Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10543FW: Spilling the Beans newsletter - Disease-resistant genetically engineered crops may make humans (and plants) more vulnerable to viruses

Expand Messages
  • Jahnets
    Jul 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Now I'm beginning to wonder if chemtrails have anything to do with these
      spot diseases... On July 4th I walked outside early to check my garden and
      looked up at the dark clouds passing over. They had already passed by but I
      was still getting hit in the eye with drops of moisture. The next day I was
      sick with a major headache. I have not been around anyone else that was
      sick and have not been sick all year. Mainly because I am not eating GM food
      anymore, or food that is packaged with enough salt to pickle humans and
      let's not forget msg to addict them to it. I do hope you will read this
      newsletter if only to learn more and take action so that they get the
      message we want real food.









      Spilling the Beans, June 2006 (sent early July 2006)


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Subscribe to e-newsletter Spilling the Beans



      Action Step: Ask the plum industry to help stop the USDA’s planned
      introduction of genetically modified (GM) plums.

      Dear Readers,

      After reading this article, I ask you to take a moment to send a
      friendly note to the plum industry, asking them to help stop the pending
      introduction of GM plums. Since the article is a bit long, if you put off
      reading it for now, please don’t put off helping with this important action
      alert. The food industry has successfully stopped several GM crop
      introductions. I believe that if the companies that grow and sell plums urge
      the USDA to withdraw the plum application, it will be withdrawn. There is a
      short window. (The USDA comment period ends July 17, but comments made after
      that BY THE INDUSTRY may still be effective.) To help, please click here.

      Regards,

      Jeffrey Smith


      Disease-resistant genetically engineered crops may make humans (and
      plants) more vulnerable to viruses
      By Jeffrey Smith

      The US Department of Agriculture wants to introduce a new variety of
      plum, genetically modified (GM) to resist the plum pox virus.
      Disease-resistant crops comprise less than one percent of the acreage
      devoted to GM varieties worldwide, but occupy a much bigger portion in
      biotech promotional literature. That’s because engineering a crop to resist
      disease sounds more appealing than inserting a gene to make a crop produce
      its own pesticide or withstand herbicide—the two traits that make up the
      other 99 percent of today’s GM world.

      There are three commercialized virus-resistant GM varieties: zucchini,
      crookneck squash and the only commercialized GM fruit, papaya. GM papaya
      grows solely in Hawaii and was introduced in 1998 to protect the crop from
      the devastating ring-spot virus. But according to a May 2006 report by
      Greenpeace, the GM papaya turned out to be “more devastating than the
      virus. ”Upon introduction, the selling price for the papaya crashed from
      $1.23 per kilo to $0.89, after “traditional buyers of Hawaiian papayas, such
      as Japan and Canada, rejected [it].” Now, if Hawaiian papaya growers want to
      sell to Japan, they have to pay extra for segregating and testing their
      papayas to make sure they are non-GM. The Japanese market shrunk from $10.3
      million in 1998 to $4.6 million in 2005. Although Canada started accepting
      GM papayas in 2003, the price didn’t recover. In the 2004 and 2005 growing
      seasons, the selling price “averaged less than $0.80 per kilo, at or only
      marginally above the production cost for many farmers.” [1] While business
      is booming in other papaya growing regions, Hawaiian production is at its
      lowest point in more than a generation.

      This hasn’t stopped the USDA from trying to gift the plum industry
      with a virus-resistant catastrophe of its own. And this in spite of the fact
      that the plum pox virus is not even a current threat. According to Steve
      Poe, Senior Operations Officer who coordinates the USDA’s program to wipe
      out the virus (using non-GM methods), “We’re on the tail end of eradicating
      this thing.” The incidence of the disease is down to about 1 tree per year,
      he says.

      But there is a current threat that the USDA and other agencies have
      continued to disregard: The virus-resistant crops already on the market may
      be increasing the susceptibility of consumers to viral infections and,
      ironically, even putting the crops at greater risk. According to virologist
      Jonathan Latham of the Bioscience Resource Project, “None of the important
      questions about the safety of viral transgenes have been answered. We still
      have no idea whether they will cause the evolution of new viruses by
      recombination or what will be the effect of putting viral proteins into
      plants.”

      Virus-protection through gene silencing

      Although some viruses are DNA-based, most plant viruses exist as RNA
      strands. Normally, when an RNA virus attacks a cell, it will produce
      enormous number of copies of itself. The copies, in turn, produce viral
      protein, which can help to disable the cells defenses to the virus.

      Plants have developed a gene silencing mechanism to defend against
      this onslaught. After the cell recognizes an RNA virus, the double stranded
      RNA (dsRNA) is cut into short pieces and stripped into a single strand. That
      strand is used as a reference to “find” other RNA with identical or similar
      sequences, which are then destroyed or degraded.

