More on the Safety of Cry1Ab

HT: David Tribe

Excerpted from:

Alain de Weck *

* Emeritus Professor of Immunology, Institute of Immunology (University of Bern,
Switzerland), Department of Allergology (University of Navarra, Spain)

Translation from: http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/1/39/38/37/commentaires-papier-Aris-Leblanc-par-AdeWeck.pdf

 

"In summary (25), Cry1Ab has no characteristics associated with toxins or food allergens, it has no peptide sequence homology with known allergens (26), it has no N-glycosylation sites for a secondary immunization, it is rapidly degraded by gastric and intestinal fluids, it has no side effects in mice force-fed orally at a dose of 5 g / kg. So there is a reasonable certainty and there is no documented adverse effects of the inclusion of Cry1Ab in the feed and food (25). In this context, the first actual assertion of such an absorption in humans  represent or actually the first one and should have made the Canadian authors particularly cautious, but this is clearly not the case."

(25) Xu W, Cao S, He X, Luo Y, Guo X, Yuan Y, Huang K Safety assessment of Cry1Ab/Ac fusion protein. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009; 47: 1459-65.

(26) Randhawa GJ, Singh M, Grover M. Bioinformatic analysis for allergenicity assessment of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry proteins expressed in insect-resistant food crops. Food Chem Toxicol. 2011; 49 ; 356-62.

Crticism of the ELISA Technique and Cry1Ab Detection

In ‘Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified Foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada’ the authors claim to have identified the toxin Cry1Ab in the blood of pregnant women.  Cry1Ab is a protein produced by the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that is toxic to certain insect pests. Cry1Ab is just one version (event) of this Bt toxin.  Bt toxins have been used extensively by organic farmers and biotechnology has enabled seed companies to develop corn plants that express Cry1Ab proteins giving them a built in defense mechanism against insects susceptible to the toxin, while preserving the biodiversity of friendly insects.  Bt genetics have also been incorporated into cotton. The economic, environmental, safety, and health benefits have made this a very popular  tool used by the majority of family farmers. 

One of the major criticisms of the article was the use of the test used to identify the Cry1Ab protein. In the article the authors state:

‘Cry1Ab protein levels were determined in blood using a commercially available double antibody sandwich(DAS)enzyme-linked immune sorbent assay.’

 There have been many criticisms of this article. Basic statistical techniques show that the ELISA test is one of the most unreliable methods for detecting Cry1Ab toxins.  Dr. David Tribe and Dr. Cami Ryan have done a great job discussing the underlying science and peer review of this article as well.  Digging into Dr. Tribe's commentary you can find a very well written peer review based criticism of this paper:

 Alain de Weck *
* Emeritus Professor of Immunology, Institute of Immunology (University of Bern,
Switzerland), Department of Allergology (University of Navarra, Spain)
Translation from: http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/1/39/38/37/commentaires-papier-Aris-Leblanc-par-AdeWeck.pdf

"In fact, a second category of doubts and questions arise in terms of immunological technique. Indeed, the only basis for the results presented is a double sandwich ELISA commercial test, decribed to be specifically for Cry1Ab (Agdia, Elkhart, IN, USA) (27). Many immunologists warn that such tests can yield not specifc results , especially in the presence of blood or serum proteins.  Various ELISA tests are unusable in serum, due to non-specific binding, [? and variability within samples?] and from one individual to another (28 and unpublished results). These results and signals from non-specific enzymatic variables give exactly the same type of results as those reported by Aris and Leblanc (1). In addition, peroxidase type enzyme conjugates , such as that used in the Agdiatest , are particularly sensitive to this type of non-specific effect, generating false positive  measurements(29). It has been made clear made clear by two users at least theAgdia test does not give reliable results in blood (16 33). Comparisons carried out by various authors between commercial sandwich ELISA (27,30,31) and various laboratory tests using anti-Cry1Ab polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies (32-36) demonstrate that the environmental tests of sandwich ELISA Cry1Ab to vary greatly in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Tests of this kind are particularly likely to yield non-specific false positive findings, especially in the presence of serum (37)."

(27) Agdia Bt-Cry1Ab/1Ac ELISA Kit -ELISA for the detection of Bt-Cry1Ab/1Ac proteins Catalog number: PSP 06200 https://orders.agdia.com/Documents/m172.pdf_0
(28) Furukawa K, Tengler R, de Weck AL, Maly FE. Simplified sulfidoleukotriene ELISA using LTD4-conjugated phosphatase for the study of allergen-induced leukotriene generation by isolated mononuclear cells and diluted whole blood. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1994; 4:110-5.

