Another GM maize to be placed on the EU market (food and feed)

Have your say:

Maize DP4114 x MON89034 x MON87411 x DAS-40278-9 and its sub-combinations

Assessment of genetically modified maize DP4114 x MON89034 x MON87411 x DAS-40278-9 and its sub-combinations for authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2020-171)

12-2-22. Our comments:

About:

Maize DP4114 x MON89034 x MON87411 x DAS-40278-9 and its sub-combinations

First:

Plan to replace 16mn tonnes of GM corn with homegrown is proceeding (mexiconewsdaily.com) (From 2021)

“The federal government will go ahead with its plan to stop importing genetically modified (GM) corn and replace it with homegrown maize, according to Deputy Agriculture Minister Suárez.

The official also told the news agency Reuters that the government is sticking to its plan to ban glyphosate, a controversial herbicide.”

In addition to banning Monsanto/Bayer’s cancer-causing Roundup herbicide by 2024, Mexico is now pledging to rid the country of GMO corn by the same date.

To do so, it plans to gradually replace 16 million tons in annual imports of GMO corn from the United States with ancient, indigenous varieties.

Mexico to Replace 16 Million Tons of GMO Corn with Native Maize

“The Mexican Society of Organic Producers called the move a victory. The group blames GMO crops for contaminating the native, ancient varieties of corn while saying that the widespread use of dangerous pesticides endangers the health of both producers and consumers while undermining biodiversity.”

https://www.agrinews-pubs.com/business/2021/01/18/mexico-bans-gmo-corn-2024-deadline-includes-elimination-of-glyphosate-herbicide/

A question:

How long will it take before this will happen in every country and with every GM crop when Roundup is forbidden?

We, the GMO-free Citizens and Stichting Ekopark in Lelystad, The Netherlands, do not want to eat this genetically modified maize. And we don’t want you to market this on the EU. (Under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-026/2.)

When you approve this, which we will regret, we want every final product to be labelled as GMO, even if you can no longer detect it in a final product.

Our conclusion: Poison stacked with poison.

 Below some examples.

We read: “The four-event stack maize was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single maize events: DP4114 expressing Cry1F to confer resistance to lepidopteran pests, Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 to confer resistance to coleopteran pests, and PAT providing resistance to glufosinate-ammonium containing herbicides; MON 810 expressing Cry1Ab to confer resistance to lepidopteran pests; MIR604 expressing mCry3A to confer resistance to coleopteran pests and PMI as selectable marker; and NK603 expressing CP4 EPSPS and CP4 EPSPS L214P to confer tolerance to glyphosate-containing herbicides.” Source: EFSA.

About MON89034

MON89034 (GM maize) causes disease in rats 2018. GMWatch

What’s in MON89034 maize?

“MON89034, marketed as YieldGard™ VT Pro™, is a Monsanto GM maize that expresses its own Bt toxin insecticides. MON89034 maize contains a unique mix of insecticidal proteins called Bt toxins. The plants produce a synthetic Bt toxin, Cry1A.105 – a combination of Bt toxins called Cry1Ac/Cry1Ab and Cry1F. There is no natural form of this combined protein, so safety cannot be concluded by comparison with natural Bt toxins used previously.”

More

Source GMWatch. Gentech maize approved in the EU causes diseases in rats.

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/18120-gm-maize-approved-in-the-eu-caused-kidney-disease-and-bladder-stones-in-rats

About:  DP4114

GMO Bt crops on the chopping block due to insect resistance

 Published: 30 September 2020

Quote: “EPA proposes phasing out dozens of Bt corn and cotton products

There is now just ONE Bt trait left on the market without documented insect resistance.

Even the claim that Bt seeds reduced insecticide use pre-resistance was questionable, as Bt seeds are mostly treated with neonicotinoid insecticides – neonic seed treatments rose in parallel with Bt crops.”

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/main-menu/news-menu-title/archive/100-2020/19542-gmo-bt-crops-on-the-chopping-block-due-to-insect-resistance

About MIR604

Coalition demands ban on Bt cowpea in Nigeria and neighbour West African countries

 Published: 09 March 2022

Quote: “Cry1Ab has been shown by scientists to be toxic to human and animal liver cells, and also alters the immune system. The use of this transgene was banned in South Africa, where the cultivation of genetically modified maize led to enormous pest resistance and infestation.”

