Open Letter to A. V. Yablokov Regarding a Book on Genetically Modified Products (Written circa 2002)

Dear Oleksiy Volodymyrovych! For work-related purposes, I tried to understand the criticism of genetically modified food products by environmental organizations. I was recommended the book "Kings and Cabbages. What They Will Never Tell You About Genetic Engineering" (Moscow: SOEC Publishing House, 2000). This book convinced me that (at least in the part reflected in it) the campaign aimed at banning and restricting GM products pursues the goal of intimidating and misinforming the public. I believe I did not have a biased opinion when I started reading this book, but the numerous distortions of facts, misrepresentations, and substitutions of arguments greatly disappointed me. This book has many authors, but I was most surprised by the information that it was published with funds from the foundation you manage. In this regard, I would like to know from you whether the goal you consider noble (banning genetic engineering) justifies the means used by your supporters (amplifying fear and unfair polemics). Now I will try to justify my statements.

INSTILLING UNWARRANTED FEARS The entire book, and especially the illustrations in it, are permeated with fear of the degeneration of humans and animals caused by new technologies: "Who knows, maybe we'll start growing fur..." (p. 12, illustration). Figure on p. 15 shows a monster with a tail grown because he eats GM potatoes. "In the project (sic) of work on the HUMAN GENOME, we map the structure of all regions of human DNA. All we need is to find the parts of DNA that are responsible for healthy minds, the ability to argue and protest. And then - just remove them in most people" (p. 13, illustration). Oleksiy Volodymyrovych! You understand that these fears have nothing to do with the "Human Genome" project. Can such fabrications be spread? They do not concern the essence of the issues discussed, but only amplify irrational fears that form the basis of obscurantism. Who benefits from this? "Another problem is slow-acting toxins. It is known that the time for the toxic effect of a protein can last for more than 30 years. GM soy differs from ordinary soy in proteins by 74%..." (p. 17). Nothing in the further discussion indicates the validity of the assumption that GM soy contains such proteins. "How can we be sure that a genetically modified plant that we consume will not suddenly start producing new toxins and allergens or will not increase the level of hidden toxins?" (p. 9). And how can we be sure that a non-modified plant will not do this? There is only one way out - safety tests.

POLEMICS WITH OPPONENTS Polemics with supporters of GM products are based on attributing false statements to them, their arguments are countered by irrelevant pseudo-statements, and the opponents themselves are baselessly slandered. A particularly interesting refutation is of Monsanto's PR campaign (I'll note right away that I don't sympathize with it). The authors of the book (as part of their PR campaign) explain what a bad thing PR is. For example, companies claim that their products help the starving. How to refute this statement? The authors report "All African countries (except South Africa) responded..." (p. 49) and provide a statement against new technologies. It's strange how they managed to unite all African countries? On p. 53, the same text is presented, only it says that it is "a statement written by delegates from 24 African countries"! It is not stated by delegates of which event this statement was written - probably some conference against GM. Thus, instead of the statement "opponents were found in 24 countries," it says "all countries rejected"! Did this falsification negate the need to think about the hungry? Later, the authors of the book return to the same topic. "As a result of the Latin American 'Green Revolution' (reference), food production increased by 8%, but the number of starving people increased by 19%" (p. 52). The first figure raises strong doubts in me compared to data from other sources, but that's not the point. What is outrageous is that the authors ignore the fact that the population of the "Third World" has significantly increased as a result of the "Green Revolution"! The increase in food led to a significant increase in population, which, in turn, increases the proportion of the starving. Many people live only thanks to the Green Revolution! Some of them are hungry, but hunger itself is not a consequence of increased food production (but partly a consequence of its improper distribution). I believe that such a selective presentation of statistical data reflects the authors' (or the sources they used) desire to mislead the reader. Another masterpiece of polemics. "All of Monsanto's advertising campaigns contain references to environmental groups (e.g., Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace) and information on how to contact them, thus creating the impression that Monsanto initiated the dialogue and it is ongoing. At the same time, the groups mentioned in the advertisement... did not give any permission to use these references in the advertisement" (p. 48). I always thought that presenting the views of the opposing side and providing links to sources where they can be found is a mandatory requirement of a discussion. It turns out that this can be criticized! I preemptively admit my guilt: I also refer to this book without obtaining permission from its authors. However, referencing sources is a generally accepted practice. By the way, in the comic on p. 13, which discusses the confrontation with those who "tell everyone about the harmful effects of GM food," the wonderful "Mr. Monsanto" says: "We will present this issue from only one side" (what about the accusations that this company refers to the views of its opponents?). The book repeatedly presents openly false statements attributed to supporters of transgenic technologies: "human genes can be transferred to a pig to make it grow better" (p. 6); "scientists believe that the future lies with genetically modified products. After all, in essence, genes can be combined in any way and any kind" (p. 22, quote from another source in the book).

