Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumScientist challenges Monsanto over GMO safety standards
GMWatch has had several inquiries about the challenge issued to Monsanto by systems biologist Dr Shiva Ayyadurai. In an interview with Patch.com, Dr Ayyadurai said that if Monsanto can disprove his claim that there are no safety assessment standards for GMOs, he will give the company a $10 million building that he owns in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Dr Ayyadurai is the lead author of four papers that used a computational systems biology approach to analyse the effects of the genetic engineering process on key biochemical pathways affecting plant physiology. The results predicted that the carcinogen formaldehyde could accumulate in the GM soybean plants, with concomitant depletion of the antioxidant glutathione, but not in the non-GM plants.
We asked Dr Ayyadurai to tell us more about his challenge to Monsanto.
GMW: You said there are no safety assessment standards for GMOs. But here in Europe we do have safety assessments for GMOs, albeit they are weak.
Dr Ayyadurai: Im talking about standards for testing the material difference or equivalence of GMO vs. non-GMO. A claimed lack of difference is used to assert that GMOs are substantially equivalent to non-GMOs and therefore safe. But objective standards to measure equivalence or difference do not exist. This is explained in the conclusion of my paper, Do GMOs accumulate formaldehyde and disrupt molecular systems equilibria? Systems biology may provide answers.
http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16522-scientist-challenges-monsanto-over-gmo-safety-standards
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Ok....so grow the plants and measure it.
Terrified of the non-existent "Can't research without Monsanto permission" clause? Buy GMO soybeans from a farmer. Ta-da! You never signed any agreement with Monsanto.
"a computational systems biology approach" translates to "I made a guess via a computer model". If his claims are true, then they would be very easy to measure in the actual plants.
JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)From Scientific American Magazine:
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a companys intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough, wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how friendly or hostile a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their researchthey must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studiesmost have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology. (Emphasis added /JC)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
The farmer sells to a middle man, who sells to another middle man, who sells to a supplier local to the scientist, who buys the soybeans and grows new plants.
Not everyone in that chain has an agreement with Monsanto. You don't sign an agreement with Monsanto before entering the supermarket, right?
Nihil
(13,508 posts)"Farmers" are end users with no rights to resale. (Hell, they don't even have rights to
retain the seeds on their own land for next season.)
"Resellers" are middle men with restrictive rights that they pass on to their end-users.
> You don't sign an agreement with Monsanto before entering the supermarket, right?
You don't buy GM plants in the supermarket either so let's ignore that strawman shall we?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)After all, there's no need to put the labels on GMO food in the supermarket if there is no GMO food in the supermarket.
So they're growing crops as a hobby?
You can not "pass on" restrictive rights without that end-user signing an agreement.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)You also seem to be a strawman generator.
>> "Farmers" are end users with no rights to resale.
> So they're growing crops as a hobby?
No. They grow crops for a living. They do not sell the GM seeds that they have
purchased (under restrictive conditions) or they would be a "reseller" not a "farmer".
>> "Resellers" are middle men with restrictive rights that they pass on to their end-users.
> You can not "pass on" restrictive rights without that end-user signing an agreement.
Precisely. The licenced resellers for those products are legally constrained to apply the
restrictions demanded by the GMO producer so if that requires signing an agreement,
that is the condition that the reseller applies on behalf of the producer.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's a seed. Plant it in the ground and you get a new plant.
So, you're that clueless about biology, yet want to be taken seriously about the dangers of GMOs?
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> So, you're that clueless about biology, yet want to be taken seriously about the dangers of GMOs?
Now fuck off back to your paymasters for your "mission accomplished" sticker.
cosmicaug
(712 posts)The situation is not as described.
From http://grist.org/food/genetically-modified-seed-research-whats-locked-and-what-isnt/
One of the anonymous 26 was Elson Shields, a corn-insect scientist at Cornell University.
You had to have written permission from the companies for any science involving their seed, even if it was commercially available, he said. Companies sometimes revoked this permission [PDF] in the middle of an experiment, undoing months of work. Well, a research group decided to get boisterous about it and wrote that letter to the EPA, Shields said.
This was not a group of starry-eyed environmentalists. These were plant entomologists, mostly from Midwestern land-grant universities. Were all generally pro-GMO, Shields said. Its just that each event [of genetic insertion] needs to be looked at and evaluated on a scientific basis.
We readily admit that there were some concerns early on, said Andy LaVigne when I called to ask him about this. LaVigne is president of the American Seed Trade Association, the organization that represents the crop biotech firms. But LaVigne says that he was caught somewhat off guard when Shields and the other scientists complained. Well, we said, lets get everyone around a table.
{snip}
So I asked Shields: Hows that working out?
If you are at a major agricultural school thats negotiated an agreement with the companies, its working fine, he said.
Any scientist working at those institutions with agreements is now free to experiment. The catch is that the companies require the universities to sign a further legal agreement, showing that they understand they cant let researchers pirate the seeds or plant them after the experiment is over.
Each company has to decide how many universities to make those agreements with, Shields said. What justification they have and why they pick one over the other, thats above my pay grade. It may be that they know theres a scientist whose work they dont like, so they dont choose that university.
I went back to LaVigne and asked, why not just let all universities do this? He explained that it took a lot of time and lawyerly effort to draft agreements with every university, and some of the smaller companies had made the determination that they just didnt have the lawyers on staff to contact them all.
But why bring in the lawyers in the first place? Why not just lay out the guidelines and go after anyone who violates them? That was just the decision the companies made, LaVigne said.
Want to guess where Monsanto stands in this? Monsanto has a blanket agreement allowing research at all universities in the United States. And actually, when Shields et al. made their complaint, Monsanto claimed it already had many of these agreements in place allowing independent research.
{Emphasis added}