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20003-coalition-demands-ban-on-bt-cowpea-in-nigeria-and-neighbour-west-african-countries

About: NK603

Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

•             Gilles-Eric Séralini,

•             Emilie Clair,

•             Robin Mesnage,

•             Steeve Gress,

•             Nicolas Defarge,

•             Manuela Malatesta,

•             Didier Hennequin &

•             Joël Spiroux de Vendômois

Environmental Sciences Europe volume 26, Article number: 14 (2014)

Abstract, quotes

Background

“The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize.

Results

Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier.“

GMWatch: “Glyphosate exposure during pregnancy is linked to lower birth weights for babies, a new study of pregnant women has found. Lower birth weights are linked to many health problems later in life, from diabetes to heart problems.”

Glyphosate exposure in pregnancy linked to lower birth weights (gmwatch.org)

Caroline Cox, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) verzamelde een aantal Round-UP problemen:

“Glyphosate can be persistent, can drift, is acutely toxic to humans, has shown a wide spectrum of chronic toxicity in laboratory tests, is hazardous to eurthworms, reduces nitrogen fixation, Roundup contains toxic trade secret ingredients, kills beneficial insects, inhibits mycorrhizal fungi, can increase the spread or severity of plant diseases”.

Also read: GMO_Myths-and-Facts.pdf (gmwatch.org)

DP4114

About GLA. Reprinted with permission.

“Research by Hoechst (Dr. Arno Schulz) on the substrates of Phosphinothricin acetyltransferase(PAT).”

Amsterdam, November 7, 1999.  J. van der Meulen, L. Eijsten Quote

GLA and glyphosate.

In 1987, the following article was published: Thomson, C. J. et al., ‘Characterisation of the herbicide-resistance gene bar from S.hygroscopicus’, EMBO Journal Vol. 6 No 9, pages 2519-23. It described how phosphinothricin-acetyltransferase also has glutamic acid as a substrate, by mixing the two substances and demonstrating the reaction product. Hoechst contested this in a report (93-01) by Dr Arno Schulz: ‘L-phosphinothricin N acetyltransferase biochemical characterisation’. Glufosinate had been exposed, TOGETHER with a seriously excessive amount of glutamic acid (and other amino acids) to the effects of the acetyltransferase. Schulz had been unable to demonstrate ANY reaction product with glutamic acid and thus concluded that glutamic acid was not a substrate.

THIS IS INCORRECT AND HIGHLY MISLEADING because • in situations in which the acetyltransferase (present in the modified plant) could have a toxic effect, as in our gastrointestinal tract, large quantities of glufosinate are not simultaneously present (see Thomson). Unbelievable! • it is only logical that, under Schulz’s test conditions, the acetyltransferase would acetylate the glufosinate using not only the added acetyl source but also acetylated glutamine acid as an acetyl source (because the transferase has a higher affinity for glufosinate). In a MIXTURE a reaction product will be produced only with the substrate for which it has the highest affinity.

A VERY MISLEADING REPORT. We object to the development of a GMO containing this gene product.

1. According to Hoechst, it is not teratogenic. E. Ebert et al.: ‘Summary of safety evaluation toxicity studies of glufosinate ammonium’, 1989/1990. Defects found in rabbit progeny were brushed under the carpet by Hoechst, which claimed that they were the result of ‘maternal toxicity’!! The toxic effect on the mother was claimed to prevent her giving birth to healthy progeny.

We believe they are playing fast and loose with the words they use. We would put forward instead the research data of Tomoko Fujii et al., from 1996: ‘Alterations in the Response to Kainic Acid in Rats Exposed to Glufosinate Ammonium, a Herbicide, during Infantile Period’, a study sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.

 ‘Exposure to GLA, even in low doses (1 mg/kg) during Infantile Period in the rat, induces alterations in the kainic receptor in the brain’.

T. Watanabe, 1996: ‘Apoptose induced by GLA in the neuroepithelium of developing mouse embryos in culture’. Programmed cell death as a result of the secretion of substances which destroy the cell from within; this ‘suicide’ is regulated by a suicide gene which appears to be activated by GLA. T. Watanabe et al., 1997: ‘Developmental and dysmorphogenic effects of GLA in mouse embryos in culture’.

Deformities.

2. It is not considered to be sensitising.

Ms L. Eijsten discovered for herself the exact opposite of GLA’s ‘non-sensitising properties’, something she has reported previously. In 1992, she – and her dog – became sensitised: a parks department employee carried on spraying the edges of the grass in a park, where she was sitting reading on a bench, with Finale SL 14. Nothing apparently amiss.

