Fwd: GMW:_Approving_GM_Crops_is_Abusing_Science

[Guest guest]

GMW:_Approving_GM_Crops_is_Abusing_Science

" GM_WATCH "

Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:46:53 GMT

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

NB The Briefing itself was webcast. To see this please go to,

http://wms5.westminster-digital.co.uk/gla/meetings/winningthegmdebate_190104.wmv

 

EXCERPT:

 

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, medical toxi-pathologist, Liverpool University, showed how

so-called risk assessment is based on fictitious, simplistic models that are a

travesty of nature's complexity.

 

That's what he called " fact-free " risk assessment.

 

" The £1.6 million given by the UK Government to Dr. Pusztai was to develop

hazard assessment techniques for novel foods. That tells us the regulators

recognized that the methods in use then were not adequate to protect human

health. Not much has

changed, and it seems that line of research is no longer seriously pursued.

Consequently, the current risk assessments are still totally inadequate. "

---

Approving GM Crops is Abusing Science

 

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

 

Scientific evidence has gone decisively against GM crops. So why is commercial

growing allowed? Scientists from the Independent Science Panel are calling for

an enquiry. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports.

 

Prominent scientists representing more than a thousand colleagues around the

world voiced their deep concerns at the lack of social accountability of

publicly funded science, especially in genetically modified (GM) crops.

 

They spoke out at a Briefing to an audience of 120 at the Greater London

Assembly on Monday, 19 January 2003, organised jointly by Green Party member of

the Assembly Noel Lynch and the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS).

 

The scientists are particularly incensed at the persistent denial and dismissal

by the government's scientific advisors of the now extensive scientific evidence

on the hazards of GM crops to health and the environment, in total disregard for

the

precautionary principle.

 

 

The scientists belong to the London-based Institute of Science in Society,

representing more than 670 scientists from 76 countries, and Scientists for

Global Responsibility, with a membership of 600. All are also members of the

Independent Science Panel (ISP) on GM, launched 10 May 2003 at a public

conference in London attended by the then environment minister Michael Meacher

and 200 other participants.

 

The 24 scientists on the ISP published their report, The Case for a GM-Free

Sustainable World on the ISP website www.indsp.org 15 June 2003, billed as " a

complete dossier of evidence on the problems and hazards of GM crops as well as

the proven successes of all forms of non-GM sustainable agriculture " .

 

By July 3, the Report was downloaded 12 000 times in the United States alone. It

has since been published by ISIS and the Third World Network, republished by a

commercial publisher in the US, and widely translated. Spanish, French and

German

translations have been done, and Indonesian and Portuguese translations are on

the way.

 

The evidence reviewed in this authoritative report, containing more than 200

references to primary and secondary sources, received ample corroboration from

new data released recently. The US Department of Agriculture confirmed that GM

crops increased herbicide and pesticide use by more than 50 million pounds since

1996.

 

UK's Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs), much criticised for being limited in scope

and biased in methodology, nevertheless confirmed that two of the three GM crops

harmed wildlife.

 

The third, GM maize tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate, appeared to do better

only because the conventional maize crop was sprayed with the deadly herbicide

atrazine that Europe banned a week before the FSEs Report was released. This was

exposed and universally condemned by public interest organisations. A

spokesperson of GM-Free Cymru – a group campaigning to ban GM crops from Wales -

called it a " cynical and dishonest” manipulation of the scientific process.

 

Despite all that, the Advisory Committee on Release to the Environment gave the

green light to growing the GM maize in Britain.

 

" Scientific evidence has gone decisively against GM crops, " said Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, of the Institute of Science in Society. " But that's only scratching the

surface. "

 

She revealed how twelve dairy cows died in a farm in Hesse, Germany, after being

fed GM maize. " That is by no means an isolated incident. " She said, and reminded

her audience of research by Arpad Pusztai and his collaborators, by other

scientists, plus a host of anecdotal evidence showing that different GM feed

also harmed other livestock and lab animals

(see " GM food safe? " series, Science in Society 21). " This suggests there may be

something seriously wrong with GM food and feed in general. "

 

It has to do with the overwhelming instability of GM varieties, she said.

Practically every GM variety analysed by French and Belgian scientists recently,

including the T25 GM maize that the UK government is authorising for growing in

Britain,

turned out to be unstable, and in some cases, non-uniform. " This would make them

illegal under European legislation. " She pointed out.

 

" We all want to benefit from what new technologies have to offer, but history

shows that, all too often, we have failed to heed well-founded warnings and made

very expensive mistakes, and GM could be one of these;” says Professor Peter

Saunders,

bio-mathematician, King’s College, London, " Precaution is the key, and

precaution is inseparable from good science. " He also insisted it was up to

companies to prove " beyond reasonable doubt " that their products are safe, in

analogy to a court of law. The current practice is anti-precautionary, for the

burden on proof is misplaced, as it is left up to the public to prove something

“harmful” before it could be withdrawn.