THE BOOK DOES NOT PROVE THE HARM OF GM PRODUCTS Finally, the most important thing: the "harmful effects of GM products." Strangely, the book contains very little material that allows us to judge its possibility. "Genes of the Brazil nut were crossed with soybean genes to increase protein content in soybeans. The combination turned out to be a strong allergen, and the manufacturer had to stop the project" (p. 10, in a quote from another source). Genes are not crossed, organisms are crossed. If the unfavorable properties of the new product are revealed during standard testing, there is nothing to worry about. Allergens can enter food as a result of ordinary crosses, and here the adherence to the procedure, common to products obtained in different ways, is important. To understand this message, the illustration on p. 12 is important, which says "People with nut allergies can even die from eating soy products into which Brazil nut genes have been introduced." Thus, the fact that the project was stopped is ignored in the illustration (it's scarier that way and creates the impression that this property is inherent in one of the available GM products), and it is concealed that allergens did not arise at all due to the GM procedure! Nuts can also be added to a cake: does this mean that confectionery factories should be closed? "British scientist Arpad Pusztai, calling GM products 'food for zombies,' believes they cause colossal harm to health. His studies on rats showed: animals fed with these products had reduced brain volume, destroyed livers, increased immune status, and suffered from the intestines, thyroid gland, and spleen" (p. 10, in a quote from another source). This would be serious if it did not contradict the results of numerous routine tests performed with GM products. GM products as such do not have such effects. Perhaps this is characteristic of some variety of it. Unfortunately, nothing is said about which specific GM products caused such terrible consequences. Most likely, this message is a "duck." An increase in soy allergies is reported (p. 16), but it is not explained whether this is related to the method of obtaining GM soy. Perhaps the reason is simply that due to its valuable properties, soy (including GM soy) has become much more widely consumed? In my opinion, the only relatively detailed example of potential harm from GM technologies concerns the case of Japanese tryptophan from Shova Denco (p. 17): a drug obtained using GM bacteria did not pass a series of tests (e.g., for digestibility in animals) and caused illness and death. Tryptophan is an amino acid, a very simple compound. If it was purified as required by the drug manufacturing technology, its action could not depend on the method of production. In my opinion, this problem is not a consequence of GM technologies. Any drug must undergo rigorous safety tests. No less serious consequences from the use of untested non-GM products are known. Therefore, the problem is not in the production technology, but in the testing technology. Unfortunately, for the mass reader, listing the unfavorable properties of individual products obtained using GM technology can lead to the rejection of this technology as a whole. Unfortunately, it is absolutely necessary to consider whether the unfavorable consequences are related to the method of obtaining the product. Products obtained both by "natural" and gene-engineering methods can cause harm. Yes, a dangerous sharpening can be made on a lathe. Does it follow from this that lathes should be abandoned altogether?

PESTICIDES AND GENE ENGINEERING The problem of pesticides is so important that it should be discussed separately. The harm of pesticides is proven (unlike the harm of GM products). Therefore, GM technologies designed for the constant use of pesticides should be considered undesirable (but precisely because of the harm of pesticides, not because of the fear of "what if a tail grows from this"). The book repeatedly conveys the idea "GM products are pesticides," which is then extended to plants that are resistant to pests, freeing them from the need to use pesticides! For example, pp. 70-71 discuss the ban in Ukraine on Colorado beetle-resistant potatoes. It is reported that 40% of the country's harvest is lost to this pest. Of course, data on the harm to health and gene pool caused by pesticides used to protect potatoes (it is clear that this harm is enormous) are not provided. And here the authors resort to falsification. Why do 80% of townspeople want to switch to GM potatoes? "Little information was provided to the population of Ukraine about what specific herbicides are added 'in the set' to the transgenes" (p. 71). Everything is turned upside down: the new technology should not increase, but decrease the use of pesticides! "The spread of GM plants will lead to chemical pollution of the environment, as more toxic chemicals are used in their cultivation" (p. 10, in a quote from another source).