(29) Pino RM. Binding of Fab-horseradish peroxidase conjugates by charge and not by immunospecificity. J Histochem Cytochem. 1985 Jan;33(1):55-8.
(16) Chowdhury EH, Kuribara H, Hino A, Sultana P, Mikami O, Shimada N, Guruge KS, Saito M, Nakajima Y. Detection of corn intrinsic and recombinant DNA fragments and Cry1Ab protein in the gastrointestinal contents of pigs fed genetically modified corn Bt11. J Anim Sci. 2003; 81: 2546-51
(30) Envirologix.QualiPlate™ Combo Kit for Cry1Ab & Cry3Bb1 -Catalog Number: AP 039. http://www.envirologix.com/artman/publish/article_232.shtml

(31) Quantitative ELISA for Bt-Cry1Ab. Immunoassay for quantitative detection of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins in transgenic crops. http://www.krishgen.com

(32) Walschus U, Witt S, Wittmann C. Development of Monoclonal Antibodies Against Cry1Ab Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis and Their Application in an ELISA for Detection of Transgenic Bt-Maize . Food and Agricultural Immunology , 2002; 14 : 231-230

(33) Paul V, Steinke K, Meyer HD. Development and validation of a sensitive enzyme immunoassay for surveillance of Cry1Ab toxin in bovine blood plasma of cows fed Btmaize(MON810). Analytica Chimica Acta, 2008; 607 : 106-113

(34) Icoz I, Andow D, Zwahlen C, Stotzky G. Is the Cry1Ab protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) taken up by plants from soils previously planted with Bt corn and by carrot from hydroponic culture? Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2009; 83:48-58.

(35) Crespo LB , Spencer ZA, Nekl E, Pusztai-Carey M, Moar WJ, Blair D, Siegfried W. Comparison and Validation of Methods To Quantify Cry1Ab Toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis for Standardization of Insect Bioassays. Applied Environmental Microbiology , 2008; 74 :130–135

(36) Zhu X, Chen L, Shen P, Jia J, Zhang D, Yang L. High Sensitive Detection of Cry1Ab Protein Using a Quantum Dot-Based Fluorescence-Linked Immunosorbent Assay. J Agric Food Chemistry. 2011; 59 : 2184-9..

(37) Case JT, Ardans AA. Nonspecific reactions in an enzyme-l inked immunosorbent assay caused by binding of immunoglobulins in situ to egg-propagated infectious bronchitis virus. Avian Dis. 1986; 30: 149-53.

Crying about Statistics Class and Cry1Ab

Lots of times students complain that either their statistics classes used silly examples that were too simple to ever be realistic, or that their course was too complicated and thus they leave the class without the capability of  any practical application.  A recent study looking at the safety of GMO corn provides a great case study for the practical application of the coefficient of variation (CV).

read more at EconomicsPrinciplesandApplications.

Bt Corn and Monarch Butterflies

"There is no significant risk to monarch butterflies from environmental exposure to Bt corn, according to research conducted by a group of scientists coordinated by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)."  Link


References:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

 

Monarch larvae sensitivity to Bacillus thuringiensis-purified proteins and pollen.
Richard L. Hellmich, Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Unit, Agricultural Research Service-U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ames, Iowa; (515) 294-9343, fax (515) 294-2268, e-mail rlhellmi@iastate.edu.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/211297698v1

Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment.
Mark K. Sears, Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada; (519) 824-4120 ext. 3921, fax (519) 837-0442, e-mail msears@evb.uoguelph.ca.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/211329998v1

Corn pollen deposition on milkweeds in and near cornfields.
John M. Pleasants, Department of Zoology and Genetics, Iowa State University, Ames; (515) 294-7204, fax (515) 294-8457, e-mail jpleasan@iastate.edu.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/211287498v1

Assessing the impact of Cry1Ab-expressing corn pollen on monarch butterfly larvae in field studies.
Diane E. Stanley-Horn, Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada; (519) 824-4120 ext. 4847, fax (519) 837-0442, e-mail destanle@uoguelph.ca.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/211277798v1

Temporal and spatial overlap between monarch larvae and corn pollen.
Karen S. Oberhauser; Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota (612) 624-8706, fax (612) 624-6777, e-mail oberh001@tc.umn.edu.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/211234298v1

Effects of exposure to event 176 Bacillus thuringiensis corn pollen on monarch and black swallowtail caterpillars under field conditions.
M. R. Berenbaum, Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illionois; (217) 333-7784, fax (217) 244-3499, e-mail maybe@uiuc.edu.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/171315698v1

HFCS Nutrition and Health Bibliography

 See also: Is Corn A Greater Threat than Al Queda and "ose"gate

Sun SZ, Flickinger BD, Williamson-Hughes PS, Empie MW. 2010. Lack of association between dietary fructose and hyperuricemia risk in adults. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2010 Mar 1; 7:16. Free access to full article.

White JS. 2009. Misconceptions about High-Fructose Corn Syrup: Is It Uniquely Responsible for Obesity, Reactive Dicarbonyl Compounds, and Advanced Glycation Endproducts? J Nutr 139(6): 1219S-1227S. Free access to full article.

Fulgoni V. 2008. High-fructose corn syrup: everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask. Am J Clin Nutr 88(6):1715S. Free access to full article.

White JS. 2008. Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't. Am J Clin Nutr 88(6):1716S-1721S. Free access to full article.

