1. Pig 26: Another GE? Another deceit? Another folly (like Dolly)?
2. Pig 26 spin fails to convince UK public that GM is OK
3. Copycat journalists act as GM industry voice
4. Why genetically engineered hornless cows? It's patently clear
NOTE: The articles below from GMEducation.org cover the big push in the UK for GM and cloned animals, which is timed to coincide with the looming approval in the US of GM salmon.
Because people feel an automatic revulsion against these developments, they are being promoted on the claimed grounds of animal welfare and "health and safety"!
Item 3 shows how the GM animal industry's public relations campaign is operated at no cost to the industry, by supposedly independent journalists.
Item 4 shows that it's the UK taxpayer who's funding the drive for GM animals, though the profits will go to private companies.
---
---
1. Pig 26: Another GE? Another deceit? Another folly (like Dolly)?
The Dolly the sheep laboratory has produced a pig they are calling "genetically edited" but it’s still engineered and set to mislead
GMEducation.org, 16 Apr 2013
http://www.gmeducation.org/latest-news/p211421-pig-26:-another-geanother-deceitanother-folly-(like-dolly).html
Pig 26 has been engineered by researchers at the Roslin Institute who claim it will be resistant “to infections such as African swine fever virus”. But they think it’s important for other reasons.
In fact, there has never been an outbreak of African swine fever in the UK and the incidence is very low in the rest of Europe, although there have been outbreaks in Russia and in Africa.
What “excites” the researchers, corporate interests and regulators is that the technique used can be presented as “clean”.
"We can do it without any marker or trace. Unless you do an audit trail there is no way that you would know how that mutation happened.”
Side stepping regulations and fixing the public
According to Roslin researcher Prof. Bruce Whitelaw, “this is what is making commercial companies so excited and it's also going through the minds of the regulators at the minute to find a way of classifying it".
A number of genetically engineering techniques are emerging which researchers, and the industry, are hoping will side step current regulations and safety assessments – inadequate as they are – through being classified by regulators as falling outside of the existing legal definition.
Persuading the public that these techniques are “clean genetic engineering” and are safer and “more precise”, or are not really genetic engineering at all would, they believe, overcome consumer objections and open up huge commercial opportunities especially if they can avoid any labelling requirements
Roslin owns up: GM is not precise or efficient
In promoting their “genetic editing” approach the Roslin researchers have already exposed one the biggest and long standing myths about the technology; namely that it is “precise” and “efficient”.
Professor Whitelaw has highlighted that, “the new technique produces GM animals with between 10 and 15 per cent efficiency compared with an efficiency of less than 1 per cent for the standard method of genetic engineering.”
It is good of him to highlight this GM industry deceit but is he engaged in any?
We have to wait and see if Pig 26 turns out to be another folly like Dolly - short-lived, over-hyped and ultimately stuffed.
After all Dolly was the first live birth out of 277 attempts at cloning, developed arthritis at the age of four, and died at half her natural age. She ended being stuffed and placed in a museum where she is a reminder that genetic engineering is no substitute for good husbandry and a balanced, agro-ecological approach to farming and food production.
Unfortunately the conceit that surrounded Dolly, that genetic engineering is the answer to dealing with disease and feeding the world still seems to thrive at the Roslin Institute.
Sources:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pig-26-can-this-little-piggy-win-over-the-enemies-of-gm-8574119.html
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article3740233.ece
http://www.infogm.org/IMG/pdf/emergence_new_techniques_biotechnology.pdf
---
---
2. Pig 26 spin fails to convince UK public that GM is OK
60% of people reject PR spin about a "new" genetically engineered pig
GMEducation.org, 26 Apr 2013
http://www.gmeducation.org/latest-news/p211485-pig-26-spin-fails-to-convince-uk-public-that-gm-is-ok.html
Claims by scientists at the Roslin Institute that they had developed a new and “cleaner” method of creating genetically modified animals were spun across the media earlier this month.
The BBC’s coverage was particularly sycophantic but they weren’t alone. On the 15th April, “The Independent” gleefully reported that this addressed some of the principal objections of the anti-GM movement.
They rushed to organise a poll to demonstrate how the UK public was at last going to come to its senses and accept GM food.