THE PROBLEM OF THE SPREAD OF ALTERED GENES One cannot disagree that monocultures threaten biodiversity, but what does gene engineering have to do with it? Yes, GM varieties can pollinate wild plants of the same species, but this also applies to conventional varieties. Moreover, GM varieties can be artificially deprived of this ability! "Pollen from plants is carried by wind and insects, enters natural ecosystems and can pollinate other plants of the same species, both cultivated and wild. That is, altered genes will inevitably enter these plants and cannot be removed from the environment" (p. 10, in a quote from another source). This thesis is refuted on the opposite page. In the comic illustration, characters say: "- With the help of a terminator gene, I can make any seeds sterile. - Great! Now there will be no problems with these damned farmers who sow their own seeds. My new seeds will be very profitable for me. Everyone will buy them or go to hell. Later, all world food production will be in my pockets" (p. 11). Or maybe it's not about profit, but about protecting the global gene pool? Resale of secondary seeds does not undermine the business of breeders, so why should gene engineers be afraid of it? The very possibility of blocking the spread of altered genes is not discussed in the book.

"FORCED" PROBLEMS Without a doubt, the practice of patenting human genes and natural organisms is absurd, although some distortions are made in the book's description. It is necessary to fight for its radical change. However, what do GM products have to do with it? GM crops are unprofitable, and organic farming is profitable. Great, no reason to worry: everything will take its course. Undoubtedly, human cloning is associated with numerous ethical problems. However, the issue is not with GM technologies, but with their application to humans. There are many technologies traditionally applied to many animals, but not to humans (sausages are made from cows, but not from people)! Discussing the harm of GM products, the authors report on the harm from "mad cow disease," salmonellosis, and dioxins (p. 15). These are serious problems, but they have nothing to do with the technologies discussed. Why are they mentioned here, if not to create the illusion of some connection? The use of GM enzymes in the food industry can cause allergies (p. 16), but the same applies to other enzymes! The adverse consequences of the development of antibiotic resistance are not in doubt. This problem in itself has nothing to do with the GM procedure. Of course, GM products should not spread antibiotic resistance genes. This is a completely solvable problem, but the ways to solve it are not discussed in the book. Yes, the harm from the use of aspartame in food products is proven (p. 38-39). However, even from the authors' text, it follows that the issue is not that it was obtained by transgenic means, but its other properties. Perhaps the harm from the use of hormonal additives in animal feed is proven. However, the issue is not that they were obtained by GM methods, but that they disrupt the natural functioning of the regulatory systems of livestock. Another example of logic used in the book (about milk from cows fed hormones): "traces of 52 antibiotics, allergens, blood, and feces were found" (p. 37). If hormones cause inflammation, blood can enter the milk, but not feces (it is transported through a different "pipe"). The presence of feces in milk can only be due to the fact that the udder was not washed before milking. Therefore, the issue is not with hormones, but with cleanliness; to detect the effect of hormones, milk that was identical in all other aspects should have been compared. By the way, allergens are also present in natural milk, and the amount of 52 antibiotics seems excessive. Do hormonal additives really require such a number of antibiotics? Perhaps this number has another explanation that cannot be established from the text.

