This article makes a great point- despite frictions introduced by subsidies and monopolistic rents by companies like Monsanto, the food on your table is largely the result of a spontaneous order produced by the interaction of thousands of family farms, agribusinesses, and biotechnology companies.(I,Pencil might be worth re-reading). No one person knows how to produce an ear of corn. Despite its huge role in the proliferation of innovative green technologies, Monsanto plays a very small part overall. Take for example John Deere:"For all their success, innovations like tractors, hybrid varieties, decades of intensive breeding, soil testing and careful fertilization are far more important in supporting massive corn and soy production. But no one would "March Against John Deere" even though the tractor is probably one of the most important innovations in agriculture in all of history — and John Deere the company controls at least 60 percent of the farm equipment market. "
A nice combination of empirical evidence and social network analysis explains a leading misconception and conspiracy theories about Bt cotton in India:
Abstract
"Science can say nothing conclusive about many important dimensions of the global cognitive and political rift on transgenic agricultural crops. Empirical studies will not answer questions in the realms of food preference, risk aversion, cultural constructions of rural society, or theology. But there are critical empirical questions and much empirical work on transgenic crops. This essay analyzes a puzzle: reports of "the failure of Bt cotton in India"—on agronomic, economic, and environmental grounds—continue to spread globally but are inconsistent with both farmer behavior and scientific studies. This narrative of agro-economic failure has arguably crowded out the more empirically robust story of farm-level success of one trait (insect resistance) in one crop. Why? Understanding this outcome requires conceptualizing the social conditions—interests, relations, cognitive frames—in which production of knowledge claims is embedded. This article argues that there is a critical role for "epistemic brokers," or hinges, between local, national, and international advocacy groups within larger transnational advocacy networks. Reports of failure of the Bt technology in India are not sustainable scientifically but do serve interests in the contentious politics around GMOs globally."
An example of a cooperative market based solution to internalizing negative externalities associated with herbicide resistance. (Note: Roundup Ready technology itself is an example of the price system and technological change working to internalize negative externalities associated with soil erosion, pollution, and climate change).
"The two companies, in conjunction with retailers in Eastern Canada, are
offering farmers a $1-per-acre rebate when RoundupWeatherMax is
purchased with matching acres of Integrity, Eragon, Marksman or Armezon
herbicides. These tank-mix partners, when applied together on the same
fields, deliver multiple modes of weed-killing action while providing
herbicide-resistance management."
Over at my econometrics blog, I'm discussing the ramifications of social media and big data on the ag industry.
Social media has allowed farmers to organize and communicate
about their industry. The #agchat
conversations on twitter are a good example. Not to mention Facebook (see Agriculture Proud for
example) and YouTube ( like this look
behind the scenes of a family farm). We've seen powerful examples of how
social media can be used to mobilize voices and impact perceptions on a
national level ( for example issues related to Yellow Tail wine and Pilot
Travel Centers).
Social media also provides a rich data source for measuring sentiment or
perceptions about the industry....Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to read tweets, Facebook posts,
or blog comments to know when people are upset about a product. But there is
also a wealth of knowledge to be gained from this type of information that is
so voluminous, it would take an army of social media experts to glean and
analyze. This is the essence of what has been termed in the industry as 'big
data.' It requires new tools for capturing, storing, processing and
analyzing this data, and a new type of analyst referred to as a data
scientist. These powerful analytics could be very beneficial to those
in the ag industry or agvocacy groups. But this goes beyond social media, and I
will discuss how big data is revolutionizing agriculture at the farm level in
the second part of this two part series on big data.
*Note: I’m not using the term ‘big
ag’ in the derogatory sense used by anti-agricultural activists, but in a
complimentary sense referring to the complex network of modern family farms,
biotechnology companies, food processors, other agribusinesses and retailers
that cooperate to bring healthy and sustainable food to your table.
