Ethiopia goes organic to feed herself - The Institute of Science In ...

Science in Society
ISSUE 23 Autumn 2004 £3.50
E t h i o p i a g o e s o r g a n i c t o f e e d h e r s e l f
Rice Wars: high-yield low-input systems trump GM rice
Delivering good health through good food - Selenium for AIDS
Toxic pharm crops unregulated in US - Europe to grow plant vaccines in South Africa
New Age of Water from biochemistry to conciousness

In this issue
One Bird - Ten
Thousand
Treasures
- page 17
Bio-remediation
Without Caution
- page 40
Biotech
Investment Busy
Going Nowhere
- page 23
Is Water Special?
- page 47
Contents
From the Editor
Greening Ethiopia for Self-Sufficiency
Greening Ethiopia
The Tigray Project
Organic Production for Ethiopia
Rice Wars
Fantastic Rice Yields Fact or Fallacy?
New Rice for Africa
Top Indian Rice Geneticist Rebuts SRI
Critics
Does SRI Work?
One Bird - Ten Thousand Treasures
Corporate Patents vs People in GM Rice
Promises & Perils of GM Rice
Two Rice Better than One
Freeing the World from GM
Biotech Investment Busy Going
Nowhere
Superbug with Anthrax Genes
Approval of Bt11 Maize Endangers
Humans and Livestock
Pharm Crop Products in US Market
Ban Plant-Based Transgenic
Pharmaceuticals
3
4
6
8
9
12
13
14
17
19
20
22
23
25
26
28
29
Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
Questions over Schmeiser's Ruling
DNA in GM Food & Feed
GM Trees Alert
No to GM Trees
Low Lignin GM Trees and Forage Crops
Technology Watch
Bio-remediation Without Caution
ISP News
ISP to FAO: GM Crops Not the Answer
Rethinking Health
Selenium Conquers AIDS?
Delivering Good Health Through Good
Food
New Age of Water
Is Water Special?
The 'Wholiness' of Water
Water Forms Massive Exclusion Zones
Full references and sources are available to ISIS members on the ISIS members website
30
32
34
37
38
40
41
42
44
47
48
50
Published by
The Institute of Science in Society
PO Box 32097
London NW1 OXR
www.i-sis.org.uk
ISSN 1477-3430
Editor & Art Director: Mae-Wan Ho
Assistant Editor: Lim Li Ching
Production Editor: Julian Haffegee
Production Assistant: Andrew Watton
Marketing and PR: Sam Burcher
Associate Editors: Joe Cummins, Peter
Saunders, Claire Robinson and Peter
Bunyard
Other Contributors to this Issue:
Henry Becker, Sue Edwards, A.
Satyanarayana
Enquiries:
Sam Burcher sam@i-sis.org.uk
tel: 44 20 7383 3376
ISIS Director:
Mae-Wan Ho m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk
tel: 44 20 7272 5636
Front cover illustration "Night garden"
by Li Poon; Back cover photo by Mae-
Wan Ho
Subscribe now!
Subscription Rates (4 issues)
£16 UK
$32 (USD) overseas
I would also like to donate £ _____to
ISIS
Name:
Address:
Country:
Email:
Or subscribe online at
www.i-sis.org.uk/subscribe
Please enclose cheque or money order
payable to:
The Institute of Science in Society
PO Box 32097
London NW1 OXR
tel: 44 20 7383 3376
Email: subscribe@i-sis.org.uk

From the Editor Corporations coveting our rice
Rice, the staple food crop for more than half the world's population, among
them the poorest, is the current target of genetic modification, an activity that
has greatly intensified after the rice genome was announced two years ago
(see "Rice is life" series, SiS 15, 2002). Since then, all major biotech giants
are investing in rice research, with the clear intent of exercising monopolistic
rights through gene patenting and genetic modification.
At the same time, a low-input cultivation system that really benefits small
farmers worldwide has been spreading, but is dismissed by the scientific
establishment as "unscientific". This is one among several recent innovations
that increase yields and ward off disease without costly and harmful inputs,
all enthusiastically and widely adopted by farmers in Asia and Africa.
A war is building up between the corporations and the peoples of the
world for the possession of rice. The food security of billions is at stake, as is
their right to grow the varieties of rice they have created and continue to create,
and in the manner they choose.
We bring you a comprehensive exposé of how the scientific establishment
is serving the corporate agenda against peoples' interests.
3
Ethiopia goes organic
Famines and Ethiopia have become
irrevocably linked in the public mind
since Bob Geldof's Live Aid Concert in
the 1980s. But big changes are afoot. We
carried the first exclusive report (Science
in Society 16, 2002) on how Ethiopia is
determined to feed herself. This success
story is now told in full.
A project with small beginnings,
based on introducing the traditional
Indian farming practice of pit composting,
has increased yields over and above
chemical fertilizers and turned barren
degraded land into productive greenery.
The results are so impressive that the
Ethiopian government is ready to adopt
organic agriculture as one of its strategies
for food security. Ethiopia is taking
the lead in delivering not just food security
to the nation: but good quality, nutritious
food free from agrochemicals and a
clean environment, which are crucial to
delivering good health. This is what every
country in the world should be doing, rich
or poor.
The composting package was first
introduced in 1996 to the northern state
of Tigray by distinguished Ethiopian ecologist,
Dr Tewolde Berhan Gebre
Egziabher, recipient of the Right
Livelihood award. Tewolde (what his
friends call him) is no stranger in international
politics. As representative of the
Ethiopian government and African Union,
he has been championing the rights of
the poorest countries at the FAO
Commission on Plant Genetic
Resources, and played a key role in the
successful negotiation of the Cartagena
Biosafety Protocol for regulating genetically
modified organisms.
We are privileged to have the inside
story told by Sue Edwards, the Director
of the Institute for Sustainable
Development in Addis Ababa, who
shared responsibility of the Tigray project
with Tewolde.
New age of water
Water has come of age. It is cool on everyone's lips. Decades of research on
water is yielding remarkable insights into its dynamic collective structures,
and changing our big picture of life and living process.
Organisms are seventy to eighty percent water. Is this water necessary to
life? What vital functions does it serve?
Entire biochemistry and cell biology textbooks are still being written without
ever mentioning the role of water. It is simply treated as the inert medium
in which all the specific biochemical reactions are being played out.
Instead, recent findings are raising the possibility that it is water that's
stage-managing the biochemical drama of life. Water is life, it is the key to
every living activity. Some people will even say it is the seat of consciousness.
Nowhere else will you find such a feast for the discerning mind. And there
will be more in the coming issues.
Ban pharm crops
As one after another biotech giant retreated from GM crops for food and feed
in Europe amid massive losses and lack of investment, the desperate industry
is redoubling its efforts to use GM crops to produce transgenic pharmaceuticals
in North America and elsewhere.
These pharm crops pose a range of health hazards; as documented in
numerous reviews in past and present issues of SiS: allergies, immune-suppression,
immune sensitization followed by anaphylaxis, oral tolerance leading
to loss of immunity to pathogens. An AIDS vaccine produced in the maize
crop has been compared to the release of a "slow bioweapon". What have our
governments been doing to protect the public?
Prof. Joe Cummins uncovered a major scandal: these pharm crops have
been produced and marketed in the United States for at least two years
behind our backs, via a gaping loophole in the regulatory process. This has
galvanised public interest organisations to call for a moratorium on the
release of transgenic pharm rice in California.
Meanwhile, the European Union announced the award of 12 million euros
to a "Pharma-Planta" consortium, a network of laboratories in 11 European
countries plus South Africa to develop pharm crops for vaccines and treatments
for AIDS, rabies, diabetes and TB. South Africa's role is to be the testing
ground for the first pharm crops.
The exploitation of Third World countries to produce transgenic pharmaceuticals
unacceptable in Europe and the United States harks back to the
days of colonialism, and raises the spectre of unmonitored and unregulated
human exposures to the dangerous products without the informed consent of
those directly affected. This will become worse as opposition grows in North
America and Europe.
We are calling for a global forum to alert people to the dangers as well as
the "benefits" (see p.29). Meanwhile, it is imperative to impose a global ban
on field test releases and biopharmaceutical production, especially in Third
World countries.
www.i-sis.org.uk

4
Greening Ethiopia for Self-Sufficiency
Greening Ethiopia
Sue Edwards reports on the challenges and opportunities facing Ethiopia
as steps are taken to reverse the ecological and social damages that have
locked the country in poverty
Above: Pit composting training (photo by Solomon Hailemariam).
Left: Sue Edwards and Tewolde Egziabher (photo by Mae-Wan Ho)
Challenges
Ethiopia is a land-locked country in
the 'Horn of Africa' to the northeast
of Africa. Its topography is very
diverse, encompassing mountains
over 4000 m above sea level, high
plateaus, deep gorges cut by rivers
and arid lowlands including the Afar
Depression 110 m below sea level.
The South Westerly is one of the
country's
three moisture-bearing
wind syst
e m s .
Originating
from the
S o u t h
Atlantic, it
brings the greatest amount of moisture
during the wet season (June-
August). The mean annual rainfall
is highest (above 2 700 mm) in the
southwestern highlands, gradually
decreasing to below 200 mm in the
southeastern lowlands, and to 100
mm or less in the northeastern lowlands.
The mean temperature
ranges from a high of 45°C (April-
September) in the Afar Depression
to 0°C or lower at night in the highlands
(November-February).
Ethiopia's population was 53.48
million in 1994, of which 86.3 percent
was rural. It grew at the rate of
2.9 percent per annum between
1984 and 1994; by 2003, it was
estimated to have exceeded 67 million
and could reach 94.5 million by
2015. The population has an average
age of just 21.8 years, with
44% under 15 years and the group
15 to 25 years making up more than
20%. School enrolment has
increased, but the literacy rate
remains about 35%. There is a high
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

5
dependency ratio and although official
unemployment is around 3%, it
exceeds 30% in the urban youth,
while under-employment is widespread
in the rural population.
The country currently faces a
number of environmental challenges
resulting directly or indirectly
from human activities, exacerbated
by rapid population growth and
the consequent increase in the
exploitation of natural resources.
The challenges range from land
degradation to environmental pollution,
due to the misguided application
of chemicals in agriculture, for
domestic purposes or for the manufacture
of industrial products.
Ethiopia has accumulated one of
the largest stockpiles of obsolete
pesticides in the continent, estimated
to be around 3000 tonnes in
2003. The misuse of natural
resources includes burning dung as
fuel, instead of using it as a soil
conditioner. Losses to crop production
from burning dung and soil erosion
are estimated at over 600,000
tonnes annually, or twice the average
yearly requests for food aid.
Opportunities
Ethiopia is one of the least developed
countries in the world, and its
economy rests mainly on agriculture.
It accounts for more than 75
percent of total exports, over 85
percent of employment; and about
45 percent of the GDP (gross
domestic product). Coffee alone
makes up more than 87 percent of
the total agricultural exports. Hides
and skins are the next most important
export items, as raw,
processed or manufactured goods.
Several seasonal and perennial
crops are grown. The main ones
are cereals (tef, barley, maize,
wheat, sorghum, oats and finger
millet), root crops (enset, Irish,
sweet and indigenous potatoes,
taro, yams), pulses (horse bean,
fenugreek, field pea, haricot bean,
chickpea, grass pea and lentil), oil
crops (niger seed, linseed, safflower,
rapeseed, groundnut, safflower
and sesame), vegetables
(cabbage, tomato, hot peppers,
pumpkin, onions and garlic) and
many herbs and spices. The major
cash and industrial crops are coffee,
tea, citrus, papaya, banana,
avocado, mango, oil seeds, pulses,
cotton, sisal, tobacco, fruits, vegetables,
spices, sugar cane and
chat (also called mira).
Agriculture is one of the key
sectors in which to devote efforts in
accelerating socio-economic development
and reducing poverty.
Problems of chemical inputs
The Sasakawa Global 2000 (SG-
2000) programme was started by
the Ministry of Agriculture in 1995
to boost food crop production
through a focused campaign to get
farmers to use chemical fertilizer
along with high yielding varieties
(HYVs) and pesticides. However, it
promoted only the adoption of fertilizer
through credit schemes and
subsidized prices. Prior to 1995,
Ethiopia had one of the lowest per
capita uses of fertilizer in the world.
Under SG-2000, farmers were
allowed to select and use the best
of their own local varieties rather
than buy seed of HYVs. Very little
use of pesticides has developed
except for dealing with migratory
pests, particularly armyworm, and
local swarms such as Pachnoda
beetles on sorghum and the
endemic Wello Bush Cricket on
cereals.
Since 1998, the subsidy on fertilizer
has been withdrawn while the
price of fertilizer has risen. Despite
that, by 2001, around 5% of the
smallholder farmers of the country,
particularly those growing maize,
had become accustomed to using
fertilizer. But that year, the price
dropped out of the bottom of the
maize market and the farm gate
price in some areas fell to the
equivalent of US$1.50 per 100 kg of
maize.
In 2002, many farmers were
heavily in debt and withdrew from
the fertilizer schemes. Many parts
of the country were also hit by
drought with the result that yields
declined, or crops failed completely
and the government requested food
aid for more than 14 million people,
nearly a quarter of the total population.
Expanding horticultural production
is making increasing use of
chemical inputs, often with little or
no understanding of either how to
handle those chemicals safely, or
how to use them correctly. For
example, a survey by the local Safe
Environment Association and PAN-
UK (Pesticide Action Network, UK)
found malathion being sprayed on
the leaves of the local stimulant,
chat (Catha edulis), in order to
make them shiny and more attractive
to purchasers. Another group of
farmers had been using DDT to
control insect pests on chat until
they associated increasing stomach
problems with the use of the chemical.
The use of agrochemicals in
smallholder agriculture is rapidly
increasing; and this is in addition to
the substantial amounts already
deployed on the few large-scale
farms, particularly cotton farms.
The misuse of pesticides and fertilizers
is damaging human health
and polluting the surrounding environment.
Greening Ethiopia
The Environmental Policy of
Ethiopia has incorporated a basic
principle similar to one adopted in
organic agriculture: "Ensure that
essential ecological processes and
life support systems are sustained,
biological diversity is preserved and
renewable natural resources are
used in such a way that their regenerative
and productive capabilities
are maintained, and, where possible,
enhanced...; where this capacity
is already impaired to seek
through appropriate interventions a
restoration of that capability."
Key elements of the policy cover
soil husbandry and sustainable
agriculture, and can support the
development of more specific policy
and regulations for organic agriculture.
These include promoting the
use of appropriate organic matter
and nutrient management for
improving soil structure, nutrient
status and microbiology; maintaining
traditional integration of crop
and animal husbandry in the highlands,
and enhancing the role of
pastoralists in the lowlands; promoting
water conservation; focusing
agricultural research and extension
on farming and land use systems
as a whole, with attention to
peculiarities of local conditions;
promoting agroforestry/farm
forestry; ensuring that potential
costs of soil degradation through
erosion, chemical degradation and
pollution are taken into account;
shifting the emphasis in crop breeding
to composites and multi-lines to
increase adaptability to environmental
changes and to better resist
pests and diseases; using biological
and cultural methods, resistant
or tolerant varieties or breeds, and
integrated pest and disease management
in preference to chemical
controls; and applying the precautionary
principle in making decisions.
This enabling policy context
dovetails with a unique experiment
in sustainable development and
ecological land management conducted
with farmers in Tigray (see
following article).
SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

6
The Tigray Project
Sue Edwards reports on a project that could launch Ethiopia on her way to self-sufficiency
Above: Adi-Nifas-1997 & 2003 "Is there sufficient biomass in Ethiopia to make
Right: Farmer with maize cobs adequate quantities of compost?" This is the
grown with (L) and without
question most often raised whenever there is
compost (R)
All photos by Solomon any suggestion that Ethiopia could use organic
principles to increase crop yields.
Hailemariam
In 1995, Dr Tewolde Berhan Gebre
Egziabher, on behalf of the Institute for Sustainable Development
(ISD), was asked by some government officials to design a project
that could be promoted with farmers of poor and marginal areas in
order to improve the productivity of their land and rehabilitate their
environments. The project started in 1996 under the supervision of
the Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources (BoANR) of Tigray.
The other partners in the project are Mekele University, the local
communities and their local administration.
Project activities in four communities were established in
1996/97 and 1997/98. After 2000, the project was extended to 11
other communities, with more than 634 people now participating.
Much effort has been made to include households headed by
women in the project because these are generally among the poorest
of the poor in their villages.
Since 2002, the BoANR has been promoting the compost-making
'package' - trench bunding and planting multipurpose trees, particularly
Sesbania - in over 90 communities within 25 Woredas
(administrative districts) in the more marginal areas of the Region.
In November 2001, ISD had some preliminary yield data showing
the positive effects of using compost (first reported in SiS 16).
More data on yields were collected in 2002, and these were
equally impressive. Compost generally gave the highest yields,
often out-performing chemical fertilizers, in a variety of crops and
over the entire range of ecosystems from the moister areas in
Southern Tigray with fertile alluvial soil, to the deforested Central
Zone with moderate rainfall, and the arid Eastern Zone with poor,
thin sandy soil (see below).
As each community grows a different mix of crops types and
varieties, only the data that could be compared are presented. It
should be noted that 2002 was a drought year, and many crops
failed altogether. For example, only Adi Gua'edad and Adibo Mossa
had successful harvests of faba bean; field pea only in Adibo Mossa;
and finger millet only in Guroro and Adi Nifas. In years with better
rainfall, most communities would grow at least one pulse crop.
Comparing yields
An important feature of the Tigray Project is that it is to a large extent
led by the farmers. They choose which crops to treat with compost
and which with chemical fertilizer. Sampling was done with the farmers.
Fields were designated/chosen with the farmers and 3 onemeter
square plots were cut and threshed, and the straw and grain
weighed separately with the farmers.
Each figure presented in the tables is the average from several
fields of the same crop variety in the same area given the same
treatment. 'Check' means the field received no treatment in 2002,
although it may have received compost in one or more previous
years. 'Compost' is for fields treated with mature compost. The rates
of application range from around 50 q/ha (1 quintal = 100 kg, hence
50 q can be represented as 5000 kg) in poorly endowed areas, such
as the dry Eastern Zone of the Region (Zeban Sas and Gu'emse),
to around 150 q/ha in the moister Southern Zone (Adibo Mossa).
'Chemical fertilizer' is for fields treated with DAP (diammonium phosphate)
and urea. The recommended rates are 100 kg/ha of DAP,
and 50 kg/ha of urea.
The original data were collected site by site, but here they have
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

7
Figure 1. Maize yields in 5 sites
Figure 2. Tef yields in 8 sites.
Figure 3. Wheat yields in 6 sites.
Figure 4. Barley yields in 6 sites.
been compiled by crop: figures 1-4 for maize, tef, wheat and barley,
respectively. Table 1 gives the yields for faba bean, field pea and finger
millet for 2002 with yields for 1998/99 for the Southern Zone
included for comparison.
The farmers' experience
As the data show, yield increases whenever compost is applied. The
yields from compost are comparable, and higher than those from
chemical fertilizer. Farmers who have learnt how to make and use
compost effectively are not interested in continuing to use chemical
fertilizer, i.e. they have willingly withdrawn the use of chemical fertilizer
without any loss in production. Some farmers are even making
their own observations on comparing compost with animal dung
and/or chemical fertilizer.
It is interesting that the yields of the check and composted crops
(maize, wheat, barley, field pea and faba bean) in Adibo Mossa in
the Southern Zone show little difference. The farmers here apply
about 150 q/ha of compost to their fields, the highest rate of any of
the sites. It is possible that the soil is sufficiently rehabilitated (since
1998) to give good yields without compost being applied every year.
Farmers, development agents, and ISD staff have identified the
Table 1: Yields (q/ha) for faba bean, field pea and finger millet in 4 sites;
1998 compared with 2002.
Crop/Location/year Check Compost Chemical fertilizer
Finger Millet/ Adi Nefas/02 4.2 16.8
Finger Millet/ Guroro/02 5.1 11.1
Faba Bean / Adibo Mossa/98 3.4 15.0
Faba Bean / Adibo Mossa/02 25.7 26.3
Field Pea / Adibo Mossa/98 2.5 12.8
Field Pea / Adibo Mossa/02 26.4 27.7
Faba Bean / Adi Gua'edad/02 23.8 34.0 34.9
following as the positive effects of using compost:
• Yields as good and often better than those from using chemical
fertilizer
• Maintaining or increasing agro-biodiversity
• Reduced weed loads in composted fields
• Increased moisture retention capacity of soil
• Plants grown with compost more resistant to pest and disease
than crops treated with chemical fertilizer.
• Compost has a residual effect on soils; farmers do not need to
apply compost each year
• Farmers have been able to get out of debt from buying chemical
fertilizer
• Foods made from composted grain have a better flavour than
foods made from crops treated with chemical fertilizer
Some farmers diversified their production once the quality of
their land improved. For example, one farmer in Adi Nifas now regularly
plants vegetables, particularly tomato and chilli pepper in his
tef field. These do not interfere with the tef, maturing after the grain
is harvested and bringing the farmer additional income.
In Adi Nifas, where the main gullies and hillside were treated
with check dams at the start of the project, the stream from the hillside
now holds water all year round, and
several farmers downstream have developed
irrigated vegetable production after
they harvested their grain crops. They are
able to regularly get two crops a year.
Many farmers have also started to plant
fruit trees, both around their homesteads
and in rehabilitated gullies.
The data from the Tigray project were
collected by Arefaine Asmelash and Hailu
Araya, and analysed and compiled by Hailu
Araya, Sustainable Community
Development Team Leader in ISD. SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

8
Organic Production for Ethiopia
The success of the Tigray Project will now be consolidated by government policy. Sue Edwards reports
Adi-Nifas hill top photo by
Solomon Hailemariam
Spurred by the successes of the Tigray
Project, the Ethiopian government has stated
its interest to increase the capacity of
farmers to use organic methods of crop production.
The Rural Development Policy, meanwhile,
emphasizes the need to improve
local marketing infrastructure, and also to
develop agricultural products to diversify the
economic base of the country.
Last year, the government announced it
will support the development of organic
agriculture, and a task force was established
to draw up an Ethiopian Organic
Agriculture Regulation, which can become
law, and a Regulation for Organic
Agriculture Products to describe how organic
products are defined, and what may or
may not be used in their growing and processing.
The documents cover crop and
animal production, as well as food processing
and marketing, with the second document
providing a basis for a local organic
certification scheme.
The international trade in organic products
is an expanding niche market that
Ethiopia is geographically well situated to
exploit. Already, some communities in the
south and southwest have started to develop
and export Arabica coffee with an organic
and fair trade label.
There is also expanding awareness of
the importance of producing healthy fruits
and vegetables for the expanding educated
middle-class and expatriate market in Addis
Ababa. For example, Genesis Farm started
three years ago and production now covers
over 40 ha. The farm combines dairy and
poultry production with growing vegetables,
fruits and ornamental plants. It is totally
organic and sells certified products on the
export market. However, there is a fast
expanding local market and it is interesting
to note that none of the items sold by
Genesis are more expensive than other
locally produced items, and several are
even cheaper. When I recently visited the
farm, there were local workers buying their
vegetables from the farm shop.
As a further development, the administration
of the Woreda (administrative district)
with one of the best sites of the Tigray
Project, now wants to have the whole
Woreda involved in the project. This will
include 2 100 farming families divided in 16
'parishes'. To start this ambitious up-scaling,
9 parishes (4 from before and 5 new ones)
have been chosen to be involved in the project
this year.
At the invitation of the local administration,
over 200 farmers and their local development
agents and experts gathered for a
4-day workshop in July 2004, including one
day of field visits, to hear testimonies and
discuss the challenge of extending real land
care and improved production techniques
based on composting and water harvesting
to over 1000 farming families.
Both men and women told how using
compost, harvesting water and rehabilitating
the land had turned their lives around
from near starvation to food security and
better living. The most remarkable feature
of this workshop was the complete confidence
of the farmers in presenting their
cases after the local experts only made
some introductory remarks. The farmers
referred to the experts as their "parents" and
"mentors" in bringing about their new lives.
Another exciting element is the involvement
of the local justice system, the 'social
courts', to help uphold and enrich local bylaws,
to back up improvements to land and
its management.
The experience with the farmers in
Tigray in producing and using compost
shows that the aim for Ethiopia to have a
substantial number of farmers producing
organically can be realized. It also shows
that the introduction of ecologically sound
organic principles can have very quick positive
impacts on the productivity and wellbeing
of smallholder farmers so that they do
not necessarily have to face a conversion
period of reduced yields as they change
from chemical to organic production. Most
farmers, particularly those in marginal
areas, are not able to afford external inputs,
so for them an organic production management
system offers a real and affordable
means to break out of poverty and obtain
food security.
It is important to bear in mind that
although it may be external market interests
that initially stimulate the development of a
policy environment for organic agriculture,
the benefits should be available to all members
of the local society to build a healthy
and food-secure future for Ethiopia.
Sue Edwards is the Director of the
Institute for Sustainable Development,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and co-editor of the
seven-volume Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea.
ISD would like to acknowledge the
unfailing support of the Third World Network
for the Tigray work.
SiS

Rice Wars
9
Fantastic Rice Yields Fact or Fallacy?
A low-input rice cultivation system invented in Madagascar and spreading all over the world is apparently exposed as without
scientific basis. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho investigates
Rice feeds more than half the world's population,
but yields of the crop have been
levelling out, and 400 million are said to
endure chronic hunger in rice-producing
areas of Asia, Africa and South America.
According to the United Nations, demand
for rice is expected to rise by a further 38%
within 30 years. To call attention to the problem,
2004 has been declared the
International Year of Rice. "Rice is on the
front line in the fight against world hunger
and poverty", said Jacques Diouf, directorgeneral
of the UN Food and Agriculture
Organisation.
Many farmers all over Asia have
already identified low-input, sustainable
solutions to the problem (see other articles
in this series).
One simple method that boosts rice
yields at much lower cost to farmers originated
outside Asia. The System of Rice
Intensification (SRI) developed in the late
1980s in Madagascar, has since been
spreading to other parts of Africa and to
Asia. In Madagascar itself, some 100 000
farmers have converted to it. And more
than 20 other countries, from Bangladesh
to Thailand, have either adopted SRI, or
field tested it, or expressed firm interest. In
Cambodia, SRI was unheard of in 2000,
but by 2003, nearly 10 000 farmers had
converted to it, and that figure may reach
50 000 this year.
Advocates of SRI routinely report yields
up to twice or more those achieved by conventional
agriculture.
However, eminent agronomists are dismissing
those claims as "poor record keeping
and unscientific thinking"; and results of
new field trials, published in March 2004 in
the journal Field Crop Research, appear to
support this view.
History of SRI
SRI was developed nearly 20 years ago by
Father Henri de Laulanié, a Jesuit priest
who worked with farming communities in
Madagascar from 1961 until his death in
1995. In conventional rice growing, the
plants spend most of the season partially
submerged in water. During a 1983
drought, many farmers could not flood their
paddy fields, and de Laulanié noticed that
the rice plants, in particular, their roots,
showed unusually vigorous growth.
From this and other observations, de
Laulanié developed the SRI practice: rice
seedlings are transplanted quickly when
young, spaced widely apart, and most
importantly, the rice fields are kept moist but
not flooded. In addition, he emphasized
using organic compost over chemical fertilizers,
so that poor and rich farmers alike
could practise SRI.
Norman Uphoff, a political scientist and
director of the International Institute for
Food, Agriculture and Development at
Cornell University in Ithaca, New York,
stepped into the picture in 1993. He was
part of a team trying to find alternatives to
the damaging types of slash and burn agriculture
that were destroying Madagascar's
rainforest. It was clear to Uphoff that if rice
yields in the area could be increased from
about 2 tonnes per hectare, as it was then,
a lot of forest could be saved. He came
across de Laulanié's not-for-profit organisation,
'Tefy Saina' meaning "to improve the
mind".
Uphoff was looking for a yield of 4
tonnes per hectare, and when he heard
them say they could get 5 or more, he did
not believe them. But such doubts vanished
once farmers in the rainforest regions
started using SRI. The results were stunning.
"By the end of the second growing
season we were getting 8 tonnes per
hectare". In 1997, Uphoff began promoting
SRI throughout Asia.
Why SRI benefits farmers, consumers
and the environment
SRI's benefits lie in important differences
from conventional rice growing practice,
which, proponents believe, interact synergistically
to give high yields.
First, seedlings are transplanted at 8-12
days instead of 15 to 30 days after germination,
singly as opposed to 2-3 seedlings,
and spaced up to 6 times apart compared
to traditional practice; for example, up to
50cm x 50cm instead of 20cm x 20cm. This
represents a substantial saving on seeds,
up to ten-fold or more in some cases. The
increased spacing has the effect of encouraging
tillers or side shoots to develop quickly,
giving many more rice-forming panicles
per plant.
Second, the fields are kept moist during
all or most of the growing season instead of
being flooded continuously. This tremendous
saving on water is particularly important
in areas of water scarcity, and avoids
the damages of salination that accompanies
over-irrigation. It also encourages vigorous
root development, which in turn gives
more vigorous growth of the rice plants.
Third, no herbicides are used. Weeding
is done by hand or, preferably, a simple
rotary hoe, which returns the weeds to the
soil as green manure. This financial saving
is offset by increased labour, but labour
shortage is seldom a problem for farmers in
the Third World, and weeding becomes
less arduous in successive years. Giving
up herbicides is a health bonus for all concerned:
the farm worker most of all, and the
consumer; and there is no pollution of the
environment and ground water.
Fourth, no mineral fertilizers are used,
only liberal application of organic compost.
This financial saving is accompanied by an
improvement to the quality and fertility of
soil, reducing runoff, and improving its
water-retaining properties.
Despite its early start in Madagascar,
SRI has only begun in other countries since
2000, and already, positive results are
pouring in (see "Does SRI work?" this
series).
Critical scientists
Major critics of SRI include John Sheehy,
an agronomist at the International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI) in Manila, the
Philippines. He said most SRI field studies
have appeared in conference proceedings
and other publications not subject to peer
review.
That is hardly surprising given the lack
of interest from mainstream scientists, and
its relatively recent uptake in countries other
than Madagascar.
In March 2004, Sheehy, together with
IRRI researcher Shaobing Peng, A.
Dobermann of the University of Nebraska,
Lincoln in the United States, and other
researchers from Sheffield University in the
UK; from Yangzhou University, Jiangsu,
Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha,
and Guangdong Academy of Agricultural
Science, Guangdong, China, published
their first trials of SRI under the telling title,
"Fantastic yields in the system of rice intensification:
fact or fallacy?"
This report was written up as a news
feature in the top journal Nature, under the
yet more telling title, "Feast or famine?" asking
whether SRI was a diversion from
"more promising approaches" to increasing
yield such as genetic engineering.
Sheehy and coworkers planted a single
rice cultivar, shanyou 63, at three experimental
stations in Hunan, Guangdong and
Jiangsu provinces of China, using SRI and
conventional best practice in living-roomsized
(8 x 5m) plots in the same fields.
Weeds were suppressed with herbicides
on the conventional plots but pulled by
hand in the SRI plots. SRI plots received
extra rapeseed cake fertilizer. Conventional
plots were flooded as usual; SRI plots were
kept saturated and only flooded 2 weeks
before maturity.
Overall, no significant differences were
found between the two cropping systems.
SRI yielded 8.5% higher in Jiangsu, but
8.8% worse in Hunan.
Dobermann was reportedly "not sur-
www.i-sis.org.uk