Melanson KJ, Angelopoulos TJ, Nguyen V, Zukley L, Lowndes J, Rippe JM. 2008. High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation. Am J Clin Nutr 88(6):1738S-1744S. Free access to full article.

Soenen S and Westerterp-Plantenga MS. 2007. No differences in satiety or energy intake after high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or milk preloads. Am J Clin Nutr 86(6):1586-1594. Free access to full article.
  See also:  Is Corn a Greater Threat than Al Queda and "ose"gate
Akhavan T. and Anderson GH. 2007. Effects of glucose-to-fructose ratios in solutions on subjective satiety, food intake, and satiety hormones in young men. Am J Clin Nut 86(5) 1354-1363. Free access to full article.

Forshee RA, Storey ML, Allison DB, Glinsmann WH, Hein GL, Lineback DR, Miller SA, Nicklas TA, Weaver GA, White JS. 2007. A Critical Examination of the Evidence Relating High Fructose Corn Syrup and Weight Gain. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 47(6):561-582. Free access to full article.

Sun SZ, Empie MW. 2007. Lack of findings for the association between obesity risk and usual sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in adults - A primary analysis of databases of CSFII-1989-1991, CSFII-1994-1998, NHANES III, and combined
NHANES 1999-2002. Food Chem Toxicol 45(8):1523-1536. Free access to full article.

Monsivais P, Perrigue MM, Drewnowski A. 2007. Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference? Am J Clin Nutr 86(1):116-123. Free access to full article.

Lowndes J, et al. June 2007. The Effect of High-Fructose Corn Syrup on Uric Acid Levels in Normal Weight Women. Presented at the June 2007 meeting of The Endocrine Society. Program Abstract #P2-45. Abstract available.

Zukley L, et al. June 2007. The Effect of High Fructose Corn Syrup on Post-Prandial Lipemia in Normal Weight Females. Presented at the June 2007 meeting of The Endocrine Society. Program Abstract #P2-46. Abstract available.

Melanson KJ, Zukley L, Lowndes J, Nguyen V, Angelopoulos TJ, Rippe JM. 2007. Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women. Nutrition 23(2):103-112. Free access to full article.

Schorin MD. 2006. High Fructose Corn Syrups, Part 2: Health Effects. Nutrition Today 41(2):70-77. Abstract available.
Schorin MD. 2005. High Fructose Corn Syrups, Part 1: Composition, Consumption, and Metabolism. Nutrition Today 40(6):248-252. Abstract available.

Hein GL, Storey ML, White JS, Lineback DR. 2005. Highs and Lows of High Fructose Corn Syrup: A Report from the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy and Its Ceres Workshop. Nutrition Today 40(6):253-256. Abstract available.

rbST Safety

Dairy Product Consumption and the Risk of Breast Cancer
Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 24, No. 6, 556S–568S (2005)
Published by the American College of Nutrition
http://www.jacn.org/content/24/suppl_6/556S.full

"It has been suggested in some reports that dairy product consumption may increase the risk of breast cancer.This review gives a brief overview of the etiology of breast cancer and in particular the roles of fat, bovine growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor-1 and estrogens. Evidence from animal studies and epidemiology does not support a role for fat in the etiology of breast cancer. The daily intake of insulin-like growth factor-1 and biologically active estrogens from dairy products is minute in comparison to the daily endogenous secretion of these factors in women, whereas bovine growth hormone is biologically inactive in humans. On the other hand, milk contains rumenic acid, vaccenic acid, branched chain fatty acids, butyric acid, cysteine-rich whey proteins, calcium and vitamin D; components, which have the potential to help prevent breast cancer. Evidence from more than 40 case-control studies and 12 cohort studies does not support an association between dairy product consumption and the risk of breast cancer."

Survey of Retail Milk Composition as Affected by Label Claims Regarding Farm-Management
Practices

Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION © 2008 by the American Dietetic Association

JOHN VICINI, PhD; TERRY ETHERTON, PhD; PENNY KRIS-ETHERTON, PhD, RD; JOAN BALLAM, MS; STEVEN DENHAM, PhD;
ROBIN STAUB, PhD; DANIEL GOLDSTEIN, MD; ROGER CADY, PhD; MICHAEL MCGRATH, PhD; MATTHEW LUCY, PhD

"Conventionally labeled milk had the lowest (P 0.05) bacterial counts compared to either milk labeled rbST-free or organic; however, these differences were not biologically meaningful. In addition, conventionally labeled milk had significantly less (P 0.05) estradiol and progesterone than organic milk (4.97 vs 6.40 pg/mL"

 IGF-1 Fact Sheet : http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/wp-content/uploads/igf-fact-sheet.pdf

Medical Associations and Scientific Societies Which Have Approved Human Safety of bST

National Institute of Health FAO/United Nations
American Medical Association Office of Technology Assessment
American Academy of Pediatrics American Dietetic Association
American Cancer Society American Society for Nutritional Scientists
Institute for Food Technologists American Dairy Science Association
Council of Agricultural Science and Technology American Society of Animal Science
American Society of Clinical Nutrition The Endocrine Society
US Department of Health and Human Services International Dairy Federation
US Surgeon General United Kingdom Medicines Commission
State Medical Associations Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
World Health Organization American Council of Science & Health

