Guest guest Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Long, but an interesting read..... Fwd: GMW: Interviews with Carman and Seralini INTERVIEW WITH JUDY CARMANJudy Carman, Ph.D. is director of the Institute of Health and EnvironmentalResearch, Inc., a non-profit research institute based in Australia focusingon the safety of genetically modified food. She earned a doctorate degree inmedicine from the University of Adelaide in the areas of metabolicregulation, nutritional biochemistry, and cancer. She has investigatedoutbreaks of disease for an Australian state government. Not someone knownfor rushing into prejudice, one assumes.Dr Carman says very little safety testing is done on genetically modifiedfoods, and when it is done, it is done in a minimal way by the biotechnologycompanies. Dr. Carman says that more extensive testing of GM foods is neededto ensure they are safe."We are conducting one the very few long-term, independent animal feedingstudies with GM foods. To date, most of these types of studies have beendone by biotechnology companies or scientists associated with biotechnologycompanies. Of the few independent studies being done, a study by theAustrian government recently made public found reduced fertility in mice fedGM corn. Another recent study done in Italy showed immune system problems inmice fed GM corn. The studies done by biotechnology companies tend to showno health problems associated with eating GM food. The independent studiesare finding adverse effects."Ain't that strange. The biotech companies find no problems but theindependent studies do. How can that be?Dr Carman: "It is disturbing that the study showed a gradually worseningeffect on mice that ate the GM corn. I am worried that something similar ishappening in humans. If it is, it could take many years for problems tobecome apparent, and by then it could be too late to do anything aboutit."So let's have more independent research. Why isn't it happening?Dr Carman: "First, it is very hard to get GM seed to conduct the research.In order to buy GM seed, you have to go to a licensed seed dealer, and signa technology licensing agreement, which states that you won't do anyresearch on the seed, which includes agronomic, health, and environmentalresearch. Also, scientists who try to research health impacts of GM food getharassed and intimidated by people with vested interests in GM technology.I've had 10 years of abuse from such people who've defamed me, drivenme outof a university, and tried to get me fired from jobs. With that kind ofintimidation, scientists often decide not to do any research. Vestedinterests have been trying to find out about research I'm doing. They fileda freedom of information request with the Western Australian government tofind out. The government denied their request. It could have ended up incourt. My research protocol could have been stolen."Any other problems?Dr Carman: "If you want to do medical research, you have to go to anorganization that funds such research. In order to get funding you need tohave a proven track record in that area of research. However, in a new areaof research such as GM food safety, no one has a track record, so it isdifficult to get the funding. It's a Catch-22. We are thankful that theWestern Australian government gave us funding. The research protocol wassent to 15 scientists worldwide for review and then approved by a steeringcommittee. I wanted people to know that I was doing a thorough job with thisresearch."A question: If your research finds negative health impacts caused by GMfoods, Dr Carman, are you prepared to deal with a negative onslaught frombiotech companies?Dr Carman: "Yes, I understand that will happen. I've been attackedmanytimes. GM food advocates want to make people who do this type of workfrightened of losing their jobs to make them stop working on the issue. Theycan't get me fired now. I work within my own organization, the Institute ofHealth and Environmental Research, which I established along with others whoare committed to finding out if GM foods are safe to eat. The behaviour ofGM food advocates makes me ask, "What are they frightened of?" Iftheybelieve GM foods are safe, they would be confident that I would not find anyproblems. Instead they are paranoid. What do they know that I don't know?What are they trying to hide? It makes me more curious and determined tofind out."These are extracts from an interview by Ken Roseboro for the Organic GrowersAssociation magazine, Dec08/Jan09.INTERVIEW WITH GILLES-ERIC SERALINIIn May last year I interviewed Professor Giles-Eric Seralini, professor ofchemistry and molecular biology at Caen University. He studied GM techologyfor two years in North America and has successfully carried out GMtransfers. This is an edit of what he said:"I practised genetic modification not to make plants but to make bacteriatoinvestigate the role of genes in cancer. I cloned several genes in humancells to look at hormonal promoted cancers.When I heard that some commercalised GMOs were released in order to reducepesticide use I thought it was great and asked to see the files as I wasworking on the effects of pesticides on cancers. I asked for the files and Ifound it was very difficult to get them. When I eventually got the workingdocuments I saw nothing had been done to look at the actual effect of thepesticides within the plant. Instead of reducing pesticide use,three-quarters of the GM were created in order to absorb pesticides likeRound-up and one-quarter designed to produce their own pesticides. I wasworried about the control of that.In 2003 I was chosen by the EU to review all the studies commercial GM sitesin Europe. I saw that the reviews were not organised - they could not answerthe controls that were needed to enforce GM in Europe. I felt the crucialcontrols were to have labelling and a ban on GM ingredients in food.First Clinton and then Bush have said that the scientific arguments andrequest