10
prised", as he said every component of SRI
had been studied before and found to have
little effect. The results also fit Sheehy's theoretical
calculation of how much rice a field
can produce, an upper limit set by the
amount of sunlight falling on it. Based on
weather data for Madagascar, Sheehy calculated
theoretical maximum outputs for
areas that have reported the most impressive
yields of 21 tonnes/ha under SRI. By
his estimates, the yields are as much as 10
tonnes more than is possible. "You can't get
out more than gets put in," he reportedly
said.
They concluded that, "SRI has no
major role in improving rice production generally".
That was a remarkable sweeping dismissal
of the extensive research and trials
done by both scientists and farmers on
numerous rice varieties in 19 countries over
two or more growing seasons. Especially
so, when the conclusions are based on the
results of limited trials of a single variety for
only one growing season.
Riposte
Chinese scientists have experimented with
SRI since 2000, and their experience had
indicated that not all varieties responded to
SRI, and that responses improve in successive
seasons. Dobermann himself had
referred to the possibility of confounding
effects when SRI was compared to traditional
systems that did not represent the
current "best practice". Of course, what is
best practice for corporate agriculture is not
necessarily best practice for the farmer.
Thus, Sheehy and workers could have
stressed the obvious benefits to small farmers,
consumers and the environment, even
from the results of their own trials. They
have obtained the same yields with less
than half the seeds in SRI, with no inputs of
herbicides, and substantial saving on
water.
Norman Uphoff pointed out, in a
detailed rebuttal to appear in Field Crop
Research, that Sheehy and colleagues
have simply not followed the SRI practice in
their trials. It did not include the measures
recommended for water management and
weeding to ensure active soil aeration.
Moreover, the high concentrations of
chemical fertilizers used with the putative
SRI plots (180-240 kg N/ha) would simply
have inhibited the soil activity that
enhances plant nutrition and growth.
"The merits of SRI methods have been
validated by scientists at leading institutions
in China, India and Indonesia, the largest
rice-producing countries in the world," he
remarked.
Why are scientists in research stations
failing to replicate the enormous yield gain
with SRI methods obtained by farmers?
For example, IRRI started trials with SRI at
Los Baños in 2002, and obtained a yield of
only 1.44 t/ha; and the next season, it was
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004
still just 3 t/ha. Yet, concurrent SRI trials in
the government's Agricultural Training
Centre in Mindanao, using three varieties
(PSBRc18, 72H and 82) yielded an average
of 12 t/ha.
When asked by IRRI staff why this discrepancy
occurred, Uphoff suggested that
IRRI's on-station soils, after decades of
monocropping and application of fertilizers,
insecticides, fungicides, herbicides etc.,
might be "almost dead", and hence unable
to respond to SRI practices, which depend
on increasing the abundance and diversity
of soil microorganisms to enhance plant
growth and health.
The basis for dismissing the high yields
obtained in some parts of Madagascar as
"fallacy" is highly questionable. It rests on a
'model' for predicting theoretical maximum
yield using 'constants' derived solely from
empirical observations on conventionally
grown crops, which have no independent
justification in terms of the plant's metabolism.
For example, biomass accumulation
depends on the balance between photosynthesis
(which builds up biomass) and
respiration (which decreases it), and that
can change under different conditions. A
healthy plant is also more efficient in using
energy and accumulating biomass than an
unhealthy one.
An indication that yields more than 20
tonnes/ha may not be "impossible" is that
such yields have been recorded for rice
growing systems in China in historical
times.
Professor Yuan Longping, an expert in
breeding high-yielding hybrid rice, who
brought SRI to China, stated, "According to
the estimates of most plant physiologists,
rice can use about 5% of solar energy
through photosynthesis. Even if this figure
is discounted by 50%, the yield potential of
rice would be as high as 22-23 t/ha in temperate
regions."
Uphoff maintained that the critics'
assumptions are too firmly rooted in conventional
practice. Models for estimating
maximum yields will not necessarily translate
to SRI. "The coefficients for the calculations
are based on plants with stunted
root systems. SRI plants have extensive
root systems," he said.
Nor will single-season trials reveal the
full potential of SRI, because over time, better
oxygenation leads to the build-up of soil
bacteria that interact with the roots and
improve the condition of the soil. Even if
SRI fails to increase yields when first introduced,
as was the case in Thailand, for
example, further seasons will see it come
into its own.
Proponents insist that SRI is popular
because it really increases yields impressively.
T.H. Thiyagarajan, dean of the
Agricultural College and Research Institute
in Killikulam, India, rejects criticisms of individual
aspects of SRI. In combination, he
says, the whole is greater than the sum of
its parts. "The synergistic effect of all these
components is the crucial thing." He helped
convince the Tamil Nadu state government
to spend US$50 000 to promote SRI to
local farmers.
In fact, the individual components have
been tested in Madagascar and other
countries, and each component was found
to increase yield. The one that appeared to
give the most increase was transplanting
younger seedlings. But this practice is
more challenging for inexperienced farmers
used to handling sturdier older
seedlings.
New evidence
Norman Uphoff's weighty response drew
attention to new evidence from scientists in
China (see "Does SRI work?" this series),
Indonesia and India. SRI evaluations were
started in Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
in India in 2001, and by 2003, it had
demonstrated such improvements in yield
and profitability that the state government
provided $50 000 for spreading SRI practice.
About half the rice crop in the Cauvery
Delta, the main rice-producing area of Tamil
Nadu, will be given over to SRI cultivation;
the farmers are so impressed with the size
of the harvest and cost savings, including
water, over the past two years.
While Sheehy and coworkers reported
that SRI crops took 2 weeks longer to
mature, that was most likely due to the soil
not being well drained and aerated. When
properly managed, crops mature more
quickly under SRI. In Andhra Pradesh SRI
crops matured 10 days earlier, while in
Cambodia, they ripened about one week
before the conventional crops.
The claim that SRI gave no advantage
compared with "best practice" or officially
recommended improved cultivation methods
is also refuted. In Nepal, farmers compared
SRI with their own usual practices
and 'improved' practice. In 2002, the average
SRI yield of 8.07 t/ha was 37% higher
than the average with improved practices,
and 85% higher than the average with
farmers' practices.
A. Satyanarayana, rice geneticist
responsible for introducing SRI in the
Indian state of Andhra Pradesh since the
summer season of 2003, responded to
Nature's news feature by pointing out that,
"The experiences of farmers are quite different
from what is reported by sceptical
scientists."
More importantly, the costs of SRI are
low and its potential productivity very high,
which is "more important than ever now
that the Green Revolution technologies are
showing signs of fatigue."
He gave further evidence that SRI definitely
works for Andhra Pradesh farmers
and called on scientists to collaborate constructively
with farmers (see "Top Indian
rice geneticist rebuts SRI critics", this
series).
SiS
Fantastic yields fact or fallacy; profusion of panicles; both courtesy of Dr. Zhu Defeng, China National Rice Research Institute, Zhejiang

12
New Rice for Africa
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports on a new rice
variety that is boosting rice yields for
farmers all over Africa
African rice species proliferate like
weeds, but are low yielding. Asian rice
species, brought to Africa 450 years
ago, are high yielding, but cannot
compete with weeds. Scientists at
West Africa Rice Development
Association (WARDA) succeeded in
crossing the two to produce "new rice
for Africa", or "Nerica", that combines
the ruggedness of local African rice
species with the high productivity of
the Asian rice.
This has happened at a time when
demand for rice is growing faster in
West Africa than anywhere else in the
world. Rice imports have increased
eight-fold over the past three decades
to more than 3 million tonnes a year,
at a cost of almost US$1 billion.
The African species lodges, or
falls over, when grain heads fill. It also
shatters easily, wasting more precious
grain. The higher-yielding Asian
species has largely replaced its
African cousin. But, West African
farmers in rainfed (dryland) areas
can't grow the semi-dwarf rice varieties
from Asia, because they don't
compete well with weeds, nor do they
tolerate drought and local pests. And
African farmers are too poor to buy
herbicides, pesticides or fertilizers.
Dr. Monty Jones, WARDA rice
breeder, initiated a biotechnology programme
in 1991, making use of the
1500 African rice varieties kept in
gene banks, which have faced extinction
as farmers abandoned them for
higher-yielding Asian varieties. A
number of international agricultural
research institutions were partners
with WARDA in creating Nerica, plus
farmers and national agricultural
research programmes in 17 African
countries.
The creation of "Nerica" involved
crossing the African with Asian
species, and 'rescuing' the inter-specific
hybrid embryos in tissue culture.
These hybrid embryos would otherwise
have died if left on the plants.
The panicles of Nerica hold up to
400 grains compared to the 75-100
grains of its African parents, and can
potentially double the production of
rice. Nerica also matures 30-50 days
earlier than traditional varieties, allowing
farmers to grow extra crops of
vegetables or legumes. They are
taller and grow better on the fertile,
acid soils that comprise 70% of the
upland rice area in the region. In addition,
it has 2% more protein than
either the Asian or African parents.
This is an instance of 'hybrid vigour' or
heterosis.
Nerica is not just one variety; it is
a family of more than 3 000 lines.
Savitri Mohapatra, Communication
and Information Officer of the Africa
Rice Center, said in reply to my
enquiry, "Hundreds of Nerica lines
have been developed and they are
true-breeding." In other words, farmers
can save and replant seeds, without
having to purchase seeds every
year. Poor farmers are therefore getting
the benefit of hybrid rice without
having to pay for it
every year.
Participatory
research is the key to
the Nerica success
story. Farmers grew
several varieties and
provided valuable
feedback to the scientists.
The scientists
were able to learn
about the traits most
valued by farmers and
incorporate those into
the breeding programme.
More than
1300 farmers took
part in the 1998 project
to start growing
the new rice varieties
in Guinea. This was followed by a
1999 project to increase seed supply
at national level and a farmer awareness
campaign.
In Guinea, farmers increased yield
by 50% without fertilizer and by more
than 200% with fertilizer.
Building on the success in Guinea,
WARDA and its partners joined forces
to scale up dissemination of Nerica
throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. This
culminated in the launch of The
African Rice Initiative (ARI) in March
2002.
According to ARI's projections, by
the end of the 5-year project (Phase
1), some 200 000 ha will be under
Nerica cultivation with a production of
nearly 750 000 tonnes per year,
achieving rice import savings worth
nearly US$90 million per year.
Nericas are spreading fast in Sub-
Saharan Africa. In 2002, Nerica 1, 2, 3
and 4 were the top varieties selected
by farmers in trials in Benin, Burkina
Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, The Gambia,
Ghana, Mali, Sierra Leone and Togo.
Within West Central Africa, Côte
most rice growers in
Africa are women
d'Ivoire released
the first two
Nerica varieties in
2000, and Nigeria
released one in
2003. Farmers in
The Gambia,
Guinea, and
Sierra Leone are
growing several
Nerica varieties.
In Benin, Gabon,
Mali and Togo,
several Nerica
varieties are
under extension.
Uganda has released a Nerica variety
as "Naric-3". Ethiopia, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mozambique, and Tanzania
are evaluating several Nerica varieties.
"In trials, we're getting yields as
high as 2.5 tonnes per hectare at low
inputs - and 5 tonnes or more with just
minimum increase in fertilizer use,"
says Dr. Monty Jones, who is to
receive the 2004 World Food Prize
jointly with Chinese Rice Breeder, Dr.
Yuan Longping, Director-General of
the China National Hybrid Rice
Research and Development Centre in
Changsha, Hunan (see "Does SRI
work?" this series).
"Barring unforeseen difficulties,"
says Hans Binswanger, Sector
Director of Rural Development and
the Environment of the World Bank,
"we anticipate a rapid growth of rice
production, leading to self-sufficiency
within three or four years. We expect
improved incomes and nutrition for
the rural population and more affordable
domestic rice for the urban population."
SiS
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

13
Top Indian Rice Geneticist
Rebuts SRI Critics
Dr. A Satyanarayana responds to
criticisms of SRI as someone
responsible for introducing the practice
to the Andhra Pradesh state of
India.
I read the news feature "Rice cultivation:
feast or famine" in Nature
(25 March 2004) with great interest
as I was responsible for introducing
the System of Rice
Intensification (SRI) in the Indian
state of Andhra Pradesh since the
kharif (summer) season of 2003.
I found the message conveyed
by the article not quite balanced.
The experiences of farmers are
very different from what is said by
sceptical scientists. Instead of trying
to understand how a rice plant
can respond differently under an
SRI environment, they are confused
about the potential of SRI,
giving information based on rice
cultivation under flooded conditions
that are definitely not SRI
practice.
Having worked as a plant
geneticist for over 3 decades on
the genetic improvement of leguminous
crops under rice-based
cropping systems, I have released
34 varieties of various grain
legumes that are widely adopted in
rice-pulse or rice-rice-pulse cropping
systems covering over one
million hectares in the state. I have
been responsible, from 1995 to
2000, for research in the Krishna
and Godavari deltas, which, with
1.5 million ha of rice-growing area,
are known as the rice bowl of
Andhra Pradesh. At present, I am
Director of Extension for the state
agricultural university (ANGRAU)
and transfer of technology is my
job. So, I do know about the rice
crop.
In January 2003, I was able to
learn about SRI on a study tour to
Sri Lanka, and was amazed to see
the potential of this system. On
returning to Andhra Pradesh, I
started educating farmers on the
skills involved in SRI and motivated
them to take up this system on
a small scale in demonstration
plots. We planned to organise 50
demonstrations
through
ANGRAU's extension service and
150 through the State Department
of Agriculture. But more than 300
farmers took up SRI during the
summer season of 2003.
On average, the size of the
demonstration plot was 0.4 ha,
with the largest at 1.6 ha. As many
as 10 different varieties, chosen by
the farmers themselves, were tried
in all 22 districts of the state,
under different soil and irrigation
systems. The results achieved
were highly satisfactory, giving an
average yield advantage of over
2.0 t/ha. About 40 farmers got
yields over 10 t/ha, and 5 districts
had average yields over 10 t/ha.
The highest recorded was 16.2
t/ha followed by 15.7 t/ha.
The average over all the
demonstration plots was 8.36 t/ha
compared to 4.9 t/ha with conventional
practice and the state average
of 3.89 t/ha. These yields are
not theoretical. They were properly
recorded after thorough drying. On
seeing the performance of this
system, many farmers volunteered
to practice SRI during the current
winter season on more than 5 000
acres in the state.
Many farmers used SRI on over
10 acres. One farmer (Mr. N. V. R.
K. Raju) practiced SRI on over 100
acres (40 ha.), and an average
yield of more than 10 t/ha is
expected. I request sceptics to
visit Andhra Pradesh and see SRI
in practice before drawing conclusions.
Under SRI, the rice crop is
maturing 10 days earlier than with
usual cultivation practices, irrespective
of the variety, which is
contrary to what was stated in the
Nature news feature, that SRI
takes two weeks longer to mature.
Also, SRI required less water and
less chemical inputs. SRI gave
higher grain as well as straw yield.
Moreover, the SRI rice crop has
withstood cyclonic gales and a
cold spell.
It is unfortunate to say in the
headlines of the news feature that
proponents call SRI a "miracle".
No one has ever said this because
SRI results are quite explainable.
Planting young seedlings carefully
and at wider spacing gives the
plant more time and space for
tillering and root growth. Careful
water management keeping the
field wet and not flooded gives better
yield because it supports
healthy root growth. This practice
should be encouraged everywhere
as the whole world is facing water
shortages. Weeding rice fields with
a rotary weeder helps by churning
the soil and incorporating the weed
biomass as it aerates the root
zone. This encourages the soil
microorganisms to proliferate and
makes the soil living and healthy.
All of these practices are known to
agronomists, and there is nothing
new or magical.
The productivity of SRI as a
function of input is very high,
which is more important now as
the Green Revolution technologies
are showing fatigue. SRI has the
potential to give higher yields at
lower costs. Even when the farmers
were unable to practice all the
aspects the first season, just planting
young seedlings carefully at
wider spacing with somewhat better
water management resulted in
over 2.0 t/ha extra yield compared
to conventional methods using
higher inputs. With more experience
and mastering of skills, still
higher yields are possible, as
those obtained by the best farmers
clearly suggest.
Rice yields all over the world
have levelled out under the present
system of flooded cultivation.
Genotype x environment interactions
are known to affect the
plants' phenotype and performance.
We need to be looking for
alternatives to the present costly
practices with an open mind. SRI
is still evolving with the innovations
of the farmers making implements
and practices more laboursaving.
There is more than enough evidence
accumulated here and elsewhere
for scientists to take SRI
seriously. I hope that the scientific
community will collaborate in further
research. Possibly it can
refine the technology and reveal
the factors responsible for the
higher productivity observed. That
would be more constructive and
more in the spirit of science than
dismissing it with limited or faulty
data and preconceptions.
The author is Director of
Extension, Acharya N. G. Ranga
Agricultural University, Hyderabad-
500030, Andhra Pradesh, India,
and this article is adapted from his
response to the Nature news feature
mentioned.
SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

14
Does SRI Work?
The first reality check of a low-input rice-growing
system took place two years ago and more successes
have been documented since.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports
The clearest sign that SRI works, if
not miracles, then certainly well
enough, is the number of participants
drawn to the first in-depth international
assessment of it.
Nearly a hundred people from 18
countries were listed as participants
in the 192-page proceedings of the 4-
day conference, which took place in
Sanya, China, in April 2002. More
than three-quarters were scientists,
with policy-makers, representatives of
non-government organisations, international
organisations, private companies
and farmers making up the
rest. Participants from the host country
China made up more than half of
the total, and all were scientists from
prestigious rice research institutes,
agriculture academies or universities.
The conference was convened,
not to assess whether SRI works - for
that was the experience of almost
everyone who presented papers at
the conference - but to assess across
nations, "the opportunities and limitations"
of a practice that "can give
yields about twice the present world
average without reliance on new varieties
or agrochemicals."
The conference did bring together
a substantial body of evidence from
around the world that SRI can
increase yield in a variety of soils, climatic
conditions, with various local
adaptations, and using both indigenous
and commercial 'high yielding'
rice varieties.
SRI has been "practice-led" thus
far, but participants at the conference
felt it was time for scientists to catch
up and research the knowledge-base,
so that a healthy dialectical relationship
between practice and knowledge
can be achieved to help advance this
important project of delivering food
security and health to more than half
the world's population.
Since then, more successes have
been reported, leaving the scientific
establishment even further behind
(see "Fantastic rice yields fact or fallacy?"
this series).
Super-yields in Madagascar
The province of Fianarantsoa, situated
in the south-central highlands of
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

15
Above: Professor Yuan Longping and Dr. Monty
Jones two rice breeders are joint recipients of
2004 World Food Prize
Left: sparser spacing and Right; profusion of
roots, both courtesy of Dr. Zhu Defeng, China
National Rice Research Institute, Zhejiang.
Madagascar, now lays claim to the
highest yielding rice-fields in the world
since the introduction of SRI in the
1990s.
The highlands are subtropical,
with annual rainfall averaging
1375mm. The rainy season occurs
during the hot months in the year,
where the average temperature rises
above 20C. The Fianarantsoa region
is often affected by cyclones during
the rainy season.
Fianarantsoa attained rice yields
of more than 8 t/ha in the first year of
applying SRI methods, up from the 2
t/ha national average. SRI in this
region is increasingly linked with the
use of compost in rotational cropping
with potatoes, beans or other vegetables
in the off-season. In the second
and succeeding years, the residual
and cumulative effects of soil organic
matter from composting increased
yields still further, to 16 t/ha. By the
sixth year, yields as high as 20 t/ha
were measured on farmers' fields in
Tsaramandroso, Talatamaty and
Soatanana.
Bruno Andrianaivo, senior agronomist
of FOFIFA (National Centre for
Applied Research on Rurual
Development in Madagascar) emphasized
that such high yields cannot be
achieved immediately, but requires
the cumulative effects of 6 years
under SRI.
However, simply on the conservative
figure of 8 t/ha yield from SRI
practice Andrianaivo estimated a net
return to the farmer of 5 million Fmg
(about US$770), compared with
around 250 000 Fmg (less than
US$40) for conventional practice.
Acceptance in China
Professor Yuan Longping of
China National Hybrid Rice
Research and Development
Centre played a key role in creating
high-yielding superhybrids
throughout the late
1990s and early 2000s by conventional
breeding methods.
This distinguished researcher,
now in his 70s, has a long string
of national and international
awards behind him, and is joint
recipient of this year's World
Food Prize. Yuan's Centre had
already broken all records in
boosting rice-hybrid yields when
he first heard about SRI from a
paper written by Norman Uphoff of
Cornell International Institute for
Food, Agriculture and Development
(see "Fantastic rice yields fact or fallacy?"
this series).
Yuan conducted the first trial of
SRI in his Centre's station in Sanya
from winter 2000 to spring 2001. Only
three varieties yielded above 10 t/ha,
and SRI gave an average increase of
around 10% over the conventional
practice. The following year, tests
were conducted in the summer at the
Centre's station in Changsha. Two
varieties yielded 12 t/ha, and one 12.9
t/ha, a record for the Centre so far.
This encouraged more Chinese scientists
to conduct SRI research. Of the 8
locations in which his Centre was
involved, 5 locations got good results,
with yields over 12 t/ha.
Since then, trials by a private sector
company, the Meishan Seed
Company in Sichuan Province, using
a modified SRI method, achieved
yields of 15.67 t/ha and 16 t/ha in two
different plots, both new records in
Sichuan Province (yield in the conventional
field was 11.8 t/ha).
Yuan's preliminary evaluation of
SRI is enthusiastic: "SRI is a promising
way to increase rice yield and to
realize the yield potential of any variety…whether
high-yielding variety
(HYV) or local variety." He confirmed
that the method can promote more
vigorous growth of rice plants, especially
tillers and roots, and noted in
addition, less insect and disease
problems during the vegetative
growth stage, and that there are definite
varietal differences in response to
SRI practices: those with strong tillering
ability and 'good plant type' are
more favourable for SRI cultivation.
"SRI gives higher output with less
input, but requires very laborious
manual work which makes it more
suitable for small farms in developing
countries" he said. Moreover, SRI
should be modified and adapted to
suit local conditions, and as experience
teaches.
For China, he recommended a
long list of modifications, including
using tray nurseries to raise the young
seedlings instead of flooded
seedbeds, so as to reduce the trauma
of transplanting; and controlling tillerformation,
for although increased
tillering gives many more rice-forming
panicles, the percentage of productive
tillers falls off with the number of
tillers, so there is an optimum maximum
number.
He definitely thinks there is scope
for combining genetic improvement
with SRI methods. For example,
breeding plants with a strong ability to
form tillers would be appropriate for
improving the response to SRI.
Detailed analyses of the trials
were presented in several multiauthor
research papers. For example,
the economic benefits of applying SRI
methods were estimated for the
www.i-sis.org.uk

16
hybrid rice Liangyoupei 9, which
came both from savings and
increased yield. The amount of hybrid
seed needed in SRI methods was
only 3 - 4.5 kg, which represented a
seed saving of 8.3 - 10.5 kg and nursery
saving of 90%, thereby reducing
the cost by 215 Yuan/ha. As only
compost was applied, the saving on
the 10-12 t/ha fertilizer that would
have been used was 1 200 Yuan/ha.
The saving on water, some 3 000
tonnes, was about 150 Yuan/ha. The
total saving with SRI methods thus
amounted to about 1 565 Yuan/ha.
Add to that a 15% increase in yield
(1.5 tonnes/ha) and the farmer gets a
total additional profit of about 3 000
Yuan/ha (about US$ 360).
The Sichuan Academy of
Agricultural Sciences has done SRI
trials for three years in succession. Its
2003, trials showed an average SRI
yield of 13 t/ha. Another series of trials
in 7 regions of Zhejian Province
using 8 varieties all resulted in
increased yield under SRI; the average
increase being 1.5 t/ha over
already high-yielding controls.
The China National Hybrid Rice
Research and Development Centre
introduced hybrid varieties into Africa
and recommended that they be used
with SRI methods. In 2003, a 9.2 t/ha
yield was obtained with hybrid GY032
in Guinea under SRI methods, which
was 4 times the national average
yield.
SRI in Gambia
The Gambia, a small country
(11700km 2 ) in West Africa, is a 50
km-wide ribbon of land extending
eastward from the coast, bisected by
the River Gambia and surrounded on
three sides by Senegal. Its annual
rainfall is 900 to 1400 mm; the rainy
season between late May and early
October. Rice is the staple of the
country and there are 5 very different
production systems: upland, lowland
rainfed, irrigated (pump and tidal),
freshwater swamps and seasonally
saline mangrove swamp.
Annual rice consumption averages
70 to 110 kg per capita; domestic production
lags behind by 60%, and the
balance is met by imports. The
national average yield of rice is only 2
t/ha.
SRI was introduced to The
Gambia in the rainy season of 2000
as part of the Ph. D. thesis of
Mustapha M. Ceesay in Crop and Soil
Sciences at Cornell University in the
United States. Farmers were invited
to visit the first SRI trial site at the
Sapu station of the National
Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
in The Gambia before they enrolled
voluntarily in the research programme.
During the first year of experimentation,
three different plant population
densities were investigated with several
varieties. Yields ranged from 5.4
to 8.3 t/ha. In 2001, plant population
densities were investigated alongside
fertilizer treatments, and on-farm trials
involving 10 farmer households.
The on-station SRI trials were conducted
under pump irrigation, and onfarm
trials under tidal irrigation.
Plant population densities investigated
were 20cm x 20cm, 30cm x
30cm and 40cm x 40cm. Two rice
varieties were used, and instead of
compost, three fertilizer treatment
rates were assessed: NKP in the following
proportions: 70-30-30 (national
recommended), 140-30-30 and 280-
30-30. All trials took place in the lowlands.
The on-station trials indicated that
30cm x 30cm spacing did not
decrease yield over the 20cm x 20cm,
and was hence recommended to the
farmers for the on-farm trial. Fertilizer
treatments indicated that under SRI,
the nationally recommended lowest
rate was as effective as doubling the
rate, while tripling the rate gave higher
yields, but it was not economically
profitable.
The on-farm trials, conducted in a
communal tidal irrigation scheme,
gave "exciting" results, "a tripling of
yield" on average, 7.4 t/ha compared
with 2.5 t/ha obtained with farmers'
current practices. Some farmers
experienced more than five-fold
increases, from 1.6 to 9.0 t/ha in one
case, and 1.4 to 8.0 t/ha in another.
But there are problems facing the
farmers in land preparation. Farmers
in The Gambia still do not have a welldeveloped
culture of water control.
Fields are simply kept flooded after
transplanting until the rice plants
mature, and fertilizer application and
weeding are done under submerged
conditions. These practices will conflict
with the adoption of SRI, but the
yield increases may be a sufficient
incentive for farmers to overcome
these problems.
SRI in other countries
Many countries reported remarkable
increases in yield. Salinda
Dissanayake, Member of Parliament
in Sri Lanka, personally tested SRI in
his own rice field of a little more than
2 acres for four seasons, using seeds
of various varieties. He got the highest
yield of 17 t/ha with BG358, a variety
developed by the Sri Lankan rice
researchers. Even with local varieties
such as Rathhel and
Pachdhaiperumal, usually much lower
yielding at ~2 t/ha, impressive yields
of 8 t/ha and 13 t/ha were obtained.
Dissanayake formed a small group
to inform farmers of SRI; and farmers
who took up SRI from 18 districts
have doubled their yields on average.
"These yields were obtained with
less water, less seed, less chemical
fertilizer, and less cost of production
per kilogram …among SRI users, we
find people of many different income
and educational levels and different
social standing, including many poor
farmers having only small plots of
land, farmers with moderate income,
some agricultural scientists, and a
few administrators, businessmen and
political leaders who practice it with
their own convictions," Dissanayake
said.
H. M. Premaratna, a farmer from
the Ecological Farming Centre,
Mellawalana, Sri Lanka, backed up
the enthusiasm of his Member of
Parliament, and has personally provided
training on SRI to more than
3000 farmers by 2002. "From my
experience, I have observed that the
rice plant becomes a healthier plant
once the basic SRI practices are
adopted," he said.
Reports from 17 countries in 2002
showed that three-quarters of the
cases gave a significant yield advantage
of at least 20 to 50% increase,
and although the super-yields reported
from Madagascar have not been
obtained elsewhere, some farmers in
Cambodia and Sri Lanka have come
close. Overall, the conventional systems
yielded 3.9 t/ha, very close to
the world average for rice production.
The average for all the SRI yields
reported was 6.8 t/ha.
A report from the Philippines not
only documented yield increases over
several successive growing seasons
since 1999, but also a reduction of
crop pests such as rats and brown
and green leafhoppers, carriers of the
dreaded rice tungro virus disease.
This was attributed to the increased
spacing of plants, allowing more sunlight
to penetrate even the base of the
plant, exposing the hoppers, which
detest and avoid sunlight.
In Cambodia, SRI is spreading
very rapidly. Only 28 farmers were
willing to try SRI in 2000, by 2003, this
number had grown to almost 10 000
and in 2004, 50 000 farmers are
expected to adopt it.
Perhaps the greatest testament
that SRI works is the increasing number
of farmers who have adopted the
practice.
SiS
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

