Genetically Modified Animal Feed

By The Millennium Environment Debate

Background

According to MAFF (10 May 1999), very little study or research has been carried out in this country into the safety of genetically modified (GM) material in animal feeds. This is despite the fact that GM material has been present in a large, but indeterminable, proportion of the total animal feedstuffs used in the UK for the past three years. While there is a Novel Foods Authority, there is no Novel Feeds equivalent.

A "snapshot" study into Ciba-Geigy Maize was carried out by the laboratory of the Government Chemist in 1966 and the only other research for HM Government to date relates to measures needed to fragment DNA in animal feed. This was by Prof. J M Forbes and Dr G E Blair, Dr A Chiter and Ms S Perks of the University of Leeds, 1997 (see CS0116). Fragmentation of DNA in GM feed is carried out to avoid the transfer to micro-organisms in the mammalian gastrointestinal tract. However, although there are procedures to destroy DNA in GM animal feedstuffs the fact remains that for the past three years, a significant quantity of GM material has entered—and continues to enter—the food chain, via farm animals, and a quantity—perhaps as much as 5% is untreated and contains viable DNA. This untreated material includes feed thrown down for free-range chickens and pigs to forage.

While GM material impacts upon (with the possible exception of the limited amount of certified organic produce) all meat and dairy produce in this country, the British consumer remains almost totally unaware of what is happening and what has been happening for the past three years.

As to the potential dangers of feeding GM material to animals reared for human foods, nothing seems to be known for certain, especially as so little research has been carried out. Although Dr Arpad Pusztai’s, controversial work at the Rowett Research Institute has been criticised, his point of view, as expressed to a parliamentary committee is not disputed by his critics:

"The testing of modified products with implanted genes needs to be thoroughly carried out in the gut of animals and humans if unknown disasters are to be avoided".
(Select Committee on Science and Technology Minutes of Evidence, Memorandum submitted by Dr Arpad Pusztai, 1 March 1999.)

A MAFF-commissioned report from the University of Leeds (CS0116) was carried out to address a specific concern and examine the necessary treatments to GM material if risks are to be removed:

"Genetically modified (GM) crops are being developed for a variety of reasons, including resistance to herbicides and insects. In some cases the gene in question is linked to another antibiotic resistance gene. Such resistance, if transferred to micro-organisms, would exacerbate the problem of resistance to strains of bacteria, already causing significant problems such as the resurgence of tuberculosis. It is unlikely to be proved impossible for transfer of such genes from plant to microbe to be completely excluded."

MAFF Report, Food Contaminants D, 11 March 1999, states in its conclusion:

"...a substantial proportion of 2 million tonnes of soya meal, 1.1 million tonnes of maize gluten feed and 500,000 tones of distillers grains used in animal feed could contain material derived from unsegregated GM varieties, Thus, there will be a perception that GM material is coming into the country in large quantities to go into animal feed. Of this 3.6 million tonnes, some 2.2 million would be used by UK feed compounders. This comprises nearly 20% of their raw material, and soya and maize products are major, scarcely replaceable sources of energy"

This report states that GM-free status soya imports, in practice, is possible for only crops intended for niche markets. Meanwhile Food Minister, Jeff Rooker MP, in evidence to a parliamentary select committee in April said:

"Of course, we are importing a lot of animal feed into this country. We have to because we cannot grow the chemical make-up of the necessary animal feed because of our intensive farming system, so we do import and you have to assume that anything imported from America or the Americas will probably be mixed up with GMOs..."
(Select Committee on Science and Technology, Minutes of Evidence, 26 April 1999)

Inasmuch as there is public concern about the human consumption of GM food and its associated health risks, the latest of which is emphasised in the recent BMA report, there will also be serious concern when people realise that the animals we eat are reared on GM material that is even less tried, tested and labeled than that permitted for direct human consumption.

A principal concern about the consumption of GM food is whether or not the altered DNA can survive beyond the human digestive system, whether there will be a possible impact on the mammalian gastrointestinal tract, and/or whether the material can impact adversely upon organs or other parts of the body, its immune system, reproductive system or that of its progeny. Will there be unpredictable second, third and subsequent generation impacts, such as those revealed in cloning, for example?

Considerable scientific debate exists about the possibility of "horizontal" gene transfer. See for example, Beatrix Tappeser, Genetic engineering and the production of food stuffs: Biosafety Aspect (presented at Discovery 98, international conference 28 -30.9.1998, Kulmbach, Germany)

"In contrast to earlier views of long standing, DNA is not fragmented in the intestine but rather remains stable surprisingly long. DNA ingested with food can be excreted after only partial digestion. Moreover, it can also pass into the blood to be taken up by leukocytes and cells of the liver and spleen (SCHUBBERT et al., 1994, 1997a)"

These are issues which apply equally to any GM material-fed livestock from which human food is subsequently obtained. Put simply, if GMOs could make humans sick they presumably could make animals sick, or, if GMOs can impact upon humans through diet, they could equally impact upon animals through diet. Clearly, people will not wish to consume animals which are possibly affected.

In evidence to a parliamentary committee, Dr Doug Parr of Greenpeace refrained from making specific accusations or siting examples such as the work of Dr Pusztai to prove the danger of GMOs. Dr Parr rested his case on the unpredictability and instability of the release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment or the food chain.