Of course the spin was nonsense; the fact is that the team at Roslin has genetically engineered, i.e. artificially disrupted the pig’s genome with foreign DNA; that it is still essentially an old technology with the same old concerns and problems; except in this case it adds animal welfare and ethical problems to the environmental ones.
Thankfully citizens are not so easily fooled and have seen through the PR and have realised that “Pig 26” is just a pig’s ear masquerading as a silk purse.
The Independent poll asked “Does the new research make you happier to eat GM food?”
Over 1300 people responded and despite the push from the BBC led pro-GM media, 60% said "NO".
Sources:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iv-drip/poll-has-pig-26-changed-your-opinion-on-gm-food-8575264.html
---
---
3. Copycat journalists act as GM industry voice
Virtually identical articles promote genetic engineering and debase journalistic integrity
GMEducation.org, 1 May 2013
http://www.gmeducation.org/latest-news/p211513-copycat-journalists-act-as-gm-industry-voice.html
This weekend The Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph and Mail on Sunday took UK media coverage of GM issues to a new low.
It has been clear for some time that large sections of the media – including the BBC – have become enthralled by the GM industry and research establishment.
They have seemed increasingly willing to swallow the PR pap put out by pro-GM interests, orchestrated by the Science Media Centre, and have developed an incapacity bordering on negligence to ask any questions that might pass for journalism.
But this weekend Jonathan Leake (Sunday Times), Melanie Hall (Sunday Telegraph) and James Rush (Mail on Sunday) barely bothered to produce original copy.
It’s not possible to tell whether they were all in the same room copying from a press release or just from each other, or whether they have been genetically engineered to use the same half a brain cell simultaneously. But the same sentences, paragraphs, and nonsense appear in all three articles in strikingly similar order.
Cloning of animals is a welfare and ethical issue – and so is cloning of journalists
The article/s were covering the latest attempt from out of touch GM researchers trying to find a reason to justify GM technology – this time by making the fatuous claim that genetic engineering and cloning is needed to breed cattle without horns on “health and safety grounds”
It’s not clear whether their failure to raise a single question or challenge over claims that cry out to be ripped apart or about the massive welfare and ethical issues surrounding cloning is due to sloppy journalism or to becoming overwhelmed by their support for GM technology.
Either way it is not good enough. Acting as a mouthpiece for the GM industry and research establishment is not the job of a "Science Editor" or of a journalist on what claim to be independent and quality newspapers.
Their editors should be ashamed that they are allowing such appalling and unquestioning articles in their newspapers and readers should be aware of just how far the GM industry is influencing the UK media.
Sources:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Science/article1251997.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/10023561/Scientists-design-health-and-safety-cow-with-no-horns.html
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2315960/Scientists-genetically-modify-cows-remove-horns-health-safety-bid-cut-risk-injury-farmers-animals.html
---
---
4. Why genetically engineered hornless cows? It's patently clear
GMEducation.org, 30 Apr 2103
http://www.gmeducation.org/home-page-top-story/p212496-why-genetically-engineered-hornless-cowsit-s-patently-clear.html
Again GM researchers are pushing an application of GMOs that seems to have little value. Why? It certainly isn't "health and safety". Are they struggling to justify their existence or is it a US patent? Is UK taxpayer money funding private patents and why isn't the media asking the question?
Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute likes getting its name in the papers. A week ago it was a funny thing called “Pig 26”. At the weekend it was the news that they are planning to genetically "edit" dairy cows so they don’t grow horns.
They mean genetically engineer but “edit” is a much nicer name.
The Roslin researchers spun journalists the line that this is will create a “health and safety” cow and will protect the lives of "farmers, ramblers, and other animals", and prevent the 90 odd injuries to people caused by cattle annually.
None of the journalists stirred themselves out of their gullible stupors or laziness to check and find out that these injuries are invariably caused by people being trampled or crushed and almost never due to horns.
Nor did they check and find that the disbudding of calves (which prevents horns developing) is part and parcel of the dairy industry, is done under anaesthetic, and is not regarded as a welfare problem by either the veterinary profession or welfare campaigners.
However cloning is a welfare and ethical problem and cloning is a key part of this development.