17
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports on how
ducklings in the paddy fields turned
weeds to resources and increased
yield and leisure for farmers
During the last leg of a six-day lecture tour in Japan in 1999, I was fortunate
enough to have visited an organic farmer not far from
Fukuoka, who was reputed to have done wonders introducing ducks
into the rice paddy field.
The train ride from Tokyo lasted five and a half hours, speeding
through a most unusual landscape, which repeats itself in endless
variations for the entire duration. It consists of large and small clusters
of houses and the occasional single abode, all floating, it seems, on
a sea of paddy fields. Paddy fields fill every available inch of land that
is not built upon, and most of the plots are tiny. That was a real surprise
for me, who, like most people, imagine Japan to be a fully industrialized
developed nation.
Our hosts from the Green Co-op in Fukuoka met us at the sta-
One Bird - Ten Thousand Treasures
tion, and after the usual polite exchange of bows, we were taken to
another platform for the local train to Keisen, where the famous
organic farmer Mr. Takao Furuno had kindly invited all three of us:
Tony Boys, my interpreter for the occasion and Mr. Watanabe, a fellow
speaker, to stay the night with his family.
It was getting dark by the time we arrived in Keisen. Tony telephoned
from a booth outside the station, and some minutes later, Mr.
Furuno himself came to pick us up in his mini-van. We drove a short
distance and stopped in front of a largish but modestly built and modestly
furnished bungalow. Mrs. Furuno opened the door and gave us
a warm traditional Japanese welcome. We were invited to sit down
around the dinner table where all the children came to greet us. Five
healthy, suntanned and smiling children, two boys and three girls
between the ages of 16 and 8, introduced themselves, then retreated
next-door to the kitchen where they were served supper. Grandma
and Grandpa were busy with food preparation, and appeared only
later to say hello.
The Furunos were a handsome couple in their forties. He, wiry
and dark, with a winsome squint and sparkle to his eyes, had the
appearance of being both amused and content with life, as he had
every reason to be. He spoke in an even, unhurried manner, with a
gentle tone. She was of medium build, lively, good-looking and more
openly ebullient about their success. Of course, they did not mean
financial success, they meant success of the farming method, which,
since its introduction ten years ago, has been spreading all over
Southeast Asia. In Japan, about 10 000 farmers had taken it up by
1999; and it has also been adopted by farmers in South Korea,
Vietnam, The Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia.
Farmers have increased their yield 20 to 50 percent or more in the
first year. One farmer in Laos increased his income three-fold. It is
obviously a boon to Third World farmers.
"We want to help", the Furunos declared, "financial success is
unimportant. We did not patent the method, we just want it to be widely
adopted." The method has been researched and perfected over
the years in their own fields. At this point, Mr. Furuno introduced a
young visitor who was working with the family in order to learn the
method. "There's always someone here who wants to learn, and
everyday, I get several phone calls from people needing advice," he
said as a matter of fact, without either false modesty or pride.
The young man's eyes widened when he learned that I was the
niece of Kyu Ei Kan's wife. Kyu Ei Kan is a writer most renowned for
his books on how to make money. And to demonstrate that what he
writes is sound, he proceeded to make a lot of money himself. The
excited young man pushed the book he was reading in front of me. It
had my uncle's photograph on the cover, and the title, How I Became
Rich - An Autobiography. Mr. Furuno must really be a great success
if a young man who dreams of becoming rich should be so eager to
learn from him. I made a mental note to tell my aunt, and maybe persuade
my rich uncle to go into the organic farming business.
"Well, it has been called a 'one-bird revolution'", my host began,
"the duck is the key to success." The secret is to release ducklings
into the paddy fields soon after the seedlings are planted. But won't
the ducklings eat the rice seedlings? No. "It is in their nature not to eat
the rice seedlings." Mr. Furuno assured me, then added, "agronomists
in the university say it's because rice seedlings have too much
silica."
They have made a very good video, complete with English narration,
which shows how the ducklings readily take to the paddy field
when they are led there to be released. About 20 ducklings are
released per tenth of a hectare. They genuinely seem to enjoy getting
into the water, where they paddled contentedly between the rows
of rice seedlings, now ducking under the surface of the water, now
raising their heads to swallow something, but never harming the rice
seedlings. In fact, the ducks are good for the rice plants in many ways,
including the mechanical stimulation they provide, which makes the
plant stems thicker and stronger, as demonstrated by careful experimentation.
Mr. Furuno did attend agricultural college, but he did not learn the
Aigamo method there. Aigamo is the name for the ducks, which is a
crossbreed between domestic and wild ducks. He simply worked out
the method by a combination of "contemplation, inspiration and
experimentation". Actually, ducks have been raised in paddy fields in
China and probably other parts of South East Asia since a long time
ago. But the farmers never left the ducks in the fields, and were
unaware of all the benefits that the ducks can bring.
The benefits the ducks give to the rice plants are numerous;
again, that was worked out by Mr. Furuno's scientific experiments
carefully set up in the field. The ducks eat up insect pests and the
golden snail, which attack rice plants. They also eat the seeds and
seedlings of weeds, using their feet to dig up the weed seedlings,
thereby oxygenating the water and encouraging the roots of the rice
plants to grow. You can actually see the difference between the plants
in the Aigamo plots and the control plots without Aigamo.
In fact, the ducks are so good at weeding that farmers who have
adopted the method now have time to sit and chat instead of spending
up to 240 person-hours per hectare in manual weeding every
year. Besides, 'pests and weeds' have been miraculously transformed
into resources for rearing ducks. The ducks are left in the
fields 24 hours a day, and do not need to be herded back to the shed.
They are protected from dogs by an electric fence or some other bar-
Takao Furano by Mae-Wan Ho
www.i-sis.org.uk

ier around the field. There is a patch of dry land for the ducks to rest
and also for them to be fed waste grain from the rice-polishing factory,
so they maintain a relationship with the farmer. But otherwise, the
ducks are completely free-range until the rice plants form ears of grain
in the field. At that point, the ducks have to be rounded up (otherwise
they will eat the rice grains). They are then confined in a shed and
fed exclusively on waste grain. There, they mature, lay eggs, and get
ready for the market.
It was too early in the year to plant the rice seedlings in Furuno's
own paddies. Japanese farmers time their planting according to the
length of the growing season quite precisely. So, as we came south
on the train, we noticed more and more dry vacant fields. Furuno's inlaws,
who live some distance away, have already planted the
seedlings and flooded the fields, and we were to be taken there to see
the ducklings being released the next morning. The father-in-law was
once a rich businessman, but had decided to give up business for
organic farming. The in-laws, who look ten years younger than their
age, live in a large house with a beautiful garden and a permaculture
orchard where chickens roam freely to keep the ground free of weeds
- another labour-saving invention - and also provide chicken manure
to fertilize the trees.
The ducks are not the only inhabitants of the paddy field. The
aquatic fern, Azolla, or duckweed, which harbours a blue-green bacterium
as symbiont, is also grown on the surface of the water. The
azolla is very efficient in fixing nitrogen, attracting insects for the ducks
and is also food for the ducks. The plant is very prolific, doubling itself
every three days, so it can be harvested for cattle-feed as well. In
addition, the plants spread out to cover the surface of the water, providing
hiding places for another inhabitant, the roach, and protecting
them from the ducks. In fact, the roach grows so well in the paddy that
Mr. Furuno has not bothered to count them. What do the fish feed on?
They feed on duck faeces, on daphnia and other worms, which in turn
feed on the plankton. The fish and ducks provide manure to fertilize
the rice plants all through the growing season. The rice plants, in
return, provide shelter for the ducks.
The paddy field with ducks and all is really a complex, well-balanced,
self-maintaining, self-propagating ecosystem. The only external
input is the small amount of waste grain for the ducks. And the output?
A delicious, nutritious harvest of organic rice, duck and roach. It
is quite productive. The Furunos' farm is 2 hectares; 1.4 of which are
paddy fields, while the rest is devoted to growing organic vegetables.
The organic vegetables fields were full of butterflies of all kinds when
we visited them the next morning. This small farm yields annually 7
tonnes of rice, 300 ducks, 4000 ducklings, and enough vegetables to
supply 100 people. At that rate, no more than 2 percent of the population
needs to become farmers in order to feed a nation. Tony Boys
indeed believes that with proper management, Japan can become
self-sufficient once more. So who needs GM crops? The choice is
clear, not only for Japan, but also for all of South East Asia, and the
world at large.
This Aigamo method also explodes the myth that organic farming
is necessarily labour intensive. "Organic farming need not be
labour intensive, it is fun!" said Mr. Furuno emphatically. The Furunos
are not purists, and they use both mechanical harvesters and tractors.
Their method is so simple and enjoyable, that five years ago, the two
eldest boys managed their own small plot and got a bumper harvest
from it. That was also documented on video. Mr. Furuno, however, will
complain that they are very, very busy, and no wonder. They run their
own vegetable business, process their own ducks and sell those as
well. In addition, he writes books, papers, runs courses, and lectures
all over S.E. Asia.
Later that evening, we were treated to a delicious meal of home
grown organic rice, duck, chicken and vegetables, complete with
unlimited bottles of Furuno's own brand of organic sake and fragrant
pine wine, both bearing the label, One Bird, Ten Thousand Treasures.
Mr. Furuno's one ambition in life is to share these boundless treasures,
this unlimited harvest, with the world.
We bathed in the warm glow of this wonderful thought, and ate
and drank deep into the night, becoming more convinced by the hour
that the harvest is indeed limitless and free to all who work creatively
in partnership with nature.
This is an edited version of an article first circulated by ISIS in 1999.
SiS
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

Corporate Patents vs People in GM Rice
19
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Lim Li Ching get to the bottom of current attempts by corporations
to usurp rice varieties through genetic modification
Has the International Treaty sufficient
bite to protect Farmers' Rights?
In 1998, masses of angry Indian and Thai
farmers took to the streets of their capitals
to denounce US company RiceTec
Inc's claim of monopoly rights over their
basmati and jasmine varieties of rice. US
breeders had acquired samples from
Philippines-based IRRI (International
Rice Research Institute), which holds a
large seed bank of Asian farmers' varieties.
That was among the first warnings
of a corporate agenda to usurp and control
rice varieties created and used by
local communities for thousands of
years.
The International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture, which came into force on 29
June 2004, facilitates "the free flow of
genetic material to plant breeders" as
well as to farmers and research institutions.
This is achieved through a
Multilateral System for Access and
Benefit Sharing, which covers a list of 35
food crops and 29 forage crops, among
them rice.
The Treaty clearly acknowledges the
contribution of farmers to agricultural biodiversity
and recognises Farmers' Rights
to save, use, exchange and sell seeds.
This is an important milestone in international
law. However, it falls short of unambiguously
banning patents on plant
genetic resources, leaving farmers' varieties
in international Gene Banks under
the CGIAR (Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research),
which come under the Treaty, just as vulnerable
as before. The text clearly states
that no intellectual property rights (IPRs)
may be taken out on the plant genetic
resources and their components that are
exchanged and as covered in the Treaty;
but this is qualified by limiting the condition
to resources "in the form received".
In short, this could leave the door
open for unscrupulous patenting of plant
genetic resources that are not "in the
form received", for example, if, after they
have been freely exchanged within the
Multilateral System, they are genetically
modified.
As the Treaty has just entered into
force, its continuing interpretation and
how it is implemented will need to be
monitored closely, to prevent powerful
countries (and their corporations) getting
rights to extract and privatise genetic
resources covered by the Treaty. It is also
crucial to strengthen the primacy of
Farmers' Rights over IPRs.
Gene-patenting and corporate rice
research
This fight will be critical as biotech companies
are increasingly muscling in on
rice research. "The advent of biotechnology
has caused a spurt in patents on
gene products associated with rice," said
Ronald Cantrell, director of IRRI. The
sequencing of the rice genome has not
only opened up largely untapped commercial
possibilities but has also set the
pace for potential IPR disputes between
corporations and governments. "I'm really
concerned that we should have
enough public sector research that would
generate knowledge, putting it in the public
arena, and we should make sure that
the private sector is properly regulated,"
he added.
The Syngenta Foundation for
Sustainable Agriculture, despite its honourable
name is part of the biotech multinational
Syngenta, and is now a member
of the CGIAR. In one fell swoop, the private
sector has become part of the network
of international agricultural research
centres, paving the way for it to participate
in policy making and determining
the kind of research that gets funded.
This, critics say, turns the once publicly
funded research body into "an agricultural
research outsource for the multinational
corporations". Although the Syngenta
Foundation doesn't currently contribute to
IRRI, there's no doubting the interest of
the corporation in rice research.
An article published in the New
Internationalist in September 2002 commented:
"The multinational biotechnology
industry has global rice production in
its gunsights. It is manoeuvring for control
through intellectual property rights
(IPRs), such as patents, and legislation is
quickly being pushed into place in Asia
and around the world to satisfy industry's
demands."
GM rice versus people's sustainable
agriculture
All this is coming at a sensitive time, as
farmer-led movements for sustainable
agriculture are also in ascendancy. For
example, MASIPAG, the farmer-scientist
network, is a farmer-led community-managed
breeding and conservation effort on
rice and vegetables throughout the
Philippines. It started in 1986 and now
involves 50 trial farms. Some 543 farmerbred
lines and 75 varieties of rice are
grown and further improved by well over
10 000 farmers throughout the country.
The Nayakrishi or 'New Agriculture'
Movement is active in Bangladesh,
where farmers typically use hundreds of
varieties of rice, and have little trouble
surpassing the productivity of the industrial
model.
Asia produces over 90 percent of
world's rice supply, and an estimated
140000 different varieties of rice have
been created by small farmers in Asia.
In the 1950s, the US put rice production
at the centre of a strategy to address
food insecurity and political unrest. The
resulting campaign led by the Rockefeller
and Ford Foundations, known as the
Green Revolution, transformed rice production
dramatically. Traditional farming
systems and varieties were replaced by a
package of credit, chemicals and high
input varieties. By the early 1990s, just
five super-varieties accounted for 90 per
cent of the rice-growing area of Malaysia
and Pakistan, and nearly half the rice
lands of Thailand and Burma.
Several major transnational seed corporations
- Aventis, Dupont, Monsanto,
Syngenta - now have rice programmes.
Rice is self-pollinated, making hybrid rice
seed production costly and difficult, and
nearly all rice in Asia is still grown with
farmer-saved seed. The seed industry
believes that the combination of genetic
engineering and patents can overcome
this hurdle.
"Through patents and contractual
agreements, seed companies will seek to
prohibit farmers from sharing or saving
seed, control what pesticides are used
and even assert ownership rights over
the harvest."
In October 2001, an ActionAid study
found that of the 250 patents on rice, 61
percent are controlled by just 6 seed
companies, three of them also the world's
largest pesticide corporations.
After the rice genome sequence was
announced. Dr. Steven Briggs, head of
genomics for Syngenta, told the New
York Times that while the companies
would not seek to patent the entire
genome, they would patent individual
valuable genes. He indicated that
Syngenta and Myriad were well on their
way to finding many of those.
China a major player
Meanwhile, the Chinese government,
which has invested considerable public
money into the sequencing of the rice
genome, thereby breaking the 'knowledge
monopoly' hitherto held by the
developed countries in the West, is
reported to be ramping up efforts to commercialise
GM rice.
www.i-sis.org.uk

20
Chinese researchers have developed
several GM rice varieties resistant to the
country's major rice pests and diseases,
such as the lepidopteran insect stem
borer, bacteria blight, rice blast fungus
and rice dwarf virus (see "Promises and
perils of GM rice", this series). "Significant
progress" was also reported for droughtand
salt-tolerance. Zhen Zhu, a leading
rice scientist and deputy director of the
Bureau of Life Science and
Biotechnology of the Chinese Academy
of Sciences, told Nature Biotechnology
that "China [is] technically mature
[enough] to commercialise several varieties
of its GM rice".
China's biotech budget for 2001-2005
is $1.2 billion, a 400% increase compared
with 1996-2000, and about $120
million out of the current budget is devoted
to GM rice programmes, Zhu estimates,
and more will be allocated to field
trials of GM rice. At least 10 new field trials
for GM rice are expected this year,
keeping the planting level comparable to
2003 of at least 53 hectares.
In the United States, USDA authorized
10 GM rice field trials over 11
hectares in 2003 and 12 trials over 45
hectares in the first quarter of 2004, 90%
of which were done by Monsanto.
China will be closely watched by both
the developed and the developing world.
China's activities in GM rice have gone
on simultaneously with extensive trials in
sustainable, low input rice-growing systems
that benefit small farmers (see
"Fantastic rice yields fact or fallacy?" and
"Does SRI work?" this series).
Huanming Yang, Director of the
Beijing Genomics Institute in China, the
lead author of a paper on the rice
genome sequence published side by side
with Syngenta's in the journal Science
two years ago, told ISIS recently that he
is "strongly opposed" to patenting the rice
genome.
"As one of the important sequencing
centres [of the rice genome], we think it
should be covered by Bermuda Rules
and should [be] made freely available.
That is the reason that we have released
the rice genome sequences," Yang said.
The 'Bermuda Rules' refers to guidelines
for releasing human sequence data
established in February 1996 at a
Bermuda meeting of heads of the biggest
labs in the publicly funded human
genome project. The rules require the
labs to share the results of sequencing
"as soon as possible", releasing all
stretches of DNA longer than 1 000 units,
and to submit the data within 24 hours to
the public database known as GenBank.
The goal, as stated in a memo released
at the time, was to prevent the sequencing
centres from "establishing a privileged
position in the exploitation and control of
human sequence information."
SiS
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004
Rice, the food crop for half the world's population is
the current target of genetic modification. What are
the health and environmental consequences?
Prof. Joe Cummins reviews
Promises & Perils of
GM Rice
Rice a target for corporate
control?
Rice is the primary food for half the
people in the world, providing more
calories than any other single food. It
supplies an average of 889 calories
per day per person in China, as
opposed to only 82 calories in the
United States. Rice is a nutritious
food, providing about 90 percent of
calories from carbohydrates and as
much as 13 percent of calories from
protein. Such a crop of immense
global importance is a certain target
for control by multinational corporations,
especially since the rice
genome was announced two years
ago (see "Rice is life" series, SiS 15,
2002).
Only one GM rice trait - tolerance
to the herbicide glufosinate - is currently
available on the market. The
rice varieties under development
include resistance to insects, microbial
pests and tolerance to high salt
levels. Pharmaceutical products and
multiple transgenic traits are being
pyramided into a single strain of rice.
It is likely that the next GM rice to be
approved for commercial release will
contain an insect toxin gene from the
bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt),
but that will be followed by a range of
modifications, including insect resistance
based on lectins and protease
inhibitors. Because rice has a huge
impact on the world's food supply, we
should at least make sure it is safe.
Herbicide tolerance and insect
resistance
Two glufosinate-tolerant GM rice
events, LLRICE06 and LLRICE62,
have been approved for commercial
production. They have been inserted
into the rice varieties M202 and
Bengal, consisting of the bar gene
encoding the phosphoinothricin-Nacetyltransferase
(PAT) enzyme.
Safety testing of the bar gene and
PAT enzyme was done using the bacterial
gene and protein, not the synthetic
gene and its product in the rice
crop. Despite this obvious flaw, the
United States Department of
Agriculture determined that the GM
rice strains were suitable for commercial
release, and these are marketed
by Bayer as Liberty Link rice. In 2002,
Aventis (later purchased by Bayer)
destroyed 5 million pounds of Liberty
Link rice because they feared rejection
by the international market, but
efforts are continuing to promote and
disseminate the transgenic crop.
Bayer is currently seeking approval
for the import of LLRICE62 for food,
feed and industrial uses into Europe.
Synthetic analogues of the Bt Cry
toxin genes have been used extensively
to construct experimental rice
varieties. Indica Basmati rice was
transformed by a synthetic Cry1Ab
gene in several different constructs.
These transgenic rice plants contained
up to 0.15% of their total protein
as synthetic toxin. Such high levels
of toxin are preferred because it
discourages insect resistance, but it
also means that the synthetic toxin
protein makes a significant contribution
to people's diet and to the rice
straw fed to animals.
Rice lines containing Cry1Ab and
Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac fusion protein genes
were reported to have no effect on
the fitness of non-target insects.
Rice with Cry1Ab toxin gene and
resistance genes for the antibiotics
hygromycin and neomycin was
reported to be resistant to rice
leafhopper insects. However, elite
Indica rice with a synthetic Cry1Ac
toxin gene, although resistant to the
yellow stem borer insect, had high
toxin levels in all of the plant tissues.
European rice cultivars were
transformed with synthetic Cry1Aa or
synthetic Cry1B toxin genes under a
constitutive ubiquitin promoter, which
turns on the gene in all the tissues all
of the time, or synthetic Cry1B gene
under a wound inducible maize promoter,
which responds to stresses
such as insect predation. The constitutive
promoter-driven toxin genes
produced high toxin levels that prevented
striped stem borer predation
but left toxin in all the rice tissues and
seeds, while the wound inducible

21
strain produced toxin mainly at the
site of insect attack.
Research has established that Bt
toxin was introduced into soil by root
exudates of transgenic rice. The toxin
released into the soil affected the
enzymes of soil microbes, increasing
soil acid phosphatase and decreasing
soil urease.
The benefit of insect protection
from Bt rice is offset by the potential
harmful effects of high levels of toxin
protein in the rice grain. As rice is
such an important food crop, the
safety of Bt rice must be concretely
established. It has been found that
food irradiation improved the "quality"
of GM rice modified with the Cry1Ab
toxin, by selectively removing the
toxin protein. However, study of the
radiation products and adducts created
during destruction of the toxin is
essential. Furthermore, it is clear that
food irradiation may be used to disguise
GM rice.
A number of projects have studied
the use of snowdrop lectin, Galanthus
nivalis agglutinin (GNA) alone or in
conjunction with other genes to control
rice pests. Lectins are proteins
that interact with human blood cells
(agglutinin) and also act as anti-predator
chemicals in plants or microbes.
A GNA gene was driven by a phloem
specific promoter accompanied by a
hygromycin antibiotic resistance gene
and was used to transform japonica
rice strains. The modified rice controlled
sap-sucking insects that
spread rice viruses. However, Stanley
Ewen and Arpad Pusztai showed that
potatoes modified with GNA affected
different parts of the rat digestive system.
Similar research on the in vivo
effects of rice genetically engineered
with GNA has not been reported.
Rice plants containing both the
GNA gene and the unlinked Cry1Ac
gene were reported to be resistant to
the major rice insect pests, striped
stem borer and brown leaf hopper
(rice with only Cry1Ac resisted striped
stem borer while rice with GNA resisted
brown leaf hopper). Rice transformed
with a single vector containing
Cry1Ab along with GNA and the bar
gene for herbicide tolerance was
intended to be resistant to yellow
stem borer and three sap sucking
insects, and also tolerant to the herbicide
glufosinate. This huge package
of genes was integrated at a single
chromosomal site. No account has
been taken of the interaction of the
various toxins in the human food supply
and in the environment.
Basmati rice was co-transformed
with three plasmids carrying four
genes including GNA, synthetic
Cry1Ac, synthetic Cry2A and resistance
to the antibiotic hygromycin. As
in the previous construction, care
must be taken to evaluate the toxicity
of the toxin products and their interaction
in the human diet and in the
environment.
Elite Chinese rice cultivars were
transformed with a gene for bacterial
blight and a GNA gene. The transformed
rice was resistant to sap sucking
insects and to bacterial blight.
Insect and bacterial disease
resistant lines have been pyramided
(pyramiding is combining transgenes
by genetic crosses). A strain with a
fused Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac gene was combined
with a gene derived from a wild
rice for resistance to bacterial blight,
in a male sterile restorer line of rice.
The pyramided line was resistant to
bacterial blight and to stem borer
insects. In the pyramided lines, regulators
must consider and evaluate the
toxicity of each transgenic toxin and
the combination of toxins brought
about by crossing.
Resistance to the rice stem borer
was produced using a synthetic
trypsin inhibitor that interferes with
insect food digestion. The synthetic
gene was roughly based on a winged
bean chymotrypsin inhibitor. A synthetic
copy of a gene product that
interferes with digestion surely
requires extensive safety testing!
Salt tolerance & enhancement of
biomass
Increasing the transcription level of a
rice sodium antiporter (a pump that
moves sodium ion into a vacuole)
gene, called OsNHX1, is reported to
improve the salt tolerance of rice, with
the potential of opening large tracks
of land to rice cultivation. Over
expression of barley aquaporin gene
in rice led to increased carbon dioxide
conductance and assimilation. Such
modifications are potentially able to
enhance biomass production in rice.
Nutritional enhancement
Rice has also been the target of
genetic modifications that nutritionally
enrich food crops. 'Golden Rice'
genetically engineered to produce
pro-vitamin A has been discussed
extensively elsewhere. Although
much touted as a cure for vitamin A
deficiency in developing countries, it
has yet to be commercialized and its
effectiveness in addressing vitamin A
deficiency has been called into question.
Pharm rice
Production of pharmaceutical proteins
in rice crops poses potent
threats to the food supply. Recent
efforts to test and produce rice modified
to produce the human gene products
lactoferrin and lysozyme have
been temporarily thwarted. However,
rice producing human growth hormone
has been developed despite
the likelihood that the GM rice could
cause cancer in those consuming it.
Rice is not a suitable crop for producing
pharmaceutical products because
of the high likelihood that the products
will pollute the food supply.
Environmental impacts
The genetic modifications being used
or promoted for rice pose a significant
threat to the environment if they contaminate
conventional rice fields or
spread transgenes to weedy relatives
such as red rice. Pollen mediated
gene flow was substantial from
Mediterranean GM rice bearing a
gene for herbicide tolerance to conventional
rice and to the weed, red
rice. Gene flow from herbicide tolerant
to cultivated rice was also substantial
in another study of
Mediterranean rice. Rice pollen was
spread from a test plot up to 110
meters from the boundary of the test
plot. It is very clear that transgenic
rice will pollute any nearby conventional
rice.
Health impacts
GM rice may soon be approved for
commercial production in a number of
countries. Safety testing of the currently
described products has not yet
been published. GM rice cannot be
presumed to be substantially equivalent
to conventional rice, but that may
not hamper approval in the United
States of many such constructions.
For the most part, GM rice is formed
from synthetic genes that should
require much fuller safety testing than
has been done in the past.
In North America, regulators have
allowed substitution of genes and
proteins produced in bacterial surrogates
for the actual genes and proteins
produced in crop plants in toxicity
tests of human and environmental
safety. The use of the bacterial surrogates
is allowed, to save corporations
the cost of preparing genes and proteins
from the crop plants, even
though the genes and proteins tested
differ significantly from the genes and
proteins produced in the crop plants.
The public should insist that the actual
genes and proteins produced in the
crops be tested.
The world's leading food crop
should be treated with more care than
has been done with maize, soy and
canola.
SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