      Each viral resistant GM crop is designed to protect against a specific
      RNA virus. First, scientists identify a piece of RNA from the “target”
      virus, and then build a piece of DNA—a transgene—with a sequence designed to
      create the viral RNA. The transgene is inserted into the genome of a plant
      cell, which in turn is grown into a plant. In every cell of that plant and
      its offspring, the inserted transgene is “transcribed” into viral RNA. Thus,
      it arms the gene silencing mechanism to be on the lookout for the target
      virus. The RNA may also produce viral proteins in every cell.

      Thus, there are four components of a virus-resistant GM plant that
      must be considered when looking at the possible effects on humans.

      1.. The viral protein
      2.. The RNA
      3.. The inserted gene (transgene)
      4.. Any changes in the plant due to the insertion process
      Each carry unique risks.

      Viral proteins can increase susceptibility to viral infections

      As described above, viruses produce proteins that attack and disable
      the plant cells’ defenses, increasing the chances that the virus will
      thrive. More than 100 studies have shown, however, that the proteins created
      by one virus can promote infections by other related and unrelated
      viruses.[2]'[3]

      The viral proteins that function in plants may similarly disable viral
      defenses in humans, because important mechanisms that defend against viral
      attack are quite similar in plants and animals. Thus, consuming GM crops
      that make viral proteins in every cell may weaken our resistance to viruses.
      This may be particularly true in the gut—where viral proteins would
      circulate after a meal and which is an important entry point for viral
      infections. Since we do not fully understand all the ways in which plant
      viruses overcome host defenses and we do not know which viral proteins are
      involved, we cannot identify in advance which viral transgenes are likely to
      be hazardous.

      Viral proteins may be toxic

      In addition to attacking viral defenses, viral proteins can also be
      toxic. They attack fundamental processes, such as the cycle by which a cell
      divides and the mechanism for creating proteins from RNA.[4] If these were
      damaged in human beings, it could have serious health consequences.
      (Disrupting the cell cycle, for example, can lead to cancer.)

      Since these fundamental metabolic activities are similar in plants and
      humans, a toxic viral protein that attacks them in crops might similarly
      attack that process in people. Viral proteins from one kingdom have in fact
      been shown to be toxic to organisms from other kingdoms. Plant viral
      proteins can affect yeast, for example, and some human viral proteins can
      disrupt plants. According to Latham, “There is no good reason why it should
      not happen the other way round.”

      In some cases, if a GM viral protein disrupts plant metabolism, it
      would be obvious to plant breeders and the variety would not be
      commercialized. This would not always be the case, however. Humans may be
      more sensitive than plants to the effects of the viral proteins. Also, in
      some cases, the quantity of viral protein that is produced in a GM plant can
      be significantly increased. According to Latham, the proteins produced in GM
      crops have not been properly evaluated for toxicity in humans.

      RNA may be hazardous

      According to Nature, RNA molecules are “now known to be vital in
      controlling many cellular processes in plants and animals.”[4],[5] In fact,
      “well over one-third of human genes appear to be” regulated by double
      stranded RNA (dsRNA).[6] RNA also appears to be passed on to future
      generations—a characteristic previously thought to be the exclusive domain
      of DNA. Studies indicate that RNA inherited from parents silenced a gene in
      mice[7]and repaired an abnormal DNA sequence in a plant.[8]

      According to the Centre for Integrated Research on Biosafety (INBI),
      “Once introduced into a model plant or animal, the effect of dsRNA is
      systemically spread throughout the organism and persists through the entire
      developmental period.”[9]Not only can RNA effects be transmitted through
      food, in many different organisms that effect can be inherited by the next
      generation (although this has not been demonstrated for humans).[10]For
      example, when worms were fed bacteria engineered to produce dsRNA, the dsRNA
      survived the digestion in the worms’ gut and penetrated into the gut cells
      and deeper tissues. It silenced the corresponding gene in the worm and in
      the offspring for at least two generations.[11] “The same dsRNA can have
      physiologically different effects at different concentrations,[12],[13] and
      it is not always clear in advance which gene the dsRNA will impact.

      Regulators have dismissed concerns that novel RNA sequences from GM
      crops may be hazardous. When, for example, INBI raised the issue to Food
      Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) in regard to a GM corn (that was not
      virus-resistant), FSANZ claimed that “RNA is rapidly degraded,” and unlikely
      to survive digestion, enter human cells, or exert an effect. INBI had to
      update FSANZ’s obsolete argument. INBI pointed out that dsRNAs “are stable
      enough in mammalian cells to be routinely used as gene regulators.” They
      cited recent studies demonstrating that dsRNA “is transmitted through food
      in other animals, where it survives degradation” and impacts gene
      expression. [14]

      For virus-resistant GM crops that are specifically engineered to
      create small regulatory dsRNA, regulators are similarly dismissive. They
      claim that people have eaten virus-infected food for a long time, so it must
      be safe. This was the position of the US panel that looked at the GM plums.
      While their theoretical argument may sound strong, like many assumptions
      used as the basis for GM crop approvals, it lacks experimental verification.
      Given the significant potential for harm if the assumption is wrong, it is
      irresponsible not to test.

