Subject: Re: Gentically Modified Soybean

From: [email-masked] (James R. Eilers)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 00:07:13 GMT

Kramer Pierre David <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Is there an official method to check whether soylecithin has been 
>processed from genetically modified soybean ?

I seriously doubt it.

#1  What is an "official method".  Probably one that has been cussed,
discussed, and collaborated through an exhaustive process that
requires a period of many, many months...if not years.  Doubt this
technology has been around long enough to evolve an "official" method,
even if the difference is detectable.

#2  Others are far better qualified to discuss the chemistry than I,
but I'd bet my lunch money that at this time, there are no traditional
chemical means to differentiate between soylecithin that has been
processed from genetically modified soybean and that derived from that
which has not.

Anybody know of methods that will do this?

Jim

---

From: [email-masked] (Depree, Jonathan A)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:24:36

In article <[email-masked]> Kramer Pierre David <[email-masked]> writes:
>From: Kramer Pierre David <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Gentically Modified Soybean
>Date: 6 Dec 1996 19:54:06 GMT

>processed from genetically modified soybean ?

Unless the modification changes the fatty acids in the lecithin I would 
imagine that there is no way to tell. Nor should there be any practical 
difference. And if the lecithin could somehow be chemically sythesised without 
ever going near a soybean then that would be the same also. The field of 
organic chemistry was so called because it was once believed that there was 
some innate 'life' in chemicals produced by living things. This was shown not 
to be so when urea was synthesised for the first time.

In any case, all soybeans grown commercially are genetically modified, as are 
all foods except for those collected from the wild. It's just that up until 
now the modification has been done by selective breeding. We should not worry 
about whether or not a food is 'genetically modified' per se but what the new 
gene is and what the problems (if any) are likely to be.
I could certainly imagine the farmers swearing about all the 
herbicide-resistant wheat springing up in their bean fields.

Watch for possible problems by all means, but there's no point in worrying 
about 'things man was never meant to know'.

Jonathan Depree,
Lincoln University, P.O. Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Socrates was a famous Greek Teacher who went around giving
people advice. They killed him.   (school history howler)

---

From: William R Hite <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 11:25:59 GMT

You could try Genetic ID --

Genetic ID is a  small US company that produces a test able 
to detect genetic alterations in crops. It has been swamped with 
calls as European consumers and retailers react to the news that 
genetically modified maize (Ciba-Geigy) and soybeans are now being 
harvested in the USA. To contact Genetic ID, telephone 515-472-9979.  
Address 500 N. 3rd,  Fairfield, Iowa 52556.

Genetic Engineering info can be found at 
http://www.fairfield.com/nlp/ 

(reviewed in Nature 17Oct1996)

I believe that they can in some cases detect whether soybean derivatives 
are from GE beans. It may be through trace contamination by the raw 
soybean's DNA or perhaps through subtle alterations in other 
constituents of the  soybean, clearly acknowledged by Monsanto et al, 
being reflected in the derivative products.

Others have advised you that there is nothing to worry about - rubbish. 
Ask them for scientific evidence. There has been no testing for adverse 
health effects on either humans or animals for these transgenic, 
man-made organisms or their derivatives. Or have a look at

    http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/cbio/geperil.html

which is a paper by a real geneticist on the subject.

William |WRC Solutions: Computer Consultants|Tel (+44)(0)1695  50470
   Hite |MS-Office, Visual Basic, FTR, Text |Fax (+44)(0)1695 720889
        [email-masked], http://www.u-net.com/~wrcs/home
        
In article <[email-masked]> on  6 Dec 1996 19:54:06 GMT Kramer 
Pierre David <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Path: 
news.u-net.com!yama.mcc.ac.uk!daresbury!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!uknet!usenet2
news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!www.nntp.primenet.c
om!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!ra
in.fr!world-net!usenet
> Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science
> Organization: SCT / Worldnet - Internet Provider & Information 
Exchange - Paris, France
> Lines: 3
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm2-041.sct.fr
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2N (Windows; I; 16bit)
>

---

From: Kramer Pierre David <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Dec 1996 19:54:06 GMT

---

From: William R Hite <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:25:36 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> on  10 Dec 
1996 22:35:06 GMT C P Moodie <[email-masked]> wrote:

> There will not be a different method because soy lethicin is the 
> same regardless of the soy bean source.  