for more controls should be ignored and they complained about GMlabelling and assessment in Europe.I began to work on Round-up and I discovered several things - doses ofRoundup lower than those recommended for agricultural use were potentiallytoxic, and Roundup is considered less toxic to the ecosystem than otherpesticides. Even small amounts could disturb human and rat pregnancies,mouse kidneys, rabbit sperm and other human tissues. The pesticide disryptedendocrine production, which is necessary for the creation of oestrogen, evenin the male.Last summer (2007) we challenged a Monsanto advertisement extolling thebiodegradability of Roundup - a dog finding a bone sprayed with Roundup andsaying it was not toxic. The advert was banned and Monsanto was fined 15,000euros.I was asked to meet other experts and specialists from across Europe and weasked the Government for environmental assesments of GMOs. The result was EUDirective 201.GM is not about feeding poor children. They are here to feed the rich of theG8 countries. Countries that are very rich, and their politicians, are infavour of it.The technology has a lot of rich possibilities but the way they areexploiting and using it right now is to serve pesticides in the plantwithout the proper tests and assessments. If you were to do the proper testsand assessments, GM is not profitable as it is.99.9% of GM plants are to absorb or produce pesticides. People don't seethat. They only see the propaganda about growing food in a desert or feedingthe world, how all other problems will be solved if this technology isallowed.There are 30 million kinds of plants in the world and just four - rice,wheat,maize and soya - give 60% of the food and energy. It should bepossible to change that, making different plants adapted to differentcountries to help feed the world, but not if you make thousands of hectaresof the same plants just for feeding pigs and cows.The fact that you have only four plants imposes monoculture and also thecontrol of the seeds. If you control the seeds that feed the world youbecome 100 times richer than Bill Gates because you can say which countryhas which seed and which culture and you get paid every time somebody usesthat seed anywhere in the world. And if you add the possibility of green oilyou become master of the world. You are richer that any State or anycountry. You have more power, and you decide who plants what.The drug companies want to do that. The eight biggest drug companies are thebiggest GM makers and the biggest pesticide manufacturers. They areinterested in GM not to make a lot of varieties but to have patents forthese four species. They began with maize and soya and they had the patentlast year (2007) for wheat in the United States and they are working onrice.I believe GM seed will make hunger in the world. They will make peoplestarve. Poor people will not have enough money to buy the seed.I think GMOs are dangerous because of the results that have been produced inthe laboratory, because of Roundup residue and probably because of Btresidue. Maybe they have some other dangers that have not been seen becauseof genetic engineering itself. It's possible in some cases and not inothers.I think GM technology is out of control.It is abnormal at the beginning of the 21st century to give these seeds nomore than three months trial, and this is a dishonest way of functioning forgenetic engineeting control.I am not against genetic engineering itself, but I think that not too manythings are possible with it. It takes hundreds of genes to adapt to achanging environment and we are able to change a couple of them so we wontbe able to adapt a seed to a different environment.France has given 1bn euros to the genoplant project. German and Ukgovernments have done the same - they have invested a lot of money inbiotechnology.You can't feed 240 million Europeans without tracing the product and GM isnot traceable. There's no traceability in the States where 98% are producedat the seed level.I'm confident that the effects of GM are not like toxic effects. They arelike pesticides - they increase endocrine diseases, increase cancers andincrease neurologial diseases like we have seen in farmers, increasemalfunction and reproductive problems. But if there's no traceability youcan't ask the right questions. It's like Parkinsons and Alzheimersdiseases.Nobody asked if pesticides are involved. I think they might be. A total of400 pollutants have been found sticking to the DNA of a baby. You can'tfindout about GM created diseases if you don't study it.We are almost eating GM already through animal feed in Europe. Are Americanpeople more sick because they are eating GM food directly? Are they livingless and having more food-related diseases? The answer is yes to both of thelast questions. Americans are living less and more dying are early fromfood-related problems. Is that linked to GM or hormones in the cow or to allthe addtives in the food they eat? No one knows because no one is findingout. GM is not labelled over there. It will go on like that for years if wedon't study the problem.I wanted a moratorium of GM in Europe. We were successful in that, but wehave been told we can't have any money for testing.So this is the first time in the history of the world that what amounts to adrug or pesticide has not been tested before release by anybody other thanthe company that makes it." A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 How scary. Annie , cyndikrall wrote: > > Long, but an interesting read..... > > > > > > Fwd: GMW: Interviews with Carman and Seralini > > INTERVIEW WITH JUDY CARMAN > > Judy Carman, Ph.D. is director of the Institute of Health and > Environmental > Research, Inc., a non-profit research institute based in Australia > focusing > on the safety of genetically modified food. She earned a doctorate > degree in > medicine from the University of Adelaide in the areas of metabolic > regulation, nutritional biochemistry, and