Research on Biotech Safety

 Criticism of Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified Foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada:

 No More Crying About Your Stats Class and Cry1Ab: An Application of the Coefficient of Variation 

Crticism of the ELISA Technique and Cry1Ab Detection

More on the Safety of Cry1Ab

References Related to Cry1Ab Protein Toxicity and Absorption

Biotech in General:

Stop worrying; start growing EMBO Open Risk research on GM crops is a dead parrot: it is time to start reaping the benefits of GM
Torbjörn Fagerström, Christina Dixelius, Ulf Magnusson & Jens F Sundström
Science & Society  EMBO reports (2012) 13, 493 - 497 doi:10.1038/embor.2012.59

Published online: 11 May 2012 http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v13/n6/full/embor201259a.html

"In a report from 2010, the EC summarized the results of 130 research projects involving more than 500 independent research groups and concluded that biotechnology is not per se riskier than conventional plant breeding technologies [2]. Further support for this position comes from the UK Farm-Scale Evaluation (FSE), which studied the potential impact of herbicide-tolerant crops on farmland biodiversity [7]. One insight from the study is that overall changes in agricultural management determine the impact of a crop on biodiversity, rather than the technology or breeding behind the crop itself [8]."


Drilling into the report we can get some of their specific findings related to the relative risks of traditional plant breeding techniques and natural mutations vs. modern molecular approaches:

Traditional vs. GMO Crop Safety:

"The safety of conventionally bred crops is based on a history of safe use. However some extremely rare cases have been reported where unintended effects (DNA rearrangements) have given rise to safety concerns. These were only identified once the crop was already on the market. 

NOTE: THE ABOVE RISKS WOULD APPLY TO  NATURAL, CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC , FOODS. THE RESEARCH FINDS THAT THESE REAL RISKS ARE MORE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED  IN GMO FOODS:

Characterisation of GM crops is a legal requirement, however. As a result GM crops are better characterised than ever before in the case of conventionally bred crops, including knowledge on the site and nature of the genetic modification."

and

"the extent of modification of the proteomic and transcriptomic profiles is always equal or more important in ‘classical mutants’ than in their GM counterparts. This result strongly suggests that the way modification has been produced may influence the transcription pattern, and that molecular biology techniques are producing less side-effects than classically used techniques"

SO NOT ONLY ARE GM CROPS MORE THOROUGHLY SCREENED, THE RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE TECHNIQUES USED ACTUALLY INTRODUCE LESS RISK THAN CONVENTIONAL, NATURAL, OR ORGANIC CROPS.

See also:

  Safety, safety, safety, and more GM food safety. The Food and Chemical Toxicology Septet. - via David Tribe

 

  Genetic Roulette- Academics Review

 

"Genetic Roulette is Jeffrey Smith’s second book in which he makes unsubstantiated claims against biotechnology. In it, he details 65 separate claims that the technology causes harm in a variety of ways. On these pages each of those claims – addressed in the same eight “sections” that correspond directly with the book – are stacked up against peer-reviewed science."

 

Biotechnology and Genetic Disruptions  - Academics Review 

78 Independent Studies of GMO Safety- via David Tribe

   

440  Studies of Biotech Safety - via David Tribe

Safety of rbST

General Safety and Safety Assessment of Specific Genetically Modified Crops from Scientific Journal Articles

Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods(link)

Results of a search of the PubMed database for publications on feeding studies for GM crops.

By Dr. Christopher Preston,
Senior Lecturer in Weed Management,
University of Adelaide;
christopher.preston@adelaide.edu.au


Conclusion:

"There are at least 42 publications extractable from the PubMed database that describe research reports of feeding studies of GM feed or food products derived from GM crops. The overwhelming majority of publications report that GM feed and food produced no significant differences in the test animals. The two studies reporting negative results were published in 1998 and 1999 and no confirmation of these effects have since been published. Many studies have been published since 2002 and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test species. "

 

The Environmental Impact of rbst in Dairy Production

The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production Judith L. Capper,* Euridice Castañeda-Gutiérrez,*† Roger A. Cady,‡ and Dale E. Bauman* Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 July 15; 105(28): 9668–9673

"Meeting future U.S. milk requirements from cows supplemented with rbST conferred the lowest AP, EP, and GWP, with intermediate values for conventional management and the highest environmental impact resulting from organic production. Overall, rbST appears to represent a valuable management tool for use in dairy production to improve productive efficiency and to have less negative effects on the environment than conventional dairying."

Tweeps of Interest: Rent Seeking and Biotech

The following tweets from Anastasia Bodnar  @geneticmaize capture the essence of of rent seeking and the impacts on the the biotech sector.

geneticmaize Anastasia Bodnar

@farminthehood @AgEconomist Opposition to M has resulted in consumer and regulatory climate where only few big companies can do anything.

