From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lflj@bellsouth.net>
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: [permaculture] Fwd: [SANET-MG] Is the Hidden Viral Gene Safe? GMO Regulators Fail to Convince
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:39:38 -0500
------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SANET-MG] Is the Hidden Viral Gene Safe? GMO Regulators Fail
to Convince
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:56:53 -0500
From: J Latham <jrlatham@BIOSCIENCERESOURCE.ORG>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU
Synopsis: Following reports that a transgenic viral gene has been newly
identified in many commercialized GM crops and foods (1), European and
Antipodean GMO safety regulators (EFSA and FSANZ) have separately
released statements aimed at reassuring the public. The presence of the
viral gene (called Gene VI) and its safety implications were brought to
public attention by an article published in Independent Science News
(ISN). This article ("Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in GMO
Crops" by scientists Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson, 2013) described
how GMO regulators failed to realise that the commonly used cauliflower
mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter also encodes a substantial part of a
viral gene. Based on what is currently known about Gene VI, and the
likelihood of viral gene fragments being expressed in food crops, the
article made the case that viral Gene VI presents a potential threat to
crop health and human health.
Now, in a new article titled: "Is the Hidden Viral Gene Safe? GMO
Regulators Fail to Convince", Latham and Wilson demonstrate that these
public statements by EFSA and FSANZ are scientifically misleading and do
not address the key agronomic and human safety concerns raised by Gene
VI. The authors detail how regulators' statements rely on irrelevant and
illogical arguments that in turn rest on scientifically unverified or
unsupported assertions. EFSA and FSANZ additionally have failed to
acknowledge that a second promoter, the figwort mosaic virus (FMV) 35S
promoter, also has an overlapping Gene VI. This viral promoter (like
that of CaMV) is currently also found in crops approved by EFSA, FSANZ,
and in the US, and it poses similar risks.
Conclusion: The inability of regulators to offer cogent reassurances
reaffirms that the threat of viral Gene VI is scientifically plausible.
(1) Podevin and du Jardin (2012) GM Crops and Food 3: 1-5
Please circulate this important article.
Jonathan Latham, PhD
Editor
Independent Science News
www.independentsciencenews.org
and
www.bioscienceresource.org