By Paul Downey from Berkhamsted, UK (Earthcache De
SlufterUploaded by Partyzan_XXI)
[CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Proposition 37 is a crystal clear example of rent seeking in
the food industry. Some natural and organic and other food special interests are
utilizing this legislation to obtain market share that they otherwise would
not be able to obtain through the marketplace. To see this, its important to understand the dynamics of the
market for sustainable ag products as it has evolved over the last 15 years.
In the last
10-15 years, modern agriculture utilizing advances in management, information
technology, genetics, biotech, and pharmaceutical technologies has closed
the sustainability gap between conventional and organic production. (see Modern Sustainable
Agriculture). In terms of
reduced chemical use, improved biodiversity, reduced pollution and carbon
footprint, and overall safety, the biotech industry and modern Ag could pose
steep competition for some natural and organic food producers.
While most members of the agriculture industry don’t think the industry should be defined by an ‘us vs. them’ paradigm, some are willing to exploit
consumer fears and asymmetric information by using the government’s regulatory
apparatus to get a competitive edge. Some see modern ag as a competitor as
opposed to a partner in an overall mission to provide the world with safe
sustainable food. Consumer apathy also works against some promoting niche
organic and natural markets. Uncaring customers represent lost revenue potential. A
scary Hollywood horror movie label like ‘genetically modified’ may be enough to drum up business. How?
The Role of
Information Asymmetry
Whenever one party has better information about their
product or service than the buying public, information asymmetries may
exist.Proponents of proposition
37 claim that their initiative is to reduce information asymmetry and improve
the functioning of markets, as stated in this recent Forbes article:
“Free markets only
work when there is transparency and people are able to make decisions based on
information, which does not exist in the case of GMOs. If Prop 37 is enacted,
and, armed with this information, a significant enough number of consumers
decide not to buy these products, the onus will be on the companies to conduct
more research and produce better data.”
Will including the words ‘Genetically Modified’ on food labels really serve to inform
the public or create more confusion?This form of labeling won’t do any thing to decrease
information asymmetry in and of itself. The actual language in the law may in fact make it worse.
This is made clear on page 10 of a report byNorthbridge EnvironmentalManagement Consultants (The Genetically Engineered Foods
Mandatory Labeling Initiative Overview of Anticipated Impacts and Estimated
Costs to Consumers):
"The Genetically
Engineered Foods Mandatory Labeling Initiative (A.G. File No. 11-0099 –
hereinafter the Initiative) would have a substantial impact on California
consumers. The Initiative would change how many of the foods they eat are
produced and would make that food more expensive. At the same time, however,
the Initiative would provide relative little by way of consistent and useful
information to consumers because of the loopholes and exceptions in its
language and the uneven ways in which it would apply to the same food consumed
in different settings. "
If informing consumers were the primary goal, then there are
much more intelligent ways to do so, perhaps in the ingredients listing
following industry standards (instead of using ‘genetically modified' if a product contains GMO corn, list instead ‘rCORN’, an idea I reluctantly entertain here) If
it alarms otherwise apathetic consumers, are they really going to invest the
time researching the safety of biotech foods to close the information gap or are they going to turn to the unqualified opinions of
celebrities like Dr. Oz or Oprah? I would bet that the special interests are counting on
consumers weighing heavily the opinions of celebrities and conspiracy theorists,
and therefore letting the information asymmetries associated with biotech
direct them to their own products.In this
way, Prop 37 is specially designed by special interests to take advantage of information
asymmetries and exploit the fears of the public in an effort to drive market
share.
***UPDATE
Here is a link to a great interview from Berkeley professor of Molecular and Cell Biology Michael Eisen via the Foodstuff's FoodLink Food and Farm Podcast with Ray Bowman that highlights the information asymmetry, special interests, trivialization of science, and near conspiracy theory aspects of Proposition 37.