cancer. She has investigated > outbreaks of disease for an Australian state government. Not someone > known > for rushing into prejudice, one assumes. > Dr Carman says very little safety testing is done on genetically > modified > foods, and when it is done, it is done in a minimal way by the > biotechnology > companies. Dr. Carman says that more extensive testing of GM foods is > needed > to ensure they are safe. > > " We are conducting one the very few long-term, independent animal > feeding > studies with GM foods. To date, most of these types of studies have > been > done by biotechnology companies or scientists associated with > biotechnology > companies. Of the few independent studies being done, a study by the > Austrian government recently made public found reduced fertility in > mice fed > GM corn. Another recent study done in Italy showed immune system > problems in > mice fed GM corn. The studies done by biotechnology companies tend to > show > no health problems associated with eating GM food. The independent > studies > are finding adverse effects. " > > Ain't that strange. The biotech companies find no problems but the > independent studies do. How can that be? > > Dr Carman: " It is disturbing that the study showed a gradually > worsening > effect on mice that ate the GM corn. I am worried that something > similar is > happening in humans. If it is, it could take many years for problems > to > become apparent, and by then it could be too late to do anything about > it. " > > So let's have more independent research. Why isn't it happening? > > Dr Carman: " First, it is very hard to get GM seed to conduct the > research. > In order to buy GM seed, you have to go to a licensed seed dealer, > and sign > a technology licensing agreement, which states that you won't do any > research on the seed, which includes agronomic, health, and > environmental > research. Also, scientists who try to research health impacts of GM > food get > harassed and intimidated by people with vested interests in GM > technology. > I've had 10 years of abuse from such people who've defamed me, driven > me out > of a university, and tried to get me fired from jobs. With that kind > of > intimidation, scientists often decide not to do any research. Vested > interests have been trying to find out about research I'm doing. They > filed > a freedom of information request with the Western Australian > government to > find out. The government denied their request. It could have ended up > in > court. My research protocol could have been stolen. " > > Any other problems? > > Dr Carman: " If you want to do medical research, you have to go to an > organization that funds such research. In order to get funding you > need to > have a proven track record in that area of research. However, in a > new area > of research such as GM food safety, no one has a track record, so it > is > difficult to get the funding. It's a Catch-22. We are thankful that > the > Western Australian government gave us funding. The research protocol > was > sent to 15 scientists worldwide for review and then approved by a > steering > committee. I wanted people to know that I was doing a thorough job > with this > research. " > > A question: If your research finds negative health impacts caused by > GM > foods, Dr Carman, are you prepared to deal with a negative onslaught > from > biotech companies? > > Dr Carman: " Yes, I understand that will happen. I've been attacked > many > times. GM food advocates want to make people who do this type of work > frightened of losing their jobs to make them stop working on the > issue. They > can't get me fired now. I work within my own organization, the > Institute of > Health and Environmental Research, which I established along with > others who > are committed to finding out if GM foods are safe to eat. The > behaviour of > GM food advocates makes me ask, " What are they frightened of? " If > they > believe GM foods are safe, they would be confident that I would not > find any > problems. Instead they are paranoid. What do they know that I don't > know? > What are they trying to hide? It makes me more curious and determined > to > find out. " > > These are extracts from an interview by Ken Roseboro for the Organic > Growers > Association magazine, Dec08/Jan09. > > INTERVIEW WITH GILLES-ERIC SERALINI > > In May last year I interviewed Professor Giles-Eric Seralini, > professor of > chemistry and molecular biology at Caen University. He studied GM > techology > for two years in North America and has successfully carried out GM > transfers. This is an edit of what he said: > > " I practised genetic modification not to make plants but to make > bacteria > to > investigate the role of genes in cancer. I cloned several genes in > human > cells to look at hormonal promoted cancers. > When I heard that some commercalised GMOs were released in order to > reduce > pesticide use I thought it was great and asked to see the files as I > was > working on the effects of pesticides on cancers. I asked for the > files and I > found it was very difficult to get them. When I eventually got the > working > documents I saw nothing had been done to look at the actual effect of > the > pesticides within the plant. Instead of reducing pesticide use, > three-quarters of the GM were created in order to absorb pesticides > like > Round-up and one-quarter designed to produce their own pesticides. I > was > worried about the control of that. > In 2003 I was chosen by the EU to review all the studies commercial > GM sites > in Europe. I saw that the reviews were not organised - they could not > answer > the controls that were needed to enforce GM in Europe. I felt the > crucial > controls were to have labelling and a ban on GM ingredients in food. > > First Clinton and then Bush have said that the scientific arguments > and > request for more controls should be ignored and they complained about > GM > labelling and