22
Two Rice Better than One
Lim Li Ching reports on remarkable results from a simple experiment in China that combats
rice disease and increases yields
Planting a diversity of crops instead of
monocultures can do wonders.
Thousands of Chinese rice farmers
have increased yields and nearly eliminated
the most devastating disease -
rice blast fungus - without using chemical
fungicides or spending more
money.
These farmers and extension workers
in Yunnan Province collaborated
with a team of scientists from Yunnan
Agricultural University, the Plant
Protection Stations of Honghe
Prefecture, Jianshui County and
Shiping County in Yunnan Province,
the International Rice Research
Institute and Oregon State University in
the United States to implement a simple
change in cultivation practice in
order to control rice blast, a disease
that destroys millions of tonnes of rice
and costs farmers several billion dollars
in losses each year.
The area is prone to rice blast epidemics
because of its cool, wet climate.
The fungus that causes blast disease,
Magnaporthe grisea, spreads
through multiple cycles of asexual
spore production during the cropping
season, causing necrotic spots on
leaves and necrosis (death) of the rice
panicles.
Instead of planting large stands of a
single type of rice, as had been their
usual practice, the farmers planted a
mixture of two different kinds of rice: a
standard hybrid rice that does not usually
succumb to rice blast, and a much
more valuable but lower-yielding glutinous
or 'sticky' rice known to be very
susceptible to the disease. Before
1998, 98% of rice fields in the area
were monocultures of the hybrid rice
varieties Shanyuo22 and Shanyuo63.
The glutinous varieties, although highly
valued, were planted in small amounts
due to their low yields and vulnerability
to rice blast.
The experiment with mixed varieties
dispersed single rows of glutinous
rice between groups of four rows of
hybrid rice, but at a rate sufficient to
meet the local demand for glutinous
rice. As rice is hand-harvested in
Yunnan, farmers can easily separate
the hybrid and glutinous grains, which
are used for different purposes.
In 1998, the first year of the trial,
four different mixtures of varieties were
planted over 812 hectares, comprising
all the rice fields in five townships of
Shiping County, Yunnan Province. The
mixtures gave excellent blast control,
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004
such that only one foliar fungicide
spray was applied. The study expanded
to 3 342 hectares in 1999, encompassing
all the rice fields in 10 townships
of Jianshui and Shiping Counties.
No fungicidal spray was needed that
year. Farmers were so convinced of the
benefits of the rice diversification program
that the practice expanded to
more than 40 000 hectares in 2000.
The mixed rice fields were compared
with control monoculture plots.
The overall results showed that disease-susceptible
rice varieties planted
in mixtures with resistant varieties had
89% greater yield and blast was 94%
less severe than when they were
grown in monoculture. Both glutinous
and hybrid rice showed decreased
infection.
Specifically, in 1998, panicle blast
severity on the glutinous rice averaged
20% in monocultures, but was reduced
to 1% when dispersed within the mixed
populations. Meanwhile, panicle blast
severity on the hybrid varieties averaged
1.2% in monocultures, but was
reduced to varying degrees in the
mixed plots. Results from 1999 were
very similar to the 1998 season for
panicle blast severity on susceptible
glutinous varieties, showing that the
effect of mixed planting was very
robust. Panicle blast severity on the
less-susceptible hybrid varieties averaged
2.3% in monoculture in 1999, and
was reduced to 1.0% in mixed plantings.
This despite the fact that the
hybrids were planted at the same density
in mixed and monoculture plots.
The hypothesis for the reduced
severity of blast attack is fairly clear for
the disease-susceptible glutinous rice.
If one variety of a crop is susceptible to
a disease, the more concentrated
those susceptible types, the more easily
the disease will spread. The disease
is less likely to spread if susceptible
plants are separated by other plants
that do not succumb to the disease and
the distance between the susceptible
plants increased (a dilution effect). In
addition, the glutinous rice plants,
which are taller and rise above the
shorter hybrid rice, enjoyed sunnier,
warmer and drier conditions that discouraged
the growth of rice blast.
Disease reduction in the hybrid
variety is more difficult to explain, but is
possibly due to the taller glutinous rice
physically blocking the airborne spores
of rice blast and/or altering wind patterns.
It is also likely that there was
greater 'induced resistance' playing a
part in disease suppression. Induced
resistance occurs when non-virulent
pathogens induce a plant defence
response that is effective against other
pathogens that would normally be virulent
on the plant. Indeed, preliminary
analysis of the genetic composition of
pathogenic populations indicated that
mixed fields supported diverse
pathogen populations with no single
dominant strain. By contrast, pathogen
populations in monocultures were
dominated by one or a few strains.
Hence, the more diverse pathogen
population of the mixed stands may
have contributed to greater induced
resistance in the plants, and in the
longer term this increased pathogen
diversity may also slow down the adaptation
of pathogens to the resistant
genes functioning within a given mixed
plant population.
Grain production per hill of glutinous
varieties in mixtures averaged
89% more than when planted in monoculture.
As a result, although glutinous
rice in mixtures was planted at rates of
only 9.2 and 9.7% that of monoculture
in 1998 and 1999, respectively, it produced
an average 18.2% of monoculture
yield. The higher yields are certainly
due to the reduced severity of
rice blast fungus, though other factors
(for example, improved light interception)
may also have contributed.
Hybrids planted in mixtures, despite
facing an increased overall plant density,
experienced grain yields per hectare
that were nearly equal to the hybrid
monocultures. Thus, mixed populations
produced more total grain per
hectare than their corresponding
monocultures in all cases.
The mixed varieties of rice were
also more ecologically efficient. It was
estimated that an average of 1.18
hectares of monoculture cropland
would be needed to provide the same
amounts of hybrid and glutinous rice as
were produced in one hectare of a mixture.
Additionally, after accounting for
the different market values of the two
rice types, the gross value per hectare
of the mixtures was 14% greater than
hybrid monocultures and 40% greater
than glutinous monocultures.
The scientists concluded that intraspecific
crop diversification is a simple,
ecological approach to disease control,
which can be extremely effective over a
large area and can contribute to sustainable
crop production.
SiS

Freeing the World from GM
23
Biotech Investment Busy Going Nowhere
Claire Robinson exposes the financial woes of the biotech industry
Biotechnology is the answer to problems
ranging from hunger in Africa
and Asia to obesity in the West. This
was the upbeat message from the
industry's promotional showcase,
the BIO 2004 conference, which
took place in San Francisco in June.
In launching the conference, BIO
(the Biotechnology Industry
Organisation) trumpeted, "the
biotechnology industry is performing
well across a variety of financial and
product development measures."
But not everyone was persuaded.
This year's media coverage of the
annual event was decidedly cynical.
A report in the Asia Times commented,
"For many in the scientific community,
the smorgasbord of marketing
claims merely adds to the credibility
problems that are piling up
against genetic engineering, especially
as its base claims of boosting
food output have not been realized."
Another jaded reporter, David
Ewing, wrote in the San Francisco
Chronicle, "As of yet, most of what
I'm looking for here is in the 'promise'
category - and has been each
year I have come to this ever-larger
industry fete."
Falling investment
Disappointment at the biotech industry's
unfulfilled promises is reflected
in its falling bottom line. As the New
Zealand Herald said, "Investment in
genetically modified food is drying
up in the world's biggest GM market,
the United States, because consumers
in the rest of the world are
not willing to buy its products."
Roger Wyse of Burrill and
Company, the biggest investment
firm focused on life sciences, said
the consumer backlash against
GMOs had forced a lull in projects
aimed at modifying food. "We are
probably looking at three, four or five
years before the GMO issue subsides
sufficiently that we will feel
comfortable investing in it," he said.
Lack of investment has led to
massive losses. Back to Ewing:
"Last year, this industry lost $5.4 billion,
and has lost a staggering $57.7
billion since BIO last held its annual
conference in San Francisco in
1994, according to an Ernst and
Young study. Only a few companies
have been consistently profitable in
the 30 years since biotech was born
- a few, such as Amgen and
Genentech, fantastically so. Remove
them, and the losses and numbers
are far worse for the rest of the
industry."
An article in the usually biotechbullish
Wall Street Journal drove
home the point. Entitled "Biotech's
dismal bottom line: More than $40
billion in losses", the article said,
"Biotechnology… may yet turn into
an engine of economic growth and
cure deadly diseases. But it's hard to
argue that it's a good investment.
Not only has the biotech industry
yielded negative financial returns for
decades, it generally digs its hole
deeper every year."
The Journal points out that this
truth becomes lost in the periodic
bursts of enthusiasm for biotech
stocks, one of which is under way
right now. After a three-year slump,
biotech companies raised $1.5 billion
from new stock offerings in the
first quarter of 2004, almost three
times the level of a year earlier.
Thus BIO was able to boast that
while major stock indexes have
slipped this year, the Nasdaq
Biotech Index had edged up about 6
percent at close of markets on 2
June.
In the absence of consumer takeup
of its products, selling stocks has
become a biotech industry lifeline. In
2003, US biotech firms raised almost
$4 billion by selling new stock to
investors, according to Burrill & Co.
The same year, US biotechs as a
group posted almost that much in
losses. Only 12 of the 50 largest
biotechs turned a profit in 2003.
Meltdown continues
In the UK, the biotech meltdown
continues apace. Earlier this year, it
emerged that two biotech firms
linked to science minister and donor
to the Labour Party, Lord Sainsbury,
are facing serious financial difficulties.
Diatech Ltd, which holds several
patents for techniques designed
for use in GM foods, has gone into
liquidation, while biotechnology
investment firm Innotech is making
huge losses.
At the end of June, the British
GM science lobby despaired at news
that Anglo-Swiss biotech giant
Syngenta was withdrawing from the
UK and transferring to North
Carolina in the US. Syngenta was
the last biotech company to retain a
significant GM research presence in
the UK after decisions by Monsanto,
Dupont and Bayer Cropscience to
withdraw.
Whether Syngenta will face a
more sustainable future in the US is
open to question. Almost one-sixth
of the more than 350 US biotechs
that went public over the past two
decades were bought out for pennies
on the dollar, dissolved themselves
or had filed for bankruptcy
protection by the end of 2003.
Examples include Escagenetics,
Advanced Tissue Sciences,
ImmuLogic and Gliatech.
In May, San Diego-based Epicyte
Pharmaceutical, one of the last vestiges
of the city's attempt to become
an agricultural biotech stronghold,
closed. The demise of Epicyte was
lamented as "the latest casualty for
the region's fledgling agricultural
biotechnology industry, which just
five years ago appeared to hold considerable
commercial promise." In
1999, Stephen Briggs, the head of
San Diego's Novartis Agricultural
Discovery Institute, which was building
a major research campus, predicted
San Diego could become the
www.i-sis.org.uk

"Silicon Valley of agricultural
biotech."
Yet the industry didn't retain a
stronghold there: a consumer backlash
against GM food, along with
high-profile industry blunders such
as the StarLink contamination incident,
nipped investor enthusiasm in
the bud. In 2000, the Novartis
Agricultural Discovery Institute was
folded into Syngenta. Then in 2002,
Syngenta closed the La Jolla, San
Diego unit. Other San Diego agricultural
biotechs also disappeared.
Mycogen was purchased by Dow
Chemical, and Akkadix Corp. faded
from the scene. Dow retains a
research unit in San Diego, but
moved a second agbiotech unit out
of the state.
Biotech medicines a refuge of
hope
Biotech drugs have long provided a
refuge of hope for investors wary
about the prospects for agricultural
biotech. The promise of lucrative
magic bullets against intractable diseases
attracted those who kept faith
in the genetic determinist model of
illness. Biotech pioneers stoked
investor enthusiasm by arguing that
since biotech drugs are often versions
of human proteins, genetic
engineering could cut short the long
safety trials that traditional drugs go
through. But that didn't turn out to be
the case, and most genetically engineered
medications take 10 to 15
years to win approval, much the
same as other drugs.
At the turn of the millennium,
hopes rose with the hype when the
deciphering of the human genome
appeared to herald a new age of
treatments tailored for individual
genetic differences. This sparked an
incredible 170% rise in biotech stock
prices in just four months - followed
by a steep crash over the next year.
By 2002, disillusionment had set in.
Canadian magazine Maclean's
reported, in an article called
"Biotech hope and hype: The genetics
revolution has failed to deliver",
"Federal and provincial governments
have long had a love affair with
genetics, pumping billions into the
biotech biz… 20 years later and how
many breakthrough products has
biotech produced? Gene therapy
may actually have harmed more
people than it's helped. … The few
drugs derived from GE such as
insulin simply replace existing products
while creating new risks."
Bad-idea virus
We've seen how one lifeline for a
largely unprofitable industry is selling
stocks. Another is public money.
The BIO conference, reported
Associated Press, was packed with
mayors and governors from across
the US desperate to lure biotech
companies to their area with promises
of tax breaks, government grants,
even help with parking. Yet biotech,
wrote the AP, "remains a money-losing,
niche industry firmly rooted in
three small regions of the country:
'This notion that you lure biotech to
your community to save its economy
is laughable,' said Joseph Cortright,
a Portland, Ore. economist who cowrote
a report on the subject. 'This
is a bad-idea virus that has swept
through governors, mayors and economic
development officials.'”
A case in point is Florida governor
Jeb Bush, brother of president
George W. Bush. Jeb Bush spearheaded
an initiative to hand over
$510 million of Florida and Palm
Beach County taxpayers' money to
build a new biotech centre for the
Scripps Research Institute, based in
San Diego. Land, buildings, labs,
offices, equipment, even employees'
salaries for seven years: Scripps got
it all for free, putting in no money of
its own. The company will eventually
repay Florida up to $155 million, half
of the state's investment. But the
payback provision will not kick in
until 2011. Bush and other Florida
officials hope that Scripps will make
Florida a biotech hub - like San
Diego.
The wisdom of using San Diego
as a model is questionable, given
the industry's record of failure there.
But Bush seems blind to the risks.
"It's always good to have sceptics,
but I like to be on the dreaming
side," he told the press. "It's a lot
more fun on the dreaming side of the
road."
According to a report prepared
for BIO and released at its annual
convention in San Francisco, at
least 29 states have formal plans to
woo the biotech industry. Many, like
Pennsylvania, are using money
gained from the global tobacco settlement
to fund biotech development
projects.
How does this "bad-idea virus"
gain such a hold over so many? In
an article in Nature Biotechnology,
medical bioethicist Leigh Turner of
McGill University, Quebec, suggests
that biotech fulfils many of the same
needs as religious fanaticism:
"Biotech, in a similar manner to
many religious movements, has its
charismatic prophets, enthusiastic
evangelists and enrapt audiences.
Like religions, it offers a comforting
message of salvation. Instead of
imagining a day of rapture when the
dead rise from their graves to begin
eternal life, biotech enthusiasts
imagine the era when medical technologies
provide a renewable, largely
imperishable body. … Biotech is
not just an assemblage of research
programs and techniques. In a scientific
and technological era, biotech
also offers a surrogate religious
framework for many individuals."
Within this framework, it is a
small step to the type of language
found in the Nuffield Council report
and repeated by biotech 'evangelists'
such as Derek Burke, which
insists on the "moral imperative for
investment into GM crop research in
developing countries". And once that
article of faith is swallowed, it is but
another small step to appropriating
public money to promote and export
biotech to the third world under the
guise of aid and development programmes.
As private finance for biotech
dries up, the industry is increasingly
turning to government to provide
investment to force the crops the
West doesn't want into Africa and
Asia. The British government has
already quietly sunk over £13m of
public money into such projects via
the Department for International
Development during a period of
intense domestic disquiet over GM.
It has also sunk further money,
along with USAID, into the Nairobibased
African Agricultural
Technology Foundation (AATF) project
to push GM crops into Africa.
What is so insidious about this,
as Dr Tewolde Berhan Gebre
Egziabher, the head of Ethiopia's
Environmental Protection Authority,
has noted, is that "the moral imperative
is in fact the opposite. The policy
of drawing funds away from lowcost
sustainable agriculture
research, towards hi-tech, exclusive,
expensive and unsafe technology is
itself ethically questionable. There is
a strong moral argument that the
funding of GM technology in agriculture
is harming the long-term sustainability
of agriculture in the developing
world."
Nobody should be in any doubt
that the GM lobby's real aim has little
to do with feeding the hungry. It is
to shore up GM research in the UK
in the face of industry's current
retreat, to associate the technology
in the official mind with the public
interest, and to give GM's public
relations campaigns a charitable
face.
SiS

25
Superbug with Anthrax Genes
The Bacillus species causing anthrax and food poisoning are closely related to each other and to a
third, Bacillus thuringiensis, whose toxin genes are extensively exploited to create genetically modified
Bt crops. ISIS has warned of the potential for dangerous recombinants to emerge; such a recombinant
has now been identified. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins caution against growing Bt crops,
especially in the Third World.
The three Bacillus bacteria all live in the
soil and are so closely related that they
may as well be regarded as a single
species. B. anthracis causes anthrax, B.
cereus is linked to food poisoning, and
B. thuringiensis is extensively exploited
as biopesticides in genetically engineered
Bt crops, now widely cultivated
in the United States, and increasingly
being promoted in Third World countries.
The three bacteria readily mate
with one another and exchange plasmids
(circular pieces of DNA) carrying
specific toxin and virulence genes. They
share very similar viruses (phages) that
can integrate into the bacterial genome
as 'prophage', and can hence also
move toxin and virulence genes among
them, many of them reside in the bacterial
chromosome. Cummins has warned
that dangerous recombinants could
arise, from gene exchange between the
bacteria and between the Bt plant
debris and bacteria in the soil.
Now, an international team of infectious
disease researchers led by Claire
M. Fraser of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) in
Atlanta, Georgia, USA, has identified a
recombinant between B. anthracis and
B. cereus. They were alerted last year
when two hospital patients in Texas
died of severe pneumonia that
appeared to be caused by inhalation
anthrax, but neither patient was infected
with B. anthracis. Instead, DNA tests
showed that both patients were infected
by a strain of B. cereus that normally
causes mild food poisoning, which has
somehow acquired the lethal anthrax
genes.
When the Texas cases came to
light, the CDC scientists were sequencing
a strain of B. cereus isolated from a
man in Louisiana who, in 1994, showed
up with severe anthrax-like symptoms.
The Texas and Lousiana patients were
all metal workers who seemed to have
inhaled the bacteria.
Anthrax is an acute fatal disease
among mammals and B. anthracis
became widely known as a biological
weapon soon after September 11, 2001.
It has two plasmids: pXO1 carrying the
lethal toxin complex (edema factor,
lethal factor and protective antigen),
and pXO2 carrying the glutamic acid
polymer that inhibits white blood cells
from engulfing and digesting the bacterium.
Until a few years ago, B.
anthracis was thought to be distinct
from B. cereus, because they look different
and cause different diseases.
The researchers sequenced the B.
cereus genome using draft genome
sequences obtained and assembled by
the company Celera, and the resulting
sequence annotated through The
Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR)
bioinformatics pipeline, set up by Craig
Venter, the maverick scientist who
founded Celera to sequence the human
genome, succeeded only too well, and
was sacked from the company in
January 2002, after he remarked on
there being too few genes to support
the simplistic idea that organisms are
hardwired in their genes.
It turns out that the culprit strain of B.
cereus G9241 had acquired a plasmid
very similar to the pXO1 of B. anthracis.
In addition, analysis of seven other
metabolic genes showed that the strain
is closely related to, albeit distinct from,
B. anthracis.
The sequence of the B. cereus
G9241 genome reveals a mosaic structure,
which could be due to the presence
of a great number of what appears
to be known and novel mobile genetic
elements that can insert sequences
from other sources. It also has a
119110bp circular plasmid with high
similarity to B. anthracis pXO1. There is,
further, a cryptic phage of 29 886bp that
encodes phage-like proteins and a plasmid
replicon (replicating unit) similar to
B. anthracis plasmid pXO2. It also carries
genes that, if functional, should provide
the strain with resistance to b-lactam,
chloramphenicol and macrolide
antimicrobial agents.
When injected into mice, B. cereus
G9241 proved to be 100% lethal, as
was B. anthracis, but it killed the mice
almost twice as fast. All the mice injected
with an ordinary B. cereus strain survived
the experiment.
As a result of these findings, the
researchers concluded that, "it may not
be appropriate to consider B. anthracis,
as currently defined, as the only species
capable of causing inhalation anthraxlike
disease."
Another noteworthy feature is that at
least two isolates of B. cereus (ATCC
14579) and M 1550) are extremely
closely related to, and cluster with, B.
thuringiensis. A number of delta endotoxins
from B. thuringiensis strains are
implicated in allergies and other illnesses,
or known to be immunogenic. What
sort of disease agent might emerge
from B. cereus if it acquired endotoxin
genes either from B. thuringiensis or
from Bt crop debris in the soil? This
question is especially pertinent in view
of the substantial changes in the genetically
modified Bt genes that are completely
untested and hence unknown in
toxicities.
Countries, especially those in the
Third World, where farmers live next to
their fields, should be particularly wary
about growing Bt crops.
SiS
anthraxmicro
www.i-sis.org.uk

26
Approval of Bt11 Maize Endangers
Humans and Livestock
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho explains why the European Commission's decision
to approve Syngenta's GM maize is illegal and criminal based on
existing scientific evidence.
The European Commission ended
6 years of de facto moratorium on
GM authorization by approving
Syngenta's Bt11 sweet corn for
food use in Europe on 19 May
2004 (see Box 1). That, despite
the fact that voting by experts last
December in the EU's Standing
Committee on Food Chain and
Animal Health was an even 6-6
country split with three abstentions.
Finland, Sweden, Ireland,
UK, Netherlands, and Spain voted
in favour; Greece, Denmark,
France, Austria, Luxembourg,
Portugal voted against; and
Belgium, Italy and Germany
abstained. The same split happened
at the Council of Ministers
on 27 April, but this time Italy
voted in favour, while Spain
abstained.
Belgium's scientists first
expressed concerns over the
safety of Bt11 when they subjected
Bt11 to molecular characteri-
Box 1
History of Bt11 maize approval
An official dossier was submitted to the European Union in 1996 and
approved under the old Directive for deliberate release into the environment
(90/220/EEC) for import and processing since 22 April 1998.
Two notifications for cultivation were submitted in 1996 (to France)
and 1998 (to Spain). The Scientific Committee on Plants (SCP) gave a
favourable opinion for these two notifications, although Syngenta has
since withdrawn the latter. The 1996 notification was updated in 1998
and 2002, and finally in 2003, additional information was supplied as
required by the new Directive for deliberate release 2001/18/EC. The
French competent authority concluded that, in this respect, Bt11 "does
not present a greater risk to human health or the environment than any
other variety of maize". Approval of the application, which includes
import, cultivation and all other uses, is still pending.
In February 1999, a request was submitted under Regulation (EC)
258/97 for placing sweet corn from GM maize line Bt11 on the market
for food use (fresh or processed). On 17 April 2002, the Scientific
Committee on Food gave its opinion that Bt11 sweet corn is as safe for
human food use as its conventional counterparts.
The vote in the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal
Health, December 2003, resulted in an even 6-6 country split with
three abstentions. A similar split ratio in the Council of Ministers 27
April 2004 led to a stalemate. The European Commission broke the
deadlock by deciding in favour of approval.
sation, as required by Europe's
current Directive for deliberate
release. These concerns were
strongly reinforced by French and
Austrian scientists.
According to an article in Le
Monde published 24 April, two
scientific evaluation committees,
in France and Belgium, had
refused to give their approval for
food use of Bt11 sweet corn. On
22 April, AFSSA (French Agency
of Food Sanitary Security)
opposed the authorization of Bt11
sweet corn for the third time, after
having refused it twice before, in
2000 and 2003, on grounds that
the scientific results were insufficient.
In a brief note published 22
April, implicitly replying to the
European Commission statement
on 5 February that "the results
supplied by Syngenta…are in
accordance with the criteria and
rules defined in the recommendation
618/97/EC", AFSSA said it
"maintains its previous opinion
which concluded that to rigorously
evaluate the impact of regular
consumption of a maize carrying
the Bt11 event, toxicity/tolerance
experiments on rats must be carried
out… Such toxicity/tolerance
experiments are not required by
the actual regulation, though they
might be advisable … because
the sweet corn is the only one to
be consumed by humans."
The Belgian Council for
Biosafety had already refused to
give its approval for the Bt11
maize on 1 April 2004.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe
Cummins from ISIS and the ISP
(Independent Science Panel)
have objected strongly to the
approval of a range of GM crops;
and called for the withdrawal of
approval already granted, most
probably for the same reasons as
the Belgian and French scientists:
the GM inserts in all these crops
were found to have rearranged
since characterised by the company.
That is a sign that the GM
varieties are unstable, and hence
contrary to requirement laid down
by the current European Directive
for deliberate release
(2001/18/EC). Furthermore, there
is evidence that some GM varieties
are non-uniform, also contrary
to the requirement of the
current European Directive. Thus,
the European Commission is contravening
its own laws in approving
Bt11.
Ho and Cummins have referred
to this as both "illegal and criminal";
criminal because transgenic
instability is a key safety issue,
and there is already evidence
suggesting that GM food and feed
are far from safe, even though
very few feeding trials have been
carried out, and toxicological
tests on natural Bt toxins are thoroughly
inadequate to predict the
much altered GM toxins incorpo-
GM sweet corn anyone?
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

Box 2
Molecular characterisations by Belgian Council for Biosafety
The plasmid used for making Bt11 contains a synthetic truncated crylAb sequence isolated from soil bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis kurstaki HDI, and a synthetic pat gene, isolated from Streptomyces viridochromogenes, another soil bacterium.
Both coding sequences are driven by a 35S promoter sequence derived from cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S
promoter and the 3' untranslated region of the nopaline synthase (nos) gene from a third soil bacterium Agrobacterium
tumefaciens. In addition, the promoter sequences of the pat and cry1Ab gene were combined with respectively intron Int II
and Int VI derived from maize alcohol dehydrogenase adh1S gene to enhance expression.
The company's dossier claimed a single copy insert with the structure:
p35S-Int II-pat-tnos-p35S-Int VI-crylAb-tnos
But analyses by the Belgian Council for Biosafety revealed "primary insert with rearrangements, truncations and unexpected
insertions", and "it is not certain if only one copy of the insert is present". Furthermore, 1.1kbp of the plasmid
sequence was present at the 5' end of the insert, followed by plant DNA with homology to 180bp knob specific repeat
sequence. At the 3' end, the plasmid sequence is again present followed by plant DNA with homology to the 180bp knob
specific repeat sequence.
Although not discussed by the study, knob specific sequences are present in many maize chromosomes, and are suspected
to be "megatransposons" involved in exchanges of whole chromosome segments in the genome. If so, the insert
has landed in a megatransposon, and has the potential to spread uncontrollably over the entire genome.
Another worrying finding is that PCR primers for Bt176 amplify sequences from both Bt176 and Bt11, suggesting that
Bt11 may have been contaminated by Bt176. Bt176 has been linked to the death of 12 dairy cows in Hesse Germany
between 2001 and 2002; and approval for growing Bt 176 has just been withdrawn in Spain on grounds that it has an
antibiotic resistance marker gene that the European Food Safety Authority recommends should not be present in GM crops
placed on the market.
The Belgian Council for Biosafety concluded: "There are still uncertainties concerning the molecular data provided in the
dossier C/F/96/05-10; rearrangements in the insert and truncations of parts of the insert might have occurred. Therefore,
the sequence of the insert should be further checked together with the number of inserts."
rated into GM crops. In short,
approval of Bt11 sweet corn is
endangering livestock and human
beings.
Belgian scientists characterised
the GM insert in Bt11 and
reported, that "rearrangements,
truncations and unexpected insertions"
have taken place (see Box
2), that further inserts may be
present, that the insert has landed
in what turns out to be suspected
"megatransposons"
involved in exchanging segments
between chromosomes, and that
further it is contaminated with
Bt176, a GM variety that has just
been withdrawn from cultivation in
Spain.
This is a damning indictment
of the European Commission's
decision.
A few days after gaining
approval for food use of Bt11
sweet maize, an interview with
Andre Goig, Director-General of
Syngenta Seeds France and
Europe, in the French newspaper
Les Echos quotes him as saying
that the product will not be commercialised
in Europe, for now,
due to strong consumer resistance.
However, Syngenta still
intends to press ahead with its
application to cultivate Bt11
maize in Europe.
SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

28
Prof. Joe Cummins discovers that
dangerous GM pharmaceutical
crops have been produced and
marketed in the United States for
at least two years, unbeknownst to
the public, via a gaping loophole in
the regulatory process.
Pharm Crop
Products
in US Market
There has been a great deal of
public opposition recently to the
testing of rice genetically modified
to produce the human proteins
lysozyme and lactoferrin in the
United States. So far, plans to
commercialize this rice have been
stalled (see SiS 22).
But, Sigma-Aldrich, a US chemical
company, has been marketing
the biopharmaceutical products
trypsin, avidin and beta-glucuronidase
(GUS) processed from
transgenic maize, for at least two
years. Meanwhile, Prodigene
Corporation and Sigma-Aldrich are
marketing aprotinin (AproliZean)
from maize and from a transgenic
tobacco.
Trypsin is a digestive enzyme
used extensively in research, to
treat disease and in food processing.
The product TrypZean is marketed
as an animal free product,
and is produced jointly by Sigma-
Aldrich and Prodigene (the company
fined for contaminating food
crops with biopharmaceuticals in
the United States last year).
The development of genetically
modified (GM) food crops generally
follows a certain pattern in the
United States: First, controlled
field tests are undertaken for a
number of seasons. Then, the proponent
applies for deregulation of
the GM crop following reviews by
the Animal Plant Health Service
(APHIS) of the Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and by
the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) if the GM crop
includes a plant incorporated biopesticide.
Upon completion of the
process, the GM crop is deemed to
be deregulated and can be grown
without monitoring.
However, none of the biopharmaceutical-producing
GM crops
appears to have gone through the
usual regulatory process. Instead
they appeared to have progressed
from field-testing to marketing
without the benefit of final regulatory
approval, with apparently full
cooperation of the FDA and USDA
(the agriculture department has
proprietary interest in some of the
biopharmaceuticals). The biopharmaceuticals
have proceeded to the
market via the backdoor, thanks to
a loophole in the regulation of field
tests.
According to the Pew Initiative
on Food and Biotechnology, "current
APHIS regulations do allow
the commercialization of a GE
[genetically engineered] crop without
a prior affirmative approval by
the agency and without public
notice. Developers are not
required to file a petition for nonregulated
status before they produce
a plant commercially. It is
possible for developers to grow
plants at a commercial scale under
notification or field trial permits,
even if the plants might pose some
identifiable environmental or
human health risk".
Crop production facilities are
permitted as "field tests", but locations
of such facilities are designated
"confidential business information"
and are not disclosed to
people living nearby, even though
the genes and products of such
sites can easily contaminate crops,
ground water and surface water.
There seems to be no direct way to
find out where the production facilities
are, except via producers and
government regulators.
The US government seems
committed to going ahead with a
procedure that bypasses public
input and scrutiny, and which if,
when disclosed, will threaten the
marketability of US food exports. In
contrast, the Canadian Food
Inspection Service maintains that
"plant products of test sites cannot
be marketed", even though numerous
plant biopharmaceutical products
have been tested.
The regulation of plant-derived
biopharmaceuticals was reviewed
by the FDA in 2000; and by the
Pew Initiative in 2004. Only the
Pew report came to grips with the
practice of marketing virtually
untested products commercialized
without public input.
As indicated earlier, test plot
permits for crops producing biopharmaceutical
proteins are usually
designated confidential business
information so that the nature of
the products is hidden from the
public as well as the location of the
test sites. APHIS does, however,
record the crop and the state in
which the modified crop is tested.
Between 2003 and 2004,
Prodigene had test plots in
Nebraska, Texas, Iowa and
Missouri.
Production of the commercial
biopharmaceuticals was, for the
most part, achieved using maize,
even though it is a food crop of
fundamental importance and
should not have been used to produce
biopharmaceuticals, especially
when the products are by no
means benign for humans and animals
exposed to them.
Trypsin is an enzyme produced
in the pancreas to digest proteins.
It is extensively used in laboratory
applications, in wound treatment
and to treat diabetes. It is also
used in food processing and often
put into infant formulations to aid
in digestion. The plant-produced
product is desirable because it is
free of prions and animal viruses.
According to the safety data
sheets provided by trypsin manufacturers,
the product is capable of
causing allergy - it is a skin, eye
and respiratory irritant and may be
a mutagen.
Avidin is a protein found in
birds' eggs. It functions to bind the
vitamin biotin, which is required for
many insect pests. The pests are
inactivated by the absence of the
necessary vitamin. Transgenic
maize modified for avidin production
is resistant to storage insect
pests.
A case study done by the
Friends of the Earth turned up substantial
evidence that the protein
avidin caused dangerous biotin
deficiency in humans and animals,
leading to immune deficiency and
growth retardation. Even marginal
biotin deficiency is linked to birth
defects in mice and in humans.
Aprotinin is a protease inhibitor
normally prepared from the pan-
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