Jun 14, 8:51 AM via web

geneticmaize Anastasia Bodnar

@farminthehood @AgEconomist So to be honest we don't really know what small companies would do. They've all been quashed.

Jun 14, 8:52 AM via web

Excellent analysis on her part.

See also :

The Constitution, Democracy, and Public Choice

Biotech and Rent Seeking

Rent Seeking and Biotechnology

And this from the New York Times is almost verbatim the first tweet above:

"Yet today we have only a handful of genetically modified crops, primarily soybeans, corn, canola and cotton. All are commodity crops mainly used for feed or fiber and all were developed by big biotech companies. Only big companies can muster the money necessary to navigate the regulatory thicket woven by the government's three oversight agencies: the E.P.A., the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/opinion/genetically-engineered-food-for-all.html?_r=3

References Related to Cry1Ab Protein Toxicity and Absorption

The first article below circulated the web (largely among foodies) some tie ago. Despite its many flaws (involving something as simple as interpreting the coefficient of variation) it still resurfaces, and contributes to stoking misplaced fears about biotechnology and pregnant women. David Tribe has done an excellent job reviewing the related literature (see 

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2011/04/it-you-record-noise-you-dont-get-music.html ). 

Below are just some of the articles discussed. 

(1) Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011 Feb 18. [Epub ahead of print] 

(2) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (pTDL004 or pTDL008) in Event T303-3 or T304-40 cotton plants (006525) Experimental Use Permit Fact Regulating Biopesticides -Active Ingredient Index. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007 www.epa-gov/op00001/pesticide 

(3) Dent CE, Schilling GA . Studies on the Absorption of Proteins: the Amino-acid Pattern in the Portal Blood . Biochem. J. 1949; 34 : 318 -335 

(4) Mathews DM. Protein Absoprtion. J.clin Path. 1972; 24,Supp.5 : 29-40 

(5) Mathews DM, Adibi SA. Peptide absorption. Gastroenterology. 1976 Jul;71(1):151-61 

(6) Bowen R. Absoprtion of amino acids and peptides, 2008. www.colostate.edu 

(7) Wickham M, Faulks R, Mills C. In vitro digestion methods for assessing the effect of food structure on allergen breakdown. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2009 Aug;53(8):952-8 

(8) Untersmayr E, Jensen-Jarolim E. The role of protein digestibility and antacids on food allergy outcomes. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008; 121: 1301-8. 

(9) Paganelli R, Levinsky RJ. Solid phase radioimmunoassay for detection of circulating food protein antigens in human serum. J Immunol Methods. 1980; 37: 333-41. 

(10) Moreno FJ, Rubio LA, Olano A, Clemente A.. Uptake of 2S albumin allergens, Bere1 and Ses i 1, across human intestinal epithelial Caco-2 cell monolayers. J Agric Food Chem. 2006; 54: 8631-9. 

(11) Yamada C, Yamashita Y, Seki R, Izumi H, Matsuda T, Kato Y. Digestion and (gastroitestinal absorption of the 14-16-kDa rice allergens. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2006; 70: 1890-7. 

(12) Guimaraes V, Drumare MF, Lereclus D, Gohar M, Lamourette P, Nevers MC, Vaisanen-Tunkelrott ML, Bernard H, Guillon B, Créminon C, Wal JM, Adel-Patient K. In vitro digestion of Cry1Ab proteins and analysis of the impact on their immunoreactivity. J. Agric Food Chem . 2010; 21 : 3222-31 

(13) Adel-Patient K, Guimaraes VD, Paris A, Drumare M-F,Ah-Leung, S, Lamourette P, Nevers M-C,Canlet C, Molina J, Bernard H, Créminon C, Wal J-M. Immunological and metabolomic impacts of administration of Cry1Abprotein and MON 810 maize in mouse. PLoS One. 2011; 6: e16346 http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC3029317/ 

(14) Nakajima O, Teshima R, Takagi K, Okunuki H, Sawada J. ELISA method for monitoring human serum IgE specific for Cry1Ab introduced into genetically modified corn. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007; 47: 90-5. 

(15) Okunuki H, Teshima R, Shigeta T, Sakushima J, Akiyama H, Goda Y, Toyoda M, Sawada J. Source Increased digestibility of two products in genetically modified food (CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab) after preheating. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2002; 43: 68-73. 

(16) Chowdhury EH, Kuribara H, Hino A, Sultana P, Mikami O, Shimada N, Guruge KS, Saito M, Nakajima Y. Detection of corn intrinsic and recombinant DNA fragments and Cry1Ab protein in the gastrointestinal contents of pigs fed genetically modified corn Bt11. J Anim Sci. 2003; 81: 2546-51. 

(17) M. Saito and Y. Nakajima E. H. Chowdhury, H. Kuribara, A. Hino, P. Sultana, O. Mikami, N. Shimada, K. S. Guruge, Detection of corn intrinsic and recombinant DNA fragments and Cry1Ab protein in the gastrointestinal contents of pigs fed genetically modified corn Bt11 J Anim Sci, 2003; 81: 2546-2551 

(18) Chowdhury EH, Shimada N, Murata H, Mikami O, Sultana P, Miyazaki S,Yoshioka M, Yamanaka N, Hirai N, Nakajima Y.. Detection of Cry1Ab protein in gastrointestinal contents but not visceral organs of genetically modified Bt11-fed calves. Vet Hum Toxicol. 2003; 45: 72-5. 