assessment in Europe. > I began to work on Round-up and I discovered several things - doses of > Roundup lower than those recommended for agricultural use were > potentially > toxic, and Roundup is considered less toxic to the ecosystem than > other > pesticides. Even small amounts could disturb human and rat > pregnancies, > mouse kidneys, rabbit sperm and other human tissues. The pesticide > disrypted > endocrine production, which is necessary for the creation of > oestrogen, even > in the male. > Last summer (2007) we challenged a Monsanto advertisement extolling > the > biodegradability of Roundup - a dog finding a bone sprayed with > Roundup and > saying it was not toxic. The advert was banned and Monsanto was fined > 15,000 > euros. > > I was asked to meet other experts and specialists from across Europe > and we > asked the Government for environmental assesments of GMOs. The result > was EU > Directive 201. > > GM is not about feeding poor children. They are here to feed the rich > of the > G8 countries. Countries that are very rich, and their politicians, > are in > favour of it. > > The technology has a lot of rich possibilities but the way they are > exploiting and using it right now is to serve pesticides in the plant > without the proper tests and assessments. If you were to do the > proper tests > and assessments, GM is not profitable as it is. > > 99.9% of GM plants are to absorb or produce pesticides. People don't > see > that. They only see the propaganda about growing food in a desert or > feeding > the world, how all other problems will be solved if this technology is > allowed. > There are 30 million kinds of plants in the world and just four - > rice, > wheat,maize and soya - give 60% of the food and energy. It should be > possible to change that, making different plants adapted to different > countries to help feed the world, but not if you make thousands of > hectares > of the same plants just for feeding pigs and cows. > > The fact that you have only four plants imposes monoculture and also > the > control of the seeds. If you control the seeds that feed the world you > become 100 times richer than Bill Gates because you can say which > country > has which seed and which culture and you get paid every time somebody > uses > that seed anywhere in the world. And if you add the possibility of > green oil > you become master of the world. You are richer that any State or any > country. You have more power, and you decide who plants what. > The drug companies want to do that. The eight biggest drug companies > are the > biggest GM makers and the biggest pesticide manufacturers. They are > interested in GM not to make a lot of varieties but to have patents > for > these four species. They began with maize and soya and they had the > patent > last year (2007) for wheat in the United States and they are working > on > rice. > > I believe GM seed will make hunger in the world. They will make people > starve. Poor people will not have enough money to buy the seed. > > I think GMOs are dangerous because of the results that have been > produced in > the laboratory, because of Roundup residue and probably because of Bt > residue. Maybe they have some other dangers that have not been seen > because > of genetic engineering itself. It's possible in some cases and not in > others. > > I think GM technology is out of control. > It is abnormal at the beginning of the 21st century to give these > seeds no > more than three months trial, and this is a dishonest way of > functioning for > genetic engineeting control. > > I am not against genetic engineering itself, but I think that not too > many > things are possible with it. It takes hundreds of genes to adapt to a > changing environment and we are able to change a couple of them so we > wont > be able to adapt a seed to a different environment. > > France has given 1bn euros to the genoplant project. German and Uk > governments have done the same - they have invested a lot of money in > biotechnology. > > You can't feed 240 million Europeans without tracing the product and > GM is > not traceable. There's no traceability in the States where 98% are > produced > at the seed level. > > I'm confident that the effects of GM are not like toxic effects. They > are > like pesticides - they increase endocrine diseases, increase cancers > and > increase neurologial diseases like we have seen in farmers, increase > malfunction and reproductive problems. But if there's no traceability > you > can't ask the right questions. It's like Parkinsons and Alzheimers > diseases. > Nobody asked if pesticides are involved. I think they might be. A > total of > 400 pollutants have been found sticking to the DNA of a baby. You > can't > find > out about GM created diseases if you don't study it. > We are almost eating GM already through animal feed in Europe. Are > American > people more sick because they are eating GM food directly? Are they > living > less and having more food-related diseases? The answer is yes to both > of the > last questions. Americans are living less and more dying are early > from > food-related problems. Is that linked to GM or hormones in the cow or > to all > the addtives in the food they eat? No one knows because no one is > finding > out. GM is not labelled over there. It will go on like that for years > if we > don't study the problem. > > I wanted a moratorium of GM in Europe. We were successful in that, > but we > have been told we can't have any money for testing. > > So this is the first time in the history of the world that what > amounts to a > drug or pesticide has not been tested before release by anybody other > than > the company that makes it. " > > **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy > steps! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http://\ www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=fe > bemailfooterNO62) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.