www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

The plant ecologist, Klaus Ammann, is ?calling on heavy scientific
ammunition? with regards to the Swiss initiative that calls for a moratorium
on green biotechnology, November 2005 by Klaus Ammann.

This is his means of opposing what he considers a systematic campaign of
disinformation led by certain organizations against genetically engineered
crops. He makes no claim that science has absolute proof, but he refers to
scientific studies showing that genetically modified foods are safe.

We still hear from the biochemist, Arpad Pusztai, who asserted that rats
were harmed by genetically manipulated potatoes. We have heard him complain
about how he was mobbed by the ?bad? biotech industry. That he was dismissed
from his last research project (after appointment as an Emeritus) certainly
remains questionable. For many, this is reason enough to accept his
experiments on rats and genetically modified plants, done in 1998, without
criticism. The reason being that in the meantime he, like Canadian farmer
Percy Schmeiser, who is regularly promoted by Greenpeace because his
rapeseed was allegedly ?contaminated? by genetically modified ?rapeseed?,
has been transformed into European and worldwide folk heroes.

Hysteria without reason

In both of the above cases it would be quite disturbing to examine the
scientific literature, because it would soon become clear what the facts
are. Between then and now the numbers of publications relating to Pusztais?
statements have grown to above 400.

The number of major studies concerning the safety of these kinds of foods
published by experts in peer-reviewed journals has grown to about 30. And
they all convey the same message: genetically modified foods are harmless1.

These ?doom-sayers? should finally acknowledge that several reports, based
on millions of dollars of research by the World Health Organization and the
European Union, all came to that same result. The source material is easily
obtained through Google. The problem here is that the average European, who
thoroughly rejects American politics (but not their culture), is too eager
to fall for these presumptions of disaster. One prefers to remain in the
realm of partial knowledge.

Among nutritional science experts, the experiments done by Pusztais are
being unanimously judged as inconclusive and incorrectly designed. This is a
paradox when one considers that Pusztais normally has an excellent
reputation where publications are concerned.

In the case of the rapeseed farmer, Percy Schmeiser, one cannot help but
notice that, according to the publicly available court transcripts, he
changed his story three times. First he pleaded not guilty because the
contamination was a consequence of pollen spread. Then he said he had
inadvertently mixed up the bags of seeds. In the third version he was found
guilty of sowing huge quantities of genetically modified rapeseed. In all
proceedings he was pronounced guilty. The opponents of biotechnology do not
seem to grasp this and are locked in to their world of partial knowledge
because the plaintiff and the firm that was proven right is Monsanto and
therefore so Schmeiser must be their innocent victim.

?Bio? and ?GM? crops are healthy

All foods offered in Switzerland are healthy and harmless. This is also
valid for the products of organic farming, including ?Bio? milk that has
come under recent scrutiny . However, further detailed research into this
product has not given proof of anything negative. The announcement of the
?Bio? milk study follows the same pattern. which resonates with our
population that loves to think about disaster scenarios: ?It just could be,
that?.!?. This resurrected hysteria being celebrated amongst spoiled and
systematically frightened consumers is causing a dramatic drop in the
consumption of poultry ? as if the avian flu transmittable from man to man
already existed.

A study by Kurt Bodenmueller (www.internutrition.ch) shows that products
obtained through different farming methods in Switzerland show no systematic
quality difference. This is equally true when comparing genetically modified
corn and non-GMO corn, because our storage conditions are impeccable. This
can not be said for several third world countries. In their case, several
measurements and statistics show a correlation between certain corn-diet
disease patterns, which in the case of poor storage conditions show a higher
level of the dangerous carcinogen, Mycotoxin, in the non-GMO corn. (Johnny
Gressel in ?Crop Protection? Volume 23, Page, 661-689,2004)2.

The knowledge gap of certain Development-Aid Organizations

Even Swiss council member Sommaruga (SP) prefers to remain in the realm of
partial knowledge and asserts in a presidential newsletter of Swissaid, over
which she presides, that genetically engineered plants have but one purpose
in developing countries, which is to secure the profits of big companies.

For her to make such reckless announcement might be the result of the
encouragement of her assistant, Tina Goethe, whose pamphlets can be read in
?Konkret? (7, 2005).

The fact that the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) publications and
reputed scientific journals say the opposite does not seem to bother this
politician and her assistant. The fact is that 86percent of green biotech
projects are supported by public funding; whereas private funding accounts
for about 1 percent worldwide3.

GM Free Switzerland ? a fairy tale

What is particularly irritating about the current moratorium initiative up
for vote in Switzerland, is the resounding name: GM free initiative. It
conjures up a fairy tale image of a GM free Switzerland. The fact that all
imported foods are excluded from this initiative only becomes clear in
reading the fine print as well as the clarifications by some of the
initiative?s proponents, not to mention all the genetically engineered
ingredients that enter the country through the back door.

Many foods can only be produced worldwide thanks to the efficiency of
genetically engineered additives. Further, in the realm of livestock feed,
agricultural biotechnology can hardly be avoided. Consequently, the
?purists? among the opposition to agricultural biotechnology are now
demanding transparent labeling. However, transparency in labeling requires
evidence, which, in the case of animals fed with genetically-engineered
foodstuffs, is impossible.

