Fwd: Leaked Monsanto GM report causes uproar/Share price plunges

[Guest guest]

YES!! Anna

 

 

> Subj: GMW: Leaked Monsanto GM report causes uproar/Share price plunges

> 5/25/05 5:14:04 AM Mountain Daylight Time

> info

> GM WATCH daily

> http://www.gmwatch.org

> ------

> 1.Leaked Monsanto GM report causes uproar

> 2.Dear Monsanto...

>

> Monsanto's share price plunged following leaks from a Monsanto report

> showing that guinea pigs fed on Monsanto's GM corn developed serious

> abnormalities and that there were kidney malformations and changes to

> blood indicating damage to the immune system.

> ------

> 1.Leaked Monsanto GM report causes uproar

> 25/05/2005

> http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=60214-leaked-

> monsanto-gm

>

> Published details of a Monsanto report are at the center of a new

> storm over whether genetically modified (GM) food could be harmful to

> human health, writes Anthony Fletcher

>

> Details of the report, published by the Independent on Sunday in the

> UK, are alleged to show that rats fed the genetically modified (GM)

> corn MON 863 developed internal abnormalities, while these health

> problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as

> part of the research project.

>

> The controversy comes as the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol summit meets

> in Montreal this week to discuss issues such as bulk labeling of GM

> crops and state liability in cases of contamination. Unsurprisingly

> therefore, food safety campaigners have pounced on the disclosure.

>

> “Monsanto's refusal to hand over animal feeding studies concerning its

> biotech corn is outrageous“ Bill Freese, research analyst for Friends

> of the Earth US told FoodNavigator-USA.com

>

> “I think it's fair to ask: Would Monsanto be hiding its safety studies

> if it didn't have something to hide? " He points out that controversy

> surrounding the rat study was first broken by French daily Le Monde

> over a year ago, and that Monstanto is still refusing to release the

> study in its entirety.

>

> Nonethlesess, it appears that this most recent disclosure has hit

> Monsanto hard. Shares were down 34 cents at $57.66 in early trading on

> the New York Stock Exchange on Monday. But the US biotech giant

> insists that it supplied all required information to the European Food

> Safety Authority (EFSA) prior to EFSA's 2004 favorable scientific

> opinion on the company's MON 863 corn.

>

> What’s more, the company is adamant that there is no new information

> about MON 863, modified to protect itself against corn rootworm, which

> has not been submitted to EU regulators.

>

> “That is not the case, " said Jerry Hjelle, vice president for Monsanto

> Worldwide Regulatory Affairs. “Monsanto has provided all required data

> and studies, including the subject rat study, to European regulatory

> authorities, and EFSA reviewed these studies before issuing its

> opinion. "

>

> Monsanto said that the product, which has been grown commercially in

> the United States and Canada since 2003, is safe, and that EFSA's

> Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms even published a

> statement on 29 October 2004 verifying this.

>

> The company insists therefore that the research does not provide

> evidence of any hidden dangers in biotechnology, only inconsequential

> differences in kidney size and blood composition in the animals used.

> It has also defended its right not to disclose the full study as it 

> “could be of commercial use to our competitors and exploited by others

> for commercial advantage, if made available. "

>

> It insists that all the information about its MON 863 maize, which was

> sent to the Independent on Sunday many weeks ago, is available

> http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=8846

> [but see letter below]

>

> Monsanto, based in St. Louis, Missouri, is the world's leading

> developer of genetic modifications for corn, soybeans, cotton and

> canola. It argues that GM corn resistant to corn rootworm larvae could

> save US business millions of dollars; the US Department of Agriculture

> estimates that this pest causes $1 billion in lost revenue annually to

> the US maize crop.

>

> U.S. farmers have largely embraced new bitechnology. But other

> countries, notably in the European Union, have been slow to approve

> the products because of questions about how genetic changes in the

> plants affect humans and animals.

>

> Monsanto is still seeking approval to import the biotech corn for use

> in processed foods and derived food products, but the EU's 25

> governments remain deadlocked over the issue.

> ------

> 2.Dear Monsanto... You are being disingenuous

>

> FOR THE ATTENTION OF MR TONY COOMBES

> info

>

> Mr Tony Coombes

> Head of Corporate Affairs

> Monsanto UK

>

> 24th May 2005

>

> Dear Mr Coombes,

>

> The following information relating to the MON863 controversy has been

> sent to me (pasted at base of this letter). You are being disingenuous

> (to put it mildly) in your explanation  as to why the 90-day MON863

> rat feeding study has not been put in the public domain.  FSANZ

> decided that it did NOT contain " confidential business information " ,

> and it is a scandal that the EC accepted your assurances that it did. 

> If there is anything genuinely sensitive  in  the full study (for

> example detail on GM characterization or " manufacturing " ), feel free

> to wipe it out;  but let us see the rest of it, as you should

> according to the terms of the relevant EU legislation.  The only

> commercial advantage your competitors would gain from seeing your

> results would be to make sure that they don't seek to develop any

> remotely similar maize line! 

>   

> Technical reports containing research results are often put into the

> public domain, as you know full well;  and so they should be, since

> " industry " reports have a tendency to be directed or specifically

> written as an aid to the obtaining of consents.  If they will not

> stand up under peer review they should not be used in support of the

> applicant in the approvals process.

>

> Now I come to your despicable treatment of Dr Arpad Pusztai on your

> web site.  You have named him in several places, and even referred to

> " The Pusztai Report " -- in the full knowledge that he cannot respond

> because you have forced him to sign a Declaration of Secrecy with the

> German BfN.  So he cannot defend himself, and neither can we, the

> members of the public, judge whether your criticisms of him are

> justified. This does not say a lot about your respect for natural

> justice.

>

> If Dr Pusztai is prepared to defend his comments in an open scientific

> forum, and if you have nothing to hide, you should permit all of the

> research information on MON863 into the public domain.

>

> We therefore ask you three simple questions:

>

> 1.  Will you now, in response to the current intense public debate on

> the safety of MON863, release the full 90-day rat feeding study into

> the public domain?

>

> 2.  Will you release Dr Pusztai and the German BfN from their

> Declarations of Secrecy and allow them to freely express their

> concerns about the rat feeding study?

>

> 3.  Will you publish Dr Pusztai's comments in full on your web site,

> or at the very least provide a hyperlink to another web site where

> they are published?

>

> If you do not accede to these requests, I am afraid that we shall all

> have to accept that Monsanto does have something to hide; that it is

> prepared to corrupt the scientific enterprise; and that it wants

> nothing to do with conventional scientific debate.  We will then be

> able to draw our own conclusions as to whether MON863 is harmful or

> not.

>

> I look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.

>

> Yours sincerely

>

> Dr Brian John

>