THE BOOK IS SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE The book is written by people who have a very poor understanding of biology. Many formulations demonstrate the authors’ lack of understanding of what they are writing about. In some (unicellular) organisms, "the entire organism is contained in this one cell" (p. 3). "And this code is called the universal code of life" (italicized by the authors, p. 4). "Genetic engineering is a science from a test tube" (p. 8). Plants have stinging cells (p. 3). "Dutch researchers in 1999 discovered that "live" and whole resistance genes can "jump" from GM products into the human intestine and survive there for several minutes" (p. 20). What is a "live gene" and how can it jump? Apparently, the following quote refers to the same study: "A study conducted in the Netherlands in 1999 showed that toxin transfer through the intestinal wall is possible. This means that consumption of Bt corn, whose genome contains antibiotic resistance genes, can lead to the transfer of these genes to animals and humans consuming the corn" (p. 26). Thus, the conclusion about the transfer of resistance genes is based on the possibility of toxin spread (which is reported to be harmless to humans)? Based on the cited quotes, it is difficult to judge the study itself, but what the book’s authors report is obvious nonsense. Trying to explain fairly simple biological processes, the authors construct fantastical structures. For example, they want to prove that traditional methods cannot produce poppies with red leaves, and only genetic engineering can. (This is doubtful. Poppy leaves contain red pigments, and their quantity can be increased through selection. Leaves will not turn into petals, as they perform other functions not characteristic of petals. Even genetic engineering will not relieve leaves of the need to carry out photosynthesis and contain chlorophyll.) "There is a barrier preventing leaves from turning red. This barrier may be due to two reasons: - The "red" gene in all leaf cells is inaccessible to activating molecular signals. - Leaf cells do not need red color and do not send RNA signals to copy information. Therefore, the signaling molecule with the request does not dock at the "red" guard tower to activate the gene. It is not hard to guess that there is a way to deceive the plant and force it to turn red, even against its own will. We can activate the red gene like a Trojan horse hidden behind the guard tower of another gene" (pp. 5–6). How everything is tangled and distorted! Of course, red pigments are also synthesized in leaves. RNA molecules themselves do not copy anything. Genetic engineering does not consist of forcing a plant to do something against its will. The problem under discussion and the way it is presented do not serve to explain anything to the reader, but on the contrary, are intended to confuse them. Finally, the book instills rejection of two categories of people. First, those who understand the issue under consideration.{"translated_text": "Attempting to shift the dispute to a scientific plane is a favorite trick of the industry, with only \"their\" scientists somehow being trustworthy. In reality, \"their\" scientists have a rather peculiar track record. In this so-called scientific society, those who hold pro-biotech views are considered scientists. Those who even hint at caution automatically cease to be scientists\" (p. 79). The second quality, whose rejection is intensively exploited by the authors, is wealth. Yes, corporations use new technologies to generate profit—that is the nature of corporations. Does this mean that the technologies in question are harmful in all cases? The book repeatedly contains statements that supporters of genetic engineering have simply been bought by corporations. The circumstance is examined in detail (pp. 42-43) that a number of government experts on these products, upon retirement, go to work for private companies. This may be a sign of corruption, but it may also reflect the normal state of affairs; where else should a retired official go, who thanks to their work has become knowledgeable about the issue? A few examples do not prove that such transitions occur more often in this industry than in others.\n\nWHAT IS NOT SAID IN THE BOOK\nThe book does not examine measures that could reduce potential damage from the application of new technologies. The book does not examine the damage from hunger, malnutrition, and pesticide poisoning, which GM products could potentially reduce. The book does not examine GM products that do not fit the imposed scheme. As far as I know, carotenoid-enriched rice (so-called \"golden rice\") was created specifically to reduce the number of diseases from vitamin deficiency in Asian countries. Its creators claim that the work was funded by charitable foundations, and GM rice seeds are intended for free distribution. Simultaneously, 50 lines of such rice were created. Rigorous trials showed its significant superiority over unmodified varieties (unfortunately, I am recounting this from memory based on a newspaper interview with the creator of this product and cannot provide a correct source citation at this time). Why not discuss such facts as well, even if the authors consider them uncharacteristic? The solution to most problems concerning GM products would be the development and implementation of a testing system for them. In my view, this is exactly where public efforts should be focused. Not frightening citizens with the question \"what if this food makes you grow horns,\" but rather concerning them with the problem of how society should control its safety. Finally, the book does not examine the acceptable part of genetic engineering technologies. On the back cover, a bourgeois is depicted with a footprint on his buttocks and the text: \"Genetic engineering? Thanks, I don't want it!