References please?

You might also like to consider the following from one of the 
regulatory documents regarding RR Soy

    2. Nutritional Composition of PNT (i.e RR Soy)

    No statistical differences in nutritional composition, i.e., ash,
    gross energy, and crude fibre content, were noted between the raw
    whole seed and the control variety A5403. The crude protein and
    crude fat content of raw seeds was not significantly different
    from that of the control line in two of three studies. The
    nutrient digestibility of GTS 40-3-2 was found to be
    substantially equivalent to traditional varieties per a 29-day
    lactation trial wherein lactating cows were fed 10% raw soybeans.
    The levels of the amino acids phenylalanine, tryptophan, and
    tyrosine were found to be substantially equivalent to those of
    traditional varieties. These results collectively demonstrate
    that the introduction of DNA into G. max resulting in GTS 40-3-2,
    did not likely result in any secondary effects impacting on the
    composition or nutritional quality of the cultivar. Accordingly,
    GTS 40-3-2 was judged to be substantially equivalent to
    traditional soybean varieties in terms of nutritional
    composition. 

There are many people who, like me, read this as a **very** flimsy 
basis on which to feed such a product to the world at large.

---

From: "Peter J. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:20:20 +0000

In article <[email-masked]>, Kramer Pierre David
<[email-masked]> writes
>processed from genetically modified soybean ?
Reading the responses to this question prompts me to point out that all
biological materials are (a) complex and (b) very variable. Take any
plant material - soybean, for instance - and analyse the composition of
samples from different varieties, sources, harvests etc and you will get
wide variation. Grow a GM soya and a conventional soya side by side
under exactly the same conditions and you will probably find that the
differences between GM and conventional are less than the differences
between soya grown in South America and soya grown in, say, China.We
have to get away from the idea that food raw materials are always
exactly the same composition until tinkered with by man!
Peter Barnes
-- 
Peter J. Barnes
PJ Barnes & Associates, PO Box 200
Bridgwater TA7 0YZ, England.
Tel: +44-1823-698973
Fax: +44-1823-698971
E-mail: editor(a)pbarnes.demon.co.uk

---

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:42:34 GMT

Hello William and Everyone,

>basis on which to feed such a product to the world at large. 
Well, William, if that were all, who could disagree? But that is like
picking up a brick and complaining that it is not a house; or, to
chose an example from your own field of expertise, looking at a modem
all by itself, with neither "end" connected to anything, and
complaining that it is not a complete operating communications system.
The paragraph that you quote is just one "building brick" in a
structure of scientific evaluations (chemical, biological, nutrition,
toxicological, allergenic, environmental) and not just carried out by
FDA (and, in USA, also by USDA and EPA), but independently in many
countries by similar regulatory authorities and expert groups,
including in the European Union, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Canada,
Japan, Mexico and Argentina.

Next, in relation specifically to soya, Peter Barnes is absolutely
right about natural composition variation --  the varietal variation
in composition even  occurs in beans from the same farm because most
growers grow a mix of  cultivars. Indeed, chemical analysis of
different beans from the same plant can throw up differences.

Next, we need here is not the flaunting of references, but  to have a
basic understanding of the chemistry of what happens to soya in
genetic modification, in subsequent processing and in use in food.

GM soya has had two genes inserted which code for production of two
specific natural protein enzymes that confer tolerance to a wide
spectrum herbicide (one spraying takes the place of multiple sprayings
of several narrower spectrum herbicides -- so no more, and probably
less, total herbicide is used). In the case of gm-soya, there is no
antibiotic marker gene to complicated the issue or cause concern about
risk of developing superbugs.

Unprocessed soya still contains the two proteins.  Soya is processed
to produce derivatives. These are soya oil, soya lecithin, and a solid
residue which is soya flour, in which _all _ of the protein content
resides.. The vast majority of the 60 percent of UK food products said
to contain soya, in fact contain only soya oil or soya lecithin (used
as a natural emulsifier) or both. Neither soya oil nor soya lecithin
contains any protein at all, and so contains neither of the two
protein enzymes introduced by gm.

