Manufacturer
of GM insects, Oxitec, seems to have had little difficulty persuading
Brazilian regulators to approve the commercial release of its
first-generation, 'male sterile' GM mosquitoes intended to control the
spread of Dengue virus.
The
approval was based on a "considerable set" of information, seemingly
derived from a single short-term field evaluation in Brazil and five
efficacy trials carried out by the company across three other countries*.
*Field experiments in other countries with different climates, different interacting wild-life, and different geographies yield very limited relevant information.
Oxitec
reported that these releases of its GM sterile male mosquitoes, whose
offspring die before reaching adulthood, led to a greater than 90
percent reduction in the local mosquito population. However, GeneWatch
has produced a Briefing (PDF) indicating that these claims are not supported
by the evidence: conclusions are compromised, for example, by absence of
baseline data with which to compare readings, using a control area
adjacent to the test area which could mean the insects are simply moving
between areas, and changing the size of the release area in
mid-experiment.
Persuading
the ordinary folk living in the release area not to mind the experiment
going on around them took more effort. From the trial's inception,
Oxitec "sought to adopt full transparency with a vigorous and proactive
community engagement campaign." In addition to gaining the support of
local community leaders, Oxitec's community engagement campaign included
"communication via local media (radio, TV and press), community
meetings, printed information (posters and leaflets), school
presentations, carnival parades, use of small vans with loudspeakers and
social media (websites and blogs). Dedicated door-to-door campaigns
and on-going contact with field technicians working in the community
provided face-to-face interaction on an individual basis, allowing
specific questions to be addressed and for direct feedback and concerns
to be aired."
Interestingly, the Company didn't say what it
was actually communicating. The goal of this campaign was clearly to
ensure that everyone welcomed exposure to the GM insects, and that no
one started asking awkward questions in awkward places.
In
2013, when two long-term releases were underway in districts of two
cities [1], a member of Brazil's biosafety commission was asked to
inspect Oxitec's GM mosquito production facility. He came back with a
number of serious concerns.
One
concern was the potential for GM female mosquitoes (the ones which bite
people and transmit disease) to be released in error along with the GM
males. Oxitec had measured a negligible 0.02% residual female presence
in the first field evaluation, but once production is stepped up, how
realistically could this low level be consistently maintained?
A
second concern was that Oxitec's male sterility trait is linked to a
gene for antibiotic sensitivity. In the factory, breeding to obtain
viable offspring is possible from the 'sterile' males when they are
exposed to the antibiotic tetracycline. However, tetracycline is in
common use and widely pollutes the environment. The inspector
questioned whether account had been taken of the thresh-hold level of
tetracycline contamination in water needed to enable the survival of
Oxitec's insects.
Also
raised was the lack of studies on the risk of GM males mating
successfully with wild females and establishing a permanent hybrid
mosquito population (since found to be a possible risk [1]).
Another
concern regarded the ethics of using people as guinea-pigs in an
experiment in which they risked being bitten by GM insects. The
residents in the area of the release received information only
about the Dengue-carrying mosquitoes and about the disease: they were
told nothing about the risks to themselves and their environment.
Indeed, the community and regulatory engagement employed during the GM mosquito releases was the subject of a paper published in 2016. This mentions the care taken to make sure people understood the severity of dengue as a health problem and the scientific concepts involved (such as the concept of genetic control of mosquitoes) so they understood the use of GM technology. "Possible risks and benefits of the use of GMOs" was part of the public awareness campaign, but what 'risks' were mentioned isn't described. Also explained was what was "expected" and how the insects "behave in the field". But, were they warned the 'expected' might not happen and might turn into an unpleasant 'unexpected', or that how GMOs 'behave in the field' is a big unknown?
No
one was asked to sign a consent form as is established ethical
procedure for participation in a scientific experiment. No human ethics
committee was consulted.
Press
reports also mention the inspector recalling that pages were removed
from Oxitec's application dossier on the grounds of confidentiality, and
that a number of pieces information in it had been omitted.
The
upshot was that the inspector asked the biosafety commission to suspend
the release of GM mosquitoes until further health and environmental
impact studies had been carried out. He highlighted Oxitec's contempt
for the safety of the people who were reduced to guinea pigs.
The
Biosafety Commission dismissed all these concerns and, the following
year, approved the commercial use of Oxitec's GM mosquitoes.
GeneWatch
has pointed out that the impact of GM mosquitoes in reducing disease
has not been studied and "the numbers of GM mosquitoes that would be
needed to prevent a single case of disease remains highly speculative":
all the signs are that they are far higher than Oxitec originally
proposed. This means that Oxitec's computer modelling of the cost of GM
insect release, carried out before any experimental results were
published, also severely underestimated the real figure.
Because
the incidence of diseases carried by mosquitoes varies in place and
time, it could take many years or decades of controlled observational
studies to establish efficacy of any measures taken to reduce them.
OUR COMMENT
People
in areas where GM mosquito releases are planned could do with all the
help they can get. Keep up with the issue be subscribing to GM Watch's
invaluable free News Reviews
(www.gmwatch.org/en/news/newsletter-subscription). This will alert you
to any opportunities to lodge objections.
Background
[1] GM MOZZIES OUT OF CONTROL - November 2019
SOURCES:
- Danilo O. Cavalho, et al., July 2015, Suppression of a Field Population of Aedes aegypti in Brazil by Sustained Release of Transgenic Male Mosquitoes, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
- Oxitec's GM insects: Failed in the Field?, GeneWatch UK Briefing, May 2018
- Margareth Lara Capurro, et al., April 2016, Description of Social Aspects Surrounding Releases of Transgenic Mosquitoes in Brazil, International Journal of Recent Scientific Research 7
- Marcel Wolbers, et al., November 2012, Consideration in the Design of Clinical Trails to Test Novel Entomological Approaches to Dengue Control, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 6
- Genetically engineered mosquitoes out of control, Testbiotech, 11.09.19
Image Creative Commons
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.