However, a year later she was walking her dog by grass which had shortly before been sprayed with the same herbicide and promptly, seven hours later, her legs were covered in eczema. She walked the same route the next day, this time in a sleeveless blouse, and within no time her arms and face were also covered in eczema (the dog too had red patches on its stomach).

She has reported on this many times already. The serious thing is, however, that every attempt is made to brush these facts under the carpet, arguing that her symptoms were caused by a food allergy (letter of 10 June 1996 from Mr Top / Ms Terpstra at the Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS); a very scientific communication.)

The photograph sent showed clearly that the eczema was on unprotected parts of Ms Eijsten’s body. And there was no eczema on the back of her hands – logically, because she had washed her hands after the contact. A dermatologist carried out tests involving patches with Vaseline to which the herbicide had been added.

This meant that a hydrophilic substances was being tested using a hydrophobic substance. It was logical that no effect should be visible after the test. The dermatologist carried out tests in the same way three times, despite Ms Eijsten’s request that a hydrophilic substances, such as lanolin, be used, or that the herbicide be tested on her skin by itself.

His argument was that he always worked that way, thus making his incompetence clear. He had previously told her that he did not know the herbicide in question and had asked her to bring some with her. That was strange, because Finale had already been in use for some 20 years.

This was also why she collected various articles about Finale and showed the dermatologist an American book describing methods for demonstrating sensitisation. EU LEGISLATION prescribes many methods for demonstrating sensitisation. Ms Eijsten constantly wondered why the dermatologist did not want to carry out any different tests. She found this all very improper. If all dermatologists in the Netherlands took the same approach as ‘her dermatologist’, no cases of eczema resulting from GLA would ever be found!

Why should the correct tests not be done? We believe that everything possible is being done to cover up the harmful effects of GLA. The annual report of the organisation Consument en Biotechnologie for 1996/1997 reported that Fujii’s 1996 report stated that high doses had been found to cause brain damage.

And it should be noted that it was Ms Eijsten who sent the report in question to Consument en Biotechnologie, at their request. The report concerned precisely the fact that the work had been done using very small doses (1 mg/kg). When she complained, they promised to correct the errors.

Recently she was informed that no correction is to be made. No reason was given. This twisting of the truth is an example of false lobbying. We believe that the above information on sensitisation has to be communicated once again, against the background of the dangers which arise when herbicides are sprayed and as a result of drift when herbicide resistant crops are cultivated, be it on a large or a small scale. Murphy’s law.

Extract from: Onderzoek van Hoechst (dr. Arno Schulz) betreffende de substraten van Phosphinothricinacetyltransferase(PAT). – Gentechvrij by J. van der Meulen, L. Eijsten

Exposure to GLA, even in low doses (1 mg/kg) during Infantile Period in the rat, induces alterations in the kainic receptor in the brain.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244754595_Alterations_in_the_Response_to_Kainic_Acid_in_Rats_Exposed_to_Glufosinate_Ammonium_a_Herbicide_during_Infantile_Period

T. Watanabe. 1996

“Apoptose induced by GLA in the neuroepithelium of developing mouse embryos in culture. Programmed cell death by secretion of substances that destroy the cell internally; this suicide is regulated by a suicide gene, which is apparently clicked on by GLA.

T. Watanabe et al. 1997.

“Developmental and Dysmorphogenic Effects of GLA in mouse Embryos in culture”. Malformations..

We read: 22 FEBRUARY 2007

Hungary may refuse transgenic maize on its territory.

The EU has decided that Hungary can refuse transgenic maize on its territory.

Specifically, it concerned Monsanto’s genetically modified maize (Mon810).

Scientific data, published by Austrian and Hungarian scientists, show that GMO maize does indeed have a negative effect on plants and animals.stop

GMWatch: “GM soy is one of the most widely grown GM crops in the world and accounts for over 90% of US-grown soy. It is engineered to survive being sprayed with toxic glyphosate weedkiller.

GM soy injures the pancreas, rat feeding study shows (gmwatch.org) https://gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20129

The study:

Pancreatic response of rats fed genetically modified soybean.

Javier A. Magaña-Gómez, Guillermo López Cervantes, Gloria Yepiz-Plascencia and Ana M. Calderón de la Barca

J. Appl. Toxicol. 2008;28:217–226

https://www.academia.edu/35754035/Pancreatic_response_of_rats_fed_genetically_modified_soybean

Geef een antwoord

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *

Deze site gebruikt Akismet om spam te verminderen. Bekijk hoe je reactie-gegevens worden verwerkt.