GMOIreland

The science-policy interface is one of the most interesting places to find yourself.

For elected representatives the science-policy interface is often a place where they find their notions of science being black and white quickly fade into a murky grey of uncertainty easy stirred by political rhetoric (e.g. MMR vaccination). In fact, the idea that science will always say, without uncertainty, if something is right or wrong is a fallacy as the scientific process constantly rechecks and challenges itself and its previous results. Uncertainty is inherent to the scientific endeavor. However, facing and dealing with this in a political context where the public and their representative cry out for certainty is often difficult, inconvenient and politically challenging but exceptionally important.

Below is a statement from Avril Doyle, one of Ireland longest serving MEPs in the European Parliament. Ms. Doyle is to retire from European politics this summer and is not seeking re-election. As a result her frank and direct comments below strike to the heart of the problems encountered at the science-policy interface that need to be examined and worked on by scientists, policy experts and politicians together.

Avril Doyle MEP: Madam President, I welcome the revision of the Novel Food Regulation, which must stimulate innovation in the food and drink industry. It must protect the functioning of the internal market and public health and, at the same time, facilitate market access for novel foods.

However, I have some concerns generally about what I will call the scientific antipathy and distrust of this European Parliament and, indeed, of our national parliaments which has become a matter of serious concern on a whole range of areas at this stage. We do not do justice to ourselves with emotive, hysterical or populist responses to the latest peer-reviewed scientific developments, and we do not do justice to our democratic mandate. When GM products, cloning and nanotechnology are mentioned in this House, then it is belt-and-braces and the answer is - no; then, we slowly open up and delay authorisation.

I am concerned with EFSA, Madam Commissioner, and whether it has the resource capacity to process dossiers under this regulation in a timely but thorough way. If our embarrassing experience with the GM food and feed authorisations and rate of progress thereon are anything to go by, the answer must be, no. Why do we respond as if we are scientific illiterates on any new aspect of this area? Why do we distrust peer-reviewed science to such an extent? Have none of us, or very few of us, scientific backgrounds in this Parliament at all? The same question can be asked of national parliaments. We must base legislation on thorough, serious science and accept that. If not, our credibility as legislators is in question.

Text of speech can be found HERE

As someone who gets quite a number of questions on GM issues from folks in Africa and Asia I get to see and hear some of the more extreme disinformation and scare mongering that goes on. Last year in the Philippines there was the terrible attempt by Greenpeace to say GM crops caused miscarriages HERE. More recently from India we have had folks promulgating yet more scare...

"Devinder Sharma, food policy analyst and columnist, said GM foods were known to have caused allergy, respiratory and intestinal problems and kidney diseases in humans." The Hindu, March, 20, 2009 see HERE

Of course this is not true, GM food have never been confirmed to have caused any such impacts in humans. I think I will start offering an annual prize for the most extreme/erroneous scare attempt on GM.....

I always liked Italy - the food, the climate, and especially the passionate people. In fact, Italy was the first (and only) place I have seen anti-GM graffiti....(similar to the above but with a big NON added)

As a result, I was interested to come across an Italian newspaper citing one of our published GM policy research papers. I have no idea if the newspaper is a large, small, liberal or conservative. Anyway from my very bad Italian I think they liked the research...the article is HERE

nice to know that the Italian for our department is "dipartimento di Biochimica e Bioscienza"

those interested in a useful, dynamic info source on GM in Italian see <http://biotecnologiebastabugie.blogspot.com

Having seen numerous GM food stories in Irish media develop, reshape and be immortalized in the print it is often hard to explain the real process of the 'meeja' to fellow scientists and the problem I see with science in the meeja. However, Dr. Ben Goldacre, who writes for the Guardian, does an excellent job explaining the issues in this interview....
Ben Goldacre of Bad Science talks about Sensationalised Science Reporting from Conrad on Vimeo.

Professor Patrick Wall, Former Chair of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), had a large article on GM crops in the Irish Farmers Journal published this weekend (Jan 10, 2008)....

The link below is a copy of Professor Wall's text as submitted to the Irish Farmers Journal....