      Even the argument on its own, however, is flawed. “In truth it is a
      half argument,” says Latham. “The other half requires reliable evidence that
      people who ate the virus-infected crops were absolutely fine in every way.”
      He says that “an experiment is only as good as its controls, but in this
      ‘experiment’ there were none, because no one was found who hadn’t eaten
      viruses.”

      If the natural RNA did turn out to be safe, the transgenic version
      might still be dangerous. The two versions of RNA are not identical and
      interchangeable. The naturally occurring sequence of a gene is usually
      altered by scientists prior to insertion. In addition, the process of
      insertion can cause the gene to become truncated, mutated or littered with
      extraneous fragments. Other studies suggest that the transgene may rearrange
      spontaneously in subsequent growing seasons.[15] A 2005 study also
      demonstrated that the transgene in GM soybeans don’t create RNA as they were
      designed to. The authors suggest that other GM crops may also produce
      unnatural, unintended RNA combinations.[16]

      According to geneticist Joe Cummins, “The fact that people may have
      eaten virus infected plums does not really indicate that the transgenic plum
      that resists virus infection in a novel way is safe for people.” He says,
      “It is not unreasonable to suggest that a unique interfering plum RNA may be
      active in humans and animals.” Cummins says that “common sense requires
      adequate safety experiments,” and he calls for “fuller testing of the small
      silencing RNA from the transgenic plum.”[17] INBI similarly cautions
      regulators against dismissing the risks of RNA based on unproven
      assumptions. They say that testing potential health impacts of RNA from GM
      crops on humans, which has not been done for any GM crops thus far, is
      “imperative.”[18]

      Shifting an RNA virus onto DNA may have dangerous, long-term
      consequences

      Until the introduction of virus-resistant GM crops, their target
      viruses existed exclusively as RNA-based organisms. When scientists create a
      viral transgene, however, they introduce an entirely new DNA version.
      According to Latham, this carries a potential risk that is not generally
      acknowledged. “The virus is available for recombination with a totally new
      spectrum of organisms,” he warns. “The danger would become especially
      important if the transgenic protein were useful to the organism that picked
      it up.”

      Consider, for example, the possibility that viral transgenes might
      transfer into the DNA of gut microorganisms. This type of “horizontal gene
      transfer” from GM food to gut bacteria was confirmed in the case of Roundup
      Ready soybeans. That was the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM
      food. No such test has been carried out using virus-resistant crops, but
      transfer of viral transgenes is certainly plausible. Once transferred, our
      own bacteria may produce viral proteins inside our intestines over the long
      term, potentially weakening our defenses against viral infection and
      attacking fundamental metabolic processes.

      [Note: During the development of the GM plum, the same viral transgene
      was inserted into many different plum cells. Although GM plums created from
      these other experimental insertions produced viral protein, the transgenic
      plum under review by the USDA, “Honey Sweet,” produces little or no viral
      protein. While this reduces risks somewhat, if the viral RNA transfers into
      other viruses or the viral DNA ends up in gut bacteria, they may begin
      producing potentially harmful viral protein in that new organism. This needs
      to be studied.]

      Viral genes may create new harmful plant viruses

      In addition to posing risks for humans, virus-resistant GM crops might
      increase the likelihood for new viruses to attack the plant. One way for
      this to occur is through the action of viral proteins. As mentioned above,
      proteins produced from one virus may attack the host cells’ defenses, making
      it more susceptible to other viruses. In fact in one study, proteins from
      viral transgenes allowed a plant to become infected with an insect virus,
      not normally found in plants.[19]

      One type of protein produced by viruses is called a coat protein. It
      surrounds (encapsidates) the RNA, protecting it from being broken down by
      threats such as ultra violet light or enzymes. It is possible for a coat
      protein form one virus to encapsidate another virus. This would make it
      possible for that new virus to be picked up by an insect and transported to
      other plants. The risk of encapsidating the wrong virus (transcapsidation)
      is not a unique risk of GM plants, but the presence of coat protein produced
      in every cell of the plant can increase the probability that it will occur.