29
creas and lung of cows.
Recombinant aprotinin produced
in plants is currently marketed.
Bill Freese of Friends of the Earth
reviewed the problem of allergy
and pancreatic disease associated
with this product.
Aprotinin is also listed as a
reproductive hazard. There is
serious danger to those exposed
to aprotinin after having had a
previous exposure. For example,
a two-year old child suffered
severe anaphylactic shock (a lifethreatening
allergic reaction characterized
by swelling of body tissues
including the throat, difficulty
in breathing, and a sudden fall
in blood pressure) after a test
dose of aprotinin. Fatal anaphylaxis
followed aprotinin exposure
in a local application of fibrin
glue. A similar application led to
an immediate skin reaction following
re-exposure to fibrin sealant.
Secret field testing of plantbased
recombinant aprotinin
could result in severe or fatal anaphylaxis,
either in a brief exposure
in the maize field of someone
previously treated during surgery,
or exposure of someone
exposed to the maize field followed
by treatment during surgery.
The final commercial recombinant
protein in maize is beta-glucuronidiase
(GUS). The gene is
used in a wide range of experimental
situations but does not
appear to have therapeutic importance.
It has been observed that
formula milk for infants had a low
content of GUS while mother's
milk had elevated GUS.
Elevated GUS has been implicated
in bilirubinaemia (jaundice)
of breast-fed infants and breastfed
infants of diabetic mothers.
GUS is used extensively as a
marker, believed to have little
effect on the phenotype of the test
organism. However, GUS was
found to enhance the feeding
activity in the peach aphid, suggesting
that the marker may not
be entirely without effect on the
organism.
In conclusion, the secretive
production of dangerous pharmaceuticals
in food crops is a truly
disturbing development. The sale
of such products without transparent
public approval is adding
insult on injury, reinforcing the
public perception that the regulatory
authorities are putting corporate
profit far above public safety.
SiS
Ban Plant-based Transgenic
Pharmaceuticals
Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho call for a global forum and a
ban on testing pharm crops, especially in Third World countries
As one after another biotech giant
retreated from genetically modified (GM)
crops for food and feed in Europe (see
"Biotech investment busy going
nowhere", this issue), the industry is
redoubling its efforts to develop plantbased
transgenic pharmaceuticals in
North America and elsewhere.
In April 2004, California stalled a
major attempt to introduce GM rice producing
human lactoferrin and lyzozyme
into 10 counties, but efforts to use rice
and other food crops to produce hazardous
pharmaceuticals have continued
unabated.
On 12 July, the European Union
(EU) announced the award of 12 million
euros to a network of laboratories in 11
European countries plus South Africa to
explore the possibilities of producing
pharmaceuticals grown in genetically
modified plants. The consortium,
"Pharma-Planta", will use plants to produce
vaccines and treatments against
major diseases including AIDS, rabies,
diabetes and TB. Human trials of the
drugs are to begin within the next five
years. The project is co-ordinated in the
UK by Prof. Julian Ma of St. George's
Medical School London; and John Innes
Centre, UK's top GM crop research institute
is also a member of the consortium.
A day later, it was revealed that
South Africa, the only member of the
consortium outside Europe, is to be the
test site of the first pharm crops. South
Africa's Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research is particularly interested
in potential vaccines against HIV.
Philip Dale, plant technologist at John
Innes Centre in Norwich and the project's
biosafety co-ordinator, reportedly
said that the cost of 24-hour surveillance
of GM fields in the UK has made it
expensive to conduct similar trials in
Britain.
The use of Third World countries for
testing and producing plant-based pharmaceuticals
unacceptable both in
Europe and the United States smacks of
colonialism. It also raises the spectre of
unmonitored and unregulated human
exposures to the dangerous products.
This problem will be exacerbated as
opposition to pharm crops is growing in
the United States, and more Third World
countries will be targeted for test sites
and production facilities. ISIS has
played a key role in exposing the marketing
of pharm crop products in the
United States previously unbeknownst
to the public, via a gaping loophole in
the US regulatory system (see "Pharm
crop products in US market", this issue).
A coalition of consumer and environmental
organizations in the US issued a
call for a moratorium on genetically engineered
pharm crops on 21 July. They
want the California state agencies to
conduct a rigorous investigation of the
potential hazards posed by a biotech
company's plan to produce pharmaceutical
drugs from genetically engineered
rice.
There is an urgent need for proper
international regulation on the testing
and production of plant-based pharmaceuticals.
The first step may be a wider
discussion of the drawbacks and dangers
of plant-based pharmaceuticals as
well as the "advantages" put forward by
proponents in academe and corporations.
The overlooked dangers of pharm
crops include pharmaceuticals that are
toxic, that could produce immune sensitization
followed by anaphylaxis, or oral
tolerance leading to loss of immunity to
pathogens; and general loss of confidence
in the food supply. These have
been discussed in numerous reviews
from the Institute of Science in Society.
The United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) has run
a number of electronic conferences
around "Agricultural Biotechnology for
Developing Countries - an Electronic
Forum". These moderated discussions
have been quite productive. It is time to
have an electronic forum on "Plantbased
Pharmaceuticals in Developing
Countries".
Do contact the administrator of the
FAO project Dr. John Ruane, at biotechadmin@fao.org
to call for such a forum
as a matter of urgency. The FAO forums
are described at the following URL:
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2729
E/Y2729E00.HTM
It is important that the testing and
production of plant-based pharmaceuticals
in the Third World are made public
before they are quietly and extensively
carried out without the informed consent
of those directly affected.
Meanwhile, it is imperative to impose
a ban on field test releases and biopharmaceutical
production by multinational
corporations and foundations, especially
in Third World countries.
SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

30
Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
Claire Robinson uncovers
some uncomfortable
truths about the machinations
of the pro-GM establishment
in Britain
In a recent debate on genetically modified
(GM) foods at the House of
Commons, Dr. Ian Gibson, who chairs
the all-party Parliamentary Science
and Technology Committee, dismissed
concerns over GM food safety.
As a scientist, he said, he could
"decimate" the arguments of his
opponents. Gibson, MP for Norwich
North, said: "The epidemiology studies
carried out in every major centre,
including in the universities in the
States and elsewhere, into the effects
of [GM] food ... have shown no effects
whatever that correlate with the food -
although I understand how difficult
that is to prove."
Unfortunately for Gibson, one of
the few scientists to have done GM
food safety tests, Dr. Arpad Pusztai,
responded to his comments in an
open letter. Pusztai pointed out that
"there have been no epidemiology
studies, and certainly none published.
This is obvious from the fact that,
apart from this generalisation, you
could not refer to a single such study.
It is not surprising because in the
absence of labelling of GM food in the
Ian Gibson. Photo Mae-Wan Ho
USA such studies could not be carried
out! However, it is known from
official statistics that in less than ten
years food-related illnesses have
practically doubled in the USA since
the introduction of GM food into the
American diet." He went on to add
that while the reason for this is
unknown, it is blatant bluster to
declare that everything is well in the
USA and that none of these ill effects
correlate with food, including GM
food.
Gibson went on to claim that "the
evidence is piling up to say that the
[GM] food is, indeed safe." But when
Pusztai asked Gibson to elaborate on
this evidence, Gibson's reply was less
Who is Derek Burke?
Prof. Derek Burke was chair of the UK regulatory committee on GM foods (Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and
Processes - ACNFP) for almost a decade (1988-97), during which time the first GM foods were approved for the UK. In the
1980s he worked for a biotech company (Allelix Inc of Toronto) and until 1998 was a director of Genome Research Ltd.
During much of his time at ACNFP, Burke was also Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia (1987-1995) and a
member of the governing council of the John Innes Centre (JIC). Both institutions have benefited from investment in GM
research, with the JIC subsequently enjoying multi-million pound investments from biotechnology corporations like
Syngenta and DuPont. Burke participated in the UK government's "Technology Foresight" exercise to decide how science
could best contribute to the UK's economic competitiveness. He was then charged with incorporating the Foresight proposal
to build businesses from genetics into the corporate plan of the UK's public funding body, the Biotechnology and
Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). As a result, BBSRC developed a strategy for integrating scientific opportunity
with the needs of industry, which left it heavily aligned with industry.
Burke was a member of the Royal Society working group on GM foods whose report, "Genetically Modified Plants for
Food Use", is said to have reassured ministers on the GM issue. He was also a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
group that produced the report "Genetically modified crops: the social and ethical issues". This pro-GM report emphasising
the "moral imperative" to push GM crops into the Third World was described by Guardian columnist George Monbiot
as "perhaps the most asinine report on biotechnology ever written. The stain it leaves on the Nuffield Council's excellent
reputation will last for years." Burke was also a member of a small Nuffield working group who produced a follow-up report
along the same lines in 2003.
Burke has been revealed as having a hand in initiatives coordinated by the prominent industry-backed lobby group
Sense About Science. In October 2003 he sent a letter together with 113 other scientists to Tony Blair complaining about
the government's failure to intervene in the GM Public Debate in the UK. The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)
initially reported the letter as "written and coordinated by Professor Derek Burke". But a THES article of 7 November said,
"The letter was coordinated by Sense About Science", while a THES Leader on the same topic did not even mention Burke,
referring instead to, "The new organisation behind the letter, Sense About Science". Burke is on the Advisory Council of
Sense About Science.
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

31
confident. He gave just three examples
to support his case, including a
Monsanto study. Pusztai commented,
"I expect what constitutes a pile is a
matter of definition. One can reverse
this argument by saying that the evidence
is in fact piling up to show the
health problems of GM foods reported
in the published science literature…
However, these you and other pro-
GM supporters conveniently ignore."
Indeed, Gibson has ignored other
recent evidence that further casts
doubt on the safety of GM foods.
These were raised at an Independent
Science Panel (ISP) briefing in
Parliament organised by ISIS and
Gibson's fellow MP, Alan Simpson.
The evidence includes reported illnesses
in villagers living near Bt
maize fields in the Philippines, recent
disclosure in Le Monde of kidney
abnormalities and changes in blood
sugar and blood cell numbers in rats
fed Bt maize resistant to corn rootworm,
published scientific papers
documenting problems with Bt toxins
and transgenic instability in commercial
GM lines. Gibson had pointedly
declined the invitation to attend the
briefing.
The evidence should, at the very
least, set alarm bells ringing and
prompt scientists and policy makers
to take appropriate action. Surely this
should mean not approving GM foods
unless they can be unequivocally
proven safe; and at the same time,
conducting serious, independent
research into GM food safety. In
ignoring all of the evidence, Gibson is
adopting an extreme anti-precautionary
approach, one that is totally unacceptable
and irresponsible, considering
that it is human health that is at
stake.
In contrast, former environment
minister Michael Meacher had, at the
briefing, demanded a new, full-scale
expert GM enquiry in the UK, in light
of the lack of good research into the
long-term effects of GM foods on
human health and the rubbishing and
lack of follow-up on research that
turns up evidence of potentially
adverse impacts (see "Meacher calls
for enquiry into GM safety", SiS 22).
Duplicity galore
What forces could bring Gibson, a former
Dean of Biology at the University
of East Anglia, who is proud of his
independent-mindedness, to join the
chorus of spin with which GM technology
is promoted? After all, this is the
same man who, just a few years ago,
warned against the inclusion of GM
ingredients in school meals: "There is
an awful lot unknown about hazards
of new [GM food] crops and until it is
fully tested we should not be subjecting
people to risks, least of all young
children."
A clue to the source of Gibson's
apparent conversion lies in the introduction
to his speech to the House of
Commons: "The point has often been
made here that genetically modified
crops are being grown extensively in
north and south America and in
China, although not in Europe. They
have in a sense become part of the
normal diet in those places, if not in
Europe, where there is still contention,
despite the fact that 300 million
US citizens continue to eat GM
soya without any ill effects in a very
litigious society, and many
Europeans, including people here,
have eaten it while in the US, with no
adverse consequences."
Compare Gibson's words to the
following introduction to an article:
"Genetically modified (GM) crops are
now being grown extensively in North
and South America and China,
although not in Europe. Food produced
from these crops has become
a part of the normal diet in North and
South America and in China, but not
in Europe, where contention continues
despite the fact that millions of
US citizens eat GM soya without any
ill effects in a very litigious society,
and many Europeans have eaten GM
soya while in the US without any
adverse consequences."
Gibson's introduction is copied
almost word for word from this article,
which, it turns out, was published in
May as an EMBO Report - intended to
provide short papers on molecular
biology - by Nature Publishing. It was
written by Derek Burke, a former Vice
Chancellor of the University of East
Anglia - where Gibson also worked.
Burke is known among campaigners
as the 'GM godfather' for his aggressive
protection of biotech interests
and his alleged tendency to influence
so-called "independent" reports and
government policy.
Analysis by campaign group GM
WATCH of Gibson's speech revealed
that whole sections were lifted from
Burke's article (see
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
?arcid=3822). It became clear from
this comparison that the politician
who boasted he had the scientific
knowledge to "decimate" his adversaries
is in reality nothing but a parrot.
For the record, ISIS has invited
the Royal Society to debate the scientific
evidence in public more than
once; but it has never accepted the
invitation. The ISP is now happy to
extend the same open invitation to
Ian Gibson.
Gibson also, at the behest of the
pro-GM lobby group Sense About
Science, asked Tony Blair in the
House of Commons to respond to
Derek Burke's letter calling for more
government support for GM. It subsequently
emerged that this letter, too,
was the work of the industry-funded
group (see box).
Why the Gibson-Burke collusion
matters
So Gibson plagiarised Burke and
made false statements about the
state of GM science. Does it matter?
Just why it does can be seen from
what emerged following Gibson's
exposure as "a parrot".
Gibson's local newspaper picked
up the story and wrung an important
admission out of him about his
speech's similarity to the words of his
former employer, Derek Burke: "When
pressed Dr. Gibson admitted: 'We are
working together to try and erode the
anti-GM debate.'"
The whole point of the Select
Committee on Science and
Technology, which Gibson chairs, is
to provide parliamentary scrutiny of
science issues independent not only
of government but of the vested interests
that can impact on government
policies and public bodies. When the
UK Science Minister is a known
enthusiast for GM crops and biotech
entrepreneurship, independent scrutiny
is vital.
The Select Committee has issued
reports critical of Arpad Pusztai and,
more recently, supportive of the
BBSRC - the public body that Derek
Burke did so much to align with industry.
Indeed, the only serious criticism
the Gibson-led Committee made of
this corporate-friendly body was that
it was not pro-active enough in promoting
communication with the public
on issues like GM crops where public
trust needed to be achieved.
At a time when the biotech industry
is retreating from the UK in despair
at the GM-sceptical climate, Gibson
appears to be stepping up his activities
on its behalf. In collaboration with
the industry-friendly lobby group The
Scientific Alliance, he arranged a
lobby assault on Parliament called
"GM Question Time" on 13 July. The
panel was uncompromisingly pro-GM
(see a full rundown, with industry affiliations,
at http://www.gmwatch.org /
archive2.asp?arcid =4004). Naturally,
the speakers' links with industry and
its associated lobby groups are undisclosed
in the press releases announcing
the event.
SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

32
Questions over Schmeiser's Ruling
Percy Schmeiser's battle with the GM giant Monsanto came to an end with the recent
Supreme Court ruling, but what does it really mean? Lim Li Ching raises key questions
Schmeiser vs Monsanto
The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld
the lower courts' rulings that Percy
Schmeiser infringed Monsanto's patent on
the transgene that confers resistance to
glyphosate herbicides such as Roundup.
The judgement, by a narrow 5-4 margin in
favour, was given on 21 May 2004. It
marked the end of an uphill legal battle for
the Saskatchewan farmer.
In 1998, Monsanto brought Schmeiser
to court, alleging that he had planted and
reproduced canola seeds and plants containing
genes and cells claimed in its patent,
and had sold the harvest, without consent or
licence (see "Schmeiser's battle for the
seed", SiS 19). Schmeiser, a seed developer
and seed saver, argued in his defence
that he had merely planted his fields with
seed saved from the previous year, and that
his crops must have been contaminated by
Roundup transgenes.
The judge ruled in Monsanto's favour in
March 2001, finding that Schmeiser had in
1998, planted without licence, canola fields
with seed saved from the 1997 crop, which
"he knew, or ought to have known", was
Roundup tolerant. The crop, when tested,
did contain the gene and cells claimed in
Monsanto's patent. But, "the source of the
Roundup resistant canola… is really not significant
for the resolution of… infringement".
Thus, a farmer whose field contains seed or
plants originating from seed spilled or blown
into them, in swaths from a neighbour's land
or from germination by pollen carried by
insects, birds or wind, does not have the
right to use the patented gene, or the seed
or plant it is in, the judge said.
Schmeiser was ordered to pay
Monsanto its court costs and the profit from
his 1998 canola crop, amounting to approximately
Canadian $175,000. Schmeiser
appealed, but all three judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal ruled against him in May
2002.
Split decision
This latest appeal, brought to the highest
court in Canada, resulted in a split decision:
five to four. While the judges agreed that
higher life forms, including plants, cannot be
patented, the majority (by one) found
Schmeiser guilty of patent infringement, but
the minority held that patented genes should
not grant exclusive rights over the plant in
which it occurs.
The judges unanimously set aside the
crop profits that Schmeiser had been earlier
ordered to pay Monsanto. This was
because his profits were "precisely what
they would have been had [he] planted and
harvested ordinary canola". Nor did he gain
any advantage from the herbicide resistant
nature of the crop, as he didn't spray
Roundup to reduce weeds.
Furthermore, the judges concluded that
he should not pay Monsanto's legal bills, a
considerable sum accumulated over the
years. The 'loser' of a case is usually obliged
to absorb the legal costs of the 'winner'. In
this case, each party had to bear their own
costs.
These findings were a personal victory
for Schmeiser and his wife, who had spent
the last seven years and much of their own
resources to fight their case.
'Expansive' patent
Five of the nine judges said that Monsanto's
patent was valid irrespective of whether protection
for the gene and cells extends to
activities involving the plant. Although
Monsanto only claims protection for the
genes and cells, "a purposive construction
of the patent claims recognizes that the
invention will be practised in plants regenerated
from the patented cells…"
As the trial judge's findings that
Schmeiser saved, planted, harvested and
sold the crop containing the patented gene
and cells were uncontested (although the
original plants came onto his land without his
intervention), the issue was whether this
amounted to "use" of patented material.
According to the five judges who found
Schmeiser guilty of infringing Monsanto's
patent, the acts of saving and planting the
seed, then harvesting and selling plants
containing the patented cells and genes,
constituted "utilization" of the patented material.
Furthermore, by cultivating the canola
without license, Schmeiser was deemed to
have "deprived [Monsanto] of the full enjoyment
of the monopoly".
The five judges maintained that infringement
does not require use of the gene or cell
in isolation. They also said that Schmeiser
had failed to rebut the presumption of use,
as he had actively cultivated Roundup
Ready canola as part of his business operations.
They maintained that infringement
does not require the use of Roundup, to
account for the "stand-by" utility of the herbicide
tolerant trait (i.e. whether or not a farmer
sprays Roundup, cultivating Roundup
Ready canola means that the farmer may in
future spray and benefit).
The presence of one patented gene
thus in effect confers control over the entire
plant, something that Monsanto cannot
actually patent. In so accepting this "expansive"
conception of patents, the five judges
seem to contradict their own 2002 decision,
which saw the Supreme Court ruling that
higher life forms cannot be patented in
Canada (see "Canada rejects patents on
higher life forms", SiS 19). Now, 18 months
later, these judges ruled that higher life forms
containing a single patented gene are effectively
the property of the owner of the single
patented gene. These two diametrically
opposed positions are difficult to reconcile.
Dissenting view
In contrast, the four dissenting judges used
the Supreme Court decision that plants, as
higher life forms, are not patentable, to
argue that Monsanto's patent claims over
the transgene and cells, while valid, should
not "grant exclusive rights over the plant and
all of its offspring". In short, they argued that
Monsanto's valid claims should be solely for
genetically modified (GM) genes and cells in
the laboratory prior to regeneration, and for
the attendant process for making the GM
plant.
Moreover, the Canadian patent explicitly
limits protection to the transgene and the
cells containing it. By not including whole
plants, seeds or crops, the dissenting judges
said that Monsanto had specifically disclaimed
plants in their patent, i.e. "what is not
claimed is considered disclaimed". As such,
one could not reasonably expect patent protection
to be "extended to unpatentable
plants and their offspring".
In the opinion of the minority, the appropriate
test for determining "use" is whether
the patentee has been deprived of monopoly
over the use of the invention as construed
in the claims, rather than whether the
patentee was deprived of the commercial
benefits flowing from the invention. Applied
here, the question is whether Schmeiser
had used Monsanto's GM cells and genes
as they existed in the laboratory prior to differentiation
and propagation, or the GM
process. Their answer was "no".
The dissenting judges said that the
lower courts had erred not only in construing
the claims to extend to plants and seed, but
also in construing "use" to include the use of
the plant, which is explicitly disclaimed by
Monsanto. Accordingly, they argued that
cultivation of plants containing the patented
gene and cell does not constitute infringement,
neither do those plants have "standby"
utility. To conclude otherwise would, in
effect, confer patent protection on the plant.
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

33
Uncertain implications
The court, while confirming the validity of
Monsanto's patent on the transgene and
modified cells, did not rule on the validity of
patents on life forms, or whether it is right or
wise to genetically modify plants. Neither did
it answer the difficult questions about how
GMOs can be controlled once released.
These issues will have to be addressed by
Parliament.
The 2002 Supreme Court decision that
higher life forms, such as plants, are
unpatentable still stands. Monsanto did not
claim patent protection over a GM plant, only
the modified genes and cells and the process
for making them. However, the effect of this
judgment is that Monsanto's rights on a
patented gene and cells extend to the
(unpatentable) plant in which it is found, if the
alleged infringer is judged to have used the
patent; in Schmeiser's case, by saving, planting,
harvesting and selling in a commercial
context.
A Canadian farmer's right to save and
use seeds generally should not be inherently
jeopardised by the decision. Even plant varieties
protected under the Plant Breeders'
Rights Act have an exemption, in that a
"farmers' privilege" applies, allowing farmers
to save and replant seeds from a protected
variety, on their own farm. (However, it does
not allow farmers to exchange or sell seeds
of a protected variety.)
But how the Plant Breeders' Rights Act
interfaces with the Patent Act in the light of
this decision is unclear. Canada has ratified
the 1978 Act of the International Union for the
Protection of New Varieties of Plants
(UPOV), which accepts that granting a plant
breeders' right on a given variety implies that
no patent can be granted to the same variety.
What happens when a patented gene inadvertently
lands in (or is present in) a variety
protected under the Plant Breeders' Rights
Act, which allows farmers to save seeds from
that protected variety?
As canola pollen and seed are uncontainable,
Monsanto could accuse virtually
any farmer of 'infringement', simply because
virtually every field is likely to inadvertently
have plants bearing its patented genes.
However, contamination of plants by patented
genes, by itself, will not automatically be
patent infringement in Canada. For the issue
in Schmeiser's case was not the adventitious
arrival of Monsanto's GM canola on his land.
(The majority emphasized they were not considering
the innocent discovery by farmers of
"blow-by" plants.) Rather, what were pivotal
were the acts of sowing and cultivation, so
the conduct of farmers on discovering
unwanted GM crops in their fields will be crucial.
Will saving and planting seed containing
a patented gene without authorisation then
be illegal? Perhaps, yes, if a farmer saves
and reuses seed they know to be contaminated
by a patented gene, instead of informing
the company. Perhaps, no, if a farmer is
able to rebut the presumption of use arising
from possession by showing that they never
intended to cultivate plants containing the
patented material (e.g. quickly arranging for
its removal). They could prove that the presence
of patented genes was accidental, by
showing that its concentration is consistent
with that expected from unsolicited "blow-by"
plants.
But, what concentrations are judged as
attributable to "blow-by" plants? The decision
is silent on this. Why does the burden of monitoring
and reporting fall on the farmer? The
judgement forces everyone who does not
sign a technology-use agreement to accept
responsibility for identifying contaminants
and reporting them. Failure to do so incurs
liability, as it did for Schmeiser. What about a
plant that has more than one inadvertent
patented gene? Such plants already exist.
Will farmers now have to report for every
crop, every company and every patented
gene?
Furthermore, as the dissenting judges
point out, it would be difficult for a farmer to
rebut the presumption of use once they
become aware that a plant containing patented
genes was present - or likely to be present
- on their land and continued to practice
traditional farming methods, such as saving
seed (as Schmeiser had done). They recommended
that the complexities and nuances
of "innocent bystander protection" in the context
of GM crops be urgently considered by
Parliament.
If a single contamination event contaminates
self-saved seed, does this make the
seed saver a permanent infringer? Prof. Ann
Clark of Guelph University proposes that the
only way to resolve this liability may be to
destroy all the seed as one cannot distinguish
contaminated from uncontaminated seed
without spraying Roundup (in the case of herbicide
tolerant genes), which itself kills uncontaminated
seed. But then, who should bear
the costs?
What about contaminated certified
seed? Companies already recognize that it is
impossible to segregate GM from non-GM
seed and contamination has been found in
certified seed stocks. Who is liable when GM
seed arrives in a bag of non-GM seed?
What about patented genes and marker
genes that are not genetically modified?
Marker-assisted breeding could identify
genes for various traits, for example, drought
or salt tolerance, which exist naturally in local
varieties. And once identified, these markers
could be patented. Does the Schmeiser
judgement mean that local varieties, selected
through conventional plant breeding and
including the work of generations of farmers
and seed savers, would also come under the
control of the patent holder of a gene, genetically
modified or otherwise?
The flip side, Monsanto's responsibility
for its uncontainable technology, was not
considered. Is Monsanto liable for contaminating
the farmers' fields? Can the companies
be held accountable for their technology?
The decision says nothing about these
issues.
Already the Saskatchewan Organic
Directorate's Organic Agriculture Protection
Fund has supported certified organic farmers
in taking legal action to impose responsibility
and hold biotech companies liable, for their
patented genes. They are seeking compensation
for damages caused by contamination
of certified organic crops by Monsanto's and
Bayer's herbicide tolerant canola, clean-up
costs, and an injunction to prevent commercialization
of Roundup Ready wheat if
Monsanto tries to reintroduce it. This case is
pending.
It seems that the Schmeiser judgement
has raised more questions than it answers,
and by not addressing the full implications of
the uncontainability of patented genes, the
judges have missed the point, and proliferated
more confusion.
Some positives
The fact that the court found that Monsanto
was owed none of the value of Schmeiser's
crop may, however, be an important counter
to the finding of patent infringement. Growing
and re-growing contaminated seed may not
oblige a farmer to pay Monsanto anything,
presuming that they are not benefiting from
the herbicide tolerant gene by spraying
Roundup. The company now has nothing to
gain by taking such a farmer to court, so in
effect, Monsanto's 'expansive' patent may
have lost some teeth against seed savers.
Monsanto had, in the past, threatened
financial reprisals against farmers for alleged
patent infringement. Knowing that contamination
is unavoidable, wary farmers might
have been persuaded to buy Monsanto's
seed to avoid such charges. The present ruling
that the company was owed nothing of
Schmeiser's crop might make Monsanto
think again before using such a strategy of
intimidation to expand its market.
Significantly, the case has exposed
Monsanto's unacceptable and unnecessary
behaviour toward Schmeiser and other farmers.
As Ann Clark points out, the other two
companies (Bayer and Pioneer) that market
herbicide tolerant canola in Canada do not
resort to the Patent Act to protect their intellectual
property nor prosecute farmers
whose fields are inadvertently contaminated
with their patented genes. The dissenting
judges also noted that Monsanto in any case
licenses the sale of seeds produced from the
patented invention and imposes contractual
obligations (e.g. prohibiting seed saving) on
the licensee.
Schmeiser raised awareness globally on
many issues - GM crop contamination,
patents over living organisms, the need to
protect farmers' rights, and corporate control
of our food and agriculture. He says, "This ruling
is an injustice", and many agree with him.
The struggle now moves from the courts to
the political arena. The tide may yet turn. SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

