Is New Scientist journal trying to blame the readers?

Recently my favorite New Scientist Journal has published the article "Conventional crop breeding may be more harmful than GM" (print version), where it disputes risk of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) of resistant variety of oilseed rape (canola), which was unveiled by BASF company last week. Article was published in context of another article "GM faces unfair regulation in Europe" and its GMO supporting bias is apparent.



Unfortunately, author of this editorial Mr. Andy Coghlan apparently missed (?) the fact, rape cultivar was produced by newly patented "proprietary" and "inovative gene conversion technology" developed artificially by "trait development company" Cibus, San Diego, CA, which is apparently proud of it. The RTDS method (i.e. Rapid Trait Development System), which BASF has used IS NOT a "conventional crop breeding" at all - it's a method known as "directed mutagenesis". This approach interferes with the cell's natural process of gene repair by directing DNA repair enzymes to change targeted genes in a specific way in order to produce a desired trait. It's not surprising, all details of this "conventional breeding method" are kept in secret thoroughly. By another words, despite this method it's called a "non-transgenic approach", it's just another artificial method, how to introduce anomalous genes for production of foreign metabolites inside of GMO plants.

My suspicion, editorial staff of New Scientist journal is aware of this apparent manipulation of readers deepened, when my question, regarding this issue was deleted from discussion thread bellow article in six minute period (see the screenshot of on-line discussion bellow) - as the only comment of the discussion thread. The very same censorship has occured, when I published similar comment under different nick one hour later for check. What the "unfair regulation" we are facing here?



To make things more clear, main problem of GMO crops isn't the artificial way of GMO crops production as such, but the introduction of foreign genes and their expressors into plant population, where the horizontal gene transfer (HGT) may occur via various mechanisms. Such mechanism was proven to be real many times for GMO crops. It's risks are summarized in previous post on this blog.

Here's a non trivial environmental threat regarding GMO technologies - but a huge money too. These two factors are driving force for promotion of methods, like the RTDS. While classical transgenic methods were banned in many countries, in Europe in particular, various companies are still trying another and another methods, how to evade these restrictions. What's even worse, these new methods are becoming even more risky to life environment, then classical transgenic methods, as the NS article inadvertently illustrates.

AWT and bees colony collapse disorder

This post is dedicated to hypothetical emergent connection of mysterious CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) to spreading of GMO crops (Genetically modified organisms). Recently the evidence of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) at the case of GMO corn was confirmed. I am rather convinced proponent of this connection from many following reasons, some of which weren't presented yet:

1. The connection of GMO and food induced atopy and allergies and related problems is well known and experimentally proven in short term laboratory experiments in certain cases, too, although final confirmation in long term experiments is still missing here.
   
   
2. The problem of CCD is relatively new, it's apparently related to some latest technology or environmental change, which has become widespread just recently. Although the other man made effects, like the global warming can play a negative role here, too, as they can increase a resistance of natural bee parasites, like Varroa destructor mites through winter period. It's not directly related to parasites specific to domestic colonies, though, as the wild bumble bees population suffers the same problem (it's just less apparent from obvious reasons) - so that the common reason must exist elsewhere.
   
   
3. The symptoms of CCD are unspecific, they manifests like immunodeficiency syndrome, which can manifest itself by various symptoms (at the case of AIDS the reason of death is often quite harmless infection). The CCD agents in apparently hidden and nonspecific as well, as it manifest by various reasons in different locations. Whereas an instinctive reaction of bees is always the same, they tend to leave a bee-hive and escape from area contaminated.
   
   
4. The CCD is linked to new bat "white nose syndrome" (WNS), which is probably manifestation of food allergy (long term rhinitis) as well. Many bat species are significant pollinators like bees) and they have dissappeared recently as well.
   
   
   
5. The introduction of GMO into Great Britain in 1998 has caused a statistically significant step in generally increasing rate of food allergy, because GMO import was enabled in food market stepwise in legall act, i.e. not gradually in this particular case.
   
   
   
   
6. The Cry1A / Cry1Ab proteins are always produced in mixtures in GMO, some of active proteins (Cry1B, Cry3Bb1, Cry9c, EPSPS) in GMO strands aren't completely specific to lepidopthera, they can affect a hymenoptera (i.e. the ants, beatles and bees) and other higher organisms as well and a various neglected toxicity synergies can exist here.
   
   
7. With respect to GMO induced allergies, the active proteins Cry1A / Cry1Ab in GMO food are very similar to bacterial toxins, against which the immune systems of living organisms (including human and bees) are programmed. The Bacillus thuringiensis is very close to anthrax pathogens (Bacillus anthracis) both morphologically, both genetically, so especially high risk of coincidence in immune reactions (atopy, i.e. allergies) exists here.
   
   
   
   
8. The correct function of immune system is based on correct distinction between healthy and pathogenic proteins. The higher number of foreign proteins is forced to distinguish, the higher risk of improper response can be expected.
   
   
   The increasing rate of food allergy is an civilization problem and it's related to increasing diversity of various components of food (proteins in particular). The first documented case is so called lactose intolerance, because the milk diet was introduced into populations rather recently. China is particularly notable as a place of poor tolerance, whereas in Mongolia and the Asian steppes horse milk is drunk regularly. Even eating of tropical fruits and ocean fish can increase an allergy levels, if we're not adopted to it (typically for inland inhabitants with traditionally low food diversity) .
   
   
9. The low but permanent allergene concentration in food (GMO contaminated pollens at the case of bees) has a sensitization effect even for normal food components, because the correct function of biochemical pathways of adaptive immune system depends on temporary decrease of allergen concentration in reaction with specific antigen. If such decrease doesn't occur (for example because of human or bees are in permanent contact with GMO contaminated food every day), immune system continues in production of another various antigens, until their number and concentration isn't so high, they can initiate an accidental violent atopic reaction ("allergy") even in contact with proteins and various polutants, which can be considered harmless under common situation. After then the positive feedback is established under formation of permanent allergic reaction (chronical rhinitis or urticaria as an example).
   

An analogous problem can exist in connection to prolonged eating of meat of cloned animals, the cells of which are always genetically older, then the meat of normal young organism, so that the cummulation of prion metabolites, product of apoptosis, immunosupressive agents and mutagenic telomere changes in chromozomes may occur here. Meat of young clones correspond the meat of very old organisms with respect to their cellular metabolism, so they're less resistant to different infection, aging diseases and "Sudden Death Syndrome". As the result, higher unhealthy concentration of antibiotics, histamine and various antibodies should be expected in meat of cloned animals.

Every organism is programmed to certain life-time and food supplies during their million years evolution, the fast violation of such natural equilibrium can always have a unadversed effects to these equilibrium. The effects may appear negligible for humans, but they can lead to deadly synergies at the case of wildly living organisms (like the bees, bumblebees, house sparrows or bats), which are exposed to evolutionary pressure of life environment. These synergies can be considered as a manifestation of emergent phenomena from AWT perspective, as expressed by famous proverb: "A hundred times nothing killed the donkey".

Such reasons and connections are systematically underestimated by mainstream science, which tends to deal with apparent phenomena driven by single causual reasons and time arrow - not with holistic and parallelistic fuzzy logic based on many weak influences and various synergies interacting in hidden dimensions. The ignorance of multiparticle Aether concept is just a pronounced/condensed case of this apparent bias in scientific methodology from this perspective.

Albert Einstein: “If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination … no more men!”