      Another concern about GM crops is that inserted viral genes can come
      into proximity with related and unrelated natural viruses and recombine to
      create new versions. These new “offspring” viruses can be quite different
      from either “parent.” Many reports specifically demonstrate that natural
      viruses do recombine with the viral sequences inserted into GM plants,[20]
      including the viral transgene used in plums.[21] “In some cases
      recombination occurred at very high rates-in up to 80%[22] of all plants
      tested.”[23] According to Latham, experiments suggest that recombination
      between viral transgenes in the currently commercialized GM crops and
      naturally occurring viruses are inevitable. The consequences of the
      recombination, however, are unpredictable.

      Of particular concern is that the viral genes will transfer to viruses
      that do not normally infect the plant.[24] The invading virus, which is not
      adapted to that plant, would acquire a transgene that is adapted, thereby
      making it more likely to attack that plant.[25] It is ironic that GM crops
      designed to resist one virus “may be especially susceptible to new
      infectious viral diseases.”[26]

      Diseased plants may impact human health

      If GM plants do generate new plant viruses, this has several
      implications for human health:

      1.. The infected plants create viral proteins. As discussed, these
      may increase our susceptibility to viral infection or be toxic.
      2.. If plants develop novel viruses, it is likely that they will be
      treated with pesticides, which increases human health risks.
      3.. Plants that are infected by viruses may have altered levels of
      anti-nutrients, toxins, and allergens, and may be more susceptible to mold
      infestation. All of these may affect the health of the consumer.
      It is important to note that the key concern about creating new
      viruses is related to plant viruses, not human viruses. Natural barriers
      tend to block a virus in one kingdom from attacking organisms in another
      kingdom. Therefore, the tendency to create new viruses in plants does not
      mean that they will attack humans. On the other hand, as mentioned above,
      when genes from two distinct viruses were inserted separately into a plant,
      the two viral proteins made the plant susceptible to infection by an animal
      (insect) virus. There are also other examples of cross kingdom viral
      adaptations.[27] So in theory, the use of transgenic viral genes may
      increase the probability that a plant can carry a virus that will function
      in humans. As there is little or no research on this, the risk remains
      speculative.

      Generic risks from GM plants

      While most of the concerns raised thus far relate to disease-resistant
      GM crops, all GM varieties carry generic risks. The process of creating a GM
      crop typically causes significant mutations and altered gene expressions
      throughout the genome, with the possible creation of toxins, allergens,
      carcinogens and anti-nutrients. The transgene may rearrange during insertion
      or perhaps at a later time, producing proteins that were never intended or
      tested. All these uncontrolled and unpredicted changes within the DNA also
      provide opportunities for creating RNA sequences that might have negative
      impacts. According to INBI, the potential for gene insertion to create
      regulatory RNA “is too high by chance to ignore.”[28]

      In addition, the genetic material that is inserted with the
      transgene—the promoter, antibiotic resistant marker and terminator—all carry
      significant risks that have not been properly studied. And many of the
      safety-related assumptions about these elements that were initially
      proclaimed by the biotech industry have since been overturned.

      Responding to the threat

      The FDA has no required safety studies for GM crops and the USDA
      continues to quote outdated theories (see side bar below for some examples).
      These actions are consistent, however, with the fact that US regulatory
      agencies are officially charged with the responsibility to promote the
      biotechnology industry. Originally, politicians claimed this effort would
      increase US exports. Now that worldwide rejection of GM crops has actually
      shrunk US corn and soy exports, for example, to the point of requiring an
      extra $2-3 billion per year in price supports, promotion of biotech appears
      to be more about appeasing a powerful corporate lobby.

      Although consumers’ concerns about GM foods are not always heeded by
      governments, the food industry has been more responsive. Their concern about
      potential loss of markets has had a significant impact in reigning in
      biotech expansion. When Monsanto tried to introduce their GM wheat, an Iowa
      State University economist projected a loss of 30-50 percent of the US
      foreign wheat sales and drop in prices by about a third.[29] The wheat
      industry lobbied hard for North America to be a GM-wheat-free-zone and
      Monsanto withdrew its application.[30] When Hawaii coffee growers realized
      that GM coffee might destroy its premium market, it successfully appealed to
      the University of Hawaii not to develop any GM varieties. GM flax was taken
      off the market in 2001 due to pressure from the Flax Council of Canada and
      the Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission.[31] GM sugar beets were
      rejected by U.S. sugar refiners.[32] And warnings from rice millers and
      others halted the commercialization of GM rice.[33]

      Now it’s time for the plum producers to protect their markets. The US
      is the third leading plum exporter. California grows the vast majority, with
      more than $130 million worth grown in 2002. The plum pox virus, which had
      infected trees in Pennsylvania, is not even a West Coast phenomenon. But if
      GM plums are introduced anywhere in the US, market rejection will surely be
      an issue, as will contamination, rejected shipments and extra costs for
      segregation and testing.