PWall on GMO.pdf

The Sunday Times

January 4, 2009

Blight fears spark call for GM potato

Scientists step up bid to create variety resistant to new aggressive strain

Lynne Kelleher

A genetically modified variety of spud may have to be produced in Irish laboratories because of the growing threat from blight.

The fungal disease that wiped out the potato crop in the mid-19th century, causing more than 1m deaths, is posing a renewed menace after a more aggressive strain arrived, according to a leading scientist. This has prompted experts to intensify work, including using GM technology, to find a blight-resistant variety.

Dr Ewen Mullins, a research officer with Teagasc, the agriculture and food development authority, said the risk of blight has become more serious in the past two years.

He said: 'Its primarily our geographic location. We have humid, damp summers and the past two years have seen outbreaks of blight, probably the worst on record.

'That's a significant challenge to the industry. Our research shows a new strain has come in. It migrated westward across Europe probably in the past 12 to 18 months. It was in the UK about two years ago and in the eastern counties of Ireland in 2008. It's a highly aggressive strain.'

read more at full article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5439525.ece

Everyone agrees: Cuba is fascinating.

Irrespective of your view on Cuban politics all agree it is an interesting place. It is an ideological crossroads where Marx, Castro, Che Guevara and many others on the left have met. A communist country in the shadow of the U.S., the central icon of the free market. How Cuba has invested in GM crop technology is often overlooked by those claiming GM technology is a multi-national corporate take over of our food supply.

The level of Cuban research and development into GM crop technology is staggering considering the size of the country.....a quick look at the forthcoming agenda of "Biotecnologia Habana 2008" reveals the scope and depth of Cuban public investment into GM technology in the agricultural field.....see http://bh2008.cigb.edu.cu/download/programa_BH2008.pdf

The Cuban Government's dedicated GM research center: the "Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology" is a world leader in GM technology. It is the pivotal point for Cuba who knows that public led technology is one of the answers to the huge challenges they face. No wonder the title of the upcoming conferences is: 'AgBiotechnology: facing huge challenges with new approaches'.... Hope the talk I have been invited to give goes down well.....

Anti-GM and anti-nuclear advocates need to be challenged

DR WILLIAM REVILLE

The Irish Times, Thu, Sep 25, 2008

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE:Scientists should be as passionate and determined in debate as anti-GM or anti-nuclear activists

I RECENTLY attended a press conference called by anti-GM (genetically modified) protesters at an agricultural biotechnology scientific conference (ABIC2008 in UCC- addition).

Three people, none of whom are scientists, ran the press conference and each made detailed statements. The audience was a mixture of anti-GM activists, none of whom (to my knowledge) were scientists, and a selection of scientists experienced in the GM field.

I myself have little experience in the GM area. The arguments presented by the amateurs at this press conference were completely at odds with the positions outlined by the experienced scientists. Both sides liberally cited "scientific research" to support their positions. What is the general public to make out of this?

This scene is typical of what happens nowadays, particularly in environmental areas. As I said, I am no GM expert, but I do have some professional expertise in another environmental area - the effects of low-level ionising radiation. The press conference described above perfectly mirrors many meetings I attended over the years organised by anti-nuclear groups. A main plank of the anti-nuclear argument is that the low-level radiation emitted by nuclear power plants, and ancillary processes, is very dangerous. Mainline science holds that risk from exposure to radiation is proportional to the dose received and because the leakage of radiation from nuclear power plants under normal circumstances is tiny, the risk to the health of those exposed is correspondingly tiny. Of course, the situation is very different in the event of major accident.

Both sides quote scientific evidence to back their claims. The difference between the sides is that the mainline science position is based on a lot of high quality research published in the best peer-reviewed journals, whereas the anti-nuclear position on low-level radiation is supported by very little research, much of which is not published in high quality peer-reviewed journals.

When pressed on the paucity of their underpinning scientific support, the anti-nuclear people say that all "independent" scientists back their position. But, when you look at the credentials of these few scientists who support the anti-nuclear position it is completely unclear in most cases how they merit the title "independent" any more than most of the scientists who come to opposite conclusions.

Some of the "science" put forward by the anti-nuclear side is farcical. For example, they went through a phase of claiming that risk of ill-health from exposure to low-level radiation is negatively correlated to dose - that is, the less you received, the more dangerous it is. In fact, there is now good evidence to show that exposure to the lowest level of radiation is not dangerous at all but, on the contrary, it is good for you. This is the phenomenon of hormesis, which I described here on September 11th.

