THE RESEARCHERS RAISE THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES AS “BURIERS OF A BOMB”.

Scientists from the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, have just discovered that the main transgenic crops and the products obtained from them that have been marketed during the last 20 years contain a gene for a potentially dangerous virus.

 

The gene -Gene VI- overlaps with the 35S promoter obtained from cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV). The CaMV 35S promoter is the most common, its sequence being the most widely used to carry out gene expression in transgenic crops.

This important discovery was published in a little-known journal at the end of 2012, and would have gone unnoticed had it not caught the attention of Jonatham Latham and Alison Wilson of Independent Science News.

After the discovery, carried out a risk assessment posed by the gene VI fragment, what they collected in a report. This attracted attention from the public., so EFSA and the Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Agency, FSANZ jointly attacked the work done by Latham and Wilson.

EFSA and FSANZ say claims made that the VI gene hidden in the CaMV 35S viral promoter is unsafe for human consumption are completely false., disturbing the normal functioning of crops. A spokesperson for the FSANZ Agency said: “Human exposure to cauliflower mosaic virus DNA and proteins from products consumed through traditional foods is common and there is no evidence that it has adverse health effects.”.

But ironically, The first author listed in the scientific article is Nancy Podevin from EFSA, while the second author is Patrick Du Jardin from the University of Liège, in Belgium, and it is well known that it is part of the EFSA GMO team and its advice is taken into account..

The main objective of this document is to select the amino acid sequence of Gene VI and contrast it with existing databases of known allergens., but it has not been found; This offers a certain insecurity, so that real dangers could be swept under the rug.

This is not the first time that the safety of the CaMV 35S promoter has been questioned. The Institute of Science in Society, ISIS, He first raised this concern about the 35S promoter and other similar promoters in an article published in the journal Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease in 1999, when it was discovered that it presented a recombination (fragmentation) in mutation hotspots to enhance unintentional horizontal gene transfer and recombination in the process of creating new viruses or activating old ones, or the activation of cancer in animal cells in processes known as insertional carcinogenesis.

The CaMV 35S promoter is known to be very promiscuous being able to function in most, if not in all, of the species of the living world, including human cells. To make things worse, Many synthetic versions of the promoter have been developed with additional enhancers for gene expression and sequences from other sources., which increases instability (tendency to fragment), as well as their ability to carry out inappropriate gene expression.

As a precautionary measure, Researchers have recommended that all transgenic crops containing CaMV 35S or similar promoters be withdrawn from marketing and not conducted in open field trials..

After the publication of his work, the reactions were very fast. Within two days of publication on the Internet, at least nine reviews were published, one of them from Monsanto, on a website financed by the Biotechnology Industry and widely distributed on the Internet.

The regulatory bodies' objections are based on the fact that humans have been eating CaMV for thousands of years without harmful effects and that the CaMV 35S promoter is active only in plants and not in animal or human cells..

Researchers have responded that CaMV has its genome wrapped in its protein coat., not producing infections in humans or non-susceptible animals and plants, something well known, since it is that protein layer that determines the susceptibility of the host in the first instance.

So eating the intact virus is safe. However, naked or free viral genomes are more infectious and have more impact on the host than intact virus. In addition, synthetic CaMV 35S promoters are very different from natural promoters, being at the same time much more aggressive as promoters to direct the expression of the appropriate gene, becoming more prone to fragmentation and recombination.

In addition, deny that CaMV 35S is not active in animals and human cells, proving it by taking a look at the scientific literature. There is evidence to suggest that the new CaMV 35S promoter may increase the number of virus-associated diseases., such as HIV and cytomegalovirus through the induction of proteins necessary for the transcription of the viruses.

In this context, both what Latham said, the Wilson Report and the work of ISIS, researchers say, must be taken into account; which justifies the initial recommendation of a total withdrawal of transgenic crops that have this promoter.. This same recommendation is conveyed by Latham and Wilson.