      If you wish to give friendly encouragement to the plum and prune
      industry to ask for the USDA to stop the GM plum, please go to
      www.responsibletechnology.org. In this case, it won’t require that Monsanto
      or another biotech company withdraw their application. The GM plums were
      developed and promoted by the USDA itself.

      As for the other virus-resistant crops, Hawaiian GM papayas are
      shipped to Canada and a few cities on the West Coast, such as Los Angeles
      and San Francisco. To avoid it in those locations, inquire about the source
      of the fruit (and recommend to vendors to avoid it as well.) Unfortunately,
      organic and non-GM conventional papaya from Hawaii are easily contaminated
      by GM varieties. Cross-pollination of a non-GM papaya tree can make the
      seeds GM, while the flesh of the fruit remains non-GM. Consequently, some
      organic growers planted the seeds of “organic” papaya, only to discover
      that their orchard was entirely GM. Similarly, those buying papaya at the
      market may throw the seeds on the ground or plant them in their garden,
      inadvertently spreading the GM variety. In a study in 2004, “nearly 20,000
      papaya seeds from across the Big Island, 80% of which came from organic
      farms and the rest from backyard gardens or wild trees, showed a GM
      contamination level of 50%.”[34] The GM plum under review can likewise turn
      the seeds of neighboring trees into GM varieties.

      The virus-resistant GM Zucchini and crookneck squash varieties are
      mixed in low quantities with conventional brands in the US. To avoid them,
      it may be easiest to buy organic, which has probably suffered minimal
      contamination. As for the four major GM crops, soy, corn, cottonseed and
      canola, go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn how to avoid them when
      shopping or in restaurants.

      Safe eating.

      SIDE BAR

      Justification for using viral inserts ignores scientific opinion

      According to a paper by Latham and Steinbrecher, [35] “The views of
      many scientists working in this’ area (as reflected in the scientific
      literature) are at odds with the policy of widespread commercialization of
      virus-containing GM crops being pursued by the USDA.” But in spite of the
      concerns raised by numerous scientists that viral inserts in GM crops may
      recombine with other plant viruses,[36] biotech companies and regulatory
      agencies have ignored the data and cling to unproven or obsolete safety
      assumptions. Here are five commonly used arguments by advocates, with Latham
      and Steinbrecher’s response.

      1. The likelihood of recombination is the same as that of natural
      plants that have two (or more) viral infections. Since that occurs
      naturally, we shouldn’t consider GM plants as a special cause for concern.
      [37]

      With GM crops, viruses will come into proximity with the transgene at
      a much higher rate. Most natural plants are not infected by viruses and do
      not have viral sequences available. When viruses do attack plants, they are
      often restricted to certain types of tissue[38] and will not readily
      encounter viruses present in other tissue. For those attacking the same
      tissue, some viruses have a mechanism (superinfection exclusion) to prohibit
      other viruses from infecting the same cell.[39] In other cases, viruses may
      occupy different compartments within the cell and thus be prevented from
      interacting. These natural barriers to viral recombination are largely
      dismantled in GM crops, which contain viral sequences in every cell.

      2. The quantities of messenger RNA (mRNA) produced by some viral
      inserts is less than those found in natural viruses. Therefore, the rate of
      recombination (of the mRNA) will be lower. [40]

      Naturally occurring viruses are usually surrounded (encapsidated) by a
      protective coat of protein and many also replicate in areas of the cell that
      are enclosed by membranes.[41] GM viral sequences are neither encapsidated,
      nor enclosed. They therefore may come into contact with natural viruses more
      often, even if the total amount of mRNA is less. Furthermore, the level of
      transgenic mRNA may increase in those cells that are infected by a
      non-target virus,[42] because the introduced virus may disable the mechanism
      that keeps the transgene expression low.[43]

      3. Argument: Recombinant viruses “are unlikely” to survive competition
      from pre-existing viruses or will not give rise to significant new
      strains.[44]

      These assertions are not supported by data.[45] On the contrary, new
      and significant viruses do arise naturally by recombination[46](as well as
      mutation) and some demonstrate superior fitness compared to their
      parents.[47] Also, some viruses don’t compete with pre-existing ones, but
      rather move into a difference niche.

      4. Argument: Viral sequences are inserted into GM crops so that the
      plants resist viruses that carry that same sequence. When the USDA approved
      the first virus-resistant plant (the ZW-20 squash), [48] they argued that if
      the inserted viral sequence recombines with a natural virus, the new virus
      will be suppressed by the same mechanism.

      This assumption has been overturned by the more recent discovery that
      infecting viruses can disable the gene silencing mechanism.[49]

      All four of the arguments above appear in every application for new GM
      virus-resistant varieties and are the primary defense against the risk of
      recombination. A fifth rationale, which is sometimes used by advocates, is
      as follows.

