Ah yes, Jonathan Latham, from whom we get fabulous efforts at DNA Denialism: http://blog.openhelix.eu/?p=6369
It appears that Latham and Wilson's anti-biotech blogging project, the Bioscience Resource Project (which would be a fabulous idea if it was in fact a project for generating resources as described) has morphed into "Independent Science News", which has brought us fabulous news-like entities like open letters supporting Seralini: http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/
And as usual, they misrepresent the paper that just came out. In the beginning of their 'news' piece they claim that the gene is dangerous, but only people who have access to the paper can check the actual details.
The basic idea of the paper is they compared the different versions of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Promoter (CaMV) that many different GE crops use to drive expression of transgenes, and compared their sequence to a viral gene known as P6 (or gene VI). They found that there was sequence similarity between the two, and for longer versions of the CaMV promoter used by genetic engineers, there may be a piece of an open reading frame (ORF) that remains. So they looked into whether there were any potential toxic or allergenic proteins that could be produced from this open reading frame. From the discussion:
“As no scientific literature has been reported on any allergenic properties of CaMV and no similarities have been shown to know allergens, it can be concluded that the P6 protein is most likely not an allergen. In addition, a toxin database was constructed, and no significant sequence similarity with the P35S variants was detected. These data suggest that the P35S variants do not contain ORFs that encode for proteins that have allergenic or toxic properties.”
“In conclusion, different P35S variants are in use to express proteins in transgenic plants. Here, we detailed the overlap of P35S with the coding sequence of gene VI. Our bioinformatic analyses indicated that no ORFs are present in the P35S that are similar to known toxic and allergenic proteins.”
So right off the bat, the claims of Latham and Wilson are off-base. The authors next look at whether there is any potential that the open reading frame could be expressed in plant cells and lead to unintended consequences. They presented a flowchart to summarize their findings, which I have copied here. In summation, they found that the risk was low, and only under very specific conditions would it possibly be expressed. One of those conditions is that the plant would show symptoms of P6 expression, which includes leaf chlorosis (yellowing), vain clearing, plant stunting, late flowering and reduced fertility. These are traits that would immediately be recognized by a plant biologist working with GE plants.
In contrast, Latham and Wilson declare that the only sane reaction to this study is the following:
"The only course of action consistent with protecting the public and respecting the science is for EFSA, and other jurisdictions, to order a total recall. This recall should also include GMOs containing the FMV promoter and its own overlapping Gene VI."
To this I say, since Latham knows that 'environment must be the entire cause of ill health,' I think they should more closely examine what factors in their environment lead them to mistake foolishness for wisdom. Maybe it was something they ate, or some variant of a powdered fruity drink that they may have imbibed.