Soya flour may be further processed to produce soya protein
concentrate or soya protein isolate. However, heat treatment has to be
involved in processing any of these for use as food ingredients,
because the heat is essential to destroy the natural trypsin inhibitor
present. The same heat also destroys the two protein enzymes that
resulted from gm, leaving those ingredients the same as they would
have been without the gm treatment.

So as regards soya ingredients in foods, the answer is no difference
between gm and non-gm.

As regards fresh (i.e. unprocessed) soya beans there are claims of a
method to distinguish supplies of gm from non-gm, although this can be
of no avail in producers have blended them. The same would apply to a
proposed project at Leatherhead Food Research Association, to
investigate the use of a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the same
purpose.

With regard to gm in general, there _are_ important concerns that need
to be addressed by responsible scientists, problems that need to be
foreseen and overcome. But the potential benefits of gm are so great
and so needed by a world in which 800 million people do not get enough
to eat daily to keep body and soul together, that the responsible
course is not to shy away from gm but to make it another valuable tool
at mankind's disposal.

Those who want to learn more about genetic modification and the
approach to it adopted by responsible professional food scientists can
find the Institute of Food Sceience & Technology's Position Statement
on "Genetic Modification and Food" on the IFST Web site at
<http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/>. 

Regards

Ralph

******************************************************************
J Ralph Blanchfield
Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
Chair, IFST Member Relations & Services Committee
Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology
IFST Web address: http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/ 
******************************************************************

---

From: William R Hite <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:36:35 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> on  Thu, 12 Dec 1996 

> genetic modification, in subsequent processing and in use in food.

There are many references which show that there is very little 
understanding of what really happens and what might happen over time 
when genetic, so called "engineering", takes place. Even the genetic 
engineering of single celled bacteria has had highly undesirable and 
unpredictable effects in the past. Yet alone complex multi-cellular 
plants.

> spectrum herbicide 

Not quite correct for RR Soy. We see from the same regulatory documents 
quoted earlier that one gene purportedly provides the resistance, 
another the transport mechanism:

  •Glyphosate, the active ingredient of Roundup®, acts as a
  competitive inhibitor of 5-enol-pyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate
  synthase (EPSP synthase), an essential enzyme of the shikimate
  biochemical pathway, involved in the production of the aromatic
  amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. This
  inhibition results in growth suppression and plant death. 

  •The inserted glyphosate tolerance gene codes for a bacterial
  version of this essential enzyme, ubiquitous in plants, fungi and
  microorganisms. This enzyme is highly insensitive to inhibition
  by glyphosate and therefore fulfills the aromatic amino acid
  metabolic needs of the plant. 

  •A plant-derived DNA sequence coding for a chloroplast transit
  peptide was co-introduced with the glyphosate tolerance gene.
  This peptide facilitates the import of the newly translated EPSP
  synthase into chloroplasts, where both the shikimate pathway and
  glyphosate site of action are located. The transit peptide is
  degraded rapidly and completely by proteases after the import has
  occurred. 

> (one spraying takes the place of multiple sprayings
> less, total herbicide is used).

Such statements have to be *quantitative* rather than qualitative to be 
of any value in forming a judgement on the balance of risk.

This is an aside to the main point - but as you raise the safe spraying 
of the GM crop you might be concerned, as am I, that none of the animal 
nutrition or animal safety tests on RR Soy were performed on beans from 
plants that had undergone such spraying.

> protein enzymes introduced by gm.

This all sounds reasonable UNTIL you ask the question - can an inserted 
gene(s) be validly treated as a "black box" that just produces one 
enzyme? If not, then other, non-target aspects of the organism could be 
affected by the one genetic "hack". The reality for RR Soy is, as 
quoted in my earlier message,

    "The crude protein and
    crude fat content of raw seeds was not significantly different
    from that of the control line in two of three studies."

Which on the face of it gives a 33% probability that for any RR Soy 
bean in hand the crude fat content *is* significantly different to a 
regular bean. Of course one would need to see the studies to understand 
the full details of this difference.