      5. Argument: The widespread use of GM virus resistant plants will so
      effectively reduce the prevalence of viruses, that it will reduce the rate
      of recombination. [50]

      No data is presented to support this position, which overstates a GM
      crop’s ability to suppress viruses beyond one or a few targeted strains.


      Jeffrey Smith is the author of the international bestseller, Seeds of
      Deception. The information in this article presents some of the numerous
      health risks of GM foods that will be presented in his forthcoming book,
      Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of genetically engineered
      foods, due out in the fall.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at
      www.responsibletechnology.org.

      Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce issues
      of Spilling the Beans in whole or in part. Just email us at
      column@... to let us know who you are and what your
      circulation is, so we can keep track.

      The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to end the genetic
      engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. We
      warmly welcome your donations and support.

      Click here if you'd like to make a tax-deductible donation, or click
      here if you would like to become a member of the Institute for Responsible
      Technology. Membership to the Institute for Responsible Technology costs
      $25 per year. New members receive The GMO Trilogy, a three-disc set produced
      by Jeffrey Smith (see www.GMOTrilogy.com ).


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      This article used as its primary source, the following article,
      combined with personal communication with Dr. Jonathan Latham. Jonathan R
      Latham, PhD and Ricarda A Steinbrecher, PhD, Horizontal gene transfer of
      viral inserts from GM plants to Viruses, GM Science Review Meeting of the
      Royal Society of Edinburgh on "GM Gene Flow: Scale and Consequences for
      Agriculture and the Environment" 27 January 2003 - amended February 2004
      www.econexus.info/pdf/Horizontal-Genes-virus-2004.pdf