34
DNA in GM Food & Feed
The government's scientific advisory committees have repeatedly tried to
reassure the public that there is nothing to fear from genetically modified (GM)
DNA, but critics disagree.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho offers a quick guide for the perplexed
Is GM DNA different from natural DNA?
"DNA is DNA is DNA," said a proponent of
GM crops in a public debate in trying to convince
the audience that there is no difference
between genetically modified (GM) DNA and
natural DNA, "DNA is taken up by cells
because it is very nutritious!"
"GM can happen in nature," said another
proponent. "Mother Nature got there first."
So, why worry about GM contamination?
Why bother setting contamination thresholds
for food and feed? Why award patents for the
GM DNA on grounds that it is an innovation?
Why don't biotech companies accept liabilities
if there's nothing to worry about?
As for GM happening in nature, so does
death, but that doesn't justify murder.
Radioactive decay happens in nature too,
but concentrated and speeded up, it
becomes an atom bomb.
GM DNA and natural DNA are indistinguishable
according to the most mundane
chemistry, i.e., they have the same chemical
formula or atomic composition. Apart from
that, they are as different as night and day.
Natural DNA is made in living organisms;
GM DNA is made in the laboratory. Natural
DNA has the signature of the species to
which it belongs; GM DNA contains bits
copied from the DNA of a wide variety of
organisms, or simply synthesized in the laboratory.
Natural DNA has billions of years of
evolution behind it; GM DNA contains genetic
material and combinations of genetic
material that have never existed.
Furthermore, GM DNA is designed -
albeit crudely - to cross species barriers and
to jump into genomes. Design features
include changes in the genetic code and special
ends that enhance recombination, i.e.,
breaking into genomes and rejoining. GM
DNA often contains antibiotic resistance
marker genes needed in the process of making
GM organisms, but serve no useful function
in the GM organism.
The GM process clearly isn't what nature
does (see "Puncturing the GM myths", SiS
22). It bypasses reproduction, short circuits
and greatly accelerates evolution. Natural
evolution created new combinations of
genetic material at a predominantly slow and
steady pace over billions of years. There is a
natural limit, not only to the rate but also to the
scope of gene shuffling in evolution. That's
because each species comes onto the evolutionary
stage in its own space and time,
and only those species that overlap in space
and time could ever exchange genes at all in
nature. With GM, however, there's no limit
whatsoever: even DNA from organisms
buried and extinct for hundreds of thousands
of years could be dug up, copied and recombined
with DNA from organisms that exist
today.
GM greatly increases the scope and
speed of horizontal gene transfer
Horizontal gene transfer happens when foreign
genetic material jumps into genomes,
creating new combinations (recombination)
of genes, or new genomes. Horizontal gene
transfer and recombination go hand in hand.
In nature, that's how, once in a while, new
viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics
are generated, and how antibiotic
and drug resistance spreads to the disease
agents, making infections much more difficult
to treat.
Genetic modification is essentially horizontal
gene transfer and recombination,
speeded up enormously, and totally unlimited
in the source of genetic material recombined
to make the GM DNA that's inserted
into the genomes of plants, animals and livestock
to create genetically modified organisms
(GMOs).
By enhancing both the rate and scope of
horizontal gene transfer and recombination,
GM has also increased the chance of generating
new disease-causing viruses and bacteria.
(It is like increasing the odds of getting
the right combination of numbers to win a lottery
by betting on many different combinations
at the same time.) That's not all.
Studies on the GM process have shown that
the foreign gene inserts invariably damage
the genome, scrambling and rearranging
DNA sequences, resulting in inappropriate
gene expression that can trigger cancer.
The problem with the GM inserts is that
they could transfer again into other genomes
with all the attendant risks mentioned. There
are reasons to believe that GM inserts are
more likely to undergo horizontal transfer and
recombination than natural DNA, chief
among which is that the GM inserts (and the
GM varieties resulting from them) are structurally
unstable, and often contain recombination
hotspots (such as the borders of the
inserts).
After years of denial, some European
countries began to carry out 'event-specific'
molecular analyses of the GM inserts in commercially
approved GM varieties as required
by the new European laws for deliberate
release, novel foods and traceability and
labelling. These analyses reveal that practically
all the GM inserts have fragmented and
rearranged since characterised by the company.
This makes all the GM varieties
already commercialised illegal under the new
regime, and also invalidates any safety
assessment that has been done on them
(see "Transgenic lines proven unstable", SiS
20 and "Unstable transgenic lines illegal", SiS
21). As everyone knows, the properties of the
GM variety, and hence its identity, depend
absolutely on the precise form and position of
the GM insert(s). There is no sense in which
a GM variety is "substantially equivalent" to
non-GM varieties.
GM DNA in food & feed
In view of the strict environmental safety
assessment required for growing GM crops
in Europe, biotech companies are bypassing
that by applying to import GM produce for
food and processing only. Is GM food safe?
There are both scientific and anecdotal evidence
indicating it may not be: many species
of animals were adversely affected after
being fed different species of GM plants with
a variety of GM inserts (see "GM food safe?"
series, SiS 21), suggesting that the common
hazard may reside in the GM process itself,
or the GM DNA.
How reliably can GM DNA be detected?
DNA can readily be isolated and quantified in
bulk. But the method routinely used for
detecting small or trace amounts of GM DNA
is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This
copies and amplifies a specific DNA
sequence based on short 'primers strings' of
DNA that match the two ends of the
sequence to be amplified, and can therefore
bind to the ends to 'prime' the replication of
the sequence through typically 30 or more
cycles, until it can be identified after staining
with a fluorescent dye.
There are many technical difficulties
associated with PCR amplification. Because
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

35
of the small amount of the sample routinely
used for analysis, it may not be representative
of the sample, especially if the sample is
inhomogeneous, such as the intestinal contents
of a large animal. The primers may fail
to hybridise to the correct sequence; the
PCR itself may fail because inhibitors are
present. Usually, the sequence amplified is a
small fraction of the length of the entire GM
insert, and will therefore not detect any other
GM fragment present. If the target sequence
itself is fragmented or rearranged, the PCR
will also fail. For all those reasons, PCR will
almost always underestimate the amount of
GM DNA present, and a negative finding
cannot be taken as evidence that GM DNA
is absent.
A new review on monitoring GM food
casts considerable doubt over the reliability of
PCR methods. Mistakes can arise if the sample
is not large enough to give a reliable
measure, or if the batch of grain sampled is
inhomogeneous, or the PCR reaction not
sensitive enough, or the data presented to
the regulatory authorities simply not good
enough. Consequently, the level of contamination
is almost invariably underestimated.
There is an urgent need to develop sensitive,
standardized and validated quantitative
PCR techniques to study the fate of GM
DNA in food and feed. Regulatory authorities
in Europe are already developing such techniques
for determining GM contamination.
One such technique has brought the limit of
detection down to 10 copies of the transgene
(the GM insert or a specific fragment of it).
In contrast, the limit of PCR detection in
investigations on the fate of GM DNA in food
and feed is extremely variable. In one study
commissioned by the UK Food Standards
Agency, the limit of detection varied over a
thousand fold between samples, with some
samples requiring more than 40 000 copies
of the GM insert before a positive signal is
registered. Such studies are highly misleading
if taken at face value, given all the other
limitations of the PCR technique.
Despite that, however, we already have
answers to a number of key questions
regarding the fate of DNA in food and feed.
1. Is DNA sufficiently broken down
during food processing?
The answer is no, not for most commercial
processing. DNA was found to survive intact
through grinding, milling or dry heating, and
incompletely degraded in silage. High temperatures
(above 95 deg. C) or steam under
pressure were required to degrade the DNA
completely.
"The results imply that stringent conditions
are needed in the processing of GM
plant tissues for feedstuffs to eliminate the
possibility of transmission of transgenes," the
researchers warned.
They pointed out for example, that the
gene aad, conferring resistance to the antibiotics
streptomycin and spectinomycin, is
present in GM cottonseed approved for
growth in the US and elsewhere (Monsanto's
Bollgard (insect-protected) and Roundup
Ready (herbicide tolerant) cotton).
Streptomycin is mainly used as a second-line
drug for tuberculosis. But it is in the treatment
of gonorrhoea that spectinomycin is most
important. It is the drug of choice for treating
strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae already
resistant to penicillin and third generation
cephalosporins, especially during pregnancy.
The release of GM crops with the bla TEM
gene for ampicillin resistance is also relevant
here, because that's where resistance to
cephalosporins has evolved.
Another study found large DNA fragments
in raw soymilk of about 2 000bp (base
pairs, unit of measurement for the length of
DNA), which degraded somewhat after boiling,
but large fragments were still present in
tofu and highly processed soy protein.
Heating in water under acid conditions was
more effective in degrading DNA, but again,
the breakdown was incomplete (fragments
larger than 900bp remaining).
It is generally assumed, incorrectly, that
DNA fragments less than 200bp pose no
risk, because they are well below the size of
genes. But that's a mistake, as these fragments
may be promoters (signals needed by
genes to become expressed), and
sequences of less than 10bp can be binding
sites for proteins that boost transcription. The
CaMV 35S promoter, for example, is known
to contain a recombination hotspot, and is
implicated in the instability of GM inserts.
2. Is DNA broken down sufficiently
rapidly in the gastrointestinal tract?
Although free DNA breaks down rapidly in
the mouth of sheep and humans, it was not
sufficiently rapid to prevent gene-transfer to
bacteria inhabiting the mouth. DNA in GM
food and feed will survive far longer. The
researchers conclude: "DNA released from
feed material within the mouth has potential
to transform naturally competent oral bacteria."
Several studies have now documented
the survival of DNA in food throughout the
gastrointestinal tract in pigs and mice, in the
rumen of sheep and in the rumen and duo-
GM DNA in food and feed. Photo Mae-Wan Ho

36
denum of cattle. The studies were variable in
quality, depending especially on the sensitivity
of the PCR methodology used to amplify
specific sequences for detection.
Nevertheless they suggest that GM DNA
can transfer to bacteria within the rumen and
in the small intestine. In neither sheep nor
cattle was feed DNA detected in the faeces,
suggesting that DNA breakdown may be
complete by then.
The only feeding trial in human volunteers
was perhaps the most informative.
After a single meal containing GM soya containing
some 3x1012 copies of the soya
genome, the complete 2 266 bp epsps transgene
was recovered from the colostomy bag
in six out of seven ileostomy subjects (who
had their lower bowel surgically removed).
The levels were highly variable among individuals
as quantified by a small 180bp PCR
product overlapping the end of the cauliflower
mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter
and the beginning of the gene: ranging from
1011 copies (3.7%) in one subject to only 105
copies in another. This is a strong indication
that DNA in food is not sufficiently rapidly broken
down in transit through the gastrointestinal
tract, confirming the results of an earlier
experiment by the same research group.
No GM DNA was found in the faeces of
any of 12 healthy volunteers tested, suggesting
that DNA has completely broken down,
or all detectable fragments have passed into
the bloodstream (see later) by the time food
has passed through the body. This finding is
in agreement with the results from ruminants.
In general, the studies report that GM
DNA degrades to about the same extent and
at about the same rate as natural plant DNA.
However, no quantitative measurements
have been made, and GM DNA was often
compared with the much more abundant
chloroplast DNA, which outnumbers the
transgene by 10 000 to one.
3. Is GM DNA taken up by bacteria and
other micro-organisms?
The answer is yes. The evidence was reported
in the human feeding trial mentioned. The
transgene was not detected in the contents
of the colostomy bag from any subject before
the GM meal. But after culturing the bacteria,
low levels were detected in three subjects out
of seven: calculated to be between 1 and 3
copies of the transgene per million bacteria.
According to the researchers, the three
subjects already had the transgene transferred
from GM soya before the feeding trial,
probably by having eaten GM soya products
unknowingly. No further transfer of GM DNA
was detected from the single meal taken in
the trial.
The researchers were unable to isolate
the specific strain(s) of bacteria that had
taken up the transgene, which was not surprising,
as "molecular evidence indicates that
90% of microorganisms in the intestinal
microflora remain uncultured. …they can
only grow in mixed culture, a phenomenon
seen with other microorganisms."
Actually, GM DNA can already transfer to
bacteria during food processing and storage.
A plasmid was able to transform Escherichia
coli in all 12 foods tested under conditions
commonly found in processing and storage,
with frequencies depending on the food and
on temperature. Surprisingly, E. coli became
transformed at temperatures below 5
degrees C, i.e. under conditions of storage of
perishable foods. In soy drink this condition
resulted in frequencies higher than those at
37 degrees C.
4. Do cells lining the gastrointestinal
tract take up DNA?
The answer is yes. Food material can reach
lymphocytes (certain white blood cells) entering
the intestinal wall directly, through Peyer's
patches. And fragments of plant DNA were
indeed detected in cows' peripheral blood
lymphocytes.
It is notable that in the human feeding
trial, a human colon carcinoma cell line
CaCo2 was directly transformed at a high frequency
of 1 in 3 000 cells by an antibiotic
resistance marker gene in a plasmid. This
shows how readily mammalian cells can
take up foreign DNA, as we have pointed out
some years ago (see also below).
5. Does DNA pass through the gastrointestinal
tract into the bloodstream?
The answer is yes, as mentioned above,
fragments of plant DNA were detected in
cow's peripheral blood lymphocytes.
However, attempts to amplify plant DNA fragments
from blood have failed, most likely on
account of the presence of inhibitors of the
PCR amplification.
6. Does DNA pass into milk?
The official answer from the UK Food
Standards Agency is no, based on a single
study it commissioned that was practically
worthless (see "Exposed: More shoddy science
in GM maize approval", SiS 22). The
researchers tested DNA from 333 microlitres
of milk - about 3 drops - using a PCR detection
method that required the equivalent of
4059 copies of the GM soya genome and
905 copies of the maize genome to give a
positive signal.
Recently, Greenpeace in Germany published
the results of a study from the
Research Centre for Milk and Foodstuffs in
Weihenstephan, Bavaria, which was reportedly
"kept under lock and key for three
years". It contained the results of a farmer's
milk samples that tested positive for GM
DNA from Roundup Ready soya and Bt176
maize. The researchers pointed out that the
GM DNA fragments might have found their
way into milk via GM feed given to the animals
that produced the milk, or else via dust
from GM plants contaminating the milk.
7. Is DNA taken up by tissue cells?
The answer is yes, and this has been known
since the mid 1990s. GM DNA and viral DNA
fed to mice ended up in cells of several tissues,
and when fed to pregnant mice, the
DNA was able to cross the placenta, and
enter the cells of the foetus and the newborn.
These results were confirmed in 2001, when
soya DNA, too, was found taken into the tissue
cells of a few animals.
In general, abundant chloroplast
sequences have been detected in the tissues
of pig and chicken but not single gene
DNA nor GM DNA. But rare events are most
likely to go undetected, on account of the limitations
of the PCR technique.
Recently, "spontaneous transgenesis" -
the process of spontaneous uptake of foreign
DNA resulting in gene expression - has been
rediscovered by a team of researchers looking
for new possibilities in gene therapy. They
documented the phenomenon in several
human B lymphocyte cell lines as well as
peripheral blood B lymphocytes. The transgene
in a plasmid was readily taken up and
was found in many cell compartments including
the nucleus, where gene transcription
took place. The plasmid was not integrated
into the genome, but the researchers say that
its eventual integration cannot be ruled out.
8. Is GM DNA more likely to insert into
genomes?
This is perhaps the most important question.
There are reasons to believe GM DNA is
more likely to insert into genomes after it is
taken up into cells, chief among which, its
sequence similarities (homologies) to a wide
variety of genomes, especially those of viruses
and bacteria. Such homologies are
known to enhance horizontal gene transfer to
bacteria up to a billion fold.
More significantly, the integration of nonhomologous
genetic material can occur at
high frequencies when flanked by homologous
sequences. A recent report highlights
the importance of this "homology-facilitated
illegitimate recombination", which increases
the integration of foreign (non-homologous)
DNA at least 105 fold when it was flanked on
one side by a piece of DNA homologous to
the recipient genome.
No experiment has yet been done to
assess whether GM DNA is more likely to
transfer horizontally than natural DNA.
However, in the human feeding trial, where
three ileostomy volunteers tested positive for
the soya transgene in the bacteria cultured
from their colostomy bag, the soya lectin
gene Le was not detected in the bacterial cultures
from any of the subjects.
The researchers found it necessary to
remark, "Although the plant lectin gene was
not detected in the microbial population…it is
premature to conclude that the epsps transgene
is more likely than endogenous plant
genes to transfer into the microbial population."
But until this possibility has been adequately
addressed, it cannot be ruled out. SiS
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

GM Trees Alert
37
No to GM Trees
Sam Burcher reports on a global movement to ban GM trees
Some 400 GM birch trees (Betula pendula)
in a single GM field study situated in
Punkaharju, Finland have been either
ripped up or cut down by unknown parties
at an estimated cost of 1.21 million euros
in June 2004.
After the attack, the researchers at
the Finnish Forest Research claimed that
their purpose was to examine the environmental
risks of horizontal gene transfer.
When they originally applied for permission
for the field trial in 2000, however,
it was to study the carbon-nitrogen
processes of GM trees.
Protests against GM trees greeted
the 4th UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) in
Geneva in May 2004 because of the
"Decision" to draft plans for GM tree projects
made at the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (COP9)
in Milan in December 2003.
GM trees have been included in the
Kyoto Protocol as a means of generating
carbon credits under the Clean
Development Mechanism. Carbon
credits sold in this way are not subject to
the traceability legislation that applies to
all other GM imports into Europe and
therefore countries hosting GM trees will
have no way of knowing whether their
credits are GM free or not.
The hopes pinned on GM trees
include slowing the progress of climate
change and ameliorating the effects of
mercury vapours in the atmosphere
caused by fossil fuels and medical waste
burning.
The plan is to "phyto-remediate" plots
of land by planting GM trees that take up
ionic mercury or organic mercury and
convert it to less toxic elemental mercury,
which can then be expelled into the
atmosphere where it is supposed to
become less harmful. But what this will
achieve is relocate soil mercury from contaminated
soil sites in the south and
redistribute the mercury to the north.
Also, the mercury expelled to the atmosphere
will go back to the land through precipitation,
and convert to its original toxic
state in the soil. This poses threats to animal
and human health as well as problems
of cross-contamination of native
plants. Prof. Joe Cummins, among others,
has warned that populating expansive
areas with mercury transgenic trees
could cause a global catastrophe (see
"GM trees alert", Science in Society 16,
2002 and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
GMtrees.php)
Trees are also genetically modified to
reduce the amount of fibrous lignin that is
the substance of the wood of trees, providing
strength and resistance to pests
and disease. GM trees may contain up to
50% less lignin than their conventional
counterparts, which reduces the ability of
the plant to reach optimum levels of fitness
in the environment. This reduced
capacity leads to decreased biomass and
degraded biodiversity.
It is thought that reducing lignin in
trees will make wood easier and cheaper
to pulp and paper, especially soft woods,
as well as creating faster growing trees.
But a forest of slow decaying trees is a
major carbon sink whereas fast decaying
forests will result in carbon dioxide being
returned to the atmosphere too rapidly
(see "Low lignin GM trees and forage
crops", ISIS report 5 June 2004
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LLGMT.php;
Science in Society 23).
The US Department of Agriculture
has issued more that 300 permits for
open GM tree trials since 2000 and officials
are expected to grant permission to
grow GM trees commercially by 2005.
According to the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) GM tree trials are also taking
place in China and Chile. In New Zealand
GM tree trials are underway by Aventis
and DuPont who have engineered pine
trees (Pinus radiata) and Norwegian
Spruce (Picea abies) to be resistant to
their herbicides "Buster" and "Escort". A
second trial involves speeding up the
growth of these GM tree species.
The introduction of "novel bio-engineered"
trees into stocks of indigenous
trees that "out compete" the native populations
will have a disrupting effect on
ecosystems and poses similar risks as
GM crops, on an increased scale.
Problems with GM trees in the environment
are amplified because trees engineered
to contain pesticides have
increased ability to harm non-target
insects and birds as well as distributing
pollen extensively. Tests have shown that
pollen from pine trees can travel up to 600
km. Furthermore, trees remain in the
environment for a lot longer than seasonal
crops like maize.
There is very little evidence as to what
GM trees may do to the soil, but there is
every possibility that they may absorb
more nutrients than traditional trees,
which further threatens biodiversity. And it
is not yet know whether GM trees can
withstand strong winds, a condition of climate
change.
A campaign to ban GM trees was
launched in January 2004 by Finnish
Environmental Groups, The Peoples
Biosafety Association and the Union of
Ecoforestry. So far they have attracted
support from many concerned groups: -
The World Rainforest Movement, Friends
of the Earth International, ISIS, The
Forest Action Network and Scottish
Green Party.
At a side event in Geneva under the
banner "The People's Forest Forum"
Anne Petermann, co-director of the Stop
GE Trees Campaign in the US presented
evidence about the hazards of GM trees
and the risks of contamination across
state borders from even single field trials.
She said: "Once the pollen from those
trees escape there is no going back."
An open letter to Governments was
circulated on the last day of the UNFF by
the Finnish Environmental Groups which
stated that there is no control system for
GM pollen flowing with the wind or seeds
transported by birds, and that this "breaks
with the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety", the first international law to
control the transportation of LMOs (Living
Modified Organisms) across national borders.
Mikko Vartiainen, a lawyer specialising
in international law on natural
resources confirmed that the burden of
proof of safety should lie with the proponents
of GM trees and that "We should
follow a very tight precautionary principle
with such risks." The campaign delegation
at Geneva has facilitated dialogue
between Government agents and NGOs
and hopes to stimulate discussions
between GM proponents and concerned
scientists. But they argue that the
"Decision" made at COP9 regarding GM
trees should have been preceded by
such dialogue.
American Lands Alliance, WWF and
Greenpeace have all called for a moratorium
on the release of GM trees. They
suggest positive moves be made to
"reduce the need" for fast growing trees
that increase global demands for virgin
wood and paper products along with further
research and more regulations in
place before GM trees are manufactured
in the forests.
Hannu Hyvonen, the co-ordinator of
the Union of Ecoforestry and an organic
farmer said that planting GM trees was
not the answer to Climate Change prevention,
"One cannot put out the fire with
gasoline," he said.
Sign onto the petition: Global Ban on GM trees
at http://elonmerkki.net/forestforum
SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

Prof. Joe Cummins explains why
genetically modifying trees and forage
crops to reduce their lignin
content could make them more
susceptible to pests. Other issues
related to the GM construct, such
as genetic instability, the persistence
of antibiotic resistance marker
genes in the ecosystem and
biosafety in general, have also not
been sufficiently considered.
Low Lignin GM Trees
and Forage Crops
The plant cell is protected by a cell
wall that has a structure analogous
to reinforced concrete represented
by lignin. Lignin determines the
rigidity, strength and resistance of a
plant structure.
When wood fibre is processed to
make paper or composite products,
lignin must be removed using polluting
chemicals and a great deal of
energy. Also, the digestibility of animal
feed is influenced by lignin
content - the greater the lignin content,
the poorer the food source.
Genetic engineering is now being
used to fundamentally modify the
lignin of forest trees and animal
feed.
Reducing lignin content of fibre
and forage leads to greatly reduced
costs of preparing fibre and
improved digestibility of fodder and
forage. However, the advantages of
reduced lignin are offset by the disadvantage
of plants with reduced
lignin, which are more readily
attacked by predators such as
insects, fungi and bacteria. Indeed,
increasing lignin content has been
promoted as a defence against
pests.
The importance of lignin in disease
resistance has been known
for well over twenty years. For
example, lignification was crucial in
reducing predation by spruce bark
beetles, and lignin in the roots of
the date palm played a key role in
defence against the fungus
Fusarium. It has been suggested
that a guaiacyl (a type of lignin subunit)
rich lignin was produced as
"defence" lignin when Eucalyptus is
wounded by a predator. Lignin content
of larch species determined the
level of heartwood brown-rot decay.
Genetic modification of plants to
enhance lignin production is covered
in United States Patent
5,728,570.
However, Arabidopsis plants
modified in the metabolic pathway
leading to lignin formation produced
abnormal lignin that was
associated with severe fungal
attacks. Tobacco plants modified to
limit production of lignin subunits
were susceptible to virulent fungal
pathogens, but it was suggested
that the precursors of lignin and not
lignin protected plants from
pathogens. Genetic modifications
for reduced lignin level nevertheless
resulted in reduced fitness
including increased winter mortality
and decreased biomass.
It seems clear that plant genetic
modification leading to reduced
lignin, as proposed for use in pulp
and paper or in livestock production,
must be fully evaluated for fitness
in the environment.
The monomeric structure of
lignin influences the properties of
the plant material. There are two
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

39
Woody trees decompose slowly and are an important carbon sink
main types of lignin, guaiacyl lignin
and guaiacyl-syringyl. Guaiacyl
lignin is characteristic of softwoods,
which are resistant to
chemical and biological degradation.
Guaiacyl-syringyl lignin is typical
of hardwoods such as poplar,
which are more readily degraded.
Modifying plants with a gene
enhancing the proportion of guaiacyl-syringyl
lignin therefore provides
a lignin more readily degraded
by chemicals or enzymes.
Reducing lignin content also leads
to plants more readily digested with
enzymes or chemicals.
Lignin reduction has been
achieved using anti-sense genes to
limit production of key enzymes on
the lignin biosynthesis pathway.
Multiple genetic transformations of
forest trees have been used to
enhance production of guaiacylsyringyl
lignin and to limit total
lignin production. Four
Agrobacterium T-DNA vectors,
each with a cauliflower mosaic
virus promoter, two of which included
anti-sense to limit undesirable
enzymes and two with sense constructions
to enhance desirable
enzymes, were used to simultaneously
alter the genome of aspen
(Populus tremuloides). This resulted
in reduced lignin content of guaiacyl
lignin and increased guiaicylsyringyl
proportion in the remaining
lignin.
Even though a potentially desirable
end product is created, the
multiple transformations (gene
stacking) are liable to create chromosome
instability leading to
translocations, duplications and
deletions through homologous
recombination during germ cell formation
and in somatic tissues
(mitotic
recombination).
Independent studies of transgene
integration using T-DNA vectors in
aspen showed extensive DNA
sequence scrambling at the insertion
points. DNA sequence scrambling
occurring in the cells during
growth is a significant complication
in long-lived trees.
Lignin genetic engineering is
promoted as a promising strategy
to improve fibre production but the
drawbacks of anti-sense manipulation
and transgene stability are not
seriously dealt with. Trees genetically
modified to produce low lignin
are called "super" trees with little
consideration of pest resistance
and genetic stability. Field and
pulping performance of transgenic
poplars with altered lignin was
evaluated to be superior by the
developers of the poplar and abnormal
pest damage was not found.
However, the pest damage studies
were cursory and not compared
with experimental controls, but with
norms reported by government
agencies.
The antibiotic resistance markers
from the leaves of transgenic
aspen have been studied for their
persistence in the soil. The field
study showed that the marker DNA
of the aspen leaves persisted for as
much as four months in the soil.
The persistence of antibiotic resistance
genes in the forest ecosystem
is likely to impact not only soil
microbes, but human and animal
inhabitants of the forest as well.
Lignin content increases as
crops age or are stressed. Animal
feed rich in lignin is poorly
digestible and considered to be of
low quality. Grass, alfalfa or maize
with reduced lignin or lignin with
increased guaiacyl-syringyl proportion
(readily digested) may provide
a large economic benefit in animal
production, provided that the
genetic modifications do not result
in susceptibility to predatory
insects, fungi and bacteria and do
not compromise food or feed safety
(for example, fungus food contamination
may lead to pollution of food
with toxins, causing liver damage
and cancer).
The main technique used to produce
lignin modifications is antisense
genes designed to reduce
one or another enzyme level on the
pathway to lignin production. Maize
with improved forage quality was
produced by down-regulating the
enzyme O-methyl transferase to
limit lignin production. Tall fescue
pasture grass with improved forage
digestibility was produced using an
anti-sense gene for the lignin precursor
enzyme cinnamyl alcohol
dehydrogenase. Alfalfa down-regulated
for lignin enzyme caffeoyl
coenzyme A 3-O-methyl transferase
produced plants with
increased guaiacyl-syringyl lignin
proportions leading to improved
rumen digestibility.
There is little question that the
forage and fodder with reduced
lignin and lignin with improved
composition are more desirable
food sources for grazing animals.
However, the downside of lignin
manipulation - greater disease susceptibility
- was not thoroughly considered
by developers of crops with
modified lignin. The developers
seem to ignore safety issues while
they promote the modified crops.
Furthermore, smooth brome
grass clones selected using conventional
breeding showed that
reduced lignin was associated with
severe rust fungus disease. Alfalfa
selected for forage quality (including
reduced lignin) had reduced
vigour but was not expected to
affect levels of disease resistance.
Sudan grass selected for brownmidrib
trait (an indicator of reduced
lignin) experienced severe yield
reductions and environmental sensitivity,
particularly during cooler
growing seasons.
Lignin modification of trees and
forage crops has been a focus of
research in genetic engineering.
But lignin provides both fundamental
structural features and resistance
to animal and microbial pests.
Lignin enhancement that leads to
greater forage or tree pulp quality
also leads to susceptibility to disease,
while lignin enhancement
that leads to greater disease resistance
makes forage less digestible
and tree pulp more expensive to
process.
The economic consequences of
effective lignin modification could
be tremendous, but producing
forests and rangelands highly susceptible
to insects, fungi and bacteria
would lead to economic and
environmental disaster. The low
lignin trait is comparable to a loss
in immune functions comparable to
AIDS in mammals. The chemical
corporations might well welcome a
huge increase in pesticides to fight
disease in forests and pastures.
Nevertheless, the best strategy is
to proceed prudently and honestly
evaluate the consequences of far
reaching genetic engineering
experiments.
Note added by editor: Another
consideration is ecological. Wood,
with its naturally high lignin content,
generally takes a long time to
decay and recycle in the ecosystem,
probably for good reasons. It
is a long-term energy store complementing
the shorter-term energy
storage depots, which enables the
ecosystem to function most efficiently
and effectively (see "Why
are organisms so complex? A lesson
in sustainability", SiS 21).
Slow-decaying wood is also a major
carbon sink. Reducing its lignin
content to enhance degradation will
end up returning carbon dioxide too
rapidly to the atmosphere, thereby
exacerbating climate change (see
"Why Gaia needs rainforests" SiS
20). SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