As to the question "is a gene a black box", the answer, from genetics, 
is a resounding NO.

To quote from Dr Mae-Wan Ho's excellent paper:

  In a publication which aims to "provide consumers with clear and
  comprehensible information about products of the new
  [bio]technology" [1], we are told that, "Research scientists         
  can now precisely identify the individual gene that governs a
  desired trait, extract it, copy it and insert the copy into
  another organism. That organism (and its offspring) will then
  have the desired trait.."(p.5). 

  This gives the impression that one gene controls one character
  trait, and transferring the gene results in the transfer of the
  corresponding trait to the genetically modified organism, which
  can then pass it on indefinitely to future generations. It
  presents the process of genetic modification as a precise and
  simple operation.

  The above account - so typical of that found in publications
  promoting "public understanding" - is based on simplistic
  assumptions of genetics that both classical geneticists and plant
  breeders have rejected for many years, and have been thoroughly
  invalidated by all the research findings since genetic
  engineering - currently referred to as "genetic modification" -
  began 20 years ago. Unfortunately, most molecular geneticists,
  apart from being absorbed into industry, also lack training in
  classical genetics, and suffer from a severe molecular myopia
  that prevents them from appreciating the implications and broader
  perspective of the findings in their own discipline.
  Consequently, the current practice of biotechnology is
  (mis)guided and promoted to the public on the basis of an old,
  discredited paradigm, and therein lies the real danger. 
    
  ref 1. Food for Our Future, Food and Biotechnology, Food 
         and Drink Federation, London, 1995.

Dr Ho's paper can be seen at

> method to distinguish supplies of gm from non-gm,

Hardly a claim but a thriving business. Is it not routine(ish) science 
to distinguish the DNA from a RR Soy bean from a regular one? Little 
more complicated I would guess than DNA fingerprinting?

> although this can be
> of no avail in producers have blended them.

It is of great use to those in the food chain who wish to certify to 
their clients that they are not supplying them with GM beans.

> With regard to gm in general, there are important concerns that need
> to be addressed by responsible scientists,

..and responsible citizens and politicians. And what will we do about 
the irresponsible scientists, and the corrupt politicians? :-)

> But the potential benefits of gm are so great
> and so needed by a world in which 800 million people do not getenough
> to eat daily to keep body and soul together

I am not sure that such a statement is within the field of expertise of 
a food scientist and is certainly not within mine. It is a very 
contentious issue, currently being hotly debated in 
alt.sustainable.agriculture and probably many other places. It was also 
the subject of a dissenting NGO view in the recent World Food Summit in 
Rome: in summary, the consensus is that "technology" is not the fix for 
hunger, "political will" is.

To quote from one report:

  The most glaring disagreements between governments and NGOs was on
  the specifics of what to do about hunger and shortages. Most 
  governments still think of hunger as a production shortfall
  problem, and therefore their final recommendations are mostly 
  old-fashioned ideas about how to boost production. The U.S. 
  government, for example, argued that the solution to the problem of 
  hunger is more intensive production (using more biotechnology, 
  pesticides, artificial fertilizers, irrigation, etc.), greater 
  freedom for the transnational food corporations, and faster 
  de-regulation (liberalization) of food trade.

  In contrast, the NGOs stated in many different venues and situations 
  that these three exact same elements  -- chemical and 
  energy-intensive industrialized farming, lack of regulation of 
  transnationals, and de-regulated or liberalized trade are the causes 
  of many of the current problems and called for reform of domestic and 
  international policies to reduce the industrialization of farming, to 
  regulate inappropriate behavior of transnationals, and to base food 
  trade on the principles of food security, not neo-liberal trade 
  theory.

> approach to it adopted by responsible professional food scientistscan

With respect, I have to point out that my perception of your use of the 
word "responsible", in both occurrences, is to me slightly insulting. 
It may be a fault in me to see it like that but there it is.

I also find the concept of responsibility difficult to understand in a 
regime which allows potentially life damaging products into the food 
chain without any form of testing on humans, labelling or monitoring. 
You will find that many responsible scientists are strongly concerned 
about that.