So, why was the anti-nuclear argument about low-level radiation not dismissed out of hand in the face of massive contrary evidence from mainline science? Probably the main reason was the timid approach adopted by mainline scientific spokespersons. The anti-nuclear people speak with absolute confidence. They assure the public that every nuclear power plant spreads a deadly cloud of cancers in its vicinity and that they have scientific proof of this. Mainline scientists deny this and say that studies consistently show that risks are small, although not zero. The anti-nuclear people would challenge them with the question, "Can you guarantee the public that nuclear emissions are absolutely safe?"

The mainline scientists reply, "There is no such thing as zero level of risk". This is where the argument is lost with the public. The anti-nuclear people have no problem giving guarantees of danger and cancer, the mainline scientists will not guarantee safety, preferring to talk of low levels of probability.

Of course, in cases like this mainline science should declare a process to be safe. Safe here means safe in the sense understood in everyday life. For example, is it safe to walk down the stairs? The commonsense answer is yes, provided the stairs is sound and you look where you are going. The strict scientific answer will quote you the probability of having a fall.

Another problem is that the media tends to give every voice, amateur and professional, equal weight. This is not fair to the general public. The media has a responsibility to ask tough probing questions of all who seek a platform for their views. When questions can only be answered by science, scientists have an even greater responsibility to stand firm on issues where the scientific evidence is persuasive. Environmental activists who take a position on issues contrary to the evidence of mainline science always speak with confidence and passion and often try to shout down opposing voices. They should be opposed with matching vigour. Only then can science win out.

A Classic!

interesting piece....will wait and see what exactly the Dail transcripts say...

Use of GM foods inevitable in EU- expert

DICK AHLSTROM, Science Editor

Fri, Jul 18, 2008

IT IS inevitable that EU states will accept genetically modified foods, despite the fact that 70 per cent of people are opposed to them, the Government's chief scientific adviser has stated. Foods containing modified ingredients are already on our supermarket shelves and livestock here is being fed genetically modified feeds. Prof Patrick Cunningham answered questions about the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods yesterday while attending the Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. He also handled questions on a range of subjects including future energy supplies, risks posed by overhead power lines and waste incineration and climate change. Prof Cunningham issued a formal report to Government on GM foods last summer. It looked at safety, benefits and risks and, after assessing a range of studies on the issue, he believed GM was of value to Ireland. "The answer has to be yes," he told the Committee. "[ GM] is not going to go away and it is advancing at a hell of a rate," he said. Countries around the world were growing about 100 million hectares of GM corn, cotton, soyabean and rice. Genetic modifications impart resistance to herbicides and insect attack, providing cost and yield improvement for the farmer, he said. "This has given a tremendous competitive advantage to those using [ GM]." We are already consuming foods with GM content, he said. About 60 per cent of products contain either corn or soya ingredients. "In fact, GM products are on the supermarket shelves," he said. "We are using approved GM corn in pig feed in Ireland today." The safety of these products was a key element of the report, he said. The results of a survey of the limited literature on the subject suggested that the consumption of GM foods did not pose a health risk.

GM directive deficiencies in the European Union. The current framework for regulating GM crops in the EU weakens the precautionary principle as a policy tool

Shane H Morris & Charles Spillane EMBO Reports 9, 6, 500 504 (2008)

http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v9/n6/index.html

Here, we argue that the EU's regulatory framework for GM crops is not likely to be sustainable in its present form, particularly given the rapid pace of advances in plant biotechnology. Furthermore, because the framework is solely process-based so as to regulate GM plants but not other varieties, the genetic constitution of which has been modified by using alternative or traditional methods it is not in accordance with the precautionary principle, which is the EU's chosen basis for risk assessment and the regulation of new technologies. Instead, we argue a more appropriate regulatory framework, which would more logically reflect the idea of the precautionary principle, should focus on comparatively assessing the potential environmental and health risks versus benefits of a product, rather than overly focusing on the process through which the product a new plant variety was created. In essence, the GM regulatory fiasco has largely been a construct of past policy decisions to choose a process rather than a product-based approach to regulate new plants or foods, including GM crop varieties.

click here:
GM directive-EMBO-Morris&Spillne.pdf also a related paper published in Trends in Biotechnology in 2007: EU biotech crop regulations and environmental risk: a case of the emperor's new clothes? Trends in Biotechnology Volume 25, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 2-6
MorrisTRENDS2007.pdf

Greenpeace being economical with the truth again...