 

He demolished all the objections of critics, including the one that says the

precautionary principle would prevent any innovation in society. " On the

contrary, " he said, " It would not have prevented Sir Walter Raleigh from

introducing

cigarettes to the world as there was no evidence suggesting cigarettes were

harmful; but it would surely have prevented tens of millions of deaths had the

precautionary principle been applied when evidence linking smoking to lung

cancer became

available. "

 

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, medical toxi-pathologist, Liverpool University, showed how

so-called risk assessment is based on fictitious, simplistic models that are a

travesty of nature's complexity. That's what he called " fact-free " risk

assessment.

" The £1.6 million given by the UK Government to Dr. Pusztai was to develop

hazard assessment techniques for novel foods. That tells us the regulators

recognized that the methods in use then were not adequate to protect human

health. Not much has

changed, and it seems that line of research is no longer seriously pursued.

Consequently, the current risk assessments are still totally inadequate. "

 

Dr. Arpad Pusztai, formerly of Rowett Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland, concurred.

" Science is able to provide the tools for conducting thorough risk assessments

on GM foods, yet this is not being done adequately. It leads one to ask, 'Who is

responsible for not ensuring that GM foods are properly assessed, and why?' "

 

The risk assessment process is a sham, said Joe Cummins, Emeritus Professor of

Plant Genetics from University of Western Ontario, Canada. For example, there

are many toxins isolated from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis –Bt

toxins -

incorporated into crops. Many are synthetic versions of the natural toxins, and

they are also processed differently in plants, with different carbohydrate added

to the protein. " But companies are allowed to test the natural toxins instead of

the toxins from the GM plants, as they would be eaten by animals and human

beings. " Said Joe Cummins.

 

Joe Cummins is also very critical of his own government: " The Canadian

government pumped millions of dollars into developing GM crops, especially GM

wheat, owned by the corporations. In return, the corporations agreed to enhance

the salaries of agricultural bureaucrats. The cosy relationship between the

corporations and government has resulted in lax regulation and

widespread pollution of non-GM crops. Worse still, scientists are intimidated

into silence; they are afraid to speak out, let alone do experiments on the

risks and hazards of GM.”

 

Many scientists deplore the pervasive commercial and political conflicts of

interests in both research and development and regulation of GM. Dr. Eva

Novotny, astrophysicist, formerly from Cambridge University, and spokesperson

for Scientists for Global Responsibility sums it up: " Vested interests must not

override science, economics and what the public want. "

 

Who are the winners and the losers in this GM debate? The environment, farmers

and consumers are all losers if GM crops are to be grown. Companies may appear

to be winners, but consumers have roundly rejected their offerings, farmers who

grew GM crops elsewhere have lost their markets. A report released last April by

Innovest Strategic Value Advisors signalled that agricultural biotechnology is a

high-risk industry not worth investing in. The Economics Review commissioned by

the UK Government last summer confirmed that there is no market for GM crops.

" GM companies might do best to cut their losses and begin producing something

their potential customers will actually want. " Said Eva Novotny.

 

The scientists are keen to work in partnership with farmers in research and

development of sustainable agriculture. John Turner, organic farmer from FARM, a

group set up in 2002 to represent independent and family farmers in the wake of

the foot and mouth epidemic, confirms that farmers in his organisation

overwhelmingly reject the commercial growing of GM crops. He is very

enthusiastic about the possibility of forming a scientists-farmers coalition. He

says: " This will ensure that science can respond to the present needs of

agriculture, and anticipate future aspirations and needs of farmers and

consumers. "

 

" The problem with our government's scientific advisors is that they not only

refuse to look at evidence in their own field of molecular genetics, they refuse

to look at evidence from other fields, such as the documented successes of

non-GM

sustainable agriculture. " Mae-Wan Ho pointed out.

 

She just returned from visiting Ethiopia, which has a Green as president. The

head of its Environment Protection Authority, Dr. Tewolde Egziabher, and Sue

Edwards, Director of the Institute of Sustainable Development, started a small

project in

sustainable agriculture in the state of Tigray at the very north of the country

in 1996.

 

Mae-Wan Ho summarised the work with great enthusiasm: " The results were so good

that the project rapidly spread, and now 2000 families are involved. Over a

range of agricultural land from wet to very dry, from rich soils to very poor

thin soils, farmers found that just by adopting pit composting, the traditional

way in Ethiopia, they were able to increase yields up to 4-fold, and do better

than chemical fertilizers in the overwhelming majority of farms. That is

something Londoners can do in their garden while they keep London and Britain

GM-Free. "

 

The Briefing itself was webcast. To see this please go to,

http://wms5.westminster-digital.co.uk/gla/meetings/winningthegmdebate_190104.wmv

 

-----------------------

SUBSCRIPTIONS

-----------------------

 

http://www.gmwatch.org/sub.asp

 

 

see end of this message

 

archive

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp

 

website

http://www.gmwatch.org

 

communications

ngin

 

donations to 'NGIN'

NGIN, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, UK

or e-mail for details: ngin

 

This message has been sent because you d to the GM Watch List.

http://www.gmwatch.org

 

---------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online