Use your BACK button to return to article index.
Further evidence has emerged on the link between common transgenic
proteins and serious allergic reactions while regulators turn a deaf
ear and approve yet more planting.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
The same transgenic proteins implicated in two different GM crops
[fully referenced version of article:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/MILTBTFull.php]
We recently reported illnesses and deaths among villagers of south
Mindanao in the Philippines that are suspected of being linked to the
genetically modified 'Bt' maize with an insecticidal protein from the
soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis [1] ("GM ban long overdue, five
deaths and dozens ill in the Philippines", SiS 29).
Since then, similar illnesses are reported to have occurred in Madhya
Pradesh, central India, as a result of exposure to 'Bt' cotton
genetically modified with the same or similar insecticidal protein(s).
India began commercial planting of Bt cotton in 2002/03 with 38 038
ha (0.78 percent of hybrid area), increasing to 6.4 percent and 11.65
percent respectively in 2003/4 and 2004/5. Currently, nearly 9
million ha of cotton is grown in India, 2.8 million hybrid cotton.
Madhya Pradesh is India's fifth largest cotton producing state, with
Malwa and Nimad the main cotton growing regions. The Bt cotton
varieties planted were developed by Monsanto, and carry the
insecticidal Cry1Ac protein (Bollgard) or both Cry1Ac and Cry1Ab
proteins (Bollgard II), according to an article on the industry's
website [2].
Farmers from the Nimad region in Western Madhya Pradesh began
complaining of health hazards after Bt cotton was planted. This
prompted a three-member team representing a coalition of non-
government organisations to carry out a preliminary survey in six
villages in Nimad region between October and December 2005.
Similar symptoms
The team interviewed 23 of the farm and factory workers who fell ill
after having handled Bt cotton. All had itching skin, 20 had
eruptions on the body, and 13 had swollen faces. In some cases, the
itching was so bad that they had to discontinue work, or take anti-
allergy medicine in order to be able to work.
The survey resulted in a report which concluded [3]: "All the
evidence gathered during the investigation shows that Bt has been
causing skin, upper respiratory tract and eye allergy among persons
exposed to cotton... The allergy is not restricted to farm labourers
involved in picking cotton but has affected labourers involved in
loading and unloading Bt from villages to market, those involved in
its weighing, labourers working in ginning factories, people who
carried out other operations in the field of Bt cotton, or farmers
who stored cotton in their homes etc."
The team consisted of Dr. Ashish Gupta of Jan Swasthya Abhiyan
(People's Health Movement, India); Ashish Mandloi, a graduate of
Barwani College working with Narmada Bachao Anolan (Save Narmada
River Movement) and associate of the National Alliance of Peoples'
Movements; and Amulya Nidhi, a health activist working in Maharastra
and Madhya Pradesh specializing in Urban and Rural community
Development, and associated with Shilpi Trust and Jan Swasthya Abhiyan.
The survey covered 6 villages in the Barwani and Dhar districts of
Nimad region in Madhya Pradesh, interviewing various groups of people
involved in handling cotton - women picking cotton, labourers loading-
unloading cotton, ginning factory workers - as well as a local doctor
and an agricultural scientist.
Allergy symptoms in farm workers and other workers handling Bt cotton
The team found allergy symptoms in people in direct contact with Bt
cotton on their hands, feet, face, in their eyes and nose, with some
becoming "very severely ill."
The skin was the most common site of allergy: itching, redness,
eruptions and swelling. Typically, after the first 4-5 hours of
exposure, most people complained of itching on the face and the hand.
Soon, the itching increased and by the time they finish the day's
work, they had redness on the hands and face and swelling of the
face. After continued exposure of one to two days, small white
eruptions would appear, most often on the face. The symptoms began to
subside after varying periods from four to five days up to five to
six months, but black discolouration would show on the skin.
The people affected did not have previous history of allergies even
though they were involved in picking cotton earlier.
Those who had more severe symptoms of the skin tend also to have
associated allergies of eyes and respiratory tract. Eye irritation,
involving itching, redness, swelling and watery eyes affected 11 of
the 23 individuals; 9 had upper respiratory symptoms of watering from
the nose and excessive sneezing. Three had mild symptoms, while 10
each had severe and moderate symptoms respectively.
One woman had to be removed from the fields and taken to Barwani
District Hospital where she remained for 9 days.
Cotton fibre appeared to be causing the allergy. (In the case of the
Bt maize in the Philippines, the pollen was suspected to be the main
culprit.) The owner of the ginning factory Mr. Sunil Patidar said
that symptoms like itching, redness of eyes, watering of eyes and
cough were found in labourers in his factory. Most of the labourers
were having problems, and the year before, it was even more
prevalent. He said that was why labourers were not ready to unload
the cotton-loaded truck from Maharastra.
The labourers working in different ginning factories said itching of
the whole body was very common, and only when they took Tab. Avil (a
common anti-allergy medicine) every day were they able to work.
Kalibai of Kothra said she has been working for 20 years picking
cotton and never had any symptoms until 2004, when she suffered very
bad allergy from picking Bt cotton.
