GMO Myths and Truths

However, the authors of a 1990 study on the
outbreak published in the New England Journal
of Medicine (NEJM) pointed out that blaming
a failure in the carbon filtration process leaves
unanswered the question of how the toxin got into
the product in the first place. 72 This was a novel
toxin that was not found in other companies’
L-tryptophan products. The authors of the study,
which was sponsored by the US Centers for
Disease Control, noted that the new GM bacterial
strain introduced by the manufacturer before the
outbreak “may have produced larger quantities” of
the toxin than earlier strains. 72
One of the study’s co-authors, Dr Michael
Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the Minnesota
Department of Health, commented in a
press article of August 1990 that the new
bacterial strain “was cranked up to make more
L-tryptophan and something went wrong. This
obviously leads to that whole debate about genetic
engineering.” 73
Following Osterholm’s comment, a number
of press articles appeared voicing doubts about
the safety of genetic engineering. The FDA took
on the role of exonerating genetic engineering
from blame for the EMS epidemic. An article in
Science magazine quoted FDA official Sam Page as
saying that Osterholm was “propagating hysteria”.
Tellingly, Page added, “The whole question: Is there
any relation to genetic engineering? is premature
– especially given the impact on the industry” 74 (our
emphasis).
Osterholm countered: “Anyone who looks
at the data comes to the same conclusion [that
there may be a link with genetic engineering]… I
think FDA doesn’t want it to be so because of the
implications for the agency.” 74
James Maryanski, FDA biotech policy
coordinator, blamed the EMS epidemic on Showa
Denko’s changes to the purification process. 75
Maryanski also said that genetic engineering could
not have been solely or even chiefly responsible
for EMS because cases of the illness had been
reported for several years before Showa Denko
introduced its genetically engineered bacterial
Strain V in December 1988. 76
However, a study published in 1994 shows that
this argument is misleading. Showa Denko had
named its bacterial strain “V” because there had
been four previous strains of the bacterium. Over
a period of years, Showa Denko had progressively
introduced more genetic modifications into the
bacteria used in its manufacturing process. It
began using Strain V in December 1988, shortly
before the EMS main outbreak in 1989. 69 But
it had begun using its first genetically modified
strain, Strain II, in 1984, according to lawyers
who took on the cases of EMS sufferers. 77 This
timescale means that Showa Denko’s genetically
engineered bacteria could have been responsible
for the EMS epidemic.
The FDA responded to the crisis by claiming
that all L-tryptophan was dangerous and
temporarily banning all L-tryptophan from sale. 78
But a study sponsored by the Centers for Disease
Control said if that were true, then “all tryptophan
products of equal dose produced from different
companies should have had the same [effect]”. The
study concluded that this was not the case, since
out of six manufacturers of L-tryptophan, only
Showa Denko’s product was clearly associated with
illness. 79
If Showa Denko’s L-tryptophan were produced
today, it would have to be assessed for safety, since
it was derived from GM bacteria. However, since
this L-tryptophan was greater than 99% pure and
devoid of DNA, it would be passed as substantially
equivalent to the same substance obtained from
non-GM organisms. In other words, the tests
that would be required to detect novel toxins of
this type would be seen as unnecessary and no
labelling would be required. So the same tragedy
would result. 80
StarLink maize
In 2000 in the US, people reported allergic
reactions, some of them severe, to maize (corn)
products. A GM Bt maize called StarLink was
found to have contaminated the food supply.
Regulators had allowed StarLink to be grown
for animal feed and industrial use but had not
approved it for human food because of suspicions
that the Bt insecticidal protein it contained,
known as Cry9C, might cause allergic reactions.
The number of people who reported allergic
reactions to maize products is not known because
GMO Myths and Truths 49