      [1]
      http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/FailureGEP
      apayainHawaii.pdf
      [2] Comments on GM Science Review, From Econexus, the Five Year
      Freeze, Friends of the Earth, GeneWatch UK, Greenpeace, the Soil
      Association, and Dr Michael Antoniou, October 14th 2003
      [3] Nearly every type of virus protein has this ability: viral coat
      proteins (A),, viral movement proteins (B); viral replicase proteins (C);
      viral proteins involved in overcoming host defenses(D) and miscellaneous
      viral proteins(E). (A) E.g Taliansky, M. E., and Garcia-Arenal, F. (1995).
      Role of cucumovirus capsid protein in long-distance movement within the
      infected plant. J Virol 69(2), 916-22; Briddon, R. W., Pinner, M. S.,
      Stanley, J., and Markham, P. G. (1990). Geminivirus coat protein gene
      replacement alters insect specificity. Virology 177(1), 85-94; (B) E.g
      Cooper, B., et al. (1995). A defective movement protein of TMV in transgenic
      plants confers resistance to multiple viruses whereas the functional analog
      increases susceptibility. Virology 206(1), 307-13; Ziegler-Graff, V.,
      Guilford, P. J., and Baulcombe, D. C. (1991). Tobacco rattle virus RNA-1 29K
      gene product potentiates viral movement and also affects symptom induction
      in tobacco. Virology 182(1), 145-55; (C) Siegel, R. W., Adkins, S., and Kao,
      C. C. (1997). Sequence-specific recognition of a subgenomic RNA promoter by
      a viral RNA polymerase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94(21), 11238-43;
      Teycheney, P. Y., et al. (2000). Synthesis of (-)-strand RNA from the 3'
      untranslated region of plant viral genomes expressed in transgenic plants
      upon infection with related viruses. J Gen Virol 81(4), 1121-6; (D) Pruss,
      G., et al (1997). Plant viral synergism: the potyviral genome encodes a
      broad-range pathogenicity enhancer that transactivates replication of
      heterologous viruses. Plant Cell 9(6), 859-68; Sonoda, S., et al. (2000).
      The helper component-proteinase of sweet potato feathery mottle virus
      facilitates systemic spread of potato virus X in Ipomoea nil. Phytopathology
      90, 944-950; and (E) Agranovsky, A.A. et al. (1998). Beet yellows
      closterovirus HSP70-like protein mediates the cell-to-cell movement of a
      potexvirus transport-deficient mutant and a hordeivirus-based chimeric
      virus. J Gen Virol 79 ( Pt 4), 889-95; Sunter, G., Sunter, J. L., and
      Bisaro, D. M. (2001). Plants expressing tomato golden mosaic virus AL2 or
      beet curly top virus L2 transgenes show enhanced susceptibility to infection
      by DNA and RNA viruses. Virology 285(1), 59-70.
      [4] Hao et al 2003 The plant cell 15 1034-1048; Kong et al 2000 EMBO
      journal 19 3485-3495; Rubino et al 2000 Journal of General Virology 81
      279-286; Dalmay et al 2001 EMBO Journal 20 2069-2077
      [5] Helen Pearson, What is a Gene?, Nature, Vol 441, May 25, 2006
      [6] Lewis, B. P., Burge, C. B. and Bartel, D. P. (2005). Conserved
      seed pairing, often flanked by adenosines, indicates that thousands of human
      genes are microRNA targets. Cell 120, 15-20.
      [7] Minoo Rassoulzadegan et al, RNA-mediated non-mendelian
      inheritance of an epigenetic change in the mouse, Nature 441, 469-474, May
      25, 2006
      [8] Lolle, S. J., Victor, J. L., Young, J. M. & Pruitt. R. E.
      Genome-wide non-mendelian inheritance of extra-genomic information in
      Arabidopsis, Nature 434, 505–509 (2005).
      [9] Cretenet, M., Goven, J., Heinemann, J.A., Moore, B. and
      Rodriguez-Beltran, C. 2006. Submission on the DAR for Application A549 Food
      Derived from High-Lysine Corm LY038: to permit the use in food of
      high-lysine corn. www.inbi.canterbury.ac.nz.
      [10] Cogoni, C. and G. Macino (2000). “Post-transcriptional gene
      silencing across kingdoms.” Curr. Opin. Genet. Develop. 10: 638-643; and
      Timmons, L., D. L. Court, et al. (2001). "Ingestion of bacterially expressed
      dsRNAs can produce specific and potent genetic interference in
      Caenorhabditis elegans." Gene 263: 103-112.
      [11] Timmons, L., D. L. Court, et al. (2001). "Ingestion of
      bacterially expressed dsRNAs can produce specific and potent genetic
      interference in Caenorhabditis elegans." Gene 263: 103-112.
      [12] Zhao, Z., Y. Cao, et al. (2001). "Double-Stranded RNA Injection
      Produces Nonspecific Defects in Zebrafish." Develop. Biol. 229: 215-223.
      [13] Jack Heinemann et al, Submission on Application A549 Food Derived
      from High Lysine Corn LY038: to permit the use in food of high lysine corn,
      Submitted to Food Standards Australia/New Zealand (FSANZ) by New Zealand
      Institute of Gene Ecology, January 22, 2005.
      [14] Cretenet, M., Goven, J., Heinemann, J.A., Moore, B. and
      Rodriguez-Beltran, C. 2006. Submission on the DAR for Application A549 Food
      Derived from High-Lysine Corm LY038: to permit the use in food of
      high-lysine corn. www.inbi.canterbury.ac.nz.
      [15] Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S,
      Kebdani N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of
      commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome
      fluidity. Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant
      Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of
      Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN,
      www.crii-gen.org; also “Transgenic lines proven unstable” by Mae-Wan Ho,
      ISIS Report, 23 October 2003
      [16 ] Andreas Rang et al, Detection of RNA variants transcribed from
      the transgene in Roundup Ready soybean Eur Food Res Technol (2005)
      220:438–443.
      [17] Joe Cummins, Transgenic virus resistant plums, June 11, 2006
      [18] Jack Heinemann et al, Submission on Application A549 Food
      Derived from High Lysine Corn LY038: to permit the use in food of high
      lysine corn, Submitted to Food Standards Australia/New Zealand (FSANZ) by
      New Zealand Institute of Gene Ecology, January 22, 2005.
      [19] Dasgupta, R., Garcia, B. H., 2nd, and Goodman, R. M. (2001).