Numerous studies have shown that bioengineering leaves no detectable traces
in either milk or other foods. Here again, the wonderful conundrum of
partial knowledge among consumers, wholesalers, and a few laboratories still
prevails. Indeed, one wants to take consumers seriously, but one nonetheless
insists on mandatory labeling of biotechnology despite its absurdity and
impossibility.

I argue that consumers should really be taken seriously, that is, that they
should be told that this will only incur higher costs due to complicated and
unwieldy procedures. The label ?GM free? only has a meaning for its
adherents and should instead be handled like kosher foods, for example.

The hypocrisy around the notion of freedom of research

The slogan that research will not be affected by the moratorium sounds good
but is unreliable. In the text of the Initiative, this is not explicitly
stated and part of the initiators are strong adversaries of biotechnology-
the same people ? with arguments later proven wrong ? who strongly opposed
the successful experiment with genetically modified wheat done by the ETH
Zurich. One can read about the efforts to derail the experiment on the
website, Swiss Federal Department for Environment, Forests and Countryside
(BUWAL).

The courageous Head of Research, Christof Sauter, after fighting for years
and after completing a successful experiment in the field, has given up,
discouraged. For example, he was forced to conduct an individual protocol on
each of the 1,600 wheat seeds, and to dig up every single seed that did not
germinate. A humiliation forced upon him by the fundamentalists and the
Buwal. This discouragement is experienced by many young researchers who
either leaves the science of plant biotechnology or their country. Should
this moratorium pass it would give yet another negative signal.

A digression from scientific knowledge

If heavy scientific ammunition is brought forth here it is only with the
objective to counter the systematic campaign of disinformation advocated by
some organizations, and not to advance any absolute scientific certainty.
However, it is striking to see how easily one notes the lack of any
scientific evidence in a situation where many serious studies would be
available.

The distrust existing in the population, due to, among other things, the
scandal of mad cow?s disease makes it easy for many opponents to claim,
endowed with a certain ?trust bonus? from the public, that research, where
security is concerned, is insufficiently advanced.

Further, we can add those who, in their own interest, would like to
implement expensive research projects. These ecologists plead for
investigations that may elicit scientific interest but that have very little
to do with security in agricultural production. I suggest that the security
issue be clarified based on the scientific literature that already exists in
abundance (cp. Overview of the consequences of agricultural biotechnology on
biodiversity in: ?Trends of Biotechnology?, volume 23, 8, Pages 388-3944).

The effects of genetically engineered plants on the environment and food are
among the best researched security questions in science ? it would be about
time for the opponents of genetic engineering to acknowledge this fact.

For a fair and balanced assessment of risk

This certainly does not imply that we should discontinue investigating
security questions, rather that we should learn to distinguish between
necessary applied security research and basic research, which though
interesting, is irrelevant where the effect on agriculture and nutrition is
concerned. In addition, the time has come to compare the risks with other
agricultural strategies. Only then will we get a fair assessment of the
risk. It would also be urgently necessary to investigate the negative
effects of ?organic? pest control, because in this field, proven
irreversible damage has already been done: a parasite deposited on a known
pest agent surprisingly jumped host, in this case to a rare, consequently
now extinct, type of moth5. One can only imagine the howling and grinding of
teeth by the fundamentalists if the blame could be laid on a genetically
modified plant.

Dr. Klaus Amman is a plant ecologist and Director of the Botanical Garden in
Bern.


1[www.agbioworld.org]-
pubs.htmlart/peer-reviewed-pubs.html

2Gressel, J., Hanafi, A., Head, G., Marasas, W., Obilana, B., Ochanda, J.,
Souissi, T., & Tzotzos, G. (2004) Major heretofore intractable biotic
constraints to African food sec urity that may be amenable to novel
biotechnological solutions. Crop Protection, 23, 8, pp 661-689.
[www.botanischergarten.ch]
f

3Diese Sachlage hat der Schreibende nachgeprüft und auf der öffentlich
zugänglichen Website der neuen Nichtregierungsorganisation ?Public Research
and Regulation Initiative? zusammengestellt, diese Tabelle wächst noch
ständig ( [pubresreg.org] > Working Groups, > Information, oder
direkt:
[pubresreg.org] ) Dazu
noch zwei wichtige Hintergrund-Publikationen:

Cohen, J.I. (2005) Poorer nations turn to publicly developed GM crops (vol
23, pg 27, 2005). Nature Biotechnology, 23, 3, p 366.
[www.botanischergarten.ch]-
Naturebiotech-2005.pdf

Dhlamini, Z., Spillane, C., Moss, J., Ruane, J., Urquia, J., & Sonnino, A.
(2005). Status of Research and Application of Crop Technologies in
Developing Countries, Preliminary Assessment, FAO pp 62 FAO Reports Rome.
[www.botanischergarten.ch]

4Ammann, K. (2005) Effects of biotechnology on biodiversity:
herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant GM crops. Trends in Biotechnology,
23, 8, pp 388-394.
[www.botanischergarten.ch]

5[news.nationalgeographic.com] und:
Henneman, M.L. & Memmott, J. (2001) Infiltration of a Hawaiian Community by
Introduced Biological Control Agents. Science, 293, 5533, pp 1314-1316
[www.botanischergarten.ch]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail