Fwd: Pressure behind Genetically Modified Foods-Reach from High

[Guest guest]

arnoldgore

Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:17:39 EDT

Subject:Pressure behind Genetically Modified Foods-Reach from High

 

The Advocates for Genetically Altered Foods frequently say there was never any

proven adverse health effect, but when a highly reputable scientist exposed the

adverse effect he had seen in rats organ sizes and immune system defects due to

Genetically Altered Potatoes he was silenced and dismissed, sending a warning to

all the other scientists who are dependent on the grant money of the powerful.

arnold

Subj: Hot Potato: A scary insider's story on GM potatoes

7/25/2003 12:06:48 AM Eastern Standard Time

 

 

Hot Potato

 

[Excerpt From 'Don't Worry It Is Safe To Eat - The True Story Of GM Food,

BSE, And Foot And Mouth'

 

By Andrew Rowell]

 

As the UK government continues to wriggle over weapons of mass destruction,

of sexing up dossiers and general spin, Tony Blair argues that there is no

greater charge against a prime minister than for him to have personally

falsified claims on which to take a country to war.

 

That may be so, but another grave charge would be personally ordering the

sacking of a scientist who was involved in some of the first independent

tests on GM, especially if those tests showed evidence of harm, and also

especially if the orders came from Monsanto, via the White House. This is

what Dr. Arpad Pusztai, who raised concerns about GM food in 1998, claims

happened to him.

 

Part of the recent argument between the BBC and the government concern the

claims by a single unnamed intelligence source that the government " sexed "

up one of the dossiers on Iraq. In contrast five people have said that they

were told that Tony Blair ordered the sacking of Dr. Pusztai. Here is Dr.

Pusztai's story. It raises many unanswered questions about new Labour, its

link to the biotech industry and the safety of GM food.

 

 

Dr. Arpad Pusztai

 

As we witness the dawn of the biotech revolution, Dr Arpad Pusztai is a

scientist who is convinced that he has uncovered vital evidence that shows

there are potential major health risks with GM crops. Pusztai was catapulted

from an unknown laboratory scientist based at the Rowett Research Institute

in Aberdeen to the forefront of a raging debate about the safety of GM

foods, when he spoke on the World in Action TV programme in 1998.

 

Overnight the Hungarian-born scientist, with some 35 years lab experience,

found himself at the centre of an international media spotlight. The

controversy would put him on a collision course with the UK and US

governments, the biotech industry and the scientific establishment. His

150-second interview lead to Pusztai being suspended, silenced and

threatened with losing his pension. His wife, Susan Bardocz, who also worked

at the Rowett for 13 years, was eventually suspended too. Their research was

locked up. Scientists and politicians alike vilified Pusztai.

 

As we search for answers as to whether GM foods are safe, two questions

stand out. Given such a huge controversy over Pusztai's experiments, and the

preliminary nature of their findings, why were the political and scientific

establishments so intent on rebutting him? More importantly why have the

experiments never been repeated?

 

The saga has had very personal consequences. Pusztai has suffered two heart

attacks and the saga has left him and his wife, Susan, needing permanent

medication for high blood pressure. Pusztai is still angry about the whole

affair. His only crime was to speak out, in his words, according to his

conscience: 'I obviously spoke out at a very sensitive time. But things were

coming to a head with the GM debate and I just lit the fuse', he says. 'I

grew up under the Nazis and the Communists and I understand that people are

frightened and not willing to jeopardise their future, but they just sold me

down the river.'

 

His story begins in post-war communist Hungary. After the Hungarian

revolution was crushed by the communists, the young Pusztai, a chemistry

graduate, escaped to refugee camps in Austria and from there to England. By

1963, having finished his doctorate in biochemistry and post-doctorate at

the Lister Institute, he was invited to join the prestigious Protein

Chemistry Department at the Rowett Research Institute, which has become the

pre-eminent nutritional centre in Europe.

 

Dr Pusztai was put to work on lectins, plant proteins that were going to be

central in the GM controversy years later. Over the intervening years,

Pusztai became the world's leading expert on plant lectins, publishing over

270 scientific studies, and three books on the subject. Two books were

co-written with his wife, Susan. Pusztai became one of the Rowett's most

senior and renowned scientists.

 

In 1995, the Scottish Office Agriculture Environment and Fisheries

Department commissioned a three-year multi-centre research programme under

the coordinatorship of Dr Pusztai into the safety of GM food. At the time

there was not a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal on the safety

of GM food.

 

The scientists' primary task was to establish credible methods for the

identification of possible human/animal health and environmental hazards of

GM. The idea was that the methodologies that they tested would be used by

the regulatory authorities in later risk assessments of GM crops. For the

first time, independent studies would be undertaken to examine whether

feeding GM potatoes to rats caused any harmful effects on their health,

bodies or metabolism.

 

The theory behind the modification of the potatoes was simple. For years Dr

Pusztai had explored the beneficial effects of lectins in foods as well as

in nutritional supplements and pharmaceutical agents. Lectins can affect the

digestive systems of insects and can act as natural insecticides. Arpad's

work had shown that one such lectin called GNA (Galanthus nivalis), isolated

from the snowdrop, acted in this way. Pusztai had worked on the snowdrop

lectin since the late 1980s.

 

The thinking was that, if you could genetically modify a potato with the

lectin gene inside it, the potato could have an inherent built-in defence

mechanism that would act as a natural insecticide, preventing aphid attack.

Because it looked promising, the snowdrop gene had already been incorporated

into several experimental crops, including rice, cabbagesand oil-seed rape.

 

But by late 1997, the first storm clouds were brewing at the Rowett.

Preliminary results from the rat-feeding experiments were showing totally

unexpected and worrying changes in the size and weight of the rat's body

organs. Liver and heart sizes were getting smaller, and so was the brain.

There were also indications that the rats' immune systems were weakening.

 

 

150 Seconds That Changed The GM Debate

 

Finally in August 1998, Pusztai expressed his growing concerns on World in

Action in a 150 second interview. So what did he say? 'We're assured that

this is absolutely safe,' said Pusztai. 'We can eat it all the time. We must

eat it all the time. There is no conceivable harm, which can come to us. But

as a scientist looking at it, actively working in the field, I find that

it's very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs. We have to

find guinea-pigs in the laboratory.' Dr Pusztai had been told not to talk

about his experiments in detail, but he did say, in a sentence that would

become the centre of the controversy, that 'the effect was slight growth

retardation and an effect on the immune system. One of the genetically

modified potatoes, after 110 days, made the rats less responsive to immune

effects'.

 

He continued: 'If I had the choice, I would certainly not eat it till I see

at least comparable experimental evidence which we are producing for our

genetically modified potatoes. I actually believe that this technology can

be made to work for us. And if the genetically modified foods will be shown

to be safe, then we have really done a great service to all our fellow

citizens. And I very strongly believe in this, and that's one of the main

reasons why I demand to tighten up the rules, tighten up the standards.'

 

On the evening of the broadcast, the head of the Rowett Professor James

'congratulated,' Pusztai on his TV appearance, commenting on 'how well Arpad

had handled the questions'. The following morning a further press release

from the Rowett noticed that a 'range of carefully controlled studies

underlie the basis of Dr Pusztai's concerns'.

 

 

The Riddle Of The Rowett

 

But it is here that the Rowett and Pusztai differ in what happened next. The

day after the programme, on the Tuesday James maintains he asked Pusztai's

staff for the data for the 110-day experiment, which he claims they told him

did not exist. 'I couldn't believe it, says James, 'I just said that this

is the end of the world for us all'. James maintains that this is the reason

why Pusztai was suspended on the Wednesday.

 

On Wednesday morning, Pusztai and Susan were told to hand over their data.

All GM work was stopped immediately and Pusztai's team was dispersed. His

three PhD students were moved to other areas. He was threatened with legal

action if he spoke to anyone. His phone calls and emails were diverted.

 

The Rowett press machinery was adopting Orwellian overtones and beginning to

change the official story. First of all they said that Pusztai had got

muddled with the wrong potatoes, then they had said that the experiments had

not been done, but finally they reported that Pusztai had done the right

experiments but the results were not ready yet

 

Other disputed events happened on the Tuesday too. Two phone calls, Pusztai

says he was told, were put through to James from the Prime Minister's

office. One was 'around noon, the other was slightly earlier'. He learnt

this information from two different employees at the Rowett, who could be

sacked if their identities were known. The Pusztais were also later told by

someone at the Rowett, currently in a senior management position at the

Institute, that Bill Clinton had phoned Blair and told him to sort out the

problem. 'That was the beginning of all the trouble - Arpad was sacked as a

consequence of what was said in those phone calls,' says a friend.

 

The events of August 1998 have always puzzled Stanley Ewen, then a top

pathologist from the University of Aberdeen who had worked with Pusztai for

over a decade. Ewen too had often wondered what caused the sudden

turn-around at the Rowett.

 

Speaking about the incident for the first time now he is retired from the

University of Aberdeen, he confirms the Pusztais' stories, but crucially he

was told by yet another senior member of the Rowett. This makes four

separate Rowett personnel who have spoken in private about the phone calls.

'On Tuesday, Blair phoned the Rowett twice, although everybody denies it',

Ewen says.

 

Another ex-employee who was prepared to talk is Professor Robert Ørskov OBE.

Professor Ørskov worked at the Rowett for 33 years, and is one of the UK's

leading experts in ruminant nutrition. He too was told about the phone

calls. Professor Ørskov says he was told that the phone calls went from

Monsanto to Clinton to Blair. 'Clinton rang Blair and Blair rang James - you

better keep that man [Pusztai] shut up. James didn't know what to do.

Instead of telling him to keep his mouth shut, they should have told him to

say it needs more work. But there is no doubt that he was pushed by Blair to

do something.'

 

But Professor James is adamant the phone call never happened. 'There is no

way I talked to anybody in any circumstances' he says. 'It's a complete pack

of lies. I have never talked to Blair since the day of the opening of

Parliament in 1997.' This week Downing Street also called the claims " total

rubbish " .

 

Although there is no proof that phone calls ever took place, Pusztai points

to other evidence about Blair and GM. It is a well-known fact that Blair had

been persuaded to back GM by Clinton, leading even the BBC to remark that in

the GM debate 'a question mark remains over the government's independence of

pressure from Washington'. In the mid-1990s the Clinton administration was

backing the biotech industry 'second to none'. One White House staff member

said the 1990s were going to be the decade of 'successful commercialization

of agricultural biotechnology products'.

 

When Pusztai spoke out in August 1998, the new Labour administration was

already beginning to shape government policy for its second term. It was

looking for drivers of the economy that could be trusted to deliver the

growth and hence results that Labour needed. Hightech industries, such as

biotechnology, were to be the central cogs of the engine that would drive

the Blairite revolution, and deliver the coveted second term. What Pusztai

was saying could literally derail an entire industry and with it many of the

hopes and aspirations of New Labour.

 

 

Pusztai Backed By Colleagues

 

By the end of 1998, the Pusztai saga could have slowly subsided, with the

scientist forbidden to talk to inquiring journalists. But wherever he went,

scientific colleagues were curious to find out what had really happened to

their colleague. Although banned from talking to the press, he was not

banned from talking to other scientists outside the Rowett. In February 1999

30 international scientists from 13 countries published a memo supporting

Pusztai that was published in the Guardian which sparked a media frenzy over

GM.

 

A week after the international scientists backed Pusztai, a secret committee

met to counter the growing alarm over GM. Contrary to reassurances by the

government that GM food was safe, the minutes show the cross departmental

committee formed to deal with the crisis, called MISC6, knew the

reassurances were premature. It 'requested' a paper by the Chief Medical

Officer (CMO) and the Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) on the 'human health

implications of GM foods'.

 

What would happen, the minutes asked, if the CMO/CSA's paper 'shows up any

doubts? We will be pressurised to ban them immediately. What if it says that

we need evidence of long-term effects? This will look like we are not sure

about their safety'.

 

 

The " Star Chamber "

 

That very same day - 19 February - The Royal Society publicly waded into the

Pusztai controversy saying it was going to review the evidence on GM, but

Pusztai argues it was nothing more than an attack on him.

 

'Their remit was to screw me and they screwed me,' he argues. 'They have

never done it before and I had never submitted anything to them. They took

on a role in which they were self-appointed, they were the prosecutors, the

judges and they tried to be the executioners as well. I see no reason why I

should have cooperated with them in my own hanging.'

 

But hung Pusztai was. On 18 May 1999, the Royal Society issued its damning

verdict against Pusztai, at a press conference. The report said that

Pusztai's work was 'flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis

and that no conclusions should be drawn from it'. The same day, 18 May, the

House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee attacked Pusztai

too.

 

It is beyond coincidence that The Royal Society and the Science and Select

Committee published on the same day. Political insiders say that pressure

was put on the Science and Technology Committee and The Royal Society to

discredit Pusztai, thereby enabling the government to take control again.

 

This behind-the-scene coordination was partly revealed by a memo showing

that the government had set up a 'Biotechnology Presentation Group', which

included senior Ministers. A decision was taken to 'present the government's

stance as a single package by way of an oral statement in the House. This

would allow the government to get on the front foot'.

 

This is exactly what happened. On 21 May, just three days after The Royal

Society and Select Committee published - Jack Cunningham stood up in the

House of Commons: 'Biotechnology is an important and exciting area of

scientific advance that offers enormous opportunities for improving our

quality of life.'

 

Cunningham then laid his killer punch: 'The Royal Society this week

convincingly dismissed as wholly misleading the results of some recent

research into potatoes, and the misinterpretation of it - There is no

evidence to suggest that any GM foods on sale in this country are harmful'.

 

 

The Lancet

 

However Pusztai and Ewen had submitted a paper to the Lancet, which was

finally published in October 1999. Ewen faxed a copy of the article to the

Rowett before publication, as Pusztai was still required to show them any

papers based on his work there. However publication was delayed by two weeks

for technical reasons. 'The rubbishing brigade had been given two weeks to

do the dirty on the article. I was almost sure they would stop it,' says

Pusztai.

 

First of all came the misinformation. 'Scientists Revolt at Publication of

" Flawed " GM Study', ran The Independent, 'the study that sparked the furore

over genetically modified food has failed the ultimate test of scientific

credibility'. Connor said that the referees were against publication.

 

However four out of the six reviewers were for publication. 'A clear

majority of The Lancet's reviewers were in favour,' says Richard Horton, the

editor of the Lancet. Then came the 'threats'. Three days after The

Independent article, Richard Horton received a phone call from Professor

Lachmann, the former Vice-President and Biological Secretary of The Royal

Society and President of the Academy of Medical Sciences.

 

According to Horton, Professor Lachmann threatened that his job would be at

risk if he published Pusztai's paper, and called Horton 'immoral' for

publishing something he knew to be 'untrue'. Towards the end of the

conversation Horton maintains that Lachmann said that if he published this

would 'have implications for his personal position' as editor. Lachmann

confirms that he rang Horton but vehemently denies that he threatened him.

 

After the article was published, Horton and The Lancet were once again

attacked for publishing the work by the biotechnology industry and The Royal

Society. Horton likened the actions of the Royal Society to a " Star

Chamber " . The publication of The Lancet paper also had a detrimental effect

on Stanley Ewen's long-term employment with the University of Aberdeen, and

rather than get recognition for his work, all he seemed to get was anguish.

 

'I felt that I had done so much work that had been unacknowledged', says the

pathologist. 'I felt that I deserved some recognition, but this was being

blocked at a very high level by other spokespersons. It wasn't helpful to my

career. When you do these sorts of things it is very difficult for your

pension. Because that is what it comes down to in the final analysis:

money'. Eventually he felt that he had no option left and Ewen retired on

the 26 March, 2001. He now works as a consultant to the NHS.

 

 

Why Have The Experiments Never Been Repeated?

 

But the fundamental flaw in the scientific establishment's response is that

in 1999 everyone agreed that more work was needed. Three years later, that

work remains to be undertaken. A scientific body, like The Royal Society,

that allocates millions in research funds every year, could have funded a

repeat of Pusztai's experiments. Is it that it is easier to say there is no

evidence to support his claim, because no evidence exists, than it is to say

that no one has looked?

 

Don't Worry It is Safe to Eat - The True Story of GM Food, BSE, and Foot and

Mouth, by Andrew Rowell was published by Earthscan on 10th July

_____________

 

from ZNet