpolished in its husk - this contains vitamin A.

"The facts: The daily requirement of vitamin A is less than one milligram. We can obtain vitamin A from, for example, spinach, salad, or carrots. Polished rice, by contrast, contains neither vitamin A nor provitamin A (the latter is converted into vitamin A in the human body). This is why people living in tropical countries in particular, such as China, India, Burma, Malaysia, and Indonesia, whose nutrition depends almost exclusively on rice, suffer from vitamin-A-deficiency-related disorders. The World Health Organization estimates that there are some 230 million children and adolescents affected by such disorders. Vitamin-A deficiency weakens the body's capacity to resist pathogens, with fatal consequences for roughly one million people each year. Vitamin-A-deficiency-related disorders result in about 350,000 pre-school-aged children becoming completely blind every year. One long-term objective of the research is therefore to manufacture and store provitamin A in the rice grain itself considerably enhancing its nutritional value.It is true that provitamin A is contained in all green parts of the plant including the husk. Why not therefore simply eat unhusked rice? This would solve the problem - if only it were that simple.
There are three major reasons why this is not the case:

1. The content of provitamin A in the husks is too low by a factor of 1,000, to cover the daily requirement.

2. The preparation of unhusked rice requires roughly three times as much energy as that required for husked rice (consumption of firewood).

3. The germ and the husk contain a high proportion of oils. If these are not removed before the rice crop is put into storage, the rice rapidly becomes rancid and thus inedible in tropical climates (high relative humidity and temperatures).
   
   

In the meantime it is possible to produce precursors of provitamin A in rice cells, yet it will still take a number of years before rice farmers in developing countries are able to cultivate local vitamin-rich varieties. All the same, there is for the first time a real chance of being able to offer protection against severe vitamin-A-related disorders to millions of people. Not to take such action would be unethical, and not vice versa.

10. Raised content of phytoestrogens in herbicide tolerantsoybeans

Claims: "... we fear that the Roundup Ready® soybean produces large quantities of pseudoestrogens when it is sprayed with Roundup herbicide. Today it is assumed that estrogen hormones play an important role in the emergence of breast cancer ..." (letter to the Swiss Confederate Councillor Mrs. Ruth Dreifuss, February 4, 1997, signed by the SAG, Basler Appell gegen Gentechnologie (Basle Appeal against Genetic Engineering)."... yet all risk-evaluation investigations were conducted in modified soybean plants that had never been treated with Roundup. The question was never asked as to what consequences the treatment of the modified plants with Roundup might have ..." (Florianne Koechlin, Switzerland, Gen-Schutz-Zeitung No. 7/January 1997).
"The foreign gene for herbicide tolerance triggered an additional metabolic process in beans so that these produced a hormonally effective substance in its leaves and fruit. This substance went on to alter uterus-growth parameters in mice, even in low quantities" (Naturschutz 1/1997).

The facts: In their pamphlets, readers' letters, and correspondence to the Swiss Confederate Councillor Mrs. Ruth Dreifuss, the Swiss Working Group on Genetic Engineering (SAG) and its related organizations are constructing a scientifically untenable causal relationship between the genetically modified Roundup Ready® soybean produced by Monsanto and phytoestrogen-related health risks, especially for women and children. However, the source of their information, (according to which the Roundup Ready® soybean produces large amounts of phytoestrogens after being treated with the Roundup herbicide), is quoted by the SAG as being a study in 1988 - at which time the Roundup Ready® soybean did not yet exist.
The section of the study that makes the claim states that conventional French beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) - which are not soybeans, and certainly not transgenic soybeans - produce an oestrogenically effective (hormone-similar) isoflavonide (coumestrol) after the application of glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup). Investigations carried out by Monsanto have revealed no indication that genetically modified soybeans exhibit any raised concentrations of phytoestrogens following treatment with the Roundup herbicide.Pseudoestrogens: Pseudoestrogens are substances that occur in the natural environment and influence or mimic the function of hormones.
Some plant-protection agents contain pseudoestrogens although Roundup herbicide, by contrast, contains none at all, a fact that has been confirmed by the Freiburg Ecological Institute.

11. Tryptophan victims deaths due to genetic modification

Claim: "In the United States, in 1989 several hundred people succumbed to EMS (eosinophilic myalgia syndrome) after taking a tryptophan product; 38 patients died as a result. The product in question was manufactured by the Japanese Showa-Denko company using genetically modified bacteria. This example goes to show how incalculable the consequences of genetic modification are.