The merits of the US IPR system are debatable, but that doesn't make Monsanto any different than Apple. Saved seed is genetically copied and freely distributed intellectual property. If its not OK to copy and distribute freely the iPad OS, then it's not OK to do it with Roundup Ready soybeans. You either accept IPR or not, which again is a debatable concept. But if you reject that IPR is really 'property' as some economists do, then your beef is with the US government, not specifically Monsanto. It just puts Monsanto and Apple in the same boat. Apple has the advantage that it's much harder to copy and distribute their OS than it is to copy the OS of a self pollinated plant, so enforcement costs illicit different tactics from different companies. i.e. Monsanto gets more attention from the far left as they hold hands with far right wing conspiracy theorist counterparts that have somehow convinced themselves that it is OK to restrict 'economic' freedom to promote 'food' freedom (i.e. prop 37, gmo bans, etc)
Farm Food Freedom KY is a KY based interest group that has gotten some attention from a few of our lawmakers in Frankfort. But, are they really interested in economic freedom for all KY farmers? Do they support the current heavy regulatory burden faced by most KY farmers? Would they actually support more interventions that would burden farmers and limit consumer choice? Why do they consider big government left wing special interests to be among their national allies? Well, let's ask and see. I contacted the administration at fffky and asked them the following questions:
1) What is your definition/conception of 'food' freedom and how is it similar to or different from 'economic' freedom?
2) Your page does a good job highlighting many food freedom related issues such as the regulations that hinder the sale of raw milk and other locally sourced food products. However some of the tweets posted on the http://www.fffky.org/contact-us/ web page (which I assume @FarmFoodFreeKy is your official twitter account) are critical of GMO foods. Particularly one tweet states that the U.S. is behind with regard to a ban on GMO foods in France. Seehttp://t.co/xkLVrZtF . Other tweets also seem to support Proposition 37 in California, which seeks to require mandatory labeling of GMO foods.
a. Would you support a similar labeling requirement in KY similar to California's Proposition 37? b. Do you feel we need less regulation of locally sourced foods (like raw milk, processed meat etc.) but more regulations or even bans on GMO foods?
3) Are you associated with the NoGMOKentucky Facebook page? Is that fffky.org's official facebook page? http://fb.me/1g6k5Ah3D
If so, the mission statement says:
"To stop GMOs from being planted or pursued in the great Commonwealth of Kentucky."
Is this mission primarily about consumer education and persuasion or would you consider legislative or regulatory approaches to reduce the planting of GMO crops in KY?
4) If you agree with the mission statement, how would a mission to stop GMOs in Kentucky be consistent with the food and economic freedoms of the many family farmers that rely on corn and soybeans that utilize this technology?
5) On the fffky.org website, there is a section titled 'National Allies' and a link labeled 'like minded sites.' Among these include links to CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest), EWG, and HSUS. These groups have not historically been friendly to agriculture (i.e. CSPI supports NYC's soft drink regulations, EWG campaigns for less meat consumption, and HSUS supports initiatives to increase regulation of family owned livestock farms).
Why do you consider these groups to be 'like minded' even though they support initiatives and regulations that limit consumer choice and economic freedom as it relates to food an agriculture?
"The Genetically Engineered Foods Mandatory Labeling Initiative (A.G. File No. 11-0099 – hereinafter the Initiative) would have a substantial impact on California consumers. The Initiative would change how many of the foods they eat are produced and would make that food more expensive. At the same time, however, the Initiative would provide relative little by way of consistent and useful information to consumers because of the loopholes and exceptions in its language and the uneven ways in which it would apply to the same food consumed in different settings. "
"Carson exploited her reputation as a well-known nature writer to advocate and legitimatize "positions linked to a darker tradition in American environmental thinking....But the fears she raised were based on gross misrepresentations and scholarship so atrocious that, if Carson were an academic, she would be guilty of egregious academic misconduct."
"Scholars who have designed taxonomies to point out the difference between open access arrangements and common property have sometimes distinguished four very general "types" of property: public, private, common and open access. This classification unfortunately creates the erroneous impression that common property is not private property and thus does not share in the desirable attributes of private property. It is crucial to recognize that common property is shared private property and should be considered alongside business partnerships, joint-stock corporations and cooperatives."