Perhaps we should just leave the word responsible out, and the 
politics, and concentrate on the science - references and all.

---

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:00:08 GMT

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:36:35 GMT, William R Hite
<[email-masked]> wrote:

><............>

><...........>

Irrelevant. Both are inserted to contribute to the purpose of
providing tolerance. I was not intending to write a textbook here or
to impress others with my ability to quote.
>of any value in forming a judgement on the balance of risk.

Why not pay attention to what was written? It was not a statement of
"risk" but of likely amount (mentioned in connection with a recent
post -- not yours, William -- repeating an oft-repeated erroneous
statement that the effect would be to increase the amount of herbicide
used).
>plants that had undergone such spraying.

That is an extremely sweeping claim. Can you produce evidence that it
is true of every evaluation, in every country? However, even if you
could, it is irrelevant. Safety testing of agricultural chemicals is
of course carried out by feeding trials of the chemicals themselves.
>the full details of this difference.

You are still persisting in  the elementary mistake of confusing
determination of two major nutrients, with full chemical analyses of
all the constituents.

The latter have demonstrated no significant differences. (Why
"significant"? As has previously been explained, but what most people
who are not food scientists fail to appreciate, is that no natural
food material has a "standard" composition. For any given fruit,
vegetable, legume, etc, nature provides compositional variety,
dependent on factors such as cultivar, growing location, season,
weather, stage of harvesting. Even two beans from the same plant will
show compositional differences on analysis. The simile "like two peas
in a pod" is compositionally mistaken!)
>more complicated I would guess than DNA fingerprinting?

The "claims" may well be valid. I used the word "claims" because I
have so far seen references to it only from commercial/political
"interested parties" and no independent peer-reviewed evaluation.
>their clients that they are not supplying them with GM beans.

Yes, of course; but for this season's crop that possibility appears to
have been pre-empted by producers not having segregated the gm
soybeans.
>hunger, "political will" is.

I wrote as a food scientist and member of IFST, private citizen,
taxpayer, parent and grandparent. My view is at least as valid as
anyone else's, and I and my professional colleagues bring to it the
bit of extra knowledge of the potentialities that science and
technology can bring to help solve the problem. I have been on record
on this subject for a long time.For example in my Honorary Fellow's
Address in 1985 ([IFST Proceedings, Vol 18 (3) September 1985,
113-119] I stated ---

"The problem of an adequate food supply for the great majority of our
fellow human beings who go short, problems linked with natural and
man-made disasters, are not merely technical problems but political,
economic, ecological, cultural and social problems. They will not be
solved by food science and technology alone, but they will not be
solved without food science and technology".

The same approach informed the "Budapest Declaration" of the
International Union of Food Science & Technology (to the drafting of
which I had the privilege of contributing, and which was adopted at
the General Assembly in Budapest in August 1995). This is also
accessible on the IFST Web site home page.

><...........>
>> find the Institute of Food Science & Technology's Position Statement

Perhaps it may be because you did not approach the IFST Position
Statement (if you visited it at all) with an open mind. IFST (and I)
are not advocates of genetic modification regardless. We see it as a
potential valuable tool for mankind (not only for food but for
medicine) but serious concerns have to be noted and foreseen, properly
addressed and solved. That is what I mean by "responsible".  Outright
advocacy regardless, or outright "Luddite" opposition regardless, are
equally irresponsible.

I really did not expect you to agree with what I wrote, William,
because I took the trouble to visit your home page and follow the
links, where I learned that you are not just William Hite, Computer
Consultant, or private individual, but a leading activist (past
Parliamentary candidate) for a political party, one renowned for
dedication to Luddite opposition to gm regardless. If "regardless" is
not a fair assessment, perhaps you would indicate any circumstances in
which your political party has approved of gm.

This brings up another point. When posting on this food science
newsgroup, you really ought at least to sail under your true colours,
and include in your signature a reference to your advocacy for your
political party.  Actually, up to now this newsgroup has been largely
free from commercial or political advocacy, and  I think that most
subscribers would prefer to keep it that way.

Regards

Ralph

---

From: C P Moodie <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Dec 1996 22:35:06 GMT