"The facts: The presentation of the disease and the fatal cases is correct. It is also true that the company substituted a genetically modified strain of bacteria for the production of tryptophan. This claim, however, does not mention the fact that the company modified not only the bacterial strain, but also the processing procedure. One purification stage was deleted, and the quantity of activated charcoal used to eliminate undesirable substances was reduced to less than one half the amount previously used.The production of L-tryptophan always involves the occurrence of by-products. In the product manufactured by the Showa-Denko company it was possible to identify six substances the occurrence of which correlated with the incidence of the EMS disorder.
It is assumed that the modification in the purification process resulted in at least one by-product, EBT, not being eliminated to a sufficient degree.
EBT was also detected in L-tryptophan products - albeit in considerably lower concentrations - not associated with the incidence of the disorder.
The claim that the introduced genes were responsible for the formation of toxic substances could be neither confirmed nor refuted. One aspect that is clear, however, is that the company breached its commitment to the safety of its products by substituting a proven production method by a new one, without carefully testing the new end product. However, to make genetic modification of the production strain responsible for this is scientifically untenable.

12. The use of genetic modification is unethical

Claim: "The use of genetic modification methods in plants and animals is an interference in nature that cannot be ethically justified.

"The facts: Ethics is a term that is characterized by the times, by culture, religion, and society, and is thus one that is subject to change. In view of new developments, existing conceptions of the world in which we live and associated orientations must be continuously reviewed and renewed.
To describe genetic modification as being unethical simply in terms of its specific nature is not permissible - technology per se is free of values. The decisive factor here is how and in which connection the multitude of applications it has to offer are actually employed, and it is these that must be examined from the ethical viewpoint on a case by case basis.
To the same extent as it may be unethical to take an action, it may be just as unethical not to take it. Attempts to improve the nutritional situation in developing countries with the aid of genetic-modification methods - for example by developing pest-resistant crops or foods with an enhanced nutrient composition - serve the purpose of alleviating suffering. Contributions made to reduce the consumption of energy and natural resources and to cut back on the generation of waste in connection with many production methods, the possibilities to eliminate environmental pollution, or the development of sustainable methods of cultivation in the agricultural sector - all these constitute applications of genetic modification in favour of nature.
It would be unethical not to exploit these opportunities, and not vice versa.Genetic modification pursues the same goals as traditional cultivation methods.
The availability of genetic modification tools provides us with a further instrument by which these goals can be more efficiently and specifically reached.
Since genetic modification also has the potential to be abused, it goes without saying that it must be accompanied at all times by constant ethical criticism that is capable of showing where the borders are, that prevent condemnable aims and hazardous applications from being made, but at the same time support the sensible and appropriate use of the technology.

13. Genetic modification is the cause of 'Mad Cow Disease

'Claim: "Mad Cow Disease: The sinister harbinger of the gentech future?

"The facts: The equation "Chernobyl equals Genetic modification equals Catastrophe" was the platform from which the "Genetic Protection" initiators in Switzerland launched their PR campaign in 1996 - on the tenth anniversary of the tragic reactor meltdown in Chernobyl.
At the beginning of May, this propaganda changed to the slogan "Mad Cow Disease equals Genetic engineering equals Catastrophe".
Similar press announcements can also be found in the German media. The pattern is obvious: take Mad Cow Disease (the popular term for Bovine Spongiosiform Encephalopathy (BSE) - a disease that has created a great deal of uncertainty among millions of consumers - and add two cows, lying decapitated on the ground and you have the prime ingredients for a suggestive effect.
It appeals to instincts and arouses emotions so that it is difficult to be led back to objectivity.
The truth of these statements is difficult to assess for large parts of the population, with the result that fear becomes prevalent when forming one's own opinion.
Genetic modification may one day become part of the solution of such diseases but by no means is it part of the problem itself. According to the current scientific status, the pathogen responsible for this epidemic is in all probability an infectious protein particle, a prion.
A related brain disease in sheep has been familiar in Great Britain for over 250 years now, and a similar human disorder, Creutzfeld-Jacob disease, was first diagnosed some 75 years ago. Genetic modification is a scientific discipline that established itself only in 1973, meaning that it can in no way be responsible for Mad Cow Disease.
On the contrary - it may be the most promising hope we have in identifying a way to combat the disease. Indeed, genetic modification has enabled us to make far-reaching insights into the pathological process behind this epidemic. Using these methods, a team of researchers led by Professor Dr. Charles Weissman at the Technical University (ETH) Zurich and colleagues Stanley Prusiner and Leroy Hood in California have been able to demonstrate that the prion is an endogenous (organism-specific) protein, albeit one that is falsely replicated. Basic research using transgenic mice is supplying problem-solving approaches that would otherwise be impossible.

Back to Info Kit main page