(19) Paul V, Guertler P, Wiedemann S, Meyer HD. Degradation of Cry1Ab protein from genetically modified maize (MON810) in relation to total dietary feed proteins in dairy cow digestion. www.lfl.bayern.de/ite/rind/35021/linkurl_0_2_0_8.pdf 

(20) Lutz B, Wiedemann S, Einspanier R, Mayer J, Albrecht C-Degradation of Cry1Ab Protein from Genetically Modified Maize in the Bovine Gastrointestinal Tract .J. Agric. Food Chem., 2005; 53 : 1453–1456 

(21) P. Guertler, B. Lutz, R. Kuehn, H. H. D. Meyer, R. Einspanier, B. Killermann and C. Albrecht. Fate of recombinant DNA and Cry1Ab protein after ingestion and dispersal of genetically modified maize in comparison to rapeseed by fallow deer (Dama dama). Eur J Wildlife Res. 2008; 54 : 38-43j 

(22) Albrecht C, Lutz B, Wiedemann C. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Verbreitung von Transgenen durch Tiere über pflanzliche Verbreitungseinheiten  nach Magen-Darm-Passage und über horizontalen Gentransfer www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/service/skript225.pdf 

(23) JC Jennings, LD Albee, DC Kolwyck, JB Surber, ML Taylor, GF Hartnell, RP Lirette, and KC Glenn . Attempts to detect transgenic and endogenous plant DNA and transgenic protein in muscle from broilers fed YieldGard Corn Borer Corn .  Poultry Science, 2003; 82 : 371-380 

(24) Badea EM, Chelu F Lacatusu A.Results regarding the levels of Cry1Ab protein in transgenic corn tissue (MON810) and the fate of Bt protein in three soil types . Romanian Biotechnological Letters Vol. 15, No.1, Supplement, 2010. www.ebooks.unibuc.ro/biologie/RBL/rbl1vol15Supplement/7%20Elena%20MArcela%20Badea.pdf 

(25) Xu W, Cao S, He X, Luo Y, Guo X, Yuan Y, Huang K Safety assessment of Cry1Ab/Ac fusion protein. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009; 47: 1459-65. 

(26) Randhawa GJ, Singh M, Grover M. Bioinformatic analysis for allergenicity assessment of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry proteins expressed in insect-resistant food crops. Food Chem Toxicol. 2011; 49 ; 356-62. 

(27) Agdia Bt-Cry1Ab/1Ac ELISA Kit -ELISA for the detection of Bt-Cry1Ab/1Ac proteins Catalog number: PSP 06200 https://orders.agdia.com/Documents/m172.pdf_0 

(28) Furukawa K, Tengler R, de Weck AL, Maly FE. Simplified sulfidoleukotriene ELISA using LTD4-conjugated phosphatase for the study of allergen-induced leukotriene generation by isolated mononuclear cells and diluted whole blood. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1994; 4:110-5. 

(29) Pino RM. Binding of Fab-horseradish peroxidase conjugates by charge and not by immunospecificity. J Histochem Cytochem. 1985 Jan;33(1):55-8. 

(30) Envirologix.QualiPlate™ Combo Kit for Cry1Ab & Cry3Bb1 -Catalog Number: AP 039. http://www.envirologix.com/artman/publish/article_232.shtml 

(31) Quantitative ELISA for Bt-Cry1Ab. Immunoassay for quantitative detection of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins in transgenic crops. http://www.krishgen.com 

(32) Walschus U, Witt S, Wittmann C. Development of Monoclonal Antibodies Against Cry1Ab Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis and Their Application in an ELISA for Detection of Transgenic Bt-Maize . Food and Agricultural Immunology , 2002; 14 : 231-230 

(33) Paul V, Steinke K, Meyer HD. Development and validation of a sensitive enzyme immunoassay for surveillance of Cry1Ab toxin in bovine blood plasma of cows fed Btmaize(MON810). Analytica Chimica Acta, 2008; 607 : 106-113 

(34) Icoz I, Andow D, Zwahlen C, Stotzky G. Is the Cry1Ab protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) taken up by plants from soils previously planted with Bt corn and by carrot from hydroponic culture? Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2009; 83:48-58. 

(35) Crespo LB , Spencer ZA, Nekl E, Pusztai-Carey M, Moar WJ, Blair D, Siegfried W. Comparison and Validation of Methods To Quantify Cry1Ab Toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis for Standardization of Insect Bioassays. Applied Environmental Microbiology , 2008; 74 :130–135 

(36) Zhu X, Chen L, Shen P, Jia J, Zhang D, Yang L. High Sensitive Detection of Cry1Ab Protein Using a Quantum Dot-Based Fluorescence-Linked Immunosorbent Assay. J Agric Food Chemistry. 2011; 59 : 2184-9.. 

