Fwd: Independent Science Panel rejects Conclusions of GM Science Review

[Guest guest]

:Mon, 20 Oct 2003 01:22:28 +0100

Independent Science Panel rejects Conclusions of GM Science Review

press-release

 

The Institute of Science in Society

Science Society Sustainability

http://www.i-sis.org.uk

 

General Enquiries sam

Website/Mailing List press-release

ISIS Director m.w.ho

===================================================

 

Independent Science Panel Press Release

 

Independent Science Panel rejects Conclusions of GM Science Review

******************************************************

The UK Government’s GM Science Review issued its First Report in July 2003 amid

accusations of pro-GM bias. One member of the Panel resigned weeks earlier, and

another complained that a senior scientist attempted to undermine his research

funding and career.

 

The Report’s conclusions are now firmly rejected by an international group of

prominent scientists, the Independent Science Panel (ISP) on GM (see Note). The

ISP contests the conclusion that there is " no evidence " GM crops pose a threat

to health and the environment, and the recommendation to effectively

commercialise GM crops on a " case by case " basis.

 

The ISP accuses the GM Science Review of sidestepping the major scientific

criticisms in its attempt to ultimately mislead and cajole the public into

accepting the commercial growing of GM crops.

 

The " case by case " approach already assumes that GM technology itself is safe.

But many within the ISP disagree.

 

" Evidence that GM technology is inherently unsafe remains unanswered, " says

Mae-Wan Ho, director of the Institute of Science in Society who initiated the

move to form the ISP. She points to the unreliable, unpredictable nature of GM

technology, the instability of transgenic inserts, and horizontal transfer of

transgenic DNA. " Incriminating evidence has simply been dismissed. And key

experiments failed to be followed up. "

 

Ho re-iterates a list of five key experiments yet to be performed that would

address the major areas of uncertainty with regard to the safety of GM crops for

health and the environment.

 

The ISP’s response, to which seven individual members contributed, criticizes

the Report more than once for " equivocation " , " misrepresentation " , " bland and

false reassurances " , " glaring inconsistencies " , " half-truths not supported by

evidence " and " worse " .

 

Vyvyan Howard, toxico-pathologist from Liverpool University says, " There is

precious little science there to be read. "

 

" The strategy was clear; quite a lot of comments and papers by GM-sceptics or

anti-GM people are referred to in the reference list, " says Arpad Pusztai, only

to be dismissed or ignored. The paper by Ewen and Pusztai, published in the

Lancet, was not among the papers cited, however. The Report is " full of

assertions unsupported by experimental evidence. "

 

Eva Novotny and David Quist point out that the Report is " unrealistically

optimistic about the potential to mitigate undesirable gene flow in agricultural

systems. " This charge has now been confirmed by research funded by the

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which shows that

pollen from GM oilseed rape can travel much further than previously documented

and if not controlled can contaminate non-GM crops for generations.

 

David Quist also rebutted criticisms levied against the paper of Quist and

Chapela (Nature 414, 541-3, 2001). The GM Science Review Report does not

challenge the finding that transgenes had indeed contaminated local varieties.

The point disputed was whether the transgenic insert had fragmented in the

genome of the landraces. The paper was criticized for the methodology used in

coming to such a conclusion.

 

But, the methodology was " never demonstrated as flawed, " says David Quist,

" there was simply a disagreement in appropriate experimental design and

valuation of the data presented. " From an ecological perspective, the findings

of that paper are of acute interest for " understanding how transgenes behave in

natural systems. "

 

Furthermore, the paper was not retracted by Nature, and " continues to be a

valuable contribution within the citable scientific literature on transgenic

gene flow. " Quist insists.

 

The most serious shortcoming of the GM Science Review First Report is that it

entirely ignores the substantial body of evidence on the proven successes and

benefits of organic farming, agroecology and other forms of sustainable

agriculture.

 

" Not even to consider these, while dealing at length with the projected

potential benefits of GM is to restrict the scope of the debate from the very

outset. " Peter Saunders says.

 

Note: The Independent Science Panel (ISP) on GM was launched at a conference in

London attended by ex-environment minister Michael Meacher and 200 other

participants. It consists of two dozen scientists from seven countries spanning

the relevant disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematic, biophyscis,

botany, chemical medicine, ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular

genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology, virology and more.

Their Report, The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, is posted on the ISP

website www.indsp.org and is available in hard copy from the ISIS’ online book

store (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php#28). The full response of

the ISP is also available on the ISP website.

 

For further details contact: Lim Li Ching ching tel:

44-(0)208-643-0681

 

===================================================

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ISPRUKG.php

If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML please let us know.

If you would like to be removed from our mailing list - please reply

to press-release with the word in the subject field

===================================================

CONTACT DETAILS

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR

telephone: [44 20 8643 0681] [44 20 7383 3376] [44 20 7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam

Website/Mailing List press-release

ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

MATERIAL IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON

CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

The New with improved product search