McKean, M. and E. Ostrom (1995) ‘Common Property Regimes in the Forest: Just a Relic from the
Past?’, Unasylva, 46 (180): 3-15;
Pending Thursday's supreme court decision on the Affordable 'Care' Act, auto industry, labor, environmental, and banking related interests are swamping DC offices to encourage lawmakers to pass what they term The Affordable 'Car' Act. Supporters are calling this bill a win-win for consumers, labor, and the environment.
Under the proposed plan, auto owners will be required to own or purchase at least one hybrid powered vehicle. Failure to do so will result in a financial penalty yet to be determined. Supporters insist the penalty is not a tax, but the program will be administered and fines collected by the IRS, making the new law constitutional in light of the court's recent decision.
Revenues collected will be used to subsidize the purchase of hybrid cars (through loan guarantees) to help low income car owners make the switch. Additional funds will be allocated toward making autoworker pensions solvent, as well as funding R&D for additional hybrid technology research.
The Occupy Wall Street movement offers the follwing praise: "In a post Citizens United world, where we are used to victories for big business, bankers, and special interests, this is one for the people."
Is there justification for government intervention requiring
labeling of GMO foods?
In a post from a few years back, I looked at the role of government with regard to smoking bans. I asked, when should personal decisions
become government decisions? In order to decide this, I identified three
questions that should be asked.
Is there an uncompensated harm?
Is there sufficient information so that citizens can recognize the potential harm?
“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.” (1)
So in terms of uncompensated harm, government intervention does not pass the
first hurdle for justification. Given
that we can’t scientifically affirm that GMOs impose increased
risks over traditional plant breeding methods, it may not be relevant to
consider the next question. One might certainly argue that there is a degree of
widespread ignorance related to the use of biotechnology in food production. It is a
fact that 98% of all farms are family farms, and 70% or more of the corn and
soybeans grown on these farms is of GMO origin. Perhaps more could be done to make consumers more aware of this fact, but it seems like it could be achieved very easily
through marketing and consumer education without government
intervention. This brings us to the last question- does the market provide a
way to avoid the harm? Again, without scientific evidence of harm, this
question seems irrelevant. But if we want to assume that there is some remote
chance of harm, the market has various mechanisms for avoiding GMO foods via
organic and other branding options. Except for the most zealous advocates of
government intervention in the market, it seems the case for it is quite weak.
What if people just want labels for other reasons?
In some cases, people are not opposed to GMOs for just health reasons, but
they don’t approve of the business practices of companies Monsanto. First
off, labeling seems like a blunt tool to punish one company, as it could
penalize the many companies in the biotech industry, as well as the family
farms that overwhelmingly choose this preferred production method. Secondly, the U.S. constitution and legal
precedent may establish a role of government to establish weights and measures but this does not justify the use of labels on the basis of personal or
political preferences. Personal food preferences should not be expressed in the voting booth, but through the market.
Could labeling do more harm than good?
Given the gate to plate nature of the agricultural industry, false consumer
perceptions can actually do a great deal of harm to family farmers. For
instance, misconceptions about finely textured beef lead to huge losses in
cattle markets and 800 or more jobs in the beef industry. Or take the case of
high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Due partly in response to government
intervention through sugar tariffs as well as technological advances, this new
sweetener was produced by increasing fructose levels in corn syrup. The end product
was technically higher in fructose compared to normal corn syrup, but it did
not represent a ‘high fructose’ sweetener relative to other sweeteners such as
ordinary table sugar. At the time listing the technical name ‘high fructose
corn syrup’ in the ingredients of food products seemed harmless enough.
However, recently many misconceptions about HFCS have made their way into the
media, despite the evidence to the contrary. Similar to finely textured beef or
HFCS, listing or labeling GMO ingredients could have a similar effect on
consumer sentiment if this conveyed a false sense of risk or harm
associated with GMO foods. This could not
only have a negative impact on family farms that depend on this technology, but
a government incentivized drop in consumer demand for GMOs through labeling would also imply a loss
of the actual environmental and safety benefits of this rather green technology.
If government intervention to label GMOs were justified, how would we do it?
Playing devil's advocate, what kind of labeling would make sense? What about
the current proposal
in California?
“Commencing on July 1, 2014, any food
offered for retail sale in California is misbranded if it is or may have been
entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering and that fact is not
disclosed . . . with the clear and conspicuous words Genetically Engineered on
the front of the package.”
This seems to be the worst example of what would be an acceptable labeling
initiative. First off, placing the words ‘Genetically Engineered’ on the front
of the package seems a bit extreme, and could easily be used by anti-biotech
factions as a marketing ploy to mislead consumers. The very thought of making
it conspicuous is a blatant indicator
that this initiative is more about political and consumer manipulation and less
about disclosure of information. If identification of GMO origin is to be noted on food
packaging, the appropriate place would be more inconspicuous within the
ingredients listing. GMO products are used widely in the pharmaceutical
industry and they have already set a precedent for how these products could be
labeled.
For example, pharmaceuticals produced via biotechnology follow a common
naming convention: name (rDNA origin).
The ‘rDNA origin' indicates that the drug was produced through recombinant DNA
technology. Food products manufacturers could follow a similar protocol:
Bovine Somatotropin is a currently used biotech product used in dairy
production, and is often simply referred to as rbST. Instead of following a
biotech food ingredient with (rDNA origin) it may be simpler to just prefix the
ingredient with an ‘r’ as such:
This approach would identify GMO food ingredients without explicitly
creating unwarranted alarm or attention. Concerned consumers could simply read through the many ingredients listed and look for the 'r' ingredient prefix or (rDNA origin) suffix. However, this should still be
approached with extreme caution, as simply agreeing to list GMO ingredients
this way admits to some extent that GMO products merit some reason for being
identified in food, which again the neither science nor libertarian principles
for government intervention seem to justify. As previously stated, with only a little consumer education, consumers could easily be made aware of the prevalence of GMO ingredients in food products without reading ingredients lists. Formally identifying these ingredients in any way would seem to only serve the political ends of manipulating the free choices of consumers and producers from gate to plate.
UPDATE: I highly recommend the following video that also makes a compelling case for libertarian and free market advocates to oppose mandatory GMO labeling.
1- European Commission (2010) A decade of EU-funded GMO
research (2001–2010). Luxembourg, Belgium: Publications Office of the European
Union.
Hopefully this will not have any additional negative impacts. But one thing this brings to light are numerous amounts of research related to the potential dangers associated with natural plant biochemical processes and traditional non GMO based plant breeding.
"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....molecular biology techniques are producing less side-effects than classically used techniques""
"Conventional breeding techniques, accepted as safe by all, cause much more
genetic disruption than those introduced by genetic engineering, and the
resulting plants are not tested extensively for genetic change nor for safety
attributes using the rigorous standards applied to genetically engineered
plants.”
From The Academics Review Criticism of 'Genetic Roulette'
“It is certainly true that crop breeding
changes DNA; in fact, that is the purpose of all breeding programs—to create
differences in DNA. Campaigners who are opposed to GM crops consistently
point to the potential harmful effects of DNA inserts, and the potential
presence of multiple fragments of new DNA in a transformed plant. There
are several problems with their assertions: 1) All plant chromosomes are
repeatedly disrupted by many structural changes to DNA that have occurred in
plants repeatedly over the course of recent history, and still occur today when
plants are grown each season in the field; 2) All breeding technologies produce
numerous changes and disruptions to the structure of plant chromosomes; 3)
Conventional breeding techniques, accepted as safe by all, cause much more
genetic disruption than those introduced by genetic engineering, and the
resulting plants are not tested extensively for genetic change nor for safety
attributes using the rigorous standards applied to genetically engineered
plants.” “Indeed, the use of more precise technology
and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than
conventional plants and foods; and if there are unforeseen environmental
effects – none have appeared as yet – these should be rapidly detected by our
monitoring requirements. On the other hand, the benefits of these plants and
products for human health and the environment become increasingly clear.” (
European Commission 2001)
Batista R and others (2008). Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis
may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(9):
3640–3645
.
Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards KJ, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry
PR. (2006). Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain
than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnol J. 2006 Jul;4(4):369-80
Bejarano ER and others (1996). Integration of multiple repeats of
geminiviral DNA into the nuclear genome of tobacco during evolution. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93:759– 764. www.pnas.org/content/93/2/759.
Dooner HK and Weil CF (2007). Give-and-take: interactions between DNA
transposons and their host plant genomes. Current Opinion in Genetics
& Development 2007, 17:486–492.
European Commission (2001). Press Release of 8 October 2001, announcing the
release of 15 year study incl 81 projects/70M euros, 400 teams. (European
Commission (2001). Press Release of 8 October 2001, announcing the release of
15 year study incl 81 projects/70M euros, 400 teams. European Commission
(2001). Press Release of 8 October 2001, announcing the release of 15 year
study incl 81 projects/70M euros, 400 teams. ec.europa.eu/research/fp5/eag-gmo.html
and ec.europa.eu/research/fp5/pdf/eag-gmo.pdf
Fedoroff NV (1989). Maize transposable elements. In Mobile DNA.
Editors Douglas E Berg and Martha M Howe. American Society for
Microbiology
Harper G and others (2002). Review. Viral sequences integrated into plant
genomes. Annual Review of Phytopathology 40:119–36.
Jiang N and others (2004) Pack-MULE transposable elements mediate gene
evolution in plants. Nature 431, 569-573.
Kashkush K and others (2002). Gene loss, silencing and activation in a newly
synthesised a wheat allotetraploid. Genetics 160:1651-1659.
Kato A and others (2004). Chromosome painting using repetitive DNA sequences
as probes for somatic chromosome identification in maize. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101(37): 13554-13559 www.pnas.org/content/101/37/13554
Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HPJM , and Kok EJ (2001). Assessment of the
food safety issues relating to genetically modified food.The Plant Journal
27;6):503-526. Perhaps the best scientifically professional introduction to the
topic of genetically modified food safety. Free access at www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118986104/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Leitch AR ,Leitch IJ (2008). Genome plasticity and the diversity of
polyploid plants. Science 320:481-483.
Lisch D. (2005). Pack-MULEs: theft on a massive scale. Bioessays 27:353-355.
Lough A and others (2008) Mitochondrial DNA transfer to the nucleus
generates extensive insertion site variation in maize. Genetics, 178: 47-55
doi:10.1534/genetics.107.079624
McHughen A (2000). A Consumer’s guide to GM food : From Green Genes to Red
Herrings . (Published as Pandora’s Picnic Basket in the USA). Oxford. Arguably
the best book for the general reader about whether it is safe to eat the GM
food.
Ming R and others (2008). The draft genome of the transgenic tropical fruit
tree papaya (Carica papaya Linnaeus). Nature 252:991-997
Shirley BW and others (1992). Effects of ionizing radiation on a plant
genome: analysis of two Arabidopsis transparent testa mutations. The Plant Cell
4, 333-347.
Tanne E, Sela I (2005). Occurrence of a DNA sequence of a non-retro RNA
virus in a host plant genome and its expression: evidence for recombination
between viral and host RNAs.Virology.332(2):614-22.
Zabala G, Vodkin L.(2008). A putative autonomous 20.5 kb-CACTA transposon
insertion in an F3′H allele identifies a new CACTA transposon subfamily in
Glycine max. BMC Plant Biology. Research article Open Access www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/8/124.
* Emeritus
Professor of Immunology, Institute of Immunology (University of Bern, Switzerland), Department of
Allergology (University of Navarra, Spain)
"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
humansrepresent 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.
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.
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).
