The deceptions of anti- GM crops activists in Nigeria and abroad ( 4)

European court backs Italian farmer who planted GM crops against national laws

THE European court has said member states do not have the right to ban genetically modified crops without substantial evidence. Italy had prosecuted the farmer for cultivating GM corn, citing human health hazards. The European Union’s top court ruled in favour of an Italian farmer who went against the laws of his country by planting genetically modified corn.

These decisions show that the articles so often cited by our anti GM activists have no scientific value and can be considered as trash. The scientific community has rejected them. Pachin and Tuzhikov statistically reanalysed the data from all these controversial studies that claimed that Cry proteins cause cancer in mice or rats; they did not find any evidence supporting these claims ( Panchin and Tuzhikov, 2016). Hammond et al., 2013 did an extensive review of studies of proteins introduced in food crops.

They included all the papers purporting the human toxicity of MON810 and the Cry1ab protein. They reached the same conclusions as EFSA: these studies are full of flaws in their design and data interpretation and therefore have no scientific value, nor do they change the assessment that the Cry1ab protein is safe for consumption by humans and animals.

Similarly, Nicolia and co- workers did a review of all Bt- crop safety studies published in a span of 10 years; they did not find single evidence that Cry 1Ab protein caused cancer or any other harm ( Nicolia et al., 2014). Before that, another safety study conducted using MON810 did not find any deleterious effects on mice ( Hammond et al., 2006). In 2008 Kiliç and Akay did a three- generation toxicological study with the Bt maize fed to rats and did not find any difference between the Bt maize and the conventional maize; the Bt maize did not cause any adverse effect in the rats after 3 generations ( Kiliç, A.; and Akay, M. T. 2008).

It should be noted that with the exception of Seralini, all these AntiGMO authors never try defend their work from the severe criticisms of their peers. They just kept silent knowing that they cannot defend what is wrong without appearing ridiculous. For general information about the safety of GM crops the readers should know that:

The European Union Food Safety Authority stated that released GM crops are safe.

Independently of each other the National Academies of sciences across Europe, USA, Australia and many other countries have declared that GM foods are safe as any conventional foods.

The World Health Organisation and the FAO have stated that GMO food are as safe as any other food d) In 2016 more than 108Nobel Prize winner including 41 Medical scientists declared that GM crops are safe and it borders on criminal to deny Africans the benefits of GM crops.

So, the near totality of the world highest scientific authorities affirm that the GM crops are safe. Therefore, we think that each reader should ask himself or herself the following question: is there a scientific authority in this planet greater than these four groups cited above? We only know one. That person is a failed Nigerian architect, with no more than high school level of biological knowledge but who pretends to be an environmentalist and a bio safety specialist, while, in reality he is no more than a parrot repeating what he hears from his foreign friends.

Now let us explain why Cry proteins cannot be toxic to human or animal life or the environment. The Bt. genes used to make Bt- crops come frombacillusthuringiensis ( Bt.), a soil inhabiting bacterium, first discovered in Japan in 1901on a dead silkworm. It was independently rediscovered in Germany in 1911. Since 1928 the bacterium has been used as a biocontrol agent.

From 1938, the bacterium has been commercialised as a bio- pesticide used by spraying onto crops. In fact, today this bacterium is the most popular insecticide used by organic farmers. In China, thousands of tons are used to treat irrigation and drinking water. Bt produces three types of proteins, each of which specifically acts to kill a very narrow range of insects, and only insects. One type, called the Cry proteins are the ones used to develop the first Bt – GM crops.

They are produced in the bacterial spores. The biochemistry and mechanism of Cry proteins toxicity has been well worked out since 1956 and has been reviewed many times ( for example, WHO/ IPCS, 1999; OECD, 2007; Soberon et al., 2010; Bravo et al., 2007). When the caterpillar ingests a bacterial spore, thecry proteinis released in the gut of the insect. The protein then binds to specific receptors that are present in susceptible insects only.

After binding to the receptors, the Cry proteinsare activated and cause the wall of theepithelium cells to break down, allowing more bacterial spores to enter the body of the insect. Proliferation of the bacteria causes the insect to die ( Niederhuber, 2015). The receptors and the Cryproteins work as key and lock system. As one cannot take a car key to start the engine of a second car, the Cry proteins works only if its receptor is present. Besides the susceptible insect species, no animal has receptors for the Cry proteins.

This is the basis for the safety of the bacterium since it was formulated as a bio- pesticide in the 1920s. Contamination of organically produced commercial vegetable with Bt has been reported. Therefore, it is highly likely that people who eat organically produced vegetables sprayed with Btbiopesticides are also ingesting live Bt ( Koch et al., 2015). But, no ill effects on human health as a result of live Bt has been reported. In contrast with organically produced crops, with GM crops people are not ingesting the live bacteria but only one protein.

So, for a protein contained in food to cause harm it has to remain active after processing, and/ or after passing through the gastro intestinal tract where it has to resist degradation by digestive enzymes and acid. Studies have shown that the Cry protein is rapidly degraded in the digestive tract, and rapidly inactivated by heat; results of in vitro digestion studies show that within seven minutes the Cry proteinsare totally degraded; also, in the gastrointestinal tract they are rapidly broken down into small fragments ( Mendelsohn et al., 2003; Koch etal., 2013). Therefore, it is appearing that consumption of Bt- proteins in maize or any other crop ( even taken raw) cannot cause any harms in mammals.

This is why animals fed with huge quantities of Bt- maize and Bt soybean are not becoming sick, on the contrary they remain healthy and highly productive. This explains why Europe is able to export annually huge quantities of dairy products in our countries. So Europeans are benefiting from the technology but denying Africans the same benefit.

The Europe Union countries are the biggest importer of GMmaize and GM- soybean feed ( more than 30 milliontons per year); the EU animal industry is dependent on this massive import ( Tarjalaaninen, 2015.

European Parliamentary Research Service, 19 October 2015). This in return enables European countries to export annually millions of tons of dairy products, meat and poultry. This is an important sector of their economy. Dear reader suppose that you are an animal grower, and your livelihood is entirely dependent on your animal production. Are you going to buy products that you absolutely know are highly toxic and feed them to your animals? If you are not going to do it then what makes you think that Europeans are doing it?

If the anti GM propaganda is true then all animal products from EU countries are contaminated by deadly toxins from GM feed. Why are the Anti GMO groups calling for a total boycott of these products if they have a sense of honesty? The logic dictates that.

Of course, Europeans politicians and the NGOS who support them know very well that their stand on GM is only an economic and psychological war for protecting their traditional markets; their stand is entirely anti- science and does not make sense at all. And it is completely at odds with the conclusions of the scientific bodies, such as EFSA, that they have set up to advise them on such matters. In the intense agricultural trade war that has been going on for decades, Europeans have to protect their traditional markets against powerful rivals.

This is what it boils down too. And Europeans are not anti GM technology: a large proportion of the new medical drugs ( 25 per cent) approved in the EU is produced from GMOS animals, microbes or plants ( Paalberg, 2008). But, where in all this are the interests of the African farmers who are struggling to feed their families?