"The concerns that we have about the use of genetically engineered food have the same root in our concerns about the unpredictability of the technology in the sense that we believe genetic engineering is as was described by the DETR. Most objective scientists would agree it is currently rather crude and unpredictable. As a consequence there are unpredictabilities flowing from its use in food and from its use in the environment. The systems into which genetically engineered food and crops are entering the systems are complex and they are people, they are ecosystems, we do not fully understand how they function. Therefore, to have something that is unpredictable into those systems we feel is an unnecessary risk."
Dr Doug Parr, Campaign Centre Director of Greenpeace UK (Oral evidence to Select Committee on Science and Technology, Minutes of Evidence, 10 March 1999).

The unpredictability of GMOs, however, is very much more than the "fear of the unknown" for there are many examples of unpredicted outcomes in the technology. See for example Dr John B Fagan The Tryptophan Incident (copy attached), in which he shows how genetically engineered bacteria was the "highly likely" cause of the death of 37 people in America with a further 1500 permanently disabled.

The traditions of the food industry inspectorate use the doctrine of "substantial equivalence" to certify or reject novel foods. In the case of GMOs however, it is not a sufficiently robust method since the unpredictability and instability of matter which has been genetically engineered cannot be compared with the known stability of conventional food. This is one of the principal arguments of the anti-GM lobby.

Throughout the history of animals in agriculture there has been a tradition of feeding material to livestock which is considered "unfit for human consumption"—material which would otherwise be destroyed. Because of this there is uneven regulation of what can and cannot be fed to livestock exists. In other words, the regulatory systems now severely lags behind the fast moving bio-technology. The lack of regulation failed agriculture when scrapy- infected sheep were ground in with meal and fed to cows with the consequence of BSE, and it must be a priority now to ensure that there is no similar disaster over GMO-fed animals.

Monsanto and the Biotech Industry

Genetically modified animal feeds represent the single largest market for the Biotech Industry, since up to 50% of the world 70 million acre GM crop is sold for this purpose. Not surprisingly, therefore, it is an area of extreme sensitivity to GE companies.

After discussions with MAFF officials it is apparent that it is also an extremely sensitive subject for the Government, since so much has now happened in terms of widespread deployment of GM animal feeds in this country without regulation or permission, prior governmental study, agricultural industry knowledge and consent, let alone public acceptance of such practice. Indeed, in 1995/6 The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) attempted to ban GM maize for animal feed in its unprocessed form, but Britain was outvoted in the European Union. There is no labeling and no system of enforcement of standards of treatment of material before it is fed to animals.

The (preliminary) University of Leeds study, above (the only known study) only begins to tackle the GM animal feeds issue, looking at the necessary treatment to fragment the modified DNA within the material. Onerous treatment of heating to 95°C for at least 5 minutes was required in the small scale tests to completely fragment DNA. There is no present control mechanism or requirement to carry out such processes, nor are there any published plans for this.

It is against this background that Monsanto has withdrawn from a public debate on the issue. After agreeing to participate in a high profile debate at the Oxford Union on the GMO issue (held on 14 June 1999), Monsanto withdrew when it was decided that the specific topic was to be the "safety of GM animal feed", with a motion supported by Dr Arpad Pusztai, Monsanto press official, Dr Harry Swann, told Ray Foulk of the sponsoring organisation, The Millennium Environment Debate: "If we were to lose a debate on GM animal feed at the Oxford Union, and this were to be reported back in the US and be seen by our customers there it could be very damaging". He then negotiated a revised debating motion on the subject of "GM material entering the food chain" within which animal feed could be debated, but those words must not appear in the motion. Later, Dr Swann was overruled by his superior, Steve Windridge, who insisted that Monsanto withdrew from the debate altogether.

HM Government position

Food Safety Minister, Jeff Rooker has declined to join the debate and MAFF would not put up a speaker. Aide to the minister, Adam Butcher, told the Millennium Debate that it was "too tricky" for the government to take part.

Full consideration had been given to the invitation. A MAFF official informed the Millennium Debate that the invitation received "neutral" advice from officials in the ministry, and that it was being sent on to the Cabinet Office for advice. In spite of Jack Cunningham’s call for more public debate on the GMO issue (House of Commons, Friday 21 May) the invitation to MAFF to participate was declined four days later. From the many conversations with MAFF, it was quite clearly Jack Cunningham’s own department that blocked participation by MAFF in the debate.

Jeff Rooker’s record on the animal feed issue includes his evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology on 26 April 1999, when he gave the clear indication that research into GM animal feed had been undertaken. He was asked if the Government felt that it has a role in counteracting media stories of "doubtful foundation" like the one in that day’s Daily Mail about meningitis being caused by GM animal feed. Mr Rooker gave a robust response, and went on to state that:
"....There is not a shred of evidence that the feed to animals crosses over into meat, milk or eggs, depending on the animal and we know that because we looked for it, because we have research projects in order to go down that particular road." (Select Committee on Science and Technology, Minutes of Evidence, 26 April 1999, Hansard Q770-771).

The identification of this research was not questioned by the committee. In fact, as confirmed by MAFF official, no such research has been ever been completed.