Dr. Ramesh Jar of Saigaon, Ayurvedic doctor, has been practicing in
Aawli, Tal Thikri in District Barwani. He said he has already
received around 150 cases of allergy from two villages of Aawli and
Saigaon in 2005. In 2004, he had around 100 cases. He is prescribing
Dexona injection and Levocetrigen for skin and anti allergic drops
for eyes.
Dr. Debashish Baner, an agricultural scientist, thinks that Bt cotton
produces Bt toxin in all tissues including cotton fibres.
The team is demanding a government enquiry; but that seems to have
fallen on deaf ears so far.
Bt bacteria and spores were previously linked to allergic reactions
Bt toxins come from the soil bacterium Bacilllus thuringiensis (Bt),
common strains of which produce a large family of insecticide Cry
proteins each targeting a different range of insect pests. Strains of
Bt have been used as sprays to control insect pests in the United
States for many years before transgenic Bt crops were created.
A study published in 1999 funded by the US Environment Protection
Agency found that exposure to the Bt sprays "may lead to allergic
skin sensitisation and induction of IgE and IgG antibodies or both" [5].
Farm workers who picked vegetables that required Bt spraying were
evaluated before and after exposure to Bt spray, and one and four
months afterwards. Two groups of low, and medium exposure workers not
directly exposed to Bt spray, but working at different distances from
the sprayed fields were also assessed. Investigations included
questionnaires, nasal/mouth lavages, assessment of ventilatory
function, and skin tests. To authenticate exposure to the organism
present in the commercial preparation, bacteria isolated from lavage
specimens were tested for Bt genes by DNA-DNA hybridisation. Blood
immunoglobulin G and IgE responses to spore and vegetative Bt
extracts were assayed.
Positive skin-prick tests to several spore extracts were seen chiefly
in exposed workers. In particular, there was a significant increase
in the number of positive skin tests to spore extracts one and four
months after exposure to Bt spray. The number of positive skin test
responses was also significantly greater in high- than in low- or
medium-exposure group of workers. The majority of nasal lavage
cultures from exposed workers was positive for the commercial Bt
organism as demonstrated by specific molecular genetic probes.
Specific IgE antibodies were present in more workers from the high-
exposure group than from low- and medium-exposure groups. Specific
IgG antibodies also occurred more frequently in the high- than in the
low-exposure group.
In a previous public health survey of a large number of individuals
exposed to a massive Bt pesticide spraying programme [6], some of the
symptoms recorded include rash and deep swelling. One worker
developed inflammation of the skin, itching, swelling and reddening
of the skin with redness of the eyes. Bt was cultured from the red eyes.
In 1992, Bt was used in an Asian gypsy moth control programme, and
was found to be associated with classical allergic rhinitis
(inflammation of the nasal mucosa) symptoms, exacerbations of asthma,
and skin reactions among exposed individuals reporting possible
health effects after the spraying operations [7]. Similar findings
occurred during another Bt spraying in the spring of 1994 [8].
Allergens trigger 75 percent of asthma cases Allergenicity is of
particular concern because approximately 75 percent of asthma cases
are triggered by allergens [9] and illnesses and deaths due to asthma
have rocketed in recent years. Asthma deaths tripled in the United
States from 1 674 in 1977 to 5 438 in 1998. The costs of asthma
doubled from $6.2 billion in 1990 to $12.7 billion in 2000 [10].
Bt crops were first introduced in the United States in 1996, and have
expanded substantially in acreage since, with little or no further
research on the toxicity or allergenicity of the Cry proteins
released in greater and greater abundance into the environment.
Limited studies carried out by a research team in Cuba showed that
Cry1Ac is a powerful immunogen, and when fed to mice, induced
antibody responses similar to those obtained with the cholera toxin.
Furthermore, Cry1Ac actively binds to the inner surface of the mouse
small intestine, especially to the 'brush border' membranes on the
cells lining the small intestine [11].
It has also been shown that all the Cry proteins in Bt crops have
amino acid sequence similarities to known allergens [12-14], and are
hence potential allergens.
Regulators are guilty of gross negligence
Meanwhile, the biotech industry has been aggressively promoting GM
crops worldwide, especially those with Bt biopesticide and in
developing countries like India and the Philippines. The latest
survey carried out by the industry-funded group ISAAA claims that the
global area given over to GM crops has increased from 81 million ha
in 2004 to 90 million ha in 2005 [15]. Bt crops now comprise 29
percent of the total (18 percent Bt, and 11 percent stacked Bt and
herbicide tolerance).
Regulators continue to approve Bt crops, despite the fact that
successive surveys carried out both by scientists and by non-
government organisations have demonstrated that Bt crops have failed
to match the performance of local varieties [16] and farmers who
bought into the aggressive propaganda have ended up in debt, and
worse, suicide [17-18], so much so that an "agrarian crisis" was
declared in Maharastra.
The latest evidence of serious health impacts linked to Bt crops
comes in corroboration of previous findings dating back to the 1980s
that should have halted the development and approval of Bt crops then.
By now, it is simply gross negligence not to impose a ban on further
releases of Bt crops until they have been proven safe by a thoroughly
independent enquiry.