      Systemic spread of an RNA insect virus in plants expressing plant viral
      movement protein genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98(9), 4910-5.
      [20] Jonathan R Latham, PhD and Ricarda A Steinbrecher, PhD,
      Horizontal gene transfer of viral inserts from GM plants to Viruses, GM
      Science Review Meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on "GM Gene Flow:
      Scale and Consequences for Agriculture and the Environment" 27 January
      2003 - amended February 2004
      [21] Mark, Varrelmann et al, Transgenic or Plant Expression
      Vector-Mediated Recombination of Plum Pox Virus, JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY, Aug.
      2000, p. 7462–7469 Vol. 74, No. 16
      [22] Borja M, Rubio T, Scholthof HB, et al. (1999) Restoration of
      wild-type virus by double recombination of tombusvirus mutants with a host
      transgene. MPMI 12: 153-162 1999
      [23] Jonathan R Latham, PhD and Ricarda A Steinbrecher, PhD,
      Horizontal gene transfer of viral inserts from GM plants to Viruses, GM
      Science Review Meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on "GM Gene Flow:
      Scale and Consequences for Agriculture and the Environment" 27 January
      2003 - amended February 2004
      [24] Gibbs M (1994) Risks in using transgenic plants? Science 264:
      1650-1651
      [25] Weiland I and Edwards M (1996) A single nucleotide
      substitution in the alpha a gene confers oat pathogenicity to barley stripe
      mosaic virus strain ND18. MPMl9: 62-67
      [26]Comments on GM Science Review, From Econexus, the Five Year
      Freeze, Friends of the Earth, GeneWatch UK, Greenpeace, the Soil
      Association, and Dr Michael Antoniou, October 14th 2003
      [27] In Gibbs, et al, 1999 PNAS 99 8022-27, there is a report of a
      hypbrid vertebrate/plant virus that infects plants. In De Medeiros, et al.,
      2005 PNAS 2005 vol 102 1175-80, Also available is de medeiros et al 2005
      PNAS 2005 vol 102 1175-80, a gene from an insect was expressed in human cell
      lines, and allowed the cells to become infected by a plant virus (tomato
      spotted wilt virus).
      [28]Jack Heinemann et al, Submission on Application A549 Food Derived
      from High Lysine Corn LY038: to permit the use in food of high lysine corn,
      Submitted to Food Standards Australia/New Zealand (FSANZ) by New Zealand
      Institute of Gene Ecology, January 22, 2005.
      [29] Robert Wisner, Genetically Modified Wheat is Still a Market
      Risk, WORC May 2005 www.worc.org/pdfs/wisnersummary-05-05.pdf
      [30] Washington Post (May 11, 2004). Monsanto Pulls Plan To
      Commercialize Gene-Altered Wheat,
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15998-2004May10.html
      [31] According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant
      Biosafety Office, the GE flax was deregistered on April 1, 2001; The Leader
      Post (June 22, 2001) GM flax off the market
      [32]Wall Street Journal (April 27, 2001) Refiners shun bioengineered
      sugar beets, frustrating plans for Monsanto, Aventis,
      http://www.biotech-info.net/refiners_shun.html
      [33] Schubert R. (Feb. 22, 2002) GE rice resistance - market rejects
      gene-altered crop, http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry0137.html?recid=595
      [34] New Research Reveals Widespread GMO Contamination and Threats to
      Local Agriculture From the World's First Commercially Planted Genetically
      Engineered Tree, Press release, GMO-Free Kauai, September 9 2004
      [35]Jonathan R Latham, PhD and Ricarda A Steinbrecher, PhD,
      Horizontal gene transfer of viral inserts from GM plants to Viruses, GM
      Science Review Meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on "GM Gene Flow:
      Scale and Consequences for Agriculture and the Environment" 27 January
      2003 - amended February 2004
      [36]De Zoeten GA (1991). Risk assessment: Do we let history repeat
      itself? Phytopathology 81: 585-86; Hull, R. (1994). Risks in using
      transgenic plants? Science 264, 1649-50; author reply 1651-2; Gibbs M (1994)
      Risks in using transgenic plants? Science 264:1650-1651; UCS 1994; Allison,
      R. F., Greene, A., and Schneider, W. L. (1997). Significance of RNA
      recombination in capsid protein-mediated virus-resistant transgenic plants.
      In "Virus-resistant transgenic plants: potential ecological impact" (M.
      Tepfer, and E. Balazs, Eds.). INRA and Springer-Verlag,
      Versailles/Heidelberg; and Gibbs, M., Armstrong, J., Weiller, E., and Gibbs,
      A. (1997). Virus evolution; the past, a window on the future? In
      "Virus-resistant transgenic plants: potential ecological impact" (M. Tepfer,
      and E. Balazs, Eds.), pp. 1-19. INRA and Springer-Verlag,
      Versailles/Heidelberg.
      [37] Falk BW, and Bruening G (1994) Will transgenic crops generate
      new viruses and new diseases. Science 263: 1395-1396, USDA (1994) Docket No.
      92-127-4 Environmental Assessment and finding of no significant impact for
      ZW-20 squash, J. Hammond et al, (1999) Epidemiological risks from mixed
      virus infections and transgenic plants expressing viral genes. Adv. Virus
      Res. 54: 189-314.
      [38] Barker H (1989) Specificity of effect of sap-transmissible
      viruses in increasing the accumulation of luteoviruses in co-infected cells.
      Ann. Appl. Biol. 115: 71-78, and Latham JR et al (1997) Induction of plant
      cell division by beet curly top virus gene C4. Plant J. 11: 1273-1283
      [39] e.g., Simon, K. O., Cardamone, J. J., Jr., Whitaker-Dowling, P.
      A., Youngner, J. S., and Widnell, C. C. (1990). C


      --------------------------------------------------------------------

      This email was sent to Jahnets@..., by The Institute for
      Responsible Technology, located at PO Box 469 - - Fairfield, IA 52556 -
      United States of America. To unsubscribe~from~this~publication or
      remove~your~email~address~from~all~lists maintained by The Institute for
      Responsible Technology, please visit: Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]