40
Technology Watch
Bio-remediation Without Caution
A bacterium living inside plants could be improved for cleaning up environmental
pollutants without genetic modification. Prof. Joe Cummins
and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reveal that this seemingly beneficial development
is beset with danger, as the bacterium concerned is a known pathogen.
Water soluble and highly volatile organic
environmental pollutants, such as benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene compounds,
chlorinated solvents and nitrotoluene
ammunition wastes, are being
cleaned up using plants in combination with
microorganisms that naturally live inside the
plants (endophytes).
Endophyte bacteria live within the tissue
of the plant without harming it. They are
found in most plant species, and many can
colonize the vascular system. The highest
densities of bacteria are usually found in the
roots, less in the stem, and least in the
leaves. The plants take up the pollutants
through their roots, and the bacteria break
these down within the roots or in other parts
of the plant.
This natural process is inefficient
because the compounds tend to get transported
up the plant faster than the bacteria
can break them down. Once transported up,
the plants metabolize the contaminants, and
some of the metabolites as well as the contaminant
can be toxic. For example,
trichloroethane is metabolized into
trichloroacetic acid, both of which are toxic.
Worse still, plants tend to release volatile pollutants
and their metabolites into the atmosphere
via evaporation from the leaves, which
turns bio-remediation into bio-pollution.
A recent article in Nature Biotechnology
reports how this clean up process could be
greatly improved by engineering an endophyte
bacterium Burkholderia cepacia, a natural
resident of the yellow lupine.
Researchers from Linburgs University in
Diepenbeek, Belgium and Brookhaven
National Laboratory in New York, USA, created
a strain of B. cepacia that has enhanced
ability to degrade toluene within the plant,
enabling the plant to tolerate high levels of
toluene, and also substantially reduced the
amount of toluene released into the atmosphere.
The engineered strain of the bacterium
carries marker genes for kanamycin resistance
and nickel resistance and is derived
from the natural endophyte. By adding to this
endophyte strain a toluene-degrading plasmid
from another strain of B. cepacia that normally
lives in the soil through natural conjugation
(bacterial reproduction) between the
strains, a new endophyte strain is created
that can live in the plant and degrade toluene
taken up by the plant.
Plants inoculated with the engineered
bacterium grew much better than plants that
were not inoculated; or else inoculated either
with the control strain lacking the plasmid, or
with the strain that normally lives in the soil.
More impressively, the plants inoculated with
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004
the engineered bacterium reduced toluene
evaporation into the atmosphere to about
50% of the control. This looks very promising,
and as the researchers point out, the experiment
could have been done without any
genetic modification. The plasmid containing
all the toluene degrading enzymes belonged
to a natural soil bacterium, and an endophyte
host without the marker genes could easily
have been used to receive the plasmid by
conjugation.
A non-GM bacterial endophytic strain
created in this way may well be the very first
really useful and beneficial product from the
industry. So what's wrong?
The research paper did not deal with
safety. What metabolites of toluene are generated
in the plant, and will they be toxic?
How will the plants be disposed of? There
are three lupine species cultivated for fodder
- blue, white and yellow - and there are also
a number of wild species. The wild species
contain alkaloid chemicals that are very toxic
to cattle and sheep while the cultivated
species are edible for farm animals, provided
care is taken to treat the seeds in such a way
as to remove the toxins. Lupines thrive on
poor soil and provide ground cover and
green manure as well as fodder for animals.
More importantly, the research report
failed to mention that B. cepacia has the ability
to cause fatal disease in humans.
The groundwater of Wichita, Kansas
was found to be polluted with the chemical
solvents dichloroethylene and trichloroethylene,
and was cleaned up using a natural
strain of B. cepacia. But no special public
health measures or follow up seemed to
have been implemented after the clean up.
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has considered the
problems associated with approval of B.
cepacia as a plant pesticide, for, not only is
the bacterium used to fight plant pests but is
itself a pest as it is a disease agent in
humans. EPA, through a Scientific Advisory
Panel (SAP), reviewed B. cepacia as a plant
pesticide and acknowledged that it is linked to
human disease. The SAP risk assessment
peculiarly noted, "Bc [B. cepacia] has been
referred to as an opportunistic human
pathogen. However, as might be expected,
the strains registered or proposed for use as
biopesticides were isolated from the soil or
plant roots, rather than from human patients".
In reality, the SAP comment offered cold
comfort because the B. cepacia strains isolated
from patients proved essentially undistinguishable
from strains isolated from the
roots of crops such as corn. The American
Phytopathological Society produced a useful
review of the risks from plant disease or
human disease along with the benefits in
cleaning up chemical pollution and fighting
some plant diseases. Unfortunately, there
has been no clear and simple way to differentiate
between the 'evil' and the beneficial
strains of B. cepacia, and no way of preventing
the two from exchanging genes.
B. cepacia has an unusual genetic
makeup; it has a relatively large amount of
DNA (about twice that of E. coli) and unlike
most bacteria, which usually have a single
chromosome, B. cepacia strains have as
many as five large replicons (chromosomes)
and the different chromosomes are rich in
insertion sequences that allow for extensive
gene exchange between different strains,
and insertion of disease related genes from
other bacterial species. B. cepacia is a prominent
cause of death among cystic fibrosis
patients, the bacterium frequently reaches
epidemic proportions among such patients
and an epidemic related strain was identified
in soil samples in the USA. It is believed to be
a complex species made up of seven distinct
genomic subspecies all of which are capable
of infecting humans; and all of the diseaserelated
subspecies were isolated from maize
rhizosphere (root zone). The disease is difficult
to contain because disease bacteria may
be replenished continually from the soil and
plant material.
Hospital acquired B. cepacia epidemics
appeared among patients with diabetes,
malignancy, heart failure and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. One such B. cepacia
outbreak appeared in an intensive pediatric
care unit, and B. cepacia infection was common
among renal transplant patients.
Different B. cepacia clones showed different
infectivity among cystic fibrosis patients and
patients with different complaints. Antibiotic
resistant B. cepacia infection was the most
common cause of death among lung transplants
for cystic fibrosis patients. B. cepacia
causes feared infections because the strains
tend to be antibiotic resistant. Bacteria isolated
from different infections were found to be
resistant to all seven tested antibiotics but
were sensitive to treatment with honey.
Do lupines pose a threat to people with
compromised immune systems or cystic
fibrosis? Yellow lupines, and perhaps the
other commercial species as well, contain
potentially disease-causing B. cepacia endophytes,
so their presence in hospitals and
homes of compromised people is unwise.
The bacteria may be transferred by direct
contact with broken plant stems or petals
along with the dust and debris associated
with the plant; a gift of lupines could be fatal.
There is clearly a large literature on the
threat of B. cepacia infection and its death toll
among compromised patients. The existing
evidence indicates that the bacterial infections
may pass from the ecosystem to the
hospital ward and there seems no way of
ensuring that the B. cepacia strains used in
biotechnology are unable to infect compromised
humans.
SiS

ISP News
41
ISP to FAO:
GM Crops Not the Answer
Lim Li Ching reports
The Independent Science Panel (ISP) (www.indsp.org) has criticised the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations for its qualified backing of genetically modified (GM) crops in the global fight against hunger.
The FAO recently released its annual publication, The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004. This year, the theme
was on "Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the needs of the poor?" The report touches on the full range of agricultural
biotechnology tools and applications, but focuses largely on transgenic or GM crops and their impact on poor people in
poor countries.
While acknowledging that biotechnology is not a panacea, the FAO maintains that it holds great promise as a new scientific
tool for generating applied agricultural technologies. The report claims that biotechnology is capable of benefiting
small, resource-poor farmers, yet also cautions, "Given that technologies that are on the shelf today (generated by conventional
research methods) have not yet reached the poorest farmers' fields, there is no guarantee that the new biotechnologies
will fare any better."
Thus, the FAO seems to ignore the implicit message of its own study: GM crops have thus far delivered negligible benefits
to the world's poor. And there is little indication that these trends will change in favour of the poor. As the report points
out, crops and agronomic traits of importance to developing countries and marginal production areas have been ignored.
Instead, the focus has been on four crops (soybean, maize, cotton, canola) more suited for industrial agriculture and
unlikely to meet the food security needs of poor farmers, and two traits (herbicide tolerance and insect resistance) of limited
relevance; herbicide resistance, in particular, is less relevant for developing countries where farm labour is abundant.
These four crops and two traits have, however, been the mainstay of the GM industry, controlled largely by transnational
corporations that have reaped most of the benefits. This private sector-led investment in agricultural research and
development depends on strong protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) over GM crops.
The FAO is disingenuous when it calls on countries to develop stronger IPR regimes to promote GM crop research,
even as the independent Commission on Intellectual Property Rights has expressed reservations over patent protection
for plants and animals. Many developing countries that are World Trade Organisation (WTO) members, particularly the
Africa Group, have also expressed similar concerns, joining countless non-governmental and civil society organisations,
and some 700 scientists (including ISP members, see http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php), to call for no patents on living
organisms.
Is the FAO ignoring these views, much as it seems to be selective in the evidence it draws on to justify the report's
conclusions? For example, in the section on public attitudes, the report relies heavily on a survey that asks imbalanced
questions. This section concludes that people in developing countries are generally likely to support agricultural biotechnology,
which is not surprising, given that the risks are not mentioned in the questions asked, only the potential benefits.
Yet the risks of GM crops are increasingly apparent. The FAO report is unacceptably silent on the transgenic contamination
of traditional varieties of maize in Mexico, a centre of origin and diversity of maize; it doesn't discuss biodiversity
and food security impacts, let alone the immense implications on cultural and indigenous practices.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, director of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) and member of the ISP, points to further flaws:
"The FAO claims that scientists generally agree that current transgenic crops and the foods derived from them are safe to
eat. But there are many scientists - ISP members included - who have questioned this premise, and there is increasing
evidence that casts doubt on GM food safety."
The ISP's report, The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, is an extensive review of the scientific and other evidence
on the problems and hazards of GM crops and the manifold benefits of all forms of sustainable agriculture.
It is clear, from the evidence therein, that there are many unanswered questions on the safety of GM crops. Very few
studies have been conducted, particularly as to the effects of GM foods on human health. There is a dearth of published
scientific papers on which a reliable database of safety can be established, and the few independent studies that have
been carried out raise serious concerns. There is also increasing indication of the environmental and socio-economic
impacts of GM crops, particularly on smallholder farmers.
The ISP has called for a global ban on environmental release of GM crops, to make way for agroecology, organic farming
and other forms of sustainable agriculture. There is growing evidence that many smallholder farmers in developing
countries already have the knowledge, experience and innovative spirit that enable them to farm sustainably and productively,
without depending on GM crops. These traditional farming practices best address agriculture that is complex,
diverse and risk-prone; GM crops would create many more risks for these farmers. The FAO should be calling for more
research into these sustainable practices, so as to better them and make them equitably accessible, rather than into GM
crops.
If the world is to seriously address hunger, this means rethinking agriculture and associated policy making, and exploring
how traditional knowledge and science can work together, while learning from farmers themselves. World hunger today
is more a consequence of economic and political forces that hamper distribution, and less one of inadequate food supply.
These, and other issues including access to land, water, credit and markets, the loss of agricultural biodiversity and the
inequities in multilateral policies that affect agriculture and rural development, must be addressed.
The FAO would do better to focus on these issues, rather than on GM crops, if it is really serious in "helping build a
world without hunger".
SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

Rethinking health
Selenium Conquers AIDS?
Sam Burcher reports on a nutritional hypothesis with possible implications for prevention and treatment of the
global pandemic
During the last decade, research has
indicated an important geographical
link between regions of selenium deficient
soils and peak incidences of
HIV/AIDS infection. AIDS disease
appears to involve a slow and progressive
decline in levels of the trace element
selenium (Se) in the blood along
with CD4 cells, which are both independent
predictors of mortality.
AIDS infection in Africa has reached
pandemic proportions with over a quarter
of the population said to be suffering
from the disease in some areas,
although there is debate over how the
World Health Organization (WHO) has
extrapolated their statistics (see
"African Aids epidemic?" SiS 22).
Figures from Harvard in the United
States put infection rates as follows:
Zimbabwe 25.84%, Botswana 25.10%,
Zambia 19.07%, South Africa 12.91%,
Côte D'Ivoire 10.06%, Tanzania 9.42%,
Ethiopia 9.31%, and Congo 4.31%.
But Senegal in West Africa has the
lowest numbers of AIDS prevalence at
1.77% in the general population, and
0.5% in antenatal clinic attendees
along with the highest levels of selenium-enriched
soil. Geologically, Senegal
is situated in the desiccated or dried up
Cretaceous and early Eocene Sea, and
the land is formed from sedimentary
rocks from dissolved minerals in the
evaporating seawater. Consequently,
calcium phosphates are one of the
country's mined mineral products used
for fertilizers, and are derived from the
selenium rich phosphorite. Senegal
can also claim the lowest level of cancers
on the African continent.
Geographical disease pattern
analogies made by Prof E.W. Taylor,
University of Georgia, suggest that
AIDS, Karposi Sarcoma and cancers
are rife in regions of selenium depleted
soils and that this has further implications
in the seemingly unstoppable
spread of AIDS incidence worldwide.
Depleted selenium in soil creates
disease
In China, selenium deficient regions are
known as the Chinese "disease belt".
Here, the daily average intake of selenium
is less than 10 micrograms. This
contrasts with parts of the US and
Canada where daily selenium intake is
170 micrograms. Viral diseases such
as Coxsackie's B3, hepatitis B and C,
and HIV/AIDS are all on the increase.
Coxsackie B3 is further complicated by
a heart condition known as "keshans",
which is endemic in "disease belt"
areas. Since the introduction of selenium-enriched
fertilizers onto soils and
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

43
Circle dancing by Sam Burcher
crops and into feedstocks and table
salt, there has been a decline in
keshans.
A three year study of an entire town
in Jiangsu Province where 20 847 residents
were given table salt fortified with
selenium showed that hepatitis infection
decreased to 4.52 per 1 000 compared
to 10.48 per 1 000 in communities
using regular table salt. The same
researchers concluded that a 200-
microgram daily dose of seleniumyeast
supplement significantly reduced
primary liver cancer associated with
hepatitis B and C. It appears that death
rates from viruses such as hepatitis,
Coxsackie B3 and associated heart diseases
like keshans can be greatly
reduced by increasing dietary selenium
intake and would be similarly effective
in slowing the progress of AIDS deaths.
The selenium CD4 T cell 'tailspin'
Prof Harold Foster of the University of
Victoria in Canada has named the link
between the viral diseases of
HIV/AIDS, Coxsackie's and hepatitis B
and C, "The selenium CD4 T cell tailspin",
as a way of describing the relationship
between selenium and the
human immune system. Adults and
children with advanced AIDS syndrome
display both highly depleted selenium
plasma stores and reduced CD4 cell
counts. Foster argues that the fall of
selenium levels triggers the reduction in
CD4 cells, which in turn causes further
decline in serum selenium.
Retroviruses like HIV depress selenium
levels in their hosts by encoding
the gene for the human selonenzyme
glutathione peroxidase. This allows the
virus to replicate indefinitely by continuously
depriving the host of glutathione
(an inhibitor of reverse transcriptase)
and the four basic components of glutathione
peroxidase: selenium, cysteine,
glutamine and tryptophan. As
levels of selenium decline so do CD4
cells which allow "opportunistic"
pathogens to invade the immune system
and further deplete levels of selenium
and CD4 cells in a positive feedback
loop whereby if one variable
declines, it causes further depression in
the other. This downward spiral compromises
the ability of the immune system
to defend the body from infection,
which plays a significant role in AIDS
mortality.
Foster is currently treating dozens
of HIV/AIDS patients in Africa using a
protocol of the four nutrients - selenium,
cysteine, glutamine and tryptophan.
He says that the treatment of HIV/AIDS
with nutrition is similar to "curing" type-
1 diabetes with insulin. When high
doses of all four nutrients are administered
to patients, deficiencies dissolve,
Box 1
For a healthy person a daily supplementary intake of 50-200mg of selenium (Se)
is safe, but for someone with a compromised immune system an increase of
100% may be necessary to improve selenium plasma levels. Where soil quality
is good and produce fresh, the four essential nutrients in preventing and fighting
HIV/AIDS and other viral diseases are found in these foods:
Selenium - Brazil nuts, garlic mushrooms, liver, round steak, lobster, shrimp,
cod, crab, herring, oysters, tuna, barley, whole wheat, egg noodles, Brewers'
yeast.
Cysteine - Duck, turkey, pork, wheatgerm and yoghurt.
Glutamine - Sausage meats, ham, bacon, cottage cheese and ricotta cheese,
wheatgerm.
Tryptophan - Ham and beef, eggs, almonds, salted anchovies, Parmesan
and Swiss cheeses.
as do the symptoms associated with
AIDS. Patients have been able to return
to work within one month of receiving
nutritional treatments. Treating primary
nutritional deficiencies with selenium
and essential amino acids costs
approximately $10-$15. (See Box 1)
As HIV/AIDS sufferers are often
extremely deficient in all four nutrients
associated with glutathione peroxidase,
the "selenium CD4 T cell tailspin"
hypothesis which describes HIV/AIDS
as a disease of nutrient deficiency
caused by a virus may explain how HIV
progresses to AIDS.
The American AIDS expert Dr
Roberto Giraldo said at a recent seminar
in South Africa that AIDS can
presently be conquered and curtailed
although not totally cured through the
adequate ingestion of appropriate
micro-nutrients in sufficiently large
doses, such as vitamins, amino acids
and minerals.
The cause of progression of HIV to
AIDS is still unknown, but the role of
nutrition and supplementation in the
prevention and treatment of the disease
cannot be ignored. Prof Luc
Montagnier (the co-discoverer of HIV)
states that AIDS is characterised by a
persistent oxidative imbalance and a
decrease of glutathione. Changes in
biochemical markers cause systemic
oxidative stress and damage and
Montagnier believes that antioxidants
are useful in inhibiting viral replication
and associated apoptosis in HIV/AIDS
patients.
The role of N-acetyl cysteine (NAC)
in boosting immunity
Glutathione (GSH) is the ubiquitous
tripeptide essential for the function of all
cells. Studies show that low GSH levels
increase HIV replication and impair
T cell function that can lead to a progression
of HIV disease. And oral
administration of the GSH-producing
drug N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) improves
survival rates in HIV/AIDS patients.
NAC helps the body to synthesise glutathione
and is beneficial in protecting
lung tissue through its antioxidant activity
as well as supporting nerve cells,
and is effective in treating liver failure
where drug toxicity is indicated. NAC
also counteracts apoptosis (cell death)
and helps maintain and replenish the
HIV-damaged CD4 T lymphocytes, crucial
for dampening the progression of
HIV to AIDS.
NAC supplement is recommended
to HIV/AIDS sufferers who are receiving
anti-retroviral treatments as well as
those who are not. There is growing
evidence that HIV/AIDS patients want
alternative and non-toxic immuneboosting
treatments, but would prefer
them to be prescribed by the doctors or
health care professionals. Despite billions
of pounds spent on AIDS
research, very little funding or research
is allocated for the provision of these
types of treatment on the National
Health Service (NHS).
Raising glutathione levels encourages
the immune system to go into
anti-cancer and anti-viral mode by
replacing decreased levels of plasma
cysteine, a major source of sulphur.
Patients with advanced HIV infection
have tryptophan levels at less than
50% of those in age and gender
matched controls and boosting levels of
tryptophan can enable the body to synthesise
serotonin and niacin which protect
against dementia. Improving glutamine
levels can alleviate depression
and improve digestion by increasing
intestinal cell proliferation, and intestinal
fluid/electrolyte absorption, which
can help combat diarrhoea.
The cause of selenium depletion in
soil
Three major factors have contributed to
selenium depletion in the soil. Acid rain
is caused by large quantities of sulphur
and nitrogen that convert into sulphuric
and nitric acids in the atmosphere and
changes the capacity of soil to bind ele-
continued on page 46
www.i-sis.org.uk

44
Delivering Good Health Through Good Food
Prof. Henry Becker on the critical changes needed to avert the national health crisis
Like most Western countries,
and increasingly the
rest of the world, Canada
faces a staggering,
swelling burden of medical
costs that challenge its ability
to maintain the quality,
comprehensiveness and
universality of health care
services. In April 1991, the
federal government set up
a Commission on the
Future of Health Care in
Canada, headed by Roy J.
Romanow. Its mandate
was to review medicare,
engage Canadians in a
national dialogue on its
future, and deliver recommendations
for enhancing
the system's quality and
sustainability. The Final Report of the
Commission, Building on Values: The
Future of Health Care in Canada, was published
in November 2002 (http://www.hcsc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/).
Unfortunately this otherwise laudable, public-spirited
and thorough study falls far short
of its stated goals.
Not one title among the 40 discussion
papers commissioned from scholars, policy
analysts and experts across Canada and
internationally mentions prevention.
Although Romanow acknowledges in
his preface to the report that, "it is common
sense for our health care system to place a
greater emphasis on preventing disease
and on promoting healthy lifestyles", only 7
out of 354 pages deal with prevention, and
the greater part of that on the evils of tobacco
and on vaccinations.
The report presents 47 recommendations,
of which only three relate to prevention
- one on reducing tobacco use and obesity,
another on promoting physical activity, and
the third on a national immunisation strategy.
This projects and encourages, in my
view, a most unfortunate skewing of priorities
that is not in the public interest.
The Canadian situation has much
broader relevance, as the diseases of industrial
civilisation have taken hold and health
care systems are bending under the load
nearly everywhere. Significantly, a United
Nations study in 1999 found the prevalence
of overweight and obesity - a strong predictor
of chronic ill health and shortened lifespan
- to be increasing alarmingly in the
developing countries as well as the developed,
and particularly among children. A
worldwide epidemic of obesity has been
recognized, spread by globalisation and
penetrating to the remotest corners of the
Traditional meal of fasting food in Ethiopia; by Mae-Wan Ho
world.
The nature of the beast
During the past century, the common afflictions
in Western societies have dramatically
shifted from infectious to degenerative diseases.
Infectious diseases were subdued
largely by public health measures: improvement
in housing, provision of clean water
and air, sanitary waste disposal, quarantine
of the infected, etc. Rise in living standards
and education also helped. Medical interventions
such as vaccinations and increasingly
potent drugs came relatively late, but in
today's public imagination, they get the
major credit for ridding us of infectious diseases.
Infectious diseases typically strike in
unpredictable waves, or epidemics.
Degenerative diseases, however, have typically
risen from small beginnings and grown
nearly exponentially to a level where much
of the population is chronically afflicted.
Today these diseases are the major burden
on our health care system, and their proliferation
the main cause of spiralling costs.
We are what we eat
While some degenerative diseases have
occurred in various societies throughout history,
those which most vex us now, such as
cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel
disease, type II diabetes, asthma and many
cancers, were rare or virtually unknown a
mere 80 years ago. Cases of myocardial
infarction (heart attack), for instance, began
to appear in the 1920s and grew decade by
decade to epidemic proportions. Most
degenerative diseases are not caused by
disease vectors such as micro-organisms or
viruses. They are primarily due to 'lifestyle'
factors of both the individual and various layers
of society and, as such,
are highly preventable.
These factors include faulty
food, dietary immoderation,
abuse of harmful substances,
physical inactivity,
disturbed biorhythms, environmental
deterioration,
social breakdown and
poverty.
The most important
determinant of health is
food. Just as good nutrition
is vital for a healthy immune
system, faulty food is implicated
in the infectious diseases.
In his book The
Wheel of Life, first published
in 1938, G. T.
Wrench observed, "The
inescapable conclusion is
that in a very large number of diseases
faulty food is the primary cause. The suspicion
is that faulty food is the primary cause
of such an overwhelming mass of disease
that it may prove to be simply the primary
cause of disease [in general]."
Hippocrates taught, "Let thy food be thy
medicine". The corollary we must learn is,
"Let not thy food be thy sickener!"
Let's remember
It's important to realise there were once
whole populations - not just individuals here
and there - flourishing in states of robust
good health and virtual absence of disease.
That is not a utopian myth, but well-established
fact. The evidence is compelling that
our hunter-gatherer paleolithic ancestors
who subsisted mainly on animals supplemented
with such wild plant foods as were
available - tender leaves and stems, roots,
fruits and nuts, but virtually no grains - typically
had fine physiques and enjoyed
remarkable freedom from degenerative disorders.
Seafood appeared to be particularly
valuable, and there is a growing school that
argues these were pivotal in the special
development of the human brain.
Since the Neolithic (agricultural) revolution
10 000 years ago, many agricultural
communities that maintained a sufficient
animal component (fish, meat, milk, cheese)
in their diets also achieved excellent health.
Examples of healthy communities have
extended into our own time, though in rapidly
diminishing numbers. They have been
scientifically observed and documented,
most notably by Weston A. Price (Nutrition
and Physical Degeneration, first published
in 1939), Sir Robert McCarrison (Studies in
Deficiency Diseases, 1921; Nutrition and
national health, in J. Royal Soc. of Arts,
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