Greenpeace claims US rice can cause cancer and even miscarriage

"Initially, GMO rice was meant to protect [rice] against pests, but studies have shown that it can cause cancer and even miscarriage," Ocampo [Greenpeace spokesperson] said.

but this is the same rice that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in an Aug 2006 statement described as "Consumers can be assured that this is not a food safety issue" Dr. Pat O'Mahony, chief specialist, biotechnology, with the FSAI.

Since then I am not aware of any studies showing LL601 rice causing miscarriages or cancer....

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080424-132417/Warning-ra\ ised-vs-sale-of-allegedly-contaminated-US-rice

Warning raised vs sale of allegedly contaminated US rice

But NFA spokesman denies Greenpeace claim

By Abigail Kwok

INQUIRER.net Posted date: April 24, 2008

MANILA, Philippines -- At least two brands of US commercial rice being sold in public markets to replace government-subsidized rice could be contaminated, an environmentalist group said.

But Tom Escarez, spokesman of the National Food Auhtority, denied the claim by environment watchdog Greenpeace, saying the government has a certification that the imported rice being sold in public markets were not contaminated with genetically-modified organisms (GMO). In a forum Thursday, Greenpeace said studies revealed that two imported brands of US long grain rice were already contaminated with GMOs. The two brands are Blue Ribbon from Texas and Riceland from Arkansas. These are being sold in all S&R Supermarkets across Metro Manila, the group said. "We don't know how many [US rice] are still contaminated because Greenpeace doesn't have enough funds to conduct a thorough experiment," said Daniel Ocampo, Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaigner for South East Asia. But Escarez denied claims. "Meron kaming hawak na certification from the US na GMO-free ang bigas [We have a certification from the US that the rice is GMO-free]. Ang certification na ito ay galing pa sa [This certification even came from the] US Department of Agriculture." "Hindi kasama itong Blue Ribbon at Riceland sa binebenta naming P25 [Blue Ribbon and Riceland are not among the brands that we are selling for P25]. Hindi namin alam itong dalawang brands na ito [We do not know these two brands]," Escarez added. He also said that the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) has yet to find traces of GMO contamination in all of the rice imports in the country. The NFA said it has imported a total of 44,000 metric tons of rice from the US. Meanwhile, Ocampo said, "This is the second time Greenpeace has discovered illegal GMO rice in the country. And, as usual, the Department of Agriculture was unable to detect its entry into our rice supply." Ocampo said that based on their investigation, two kinds of GMO strains were found in US rice sold here. These are LL601 and a still unidentified strain. Traces of LL601 were found in US rice from the Blue Ribbon brand, he said. Ocampo said that GMO rice was different from hybrid rice. GMO rice is made by manually inserting synthetic genes to rice grains to manipulate their traits. The synthetic gene usually would come from a totally different organism. The goal of GMO rice is to protect rice from pests and other harmful organisms in the environment, he said. Hybrid rice is safe because it is made by combining two kinds of rice and is bred through conventional means, Ocampo said. "Initially, GMO rice was meant to protect [rice] against pests, but studies have shown that it can cause cancer and even miscarriage," Ocampo said. Ocampo said that Greenpeace was calling on the NFA to isolate all US long grain rice and to conduct tests to determine if all were contaminated with GMO. He also called on NFA to pull out all US commercial rice from the market. "We challenge the DA, through the NFA, to conduct further and more stringent tests on rice to ensure its safety," Ocampo said. The NFA started selling US commercial rice at P25 per kilo to replace government subsidized rice, which was pulled out from public markets so that these could be distributed in depressed areas.

the www.gmoinfo.ie website that has been developed by Teagasc (The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority) and is co-funded by the the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has undergone a huge makeover and is back after a long absence..... enjoy......

Will be transferring my blog here over the next few days....