1.GM bugs could spread in fruit and veg under EU proposals
2.Comment on the responses to 'Releasing millions of GM mosquitoes – into the unknown'

NOTE: It's very noticeable that every time any criticism of Oxitec's GM experiments is published, comments immediately start appearing underneath attacking the article and its author. Below is a new article by Dr Helen Wallace of GeneWatch UK (item 1)  and a response from Eric Hoffman of Friends of the Earth U.S. (item 2) to comments made by Oxitec and its supporters to another recent article by Dr Wallace – that one on GM mosquitoes. 

Although Dr Wallace's articles are invariably well informed, carefully argued and measured in tone, many of the comments are aggressive:

"This article is pure scaremongering in the service of GeneWatch's blanket anti-GM dogma."

"I am disgusted by the extreme positions taken by GeneWatch and others when presented with such valuable technologies."

"The actions of GeneWatch in dogmatically opposing these technologies in developing countries is unforgivable." 

Those making these comments also claim that they reflect the fact that "the public overwhelmingly disagrees with you", even though some of the commentators disclose that they have direct connections to Oxitec or work for other biotech companies.

You may care to make clear that the public do not support the release of millions of GM insects into the environment.
–-
–-
1.GM bugs could spread in fruit and veg under EU proposals
Helen Wallace
Public Service Europe, 24 August 2012
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2362/gm-bugs-will-spread-in-fruit-and-veg-under-eu-proposals

Selling fish, meat and milk from GM animals will be controversial but the new draft rules will also allow billions of GM insect eggs and caterpillars to be spread in fruit and vegetables – claims campaign group

The European Food Safety Agency 's new draft rules for approving genetically modified insects, fish, farm animals and pets should give farmers, food producers, retailers and consumers pause for thought. Selling fish, meat and milk from GM animals will be controversial but the new draft rules will also allow billions of GM insect eggs and caterpillars to be spread in vegetables and fruit.

British company Oxitec's GM moths and flies are likely to be approved by the European Union under the new rules. The GM insects have been genetically engineered so their caterpillars die inside olives or tomatoes or on the leaves of cabbages. The company plans to release GM pests across the EU to mate with wild pests, in an attempt to reduce their numbers. Millions of GM pests must be released each week to have any effect on wild populations.

For example, GM olive flies will die as pupae. This will normally be before the adult flies emerge from the olives in which the flies lay their eggs. Oxitec proposes that this should be treated as an "adventitious presence" under EU law – meaning that the presence in food of any dead, dying or surviving insects would be treated as accidental and would not require regulation, traceability or labelling of the olives. Most of the offspring of the GM insects die at the late larval caterpillar – or pupal stage, but some will survive to adulthood and could also pose environmental risks. The firm is currently working on GM tomato borers, GM diamond back moths – which eat cabbages and broccoli – and GM fruit flies as well as GM olive flies.

The EFSA's draft guidance specifically excludes testing whether GM insects and caterpillars are safe to eat. It claims that the health risks of GM insects in food were addressed by a previous consultation, which in fact explicitly excluded them. The EFSA also fails to explain how GM fish or insect eggs could be prevented from ending up in the wrong places and causing harm to the environment. Nature will adapt to GM insect releases in complex ways that have been ignored in the draft guidance.

For example, using GM pests to reduce another type of pest can lead to a surge in other types of pest. The impacts of GM insects on human and animal diseases are poorly understood and have not been properly considered. For example, GM flies could spread diseases from faeces onto fruit. There are also plans to release more than one type of GM insect into the same area and to combine releasing GM insects with growing GM crops. The genomes of thousands of different insects are now being sequenced. Many different species could be genetically modified and released in billions into the European countryside under the proposed guidance.

At GeneWatch UK, we have written to the European Commission objecting to the roles of Oxitec and multinational pesticide company Syngenta in drafting the new rules and questioning EFSA's competence to draft guidance on issues that are not within its remit. Syngenta has funded Oxitec to develop GM agricultural pests and most of Oxitec's management and board are ex-Syngenta staff. In our response to the consultation, we have highlighted how the draft guidance can be distorted to favour approval of GM insects for commercial use.

Consumers, farmers, retailers and food producers might take a different view from the companies that want to commercialise this new technology. Will anyone want to eat dead or dying GM caterpillars in their olives or tomatoes? And will it be acceptable if GM pests that are still alive end up in people's gardens or other farmers' fields? There are many questions yet to be answered.
...
You can comment here:
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2362/gm-bugs-will-spread-in-fruit-and-veg-under-eu-proposals
–-
–-
2.Comment from Eric Hoffman of Friends of the Earth U.S. on the article 'Releasing millions of GM mosquitoes – into the unknown' and the responses to it.

You can see the original article by Helen Wallace – and make your own comments – here:
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2358/releasing-millions-of-gm-mosquitoes-into-the-unknown

GeneWatch has raised legitimate questions around the risks and efficacy of genetically engineered mosquitoes. Unfortunately, Oxitec and its board members have chosen to ignore these legitimate issues and instead to try and portray these concerns as 'fringe'. Prominent GE insect researchers from the Max Plank institute in Germany have raised similar concerns about regulatory processes and risk assessments (or the lack of) in a peer-reviewed article.

Oxitec has claimed its GE mosquitoes can lower wild population levels by 80 per cent. This may be the case, but these results have yet to be peer-reviewed or published. What Oxitec has yet to prove is if this 80 per cent decrease in population will have any impact on limiting the spread of dengue fever. Mosquito experts have raised similar concerns as to whether Oxitec's technology will work in having any real impact on the spread of dengue fever.

Raising questions like this is far from fear-mongering; rather, it is an important part of creating a public debate and discourse around the possible benefits and risks of new technologies that may impact our lives and our environment (positive or negative impacts).

The burden of proof lies with Oxitec to prove its mosquitoes are both safe and effective. And NGOs have a responsibility to be honest and back up its claims with facts just as much as anyone else (GeneWatch provided 281 citations in its recent publication on Oxitec, for example, many of which are peer-reviewed scientific articles).

But to claim that an NGO must have its op-eds on websites peer reviewed is nothing short of silly and is a distraction from the real issues. Oxitec must prove, through sound science (which under our current system means publication in peer-reviewed journals), that its technology is both safe and effective. So far it has not met that standard and NGOs and the public are right to raise questions.

Let's have a real debate on the possible risks and benefits of GE mosquitoes instead of hiding behind claims of 'scare-mongering'.

As Mr. Perry stated, genetic engineering is neither 'good' nor 'bad' and assessments should be made on a case-by-case basis. No one has claimed that GE mosquitoes are 'bad' simply because they are genetically engineered. In fact, Dr Wallace's article raises issues that are very issue-specific to not only GE mosquitoes generally, but to Oxitec's specific GE mosquito application. So let's assess this case openly and honestly and have a real debate on risks and benefits, and whether GE mosquitoes will even work to fight disease. If they cannot be proven to be effective in limiting dengue fever, let's move on to other alternatives such as the dengue vaccine that will hopefully be available by 2014.