45
1936), and Viljhalmur Stefansson (The Fat
of the Land, 1956; Food and food habits in
Alaska and Northern Canada, in Human
Nutrition, Historic and Scientific, 1958).
These lessons of the past demonstrate
what's possible for human health, and what
can be achieved again. The foods eaten by
healthy peoples of the past were perforce
"organic", as no others existed before modern
industrialised agriculture. They were
whole, fresh and completely natural. The
genius of industrial civilisation has been to
introduce a vast array of highly processed
foodstuffs that are anything but whole, fresh
or natural. Attention is paid to packaging,
appearance, presentation, palatability, uniformity,
convenience, transportability, shelf
life and - it must be said - addictiveness,
while almost wholly ignoring the crucial
issues of nutritional value. A gigantic middleman-the
processed food industry- now
stands between the consumer and the primary
producer (the farmers, ranchers, fishers,
etc.) and profits richly from economic
value added. The consumer buys these
products, which are typically heavily promoted,
and pays the predictable price of nutritional
value subtracted, i.e., degenerative
diseases.
The growth of degenerative disease is
an indubitable economic burden on society
as a whole, but enterprising parties have
skilfully exploited that as an opportunity for
profit. This gave birth to the pharmaceutical
industry, another mega enterprise of our
times. The main effect of the industrialisation
of medicine on degenerative diseases is
palliative rather than curative, usually with
many adverse side effects. As with
processed foods, the manufacturers' interest
is overwhelmingly the pursuit of profit.
Finally, the "health care" system has
come to rest on acceptance of degenerative
diseases as inevitable features of life and
the medical treatment of symptoms as the
normal response to this grim reality. There
is, to be sure, an ongoing quest for "cures",
e.g., the "war on cancer", but what it mostly
accomplishes is to produce ever more
drugs that fall well short of the ever-receding
goal of cure but succeed at return on investment.
Physicians are indoctrinated in and coopted
into this defeatist paradigm by their
basic training, and reinforced by their continuing
education at the hands of the pharmaceutical
companies. Thus, the people we
should expect to tackle the plague of degenerative
disease at its sources, instead act
like firemen who have strategically decided
not much can be done to stop fires from
happening, so it's best to downplay prevention
and concentrate on fire-fighting.
Our 'lifestyle' failings
So how did we get here? These are some
in the long list of our 'lifestyle' failings:
1. Excessive intake of carbohydrates,
particularly those leading to high blood
sugar (sugars, flour, potatoes, white
rice, etc.).
2. Excessive energy intake (too many
calories), exacerbated by the trend to
super-sizing of portions of fast foods,
snack foods, soft drinks, etc.
3. Consumption of partially hydrogenated
fats and oils; consumption of overheated
and rancid fats and oils; excessive
intake of omega-6 fatty acids (a
major component of many common
vegetable oils, excepting flaxseed, olive
and some nut oils).
4. Consumption of most processed
foods. The main ingredients of many
include white flour and sugars, partially
hydrogenated oils or fats, which are further
compromised by the absence, loss
or damage of vital nutrients, impaired
digestibility, and incorporation of nutritionally
questionable additives (fillers,
extenders, thickeners, stabilisers,
preservatives, flavourings, dyes, etc.).
Most products offered by fast-food outlets
rate in this category.
5. Inadequate intake of omega-3 fatty
acids (major components of flaxseed
oil and of marine fats and oils).
6. Inadequate total intake of high quality
fat. Contrary to recent prevailing wisdom,
this includes natural animal fats.
7. Inadequate intake of high quality protein.
A high carbohydrate, low-fat diet
easily becomes a low-protein diet.
8. Inadequate intake of water.
9. Inadequate intakes of various minerals,
vitamins and other micronutrients.
Many whole foods today are very deficient
relative to earlier examples, or
compared to good organic products.
Diets high in processed foods are particularly
likely to be inadequate.
10. Inadequate exposure to sunshine,
leading, among other effects, to widespread
vitamin D deficiency.
11. Inadequate levels of physical
activity.
12. Inadequate rest and disturbed circadian
rhythms, due to shift work, long
work hours, too much noise, bad habits
such as late-night TV, etc.
13. Pollution of soil, water, air and food
with agro-chemicals, industrial chemicals
and various other noxious substances.
14. Immoderate intake of alcohol, use
of recreational drugs, etc.
15. Hugely excessive use of pharmaceuticals
- both over-the-counter and
prescribed.
16. Poverty, particularly when associated
with highly uneven distribution of
income, which is rapidly growing
almost everywhere.
17. Stress of unsatisfying work, or of
unemployment.
18. Breakdown of family and community
life.
What to do
I shall limit myself here to addressing nutrition,
the single biggest determinant of
health.
A paradigm change is needed in
medicine
"Orthodox" physicians have too long based
their practice principally on knowing drugs.
To prevent or effectively treat the degenerative
diseases, they must know food and
make it their primary instrument. These diseases
are largely caused by faulty food, and
cures-to the extent possible-depend largely
on the prescription of the right food. The
education of physicians has too long neglected
nutrition. Physicians should, in fact,
be thoroughly acquainted with all the
lifestyle factors that promote health or precipitate
disease. Although still a minority, a
growing number of physicians are already
committed to prevention and cure by
lifestyle modification. Currently, their practice
is commonly referred to as "alternative", but
it is time for them to become the mainstream.
Major changes needed in the field of
applied nutrition and nutritional goals
There are many things very wrong today in
applied nutrition and the nutritional goals set
for citizens by authorities such as Health
Canada. Standards such as Canada's
Food Rules and the USDA Food Pyramid
are badly skewed and need drastic revision.
The obsession with the alleged dangers of
dietary saturated fats and cholesterol is a
proven but persistent and egregious folly.
There's nothing wrong with sound natural
fats. Nor is there anything wrong with beef
and lamb, with all their fat, if the animals are
healthily raised and not dosed with antibiotics
and hormones. There are, though, truly
bad fats that indeed do contribute to degenerative
diseases: synthetic fats; partially
hydrogenated fats; oxidised and rancid fats;
and excesses of omega-6 fatty acids.
Carbohydrates have been hugely over-promoted;
the healthiest amount of sugar is
none, and white flour products aren't much
better. Processed foods should be revealed
for what they are: mainly junk, dangerous to
health, and never a fit substitute for whole,
natural foods. Synthetic foods, such as soft
drinks, are typically slow poison. I can hardly
begin to list all the reforms desirable in
nutritional teaching and consultation. It is
essential to get the story right according to
the best knowledge of the facts, and to stay
open to correction by new findings. It is also
necessary to get the story out so the public
is well informed, without kow-towing to
industrial interests (processed foods,
agribusiness).
Optimum nutrition must be our aim
Optimum nutrition is especially crucial for
good outcomes during conception, pregnancy,
infancy and childhood, the whole
www.i-sis.org.uk

46
process in which new humans are moulded
for better or worse. Canada should be vigorous
in providing parents with supportive
information, programmes, resources and
assistance. Lifelong good nutrition is the
foundation of a healthy and happy old age.
But even when many years have been lived
in poor nutrition, appropriate changes in diet
can still ameliorate much of the damage
done and greatly diminish needs for medical
treatment. The nutritional quality and adequacy
of food served in homes for the aged
should be a matter for public concern and
government attention.
Optimum nutrition is not uniquely
defined, diversity and individuality must
be respected
Canada has citizens with ancestry in all
regions of the world: central African and
south Asian, Mediterranean, North
European, and from recent hunter-gatherer
to 10 000-year experience of agriculture.
Thus there is a broad range of food tolerances
and intolerances that should be taken
into account rather than prescribing a onesize-fits-all
solution. The case of Canada's
first nations is especially notable for suffering
from the foods of industrial civilisation in high
rates of type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease,
etc. Generally, everyone is an individual
with characteristics that may deviate
substantially from the average and merit
special attention. One of the jobs of the
enlightened physician will be to discover
those individual vulnerabilities and needs
and help the patient make due adjustments.
Public institutions must set an example
Publicly funded hospitals and institutions of
education, and cafeterias and restaurants in
government buildings, should lead by
behaving as models of excellence in the
foods offered on their premises. Currently, a
minority of schools, colleges and universities
offer their students healthy food and drink.
Many, however, have admitted fast food outlets
to their halls, with monetary benefit to
the institution but a great disbenefit for the
health and food habits of students and staff.
Utterly scandalous are the deals with cola
companies.
Huge reforms needed in agriculture and
animal husbandry
A return to wholly organic operation is needed
to put an end to the incidental poisoning
of land, water, air, people and most other life
forms. Today's high-input "modern" agriculture
is simply mining the land, sapping future
productivity for the sake of temporary monetary
gain. It's not sustainable. Further, the
concentration of animal production on factory
farms should be stopped and production
redispersed over the land. Animals should
be raised humanely and in such a way that
they are naturally healthy. Grazing animals
should be raised largely by grazing; it is part
of what gives their meat and milk high quality.
Much greater attention should be paid to
raising the nutritional quality of farm, ranch
and market garden products.
Government must ensure quality in
food supply
Government should not hesitate to use its
powers of regulation, inspection and stimulation
to ensure high quality in the food supply.
Programs to recognise and promote
quality, such as is happening with Canadian
wines and Québec cheeses, should be
expanded to other products. Quality production
should be encouraged. The nutritional
implications of any food processing should
be evaluated by competent agencies and
adjustments required to ensure acceptable
nutritional outcomes.
National and provincial laboratories
need to be reinvigorated
They should be given a new mandate and
funding to effectively serve the public interest
with appropriate research in nutrition,
testing of foods and drugs, etc. Their primary
concern should be protecting and
informing the public, rather than assisting
industry and promoting business. The government
should also fund a number of university
research Chairs and/or Institutes
specifically to work on questions of food and
nutrition that are of significant national or
local importance.
Conclusion
In order to deliver health, we must deliver
good food through implementing sweeping
changes in medical education and goals,
food and agriculture and government policies.
We may still need as many physicians,
if they indeed become guardians of our
health rather than managers of disease.
Economies will result primarily from vastly
reduced demands for diagnostics, hospital
care and other patient services, and medical
therapies (medications, radiotherapy, etc.).
Sales of pharmaceuticals may plummet, but
the sacrifice of this economic activity will be
happily endured as part of the price of better
health. The same may be said of major sectors
of the processed food industry.
The many people who regard degenerative
disease as an inevitable feature of living
are wrong. We've seen these diseases
proliferating and appearing earlier and earlier
in life, so young children are now succumbing
to obesity, Type II diabetes and
even cardiovascular disease. However, if
the needed reforms are made, onset of
such diseases can be retarded and relegated
to extreme old age, and indeed most of
these diseases need not be commonly
experienced at all. The choice is ours.
The author is Professor Emeritus of
Chemical Engineering, Queen's University,
Kingston, Canada. This paper is based on
his submission to the Romanow
Commission and a forthcoming book. SiS
continued from page 43 ments at pH neutral or slightly alkaline. The altered pH balance increases bioavailability of certain elements
and decreases that of others including selenium. Heavy metals in rainfall also contain mercury, which can
combine with selenium to produce the insoluble mercury selenide. Soil acidification therefore lowers the abundance of selenium in
the global food chain, which may have contributed to the rapid increase of cancers and HIV/AIDS.
Chlorofluorocarbons are unique to the latter half of the 20th Century and have contributed to the thinning of the ozone layer, which
causes an excess of ultraviolet B radiation. Overexposure to ultraviolet light decreases helper T-lymphocytes and increases suppressor
T-lymphocytes making the individual more susceptible to diseases.
Chemical pollutants also play a role in altering the immune function and lowering host resistance to pathogens. The WHO estimates
that there are 500 000 pesticide related illnesses and 20 000 deaths per year. Scientific studies on exposure to polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) show that glutathione peroxidase activity is depressed and induces apoptosis of pre B-lymphocytes in the plasma
of animals.
Whey protein, a derivative of milk production routinely discarded by the diary industry, contains all the essential and non-essential
amino acids necessary to improve immunity by increasing glutathione levels in the blood. Oral supplementation of whey proteins
can also help to combat wasting associated with AIDS.
A wide variety of nutrients, vitamins, amino acids, herbs and minerals such as copper, zinc and selenium are clearly beneficial in
slowing death rates in the HIV infected individual. And vitamins A, C and E can help to reduce the oxidative stress and viral load that
characterises HIV/AIDS sufferers. This is especially important in areas where combination therapies are unavailable.
Worryingly in Europe, moves are afoot to prohibit the sale of fourteen forms of selenium including organic forms, selenium yeast
and selenomethionine if the EU Directive on Food Supplements comes into force in August 2005.
A geographical perspective into the possible causes for the late 20th century phenomenon of AIDS is welcome adjuvant in the
absence of a conventional vaccine or safe affordable treatments for all.
SiS
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

New Age of Water
47
Water has a collective structure that's extremely flexible
and dynamic, which may explain some of its 'anomalies'.
Is Water Special?
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports
Water is simple, isn't it?
There is nothing simpler than water as a molecule. Its chemical formula, H 2 O, is almost the first thing in
chemistry that one learns in school. However, its structure in the bulk is multifarious and changeable. There
are 13 known crystalline structures of ice that appear under different temperatures and pressures. As a liquid,
water forms dynamic 'flickering clusters' or networks of joined up molecules, with intermolecular bonds
that flicker on and off at random. The basis for all this complexity lies in the ability of a water molecule to join
up with its neighbours through a special kind of chemical bond, the hydrogen-bond.
The hydrogen-bond
To understand how the hydrogen-bond comes about, picture the water molecule consisting of an oxygen atom
bonded to two hydrogen atoms. The water molecule has a shape approximating a tetrahedron, a three-dimensional
triangle with four corners. The oxygen atom sits in the heart of the tetrahedron, the hydrogen atoms
point towards two of the four corners and two 'electron clouds' belonging to the oxygen molecule point
towards the remaining corners of the tetrahedron. The 'electron clouds' are negatively charged, and result
from the atomic structures of oxygen and hydrogen and how they combine in the water molecule.
Oxygen has eight (negatively charged) electrons disposed around its positively charged nucleus, rather
like the layers of the onion, two in an inner shell and six in the outer shell. The inner shell can only accommodate
two electrons, so its capacity is filled. The outer shell, however, can hold as many as eight electrons.
The hydrogen atom happens to have only one electron, so oxygen, by combining with two hydrogen atoms,
completes its outer shell, while the hydrogen atoms each completes its first electron shell with two electrons,
which it shares with the oxygen atom. That is how the usual 'covalent bond' of chemistry arises.
The oxygen nucleus has more positive charge than the hydrogen, so the shared electrons are slightly
more attracted to the oxygen nucleus than to the hydrogen nucleus, which makes the water molecule polar,
with two 'electron clouds' of negative charge at the opposite poles to the two hydrogen atoms, which are each
left with a slight positive charge. (Though quantum mechanical calculations have shown that the two electron
clouds are not really separate from each other.)
The positively charged hydrogen of one water molecule can thus attract the negatively charged oxygen of
a neighbouring water molecule to form a hydrogen-bond (H-bond) between them. Each molecule of water can
potentially form four H-bonds. Two in which it 'donates' its hydrogen atoms to the oxygen atoms of two other
water molecules, and two in which its oxygen atom 'accepts' one hydrogen atom from each of two other water
molecules. In other words, each molecule is capable of acting as hydrogen 'donors' and 'acceptors' for two
other water molecules, so it has four bonded neighbours, or a '4-coordination'.
Ice structures
Water molecules in ordinary hexagonal ice crystals are close to the ideal tetrahedral structure described
above. The hydrogen-bonded O-O distances are almost identical, varying between 2.759 Å and 2.761 Å (an
angstrom is 10 -10 m), while the O-O-O angles also vary only slightly between 109.36 o and 109.58 o , which is
close to the H-O-H angle of 104.52 o of the individual water molecule.
However, there are many more forms of ice crystals (at least 12 others known) under different temperatures
and pressures, where the bond lengths and angles vary much more widely. For ice II, which forms under
moderate pressure of about 5 kbar (1 kbar is equivalent to a pressure of ~ 1 000 atmospheres), the basic
four-coordinated motif is maintained. But the bond length varies between 2.74 Å and 2.83 Å, while the bond
angle varies between 80 o and 129 o .
In liquid water, there is much less constraint compared to a solid crystal lattice, and so the variations in
bond length and bond angles take on a much wider continuous range. Instead of the regular hexagonal (6-
member) ring structure of ordinary ice, a snapshot of the hydrogen-bonded network shows five, six and
seven-member rings, and even smaller or larger rings. Instead of the 4-coordination motif, 2-, 3- and even 5-
coordinations are possible, with the H of some water molecules in a 'bifurcated' schizophrenic state, seemingly
bonded to two different neighbours.
Why is water special?
Why is water so special that life cannot exist without it? According to John L Finney of University College,
London, the basic tetrahedral structure of the water molecule is central to the structural versatility of water
in the condensed state (solid and liquid). It enables water to form extended, flexible networks of H-bonded
www.i-sis.org.uk

48
molecules in liquid, allowing rapid coordinated
molecular motions to take place. This same
extended network also supports proton conduction,
a flow of positive electricity that occurs
much faster than the diffusion of ions.
Other substances might have some of those
special characteristics, says Finney, but only
water has them all, and that might be enough to
make water especially 'fit' for life.
New insights into water structure
The picture of the structure of water just
described has been obtained with powerful
measurement techniques such as x-ray and neutron
diffraction, which involve firing x-rays or
neutron beams at water, and looking at the way
the beams are deflected or scattered to make a
diffraction pattern, which gives information about
the structure of the atoms. These experimental
techniques are combined with computer simulations
(molecular dynamics) to give a consistent
picture, which is supposed to form a firm molecular
basis for all other investigations.
But in April 2004, an international team of scientists
from universities and research institutes
in the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden
and Germany, challenged this picture with the
next generation of an even more powerful measurement
technique.
They reported the behaviour of liquid water on
a timescale of less than one femtosecond (one
femtosecond is 10 -15 s) using a new x-ray absorption
spectroscopy technique. This involves firing
x-rays of different frequencies at water, and from
the spectrum of frequencies absorbed - which is
characteristic of each atom - making inferences
concerning the structure of the water molecules.
They found that most molecules in bulk liquid
water at room temperature are like those at the
ice surface, with only two strong hydrogen
bonds. The proportion of molecules with 4-coordination
similar to bulk ice is very small. The
contributions of the two different species - molecules
with two H-bonds and those with 4 H-bonds
- are 80% and 20% at room temperature, and
increase to 85% and 15% at 90C with uncertainties
of +15% and +20% in both cases.
As consistent with earlier results, the bond
lengths and bond angles are found to vary widely
from those in tetrahedral ice, attesting to the
flexibility of the water structure in liquid.
They concluded: "Water is a dynamic liquid
where H-bonds are continuously broken and
reformed. The present result that water, probed
subfemtosecond time scale, consists mainly of
structure with two strong H-bonds, one donating
and one accepting, nonetheless implies that
most molecules are arranged in strongly H-bonded
chains or rings embedded in a disordered
cluster network connected mainly by weak H-
bonds."
So, in a sense, it doesn't really alter the picture
too much. But are these methods focussing
too much on the individual molecules to reveal
anything interesting? A growing number of water
scientists are beginning to think so, and for good
reasons.
SiS
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports on how a
body of water appears to change as a
whole and wonders if oceans do it too
Decades of bombarding water with X-rays and neutron
beams have convinced most scientists that there is no
long-range order in water. And although extended networks
of hydrogen-bonded molecules are present, these
networks are thought to be simply the result of local
interactions between molecules at close range.
However, other measurement techniques are beginning
to yield results suggesting that bodies of water
behave as coherent wholes, in other words, their collective
structure extends globally to all the molecules. One
such technique, NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance),
measures chemical shifts of the nuclei of certain atoms
by their response to radio waves when placed in a
strong magnetic field (see Box 1).
The atomic nucleus in a molecule is influenced by
other particles that are charged and in motion. NMR
spectroscopy can therefore distinguish one nucleus
from another and reveal the chemical surroundings of a
nucleus. The NMR chemical shift is known to be very
sensitive to intra- and intermolecular factors, and hence
is capable of giving information concerning collective
phases of molecules.
Chemists S.R. Dillon and R.C. Dougherty in Florida
State University, Tallahassee, in the United States,
looked at the changes in NMR chemical shifts of salts
dissolved in water, and came up with some interesting
results, which led them to conclude that, "the entire
solution is a single electronic whole".
The NMR chemical shift of a salt goes up as its concentration
increases. However, when the chemical shift
is plotted against the concentration, there is typically a
sharp change in the slope of the curve at certain critical
concentrations. For a solution of KF (potassium fluoride),
the chemical shifts for both 19 F and 39 K (the numbers
in superscript identify the particular isotope of the
element) increased linearly from 1.9 to 2.4 mol per litre,
then changed abruptly to a different slope thereafter
(see Fig. 1).
Similarly, the chemical shift of 39 K in KCL (potassium
Figure 1. Change in chemical shift with concentration.
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

49
The 'Wholiness' of Water
chloride) solution showed a break in slope around 1.7
mol per litre, while the chemical shift of 7 Li in LiOH (lithium
hydroxide) solution changed in slope at 3.0 mol per
litre.
These changes in the slope of chemical shifts with
concentration are correlated with corresponding
changes in the specific heat of the electrolyte (salt)
solutions. The specific heat of pure water changes with
temperature, starting at high levels below 280K and
drops to a minimum at around 305K before increasing
again at higher temperatures. When salts are dissolved
in the water, the curve changes, and in particular, the
minimum appears at a different temperature, the position
of the minimum depending on the concentration of
the salt in solution.
Dillon and Dougherty found that the concentration at
which the temperature minimum of specific heat is 298K
- the temperature at which the NMR experiment was
carried out - closely matches that at which the change in
slope of the chemical shifts occurred. This was 2.4 mol
per litre for KF (see Fig. 2), 1.6 mol per litre for KCL and
2.95 mol per litre for LiOH.
The specific heat capacity of the solution is its
capacity to absorb heat energy, measured in energy
units per gram per degree K increase in temperature.
Plots of the specific heat capacity of electrolyte as a
function of temperature are similar to the corresponding
plot for pure water, but the perturbation of water structure
by the electrolyte results in a shift in the location of
the minimum (compared with pure water) as well as subtle
changes in the shape of the curve. A correlation of
the changes in slope of chemical shifts to minima in specific
heat capacity suggests that there is a weak continuous
phase transition (see Box 2) in the structure of the
solution at the critical concentration corresponding to
the specific heat capacity minimum. A phase-transition
is a global phenomenon involving the entire solution.
This global phase transition, involving the entire
solution, can be explained by changes in water structure
occurring as a result of changes in the hydrogen bond
Figure 2. Change in specific heat of KF solution at 2.4 mol/l with temperature
compared with pure water.
Box 1
NMR and NMR chemical shift
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) is the absorption of
electromagnetic radiation of a specific (resonant) frequency
by an atomic nucleus placed in a strong static magnetic
field, used especially in spectroscopic studies of molecular
structure, and in medicine to measure rates of metabolism.
Nearly all atomic nuclei can be detected with NMR. The
most useful are 1 H and 13 C with spins of +1/2 and -1/2 in
the presence of a static magnetic field. When the sample
is exposed to electromagnetic radiation of a certain frequency
corresponding to the difference in energy between
these two orientations, the spins all become in phase with
each other, a process known as resonance. The resultant
electromagnetic radiation from these in-phase spins is
detected as an NMR peak.
The atomic nucleus in a molecule is influenced by other
particles that are charged and in motion. The NMR chemical
shift, δ, is expressed in parts per million (ppm) with
respect to a standard compound which is defined to be at
0 ppm, as follows:
NMR spectroscopy can distinguish one nucleus from
another and reveal the chemical surroundings of a nucleus.
The NMR chemical shift is known to be very sensitive
to intra- and intermolecular factors, and hence capable of
giving information concerning collective phases of molecules.
Box 2
Phase transitions
Phase transitions refer to abrupt changes in the collective
properties of all the molecules (phases), with a small
change in a variable such as temperature; for example,
when ice changes into water or water changes into gas
and vice versa.
Phase transitions are classified into two broad categories.
First order phase transitions are discontinuous,
involving the absorption or release of a 'latent heat', a fixed
amount of energy, as in the changes of water between the
liquid and gas phases. Second order phase transitions are
continuous phase transitions that have no associated
latent heat. Examples are ferromagnetic transition and
transition into superfluid state.
strength, due to changes in electrolyte concentration,
and "electron delocalisation throughout the liquid". In
other words, dissolving salts in water changes the structure
of water globally as a whole.
Could that interpretation apply to entire lakes and
oceans? That's enough to send shivers up and down my
spine.
These and other exciting results (see article following)
are likely to fuel the wide-ranging debates on water,
from its dynamic structure at one extreme to the scientific
basis of homeopathy and consciousness at the
other.
SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk

50
Water Forms Massive Exclusion Zones
Water, the most abundant constituent of living organisms, is associated with an enormous amount of surfaces
inside cells and in the extra-cellular matrix. Is all of this biological water different from water in bulk? The
answer is definitely yes, if the incredible new findings are to be taken on board. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports
What is biological water?
"Biological" water includes practically
all the water in living organisms, inside
the cell as well as in the extra-cellular
matrix, except, possibly, for large
reservoirs or conduits such as the
bladder, gut, stomach and vacuoles
inside some cells. Biological water is
rarely far from the surface of a membrane
or a macromolecule such as proteins,
nucleic acids and polysaccharides
like starch and glycogen.
Inside the cell, the concentration of
proteins in cytoplasm is between 170
to 300 mg/ml, which suggests that 7 to
9 shells of water (hydration shells) coat
the available surfaces, corresponding
to a distance of 4 to 5nm (nanometre,
10 -9 m) between the surfaces. A substantial
fraction of the water is quite
closely associated (at a distance of
less than 0.5nm) with the proteins,
nucleic acids, polysaccharides and
assemblies of smaller molecules that
make up an organism, and is essential
for their functioning.
The idea that cell water is distinct
from bulk liquid water goes back a long
way to pioneers like Gilbert Ling and
Albert Szent-Györgyi in the 1960s and
70s; to many physicists and chemists
in the latter half of the 19th century fascinated
by the distinctive properties of
'protoplasm' inside living cells.
Since the 1970s, many physical
and physiological techniques have
demonstrated that cell water behaves
very differently from bulk water. It is
dynamically ordered or oriented, and
exhibits restricted motion compared to
water in the bulk.
More recently, ordered interfacial
water has been found to be associated
with pure protein or DNA crystals
obtained at cryogenic (very low freezing)
temperatures. These ordered
water molecules do not form the typical
ice structure, but are involved in many
different forms of hydrogen bonding
networks with the macromolecule and
with each other.
A major uncertainty is what fraction
of the water in living organisms and
cells is distinct from bulk water, and to
what extent water is essential for different
living functions.
Using sophisticated techniques
with big machines, such as NMR and
more recently, neutron diffraction, no
more than one or two layers can be
detected to have altered properties,
which would imply that a substantial
part of the water inside cells and in the
extra-cellular matrix is still bulk water.
But other scientists, notably, Gilbert
Ling, who emigrated to the United
States on a Boxer Fellowship from
China, have been insisting since the
1960s that practically all the water in
the cell is in an 'altered' state different
from bulk water.
Interfacial water as model of
biological water
Water generally forms ordered layers
over solid surfaces, and this ordered
'interfacial water' can tell us a great
deal about water in living organisms.
Interfacial water has different properties
from bulk water; for example,
certain solutes that dissolve in bulk
water are excluded from interfacial
water, or fail to dissolve in it.
Interfacial water is generally
thought to be no more than one or at
most several layers of water molecules
thick. But several reports published in
the 1990s suggested that hydrophilic
(water-loving) surfaces could extend
their influence over much larger distances
from the interface.
Small experiments that tell a big
tale
Gerald Pollack and Zheng Jian-ming in
the Department of Bioengineering,
University of Washington, Seattle in
the United States decided to do some
simple elegant experiments to find out
exactly how far such hydrophilic surfaces
can extend their influence; and
came up with some startling results.
They used as solutes, microspheres
0.5 to 2 µm in diameter, which
can be seen with the ordinary light
microscope. For the hydrophilic surfaces,
they employed several common
hydrogels known to interact strongly
with water.
In the first experiment they put a
small gel sample between two large
glass cover slips, and filled the space
to either side with a suspension of the
microspheres, then sealed the chamber.
The whole assembly was placed
on the stage of a microscope fitted with
Figure 1. Exclusion zone formed next to the
surface of polyacrylic acid gel.
a camera to follow what happens.
In the second experiment, the gel
was formed around a glass cylinder,
which was withdrawn after the gel was
formed, leaving a channel, 1 mm in
diameter, which is then filled with the
suspension of microspheres and
placed under the microscope.
To their amazement, they found
that the microspheres were excluded
from the gel surfaces in both experiments
over distances of tens of mm,
and in extreme cases, up to 250µm or
more. Such massive exclusion zones
are totally unexpected, and have never
been reported before (see Fig. 1).
Microspheres were almost completely
absent from the exclusion zone,
and the boundary between exclusion
and non-exclusion rather sharp, of the
order of 10% of the width of the exclusion
zone. The zone forms rather
quickly, and appears 80% complete
after 60 seconds. Migration velocity
was about 1.5µm per second, and
microspheres near the boundary
migrated at the same speed as those
far away from it. Once formed, the
exclusion zones remained stable for
days.
Could this be an artefact? For
example, could there be some invisible
threads sticking out from the gel surface
to push the microspheres away?
They tested this by using the atomic
force microscope and other sensitive
probes to detect such strands, but no
protruding strands were detectable,
not even after they fixed and crosslinked
the gel and washed it extensively,
so no loose strands could ever leak
out.
Could it be that the gel was in fact
shrinking away from the surface and
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 23, AUTUMN 2004

Water turns the world upside down; photo Mae-Wan Ho
extruding water, and therefore squirting
the microspheres away? But no
such shrinkage was detectable; the
boundary did not shift appreciably as
the microspheres migrated away from
it. Over a period of 120 minutes, the
diameter of the cylindrical hollow in
the gel changed by less than 2µm.
Thus, in the 2 min period during which
the exclusion zone was formed,
shrinkage was insignificant.
Could it be that polymers were
leaking out into the exclusion zone,
and pushing away the microspheres?
They added a polymer to the microsphere
suspension, but this only narrowed
the exclusion zone.
Yet another test was to continuously
infuse microsphere suspension
into the cylindrical hollow in the gel
under pressure at a speed of about
100mm/s, so that any suspended
invisible solutes ought to be washed
out. But the exclusion zones persisted,
virtually unchanged even at the
highest speeds.
The exclusion zones were not a
quirk due to the particular gel used.
Polyvinyl alcohol gel, polyacrylamide
gels, polyacrylic acid gels, and even a
bundle of rabbit muscle all gave similar
results (Fig. 2); and microspheres
of different dimensions, coated with
chemicals of opposite charge nevertheless
resulted in exclusion zones.
Thus, exclusion zones are a general
feature of hydrophilic surfaces. One
gel that did not show exclusion was
when polyacrylamide was copolymerised
with a vinyl derivative of
malachite green.
Exclusion was most profound
when the microspheres were most
highly charged, so negatively charged
microspheres gave maximum exclusion
at high pH, whereas positively
charged microspheres gave maximum
exclusion at low pH. The presence of
salt tended to decrease the size of the
exclusion zone somewhat. The size of
the exclusion zone also went up with
the diameter of the microsphere.
How could it be explained?
What could be the explanation for this
strange phenomenon that has never
been observed; that apparently goes
against all expectations based on
data from the latest big machines?
After ruling out several trivial
explanations, Zheng and Pollack considered
whether it could be due to layers
of water molecules growing in an
organized manner from the gel surface
and extending outwards, pushing
the microspheres out at the same
Figure 2. Exclusion zone next to surface of
rabbit muscle.
time. That would seem consistent with
the observation that the speed of
migration of the microspheres is constant
regardless of distance from the
boundary. It is also consistent with the
finding that larger microspheres give
bigger exclusion zones.
The increase in exclusion zone
with charge, too, is consistent with
their water-structuring hypothesis, as
higher surface charge is known to be
associated with larger extent of water
structuring. But, as they remark,
"While these several observations fit
the water-structure mechanism, no
reports we know of confirm any more
than several hundred layers of water
structure at the extreme, and not the
10 6 solvent layers implied here." SiS
www.i-sis.org.uk