(37) Case JT, Ardans AA. Nonspecific reactions in an enzyme-l inked immunosorbent assay caused by binding of immunoglobulins in situ to egg-propagated infectious bronchitis virus. Avian Dis. 1986; 30: 149-53. 

(38) Kuntz M. OGM et « pesticides » dans le sang ; première scientifique ou dernière pollution de la littérature scientifique. 2011 http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/article-aris-leblanc-72486593.html 

(39) Matsubara T, Aoki N, Honjoh T, Mizumachi K, Kurisaki J, Okamjima T, Nadano D, Matsuda T. Absorption, migration and kinetics on peipheral blood of orally administered ovalbumin in a mouse model. Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biochemistry, 2008; 72 : 2555-2565 

(40) Husby S., Jensenius J C, Svehag S-E . (1985), Passage of Undegraded Dietary Antigen into the Blood of Healthy Adults. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, 1985; 22: 83–92. 

(41) Tsume Y; Taki Y; Sakane T; Nadai I; Sesake I, Watabe K, Kohno T, Yamashita S. Quantitative evaluation of the gastrointestinal absorption of protein into the blood and lymph circulation. Biological & pharmaceutical bulletin, 1996; 19 : 1332-1337 

(42) Veillerette P. Toutes les études scientifiques sur les pesticides. Pesticide Action Network. http://www.mdrgf.org 

HT: David Tribe (GMO Pundit)

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2011/04/it-you-record-noise-you-dont-get-music.html

Monsantophobia Explained

Monsantophobia: A schizophrenic bi-polar like condition characterized by an irrational fear of modern science and technology as it relates to food production in general, and in many cases specifically related to Monsanto Corporation.  Monsantophobia is prevalent throughout the population, including those with either left or right wing political tendencies.

Monsantophobia is NOT TO BE CONFUSED with a general concern for food safety, or even general criticism of biotechnology, or refusal to consume, grow, or market GMO products. Where criticism and fear of biotechnology crosses the line is when one attempts to project their personal preferences related to biotechnology onto others through petitioning the government for laws, regulations, or other restrictions that override or limit other people's preferences about biotechnology and food production. This obsession to limit the freedoms of others, and control their day to day personal choices from gate to plate is the most egregious aspect of what can be characterized as monsantophobia.

Examples of Monsantophobic Behavior:

Many (largely left leaning)critics of biotechnology are concerned that giant agribusinesses (like Monsanto) have too much market power and control over the food supply.  Some on the right often have the same concern, but believe Monsanto to simply be another wing of government oppression.  Thus, we have both anticapitalist and antigovernment activists in the same camp. Yet, in spite of the large body of scientific evidence supporting the safety of biotechnology, they support the existing outdated excessive regulatory framework (administered by not one but many regulatory agencies including the FDA, EPA, and USDA) that creates barriers to entry and economies of scale that promote and encourage larger corporations at the expense of small startups and public research. In addition, disregarding the science to the contrary, they also want to add to the regulatory burden by petitioning for unscientific labeling laws. 

Many left leaning critics are also very supportive of subsidies and regulations to promote environmental sustainability, yet, reject the evidence showing that through the price and profit motive almost all family farmers have adopted GMOs and created environmental benefits outweighing the impacts all subsidies and bureacratic edicts and government interventions. 

In addition, many of these same critics while rejecting the science supporting biotechnology are critical of those on the right for rejecting the evidence related to climate change.

Many on the right often promote free markets and capitalism, yet when it comes to biotechnology (which is the synergy of science, technology, and capitalism) many want more restrictions and even call for labeling. Instead of allowing family farms to choose the technologies best suited to meet their needs, we often can find some on the right supporting anit-GMO anti-capitalist and interventionist ideals.

This irrational fear of biotechnology that characterizes monsantophobia leads to policy preferences that are diametrically at odds and inconsistent. This fear in its extreme isn't that different from other conspiracy theories ( 'truther' theories about 911, etc.). When the government pulls experts from industry and academia that have experience in biotechnology, its viewed as putting 'Monsanto people' in charge of our food supply.  Take for instance the following article Obama Moves To Crush Poland After Global Genetic Disaster Revealed from the European Union Times:

"To what the Americans will do to protect themselves from the “mad scientists” unleashed by the Obama regime against them there appears to be nothing as, and as always, their mainstream propaganda media organs will not let them know the truth, while at the same time they refuse to listen to any others."

Solutions to  Monsantophobia

Perhaps the best approach is education. Borrowing a quote from Jonathan Foley, "Sometimes we need to differentiate popular environmentalism (a collection of beliefs) from environmental science (a body of evidence)." Sharing knowledge about modern agriculture with others becomes a challenge when popular media figures such as Oprah and Dr. Oz work to perpetuate the mythology surrounding the dangers of biotechnology. Sometimes it takes a little outreach from the farm, as this one farmer sent an open invitation to Oprah Winfrey to 'come to my farm and see why biotechnology makes sense.'

