Interview with Ann Clark

Interview with Ann Clark, crop science researcher and voice of dissent.



Interview with Ann Clark
By Dru Oja Jay


   A researcher in Plant Agriculture at the University of Guelph, Ann
   Clark has been a vocal critic of the biotech industry and its
   influence over research agendas, especially genetic modification
   (recombinant DNA). Many anti-GM activists have tried to be both
   careful and specific in their criticisms of GM foods. Clark,
   however, continues to question the fundamental basis for biotech
   research by posing fundamental questions: Do we really understand
   recombinant DNA well enough to release GMOs (Genetically Modified
   Organisms) into the ecology upon which we depend for sustenance? If
   something goes wrong, who pays for it?
   
   Clark, who funds all her own research by consulting in addition to
   her teaching position at University of Guelph, has published widely,
   criticizing current biotech research, all available on her [1]web
   site. The issues Clark addresses range from the [2]externalized
   costs of GMOs, to [3]advice for farmers considering GM crops, to
   questions of [4]toxicity and allergenicity in modified crops.
   
   Clark generously answered these questions about GMOs and the nature
   of biotech via email.
   
   What are some of the consequences of the FDA's recent [5]policy
   decision that genetically modified crops are not qualitatively
   different from previous methods of modification?
   
   The credibility of academia in general, scientists in particular,
   and indeed, the very role of publicly funded universities in
   contemporary society is being compromised by the uncritical adoption
   of industry agendas by academia. Tolerating or indeed contributing
   to the fevered momentum which is promoting GM crops in the absence
   of meaningful risk assessment is scientifically unsound. To do so in
   the face of widespread and growing consumer concern -- that is, by
   the people who are [6]paying our salaries -- is incomprehensible,
   arrogant, and reprehensible.
   
   Do you consider this uncritical promotion an ideological application
   of science?
   
   This is not science. This is technology in advance of science,
   profit-driven applications of commercial technology unfettered by
   [7]scientific understanding of basic physiology and gene function,
   and real world implications for society and the environment. This is
   a solution in search of a problem.
   
   What are the main risks of using recombinant DNA to engineer crops?
   
   Unintended side effects, caused by the [8]randomness of transgene
   insertion. I have recently completed a chapter commissioned by
   Environment Canada for a new book on globalization and biodiversity.
   My chapter is ``Potential effects of GM on biodiversity''. It
   includes about 100 references, most of which are refereed,
   documenting potential -- unacknowledged -- impacts of known as well
   as unknown traits. The closest parallel to GMOs is exotic invaders,
   which usually cause no harm at all, but when they do, can be
   catastrophic.
   
   The central concern is that GMOs are alive, can transmit genes to
   other organisms, and can change unpredictably themselves --
   specifically because of transgene insertion.
   
   Are most biotechnology researchers are aware of the risks posed by
   their research?
   
   No. They discount, discredit, and bypass anything challenges to the
   continued flow of money, power, and prestige to their labs.
   
   Is there any proof that genetically modified crops on the market
   today provide tangible benefits to farmers?
   
   Some farmers benefit some of the time, in terms of yield; most do
   not. Evidence of profitability benefit is scarce to non-existent.
   Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops yield less than isogenic or other best
   non-GM counterparts in all circumstances except when weeds are so
   burdensome that alternative weed control options are ineffective or
   expensive. In this case, one may ask how the production system in
   place has generated so wide a niche as to allow such a weed problem
   to develop in the first place, and if growing an HT crop is the best
   or only solution.
   
   Are there avenues of research in biotechnology potentially more
   beneficial than those currently being pursued?
   
   Not until we know a great deal more about how genes actually
   function, and how genes regulate physiological pathways, and how
   genes interact with environment. Until then, release of GM crops
   into the environment is premature, externalizing costs involuntarily
   onto society and the environment.
   
   So why are they not being followed up?
   
   Directions for commercial application are based on exactly that:
   potential for commercial success, and have nothing to do with
   societal benefit.
   
   Is organic farming a viable alternative to extensive industrial
   farming on a large scale?
   
   Yes, unquestionably.
   
   What kind of institutional support would be necessary to make
   organic farming viable on a larger scale?
   
   Good question. They seem to be progressing rather well despite a
   complete vacuum of institutional support in most settings. Much of
   what passes for organic or sustainable agriculture research today is
   simply replacing synthetic inputs with biologicals -- which misses
   the whole point. Organic systems are designed to capture positive
   synergies in time and space, and in so doing, to avoid problems.
   Conventional agriculture is designed in such a way as to create
   ecological problems (pests; nutrient management; animal health) and
   then solve them with purchased inputs. Fundamentally different
   contexts need fundamentally different approaches.
   
   Institutional resources need to start from the premise "first do no
   harm". Any resource allocations should be based on rigorous
   stakeholder consultation, both to identify and prioritize
   research/extension needs, and to conduct research that addresses
   meaningful questions -- whether for real world farmers or for
   decision/policymakers whose actions so pivotally influence producer
   success.
   
   Does ownership of genetic material have any scientific basis?
   
   Ownership of individual genes is a ludicrous proposition, because
   genes -- per se -- do not act alone. They act in concert with other
   genes, as moderated by environment and other factors. Indeed, one of
   the positive outcomes of the current obsession with "things genetic"
   may well be to demonstrate the fallacy of this outdated notion of
   gene function. The harm from gene patenting vastly outweighs any
   conceivable benefit, because like everything else, using the genes
   will come at a cost, and one which many of those in need will not be
   able to afford. Consider the current situation with AIDS drugs in
   Africa as a portent of things to come from gene-based
   pharmaceuticals.
   
   Now that Aventis' StarLink and Monsanto Roundup Ready GM corn, not
   approved for human consumption, have gotten into the human food
   supply, is there any hope of ever getting them out?
   
   I am unaware that RR corn is not approved for human consumption. My
   understanding is that only StarLink was approved for livestock but
   not human consumption. Can it get out? Sure -- with enough money,
   anything is possible. How much money does Aventis have? And how much
   American taxpayer money is going down the toilet to [9]bail them
   out?
   
   Is there a scientific basis for the FDA's approval or rejection of
   StarLink or Roundup Ready corn?
   
   No more so than for the approval of any GM crop. The process of
   assessing risk of allergenicity (the specific issue for StarLink) is
   dubious at best. As there is reportedly no actual test for
   allergenicity, government judges based on indirect indices. For all
   the other Bt proteins which have been approved (about 15 different
   crops, if memory serves), the target Bt Cry protein did not have
   characteristics associated with allergens. In other words, they
   broke down rapidly in simulated digestion studies, and were heat
   unstable. The DNA and amino acid sequences of the gene and protein
   did not show homology with known allergens -- hence -- safe. Now,
   along comes a Bt Cry protein (Cry 9C) which does show
   characteristics of known allergens. It does not breakdown readily,
   and is heat stable. So, if they approve it anyway, they will have to
   acknowledge the meaninglessness of the entire approval process (as
   pertains to food safety risk).
   
   This is not to say that Cry 9C is actually allergenic, toxic, or
   otherwise harmful. I do not know this to be true. Just that the
   method by which they are making this judgment is very weakly
   founded.

References

   1. http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/
   2. http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/starlink.htm
   3. http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/10reasons.htm
   4. http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/safety.htm
   5. http://cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/food/gmfood/fda.html
   6. http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/industry.htm
   7. http://www.lifesciencenz.com/repository/external_news_material/promise_opponent.htm
   8. http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/laird.htm
   9. http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/starlink.htm


--
Posted on Monkeyfist at http://monkeyfist.com/articles/731