Cloning: a repeating horror
Once the Roslin researchers have completed their engineering - they plan to import a gene from polled (naturally hornless) Aberdeen Angus cattle and suppress the horned Holstein cow’s gene for horns – the modified DNA will be used to create 40 cloned embryos that will be inserted into surrogate cows in the Midwest of America, in the hope that a new generation of hornless Holsteins will be created.
The success rate of the cloning is poor and the welfare and ethical problems are huge.
Only one quarter of clone pregnancies go to full term in cattle [1] and of the live births half of the clone calves are likely to die in the first few months.
Those that do survive often suffer with Large Offspring Syndrome, and other abnormalities are common: heart, lung, liver, kidney, and immune system failure as well as musculo-skeletal abnormalities. [2,3,4]
Placental abnormalities and consequently caesarean sections are common. [1]
Cloning is a “threat to genetic diversity of livestock which could result in the uncontrolled loss of unique and uncharacterised genetic resources”. [6]
The most famous clone of all, Dolly the Sheep - another Roslin "edit" - was the result of 277 cell fusions, of which only 29 embryos developed and were consequently implanted into 13 ewes, and Dolly was the only survivor.
Dolly developed arthritis at the age of 4, and a chronic lung condition at the age of six which resulted in her euthanasia, at half her natural age.
Why are taxpayers funding this?
The researchers claim that it is not possible to selectively breed Holstein cattle (one of the predominant dairy breeds) to be polled because it adversely affects milk yield.
However polled cattle do exist and there is every possibility that if a serious effort was made traditional breeding could produce a polled Holstein cow. The fact that there has been no such effort is because the industry has not felt it is needed.
The real driver is that along with other GM research facilities, the Roslin Institute is desperate to provide a makeover for GM technology; hence claiming a “health and safety” problem where none exists and pushing the term “editing” as an alternative to “engineering”.
Public money, private patents?
Roslin’s partner in this R&D is referred to in the press coverage as Dr Scott Fahrenkrug of the University of Minnesota. He seems to be overseeing the cloning aspects but he is also “an expert in gene editing”.
What they don’t say is that he is also an “inventor, entrepreneur, founder, and CEO of Recombinetics”, a biotech company which has an impressive portfolio of patents and intellectual property (IP) in agricultural genetics.
According to its website “Recombinetics-developed and owned IP covers an array of products and methods including gene targeting, improvements to methods (including TALENs) of gene editing and repair, and applications of these technologies to livestock improvement.
Recombinetics scientists filed a dozen utility patents supporting the use of gene editing technologies for livestock improvement”.
Owning the patents on a new polled Holstein breed, developed with UK taxpayer money would be a nice addition to the portfolio of such a company and the patent holders of Roslin.
Maybe “gene editing” does have a meaning after all – editing the story.
Of course the journalists didn’t pick this up either.
References:
[1] Kirkden, R. D. and Broom, D. M. (2012) Welfare of genetically modified and cloned animals used for food. Report prepared for Compassion in World Farming, Godalming, UK.
[2] EFSA (2008) Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from the European Commission on food safety, animal health and welfare and environmental impact of animals derived from cloning by somatic cell nucleus transfer (SCNT) and their offspring and products obtained from those animals. The EFSA Journal, 767: 1-49.
[3] Kirkden, R. D. and Broom, D. M. (2012) Welfare of genetically modified and cloned animals used for food. Report prepared for Compassion in World Farming, Godalming, UK.
[4] EFSA (2008) Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from the European Commission on food safety, animal health and welfare and environmental impact of animals derived from cloning by somatic cell nucleus transfer (SCNT) and their offspring and products obtained from those animals. The EFSA Journal, 767: 1-49.
6) FAO (2007) The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rischkowsky, B. and Pilling, D. (eds.). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Other sources:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Science/article1251997.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/10023561/Scientists-design-health-and-safety-cow-with-no-horns.html
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2315960/Scientists-genetically-modify-cows-remove-horns-health-safety-bid-cut-risk-injury-farmers-animals.html
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/how/areas-of-research/animal-cloning/
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2013/c/cloning_and_genetic_engineering_factsheet.pdf