\" Suppose there is evidence of harm from some genetic engineering projects. Does this mean the complete rejection of the new technology is necessary?\n\nHAVE I BEEN BOUGHT BY TNCs SINCE I DISAGREE WITH THEIR OPPONENTS?\nFinally, one more point. I am not bought by transgenic companies and have no relation to their work. I am a teacher at Kharkiv University, the author of two school textbooks used in Ukraine (Biology-7. D. A. Shabanov, A. V. Shabanova, R. V. Shalamov, and S. A. Shaparenko. Kharkiv: Torsing, 1999 and Biology-10. O. V. Danilova, D. A. Shabanov, A. V. Bryion, S. A. Danilov. Kharkiv: Torsing, 2001), and am currently working on a textbook for the 11th grade. I wanted to briefly examine the arguments for and against transgenic plants in it. Unfortunately, criticism disseminated in the mass media is most often simply illiterate (I have repeatedly encountered the claim that transgenic products cannot be consumed because they contain genes foreign to humans that could affect them; it is unclear, however, which food does not contain genes foreign to humans). I asked a public environmental organization for some more literate literature and received the very disappointing book \"Kings and Cabbage.\" I would still like to understand the GM products issue. I am interested in both data on their potential benefits and data on their potential harm. At the same time, I find the campaign to intimidate non-specialists and distort arguments, mounted to restrain new technologies, repulsive. In my view, neither the danger of GM products nor their safety has been proven. However, the situation is asymmetrical. If a product is dangerous, this can be proven quite correctly; if it is safe, absolute proof of this is impossible. The solution is to find testing systems acceptable to both society and producers.\n\nON ORGANIZING PUBLIC CAMPAIGNS\nI propose a thought experiment: tell citizens that it has not yet been proven that cucumbers do not turn people into mutants. Launch a campaign with questions: what if you turn green from cucumbers, or die, or give birth to deformed children. Pass a law according to which any product containing cucumbers must be specially labeled. Show the fat faces of gardeners profiting from cucumber sales and the offices of vegetable farm directors. Mockingly quote the \"sold\" scientists who will use bookish wisdom to force citizens to risk their health, children's happiness, and the future of the biosphere for the profits of cucumber growers. Find consumers who choked on cucumbers and porters who ruptured themselves carrying them. I will not continue; one can simply adapt the program according to which the campaign against transgenic products is conducted. In my view, the touched-upon problem is part of another, more serious one: what should public participation in deciding questions concerning complex technologies be like? Let us return to the cucumber example: imagine that within the most democratic procedure possible, the layperson is asked to choose which side to support. An expert explains that damage from cucumbers is not proven and there is no reason to suspect it; that cucumbers themselves are useful and can solve certain nutrition problems. Then a \"green\" agitator speaks up and says: you heard that the safety of cucumbers has not been finally proven! Do you want to risk the life and health of your children to test the reasoning of this smart alec bought by cucumber growers? After such processing, the layperson will vote for a cucumber ban (variant: GM products, etc., etc.)! What is the alternative? To entrust all decisions to experts? This is better, but also not good. Without public oversight and competent discussion, experts can do strange things. It seems to me that the optimal compromise is the involvement of a well-informed public. However, this sharply increases the responsibility of those who bring the public up to speed. If at first one switches off the non-specialist's brain with muddled talk about \"guard towers\" and \"the plant's will,\" and then explains that a potato with foreign genes might grow a tail, this person's opinion can no longer be independent. Democratic procedure in its original conception provides for the consideration of opinions, not just votes (this is precisely why in early democracies only those from whom one could expect the expression of an independently formed opinion were allowed to vote). If thanks to a successful propaganda campaign a biased opinion is imposed on a significant number of people, it does not become weightier; basically, only competent opinions should be taken into account.\n\nDear Oleksii Vladimirovich! Perhaps I got an unsuccessful book or understood it incorrectly? Would you not recommend where this issue is examined without bias (and in connection with those problems that GM products might possibly alleviate: famine, food inadequacy, pesticide pollution)? Is the voice of a person who read a propaganda booklet equally weighty with that of a specialist in the field under discussion? And do you really think it is possible to conduct polemics as it is done in the book \"Kings and Cabbage\"?\n\nWith sincere respect, Dmytro Andriiovych Shabanov\n\nThis letter was sent to the internal mailing list of Russian environmental organizations around 2002. It was reprinted by the journal \"Ecology andLife\" and is still posted on several sites. Somehow, on these sites, the author's initials have been swapped. Alas, it seems that the nature of the anti-GMO propaganda has not changed substantially since then."}