Disclosure: The term 'monsantophobia' is not my own. I think that I first came across the term at the very well written Eat Drink Better blog post entitled 'Monsantophobia: Sustainability Concern or Wealthy Convenience'. Referring to people that are critical of biotechnology as monsantophobes probably isn't the best approach when communicating with them. However, recognizing the inconsistencies in policies and positions related to biotechnology (that we might characterize as 'monsantophobic') may be a useful exercise for determining an effective approach to communicating to critics the benefits of modern sustainable agriculture.

Portlandia: True Food Democracy-Voting with Your Fork

Whatever the true intentions of this humorous scene from the IFC series Portlandia, one thing it illustrates (with a little embellishment) is how well market forces respond to the wide array of consumer preferences that exist.  Many people may  feel that so called 'corporate industrial agriculture' has dominated the food supply, and that only by democratizing the food supply can we get the politically correct form of agriculture (as in local, free range, organic, natural etc.) that we should want and deserve.

As discussed before, markets ( in a sense voting with your fork), provide a much better way to express food preferences than voting schemes. In a food democracy, the vast array of options the people in the video are after, and what most 'foodies' desire, would be limited to only reflect the limited knowledge and preferences of a few voters or bureaucrats. Instead of allowing the multitudes to express their food preferences as often and intensely as they desire through the market, input about food options would be limited to the untimely occasion of a blunt vote, with intense lobbying, protesting, and letter writing (to elected officials, newspapers etc.) in the interim. With food democracy we move away from a system that continuously captures everyone's input via the price system (perhaps imperfectly) to one that simply samples (even more imperfectly) it in the voting booth.  Of course some advocates of food democracy could argue that they are not advocating every calorie be put to a vote, but simply democratically setting some ground rules about how food is produced, processed, marketed, regulated, labeled, etc. and letting the market take over from there.

The analysis is still the same. Instead of allowing the multitudes to express their food preferences (in relation to about how food is produced, processed, marketed, regulated, labeled, etc.) as often and intensely as they desire through the market, input about these options would be limited to the untimely occasion of a blunt vote, with intense lobbying, protesting, and letter writing (to elected officials, newspapers etc.). The principle still holds that whenever we move away from allocating resources based on prices that reflect the knowledge and preferences of multitudes of free people, to democratically allocating resources, we shrink the pool of knowledge we are willing to consider in making these choices. The information we throw out is often the most personal and meaningful (unless of course your preferences exactly match those that get the most votes!)

Food Democracy *Not* Now or Ever

Are food choices something that should be determined by democratic decision making?  To understand this, it is important to understand the fundamental problem of economics known as the knowledge problem. The problem facing all forms of government including democracies is that centralized decision makers never have enough information or proper incentives to act on the information at hand. As Economist F.A. Hayek (1945) described it:

'the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all separate individuals possess'

The price system allows us to channel the imperfect knowledge of multitudes of imperfect people with imperfect incentives and utilize it to coordinate decisions. Democratic decision making on the other hand, allocates resources using command and control based on the more limited knowledge and preferences of a few voters, elected officials, or appointed bureaucrats. So, when we move from market based food choices to democratically based choices we are drastically reducing the amount of information we are willing to consider in making these decisions.

Many people complain about phone and cable bundling packages. Voting is the ultimate form of bundling, only worse, the voter often doesn't get to even choose the 'service.' As explained in article 'The Public Choice Revolution'  (Regulation, Fall 2004):

 "In our democracies, voters do not decide most issues directly. In some instances, they vote for representatives who reach decisions in parliamentary assemblies or committees. In other instances, they elect representatives who hire bureaucrats to make decisions. The complexity of the system and the incentives of its actors do not necessarily make collective choices more representative of the citizens’ preferences."

Voting also fails to capture the intensity of our preferences. When we vote, its just one vote, no matter how intensely we may care about an issue. With a price system, we can express our interests penny by penny and minute by minute (as we toil to earn an income).

Does that mean that we should leave the country or start a dictatorship? Of course not. We should however, limit democratic decision making and government involvement to as few areas of our lives as possible, which is what our founders had in mind when they created our Constitutional Republic.

So what does that mean for food choices? Food is an extremely personal and detailed consumption product. Of all areas of our life, food is an area where we would hope our choices can be expressed as precisely and intensely as possible, based on our own private knowledge, tastes, and preferences; not bundled with the preferences of others or subject to how some stranger may 'vote' about it or some politician or bureaucrat may dictate (Sorry Mayor Bloomberg).

In fact, the market does a pretty good job of providing consumers a variety of food choices, from non GMO organic, to local, to an array of modern sustainable choices made possible by companies like Cargill, ADM, and Monsanto. Food in a democracy should be food that we choose to consume, not food that we vote to consume. 

References:

'The Public Choice Revolution', Regulation Fall 2004. ( link ).

The Use of Knowledge in Society
F.A. Hayek
The American Economic Review Vol 35 No 4 (Sept 1945) p. 519-530