Critical of GM foods? Watch out!

[Guest guest]

This could have as easily been written about being critical about big pharma,

big medicine, big oil, big chemical, big industrial farming, big banking, big

media, Bush, etc. They spout competition, family values, freedom, patriotism,

etc. It is all bullshit. They really are after subverting all of them and are

for monopilization, misinformation, control, domination, etc.

 

Make no mistake whether we are talking about pharmacuetical companies,

chemical companies, oil companies, GM food companies, dirty

politicians, major media, big banking, etc. we are really talking

about the same thing, the same money, the same corporations (they have

the same big stock owners although they are very good at hiding that

fact) so if you own an oil company, a chemical company, a major world

bank, a chemical company I will understand if you are against real

democracy, real competition, truth, civil liberties, etc. but if you

don't own one of the above you should look hard and long about who you

vote for or you will likely be voting against yourself out of

ignorance. F.

 

 

 

Subject:Critical of GM foods? Watch out!

" GM WATCH " <info

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:23:32 GMT

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www,gmwatch.org

--------

Are You Critical of Genetically Engineered Foods?

Watch Out

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

http://seedsofdeception.com/newsletter-Nov1_2004.php

 

One day in April 1998, Professor Phillip James walked into the office

of Arpad Pusztai and placed a large stack of documents on his desk1. He

called in Arpad's wife Susan from the adjoining office. James was the

director of the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen Scotland, Europe's leading

nutritional research facility. He told the Pusztais, both senior

scientists there, that the British agriculture minister was meeting with

European ministers in Brussels to vote on genetically modified (GM)

foods.

The documents were submissions from biotech companies that had sought

approval of their GM soy, corn, and tomatoes. The minister wanted a

scientific opinion on them.

 

Arpad Pusztai looked at the stack—nearly 700 pages—then back at James.

He was confident that his director and the other eleven scientists on

the committee that approves GM foods for the UK were far too busy to

actually read these studies. The Pusztais, however, had been working for

more than two years on a UK government grant, leading a 20-member

research team to design the ideal testing protocol for evaluating GM

foods.

They were also conducting safety tests on a new variety of GM potatoes

intended for commercialization. The Pusztais were therefore among the

most qualified scientists in the world to evaluate the papers James had

just given them. Arpad asked how much time they had. " Two and a half

hours, " said James. They quickly got to work, focusing on the design and

the data.

 

Arpad was shocked at what he discovered. The research was incredibly

poor. He described it as superficial, flimsy, just plain bad science.

Reading those studies was a turning point in the life of this very

pro-biotech scientist. Arpad was the leading researcher in his field

with more

than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit. Based on his reputation

and experience, the government had awarded him the GM research grant

over 27 competing applicants. As a man of integrity, accustomed to

thorough and rigorous science, Arpad expected the same from others.

But he

realized that the approach taken by biotech industry scientists was

diametrically opposed to his own. " I was doing safety studies, " he said.

" They were doing as little as possible to get their products to market as

quickly as possible. " 2

 

Pusztai called the minister and told him that although he wasn't

expecting to have such a strong opinion after only two and a half hours,

there was definitely not enough information to declare the foods safe for

humans. But the minister responded, " I don't know why you are telling me

this, Professor James has already accepted it. " It had already been on

the market for two years.

 

Months later, Arpad had another shock. Young rats fed a genetically

engineered potato developed extensive health problems. Some had smaller,

less developed brains, livers, and testicles, as well as partial atrophy

of the liver. Some suffered damaged immune systems and organ damage.3

And there was excessive cell growth in the stomach and intestines.4

 

The potato was engineered to produce its own insecticide, but the

insecticide itself was not the cause of these problems. In fact, other

rats

that had eaten natural potatoes that were spiked with the insecticide

fared much better. Thus, since the insecticide was not the cause of the

poor health of the GM-fed rats, it was almost certainly the process of

genetically modifying the potatoes that was the culprit.

 

Arpad realized that if his potatoes had been subjected to the same

superficial industry studies he had reviewed, the potatoes would have

been

approved. The organ damage, cell growth, immune functions, etc., would

have been undetected. More worrisome was the fact that the soy, corn,

and tomatoes that were approved were not tested for these potential

problems. And they were created with the same process that Arpad used to

engineer his potatoes.

 

With permission from his director, Arpad accepted an invitation to be

interviewed on television and express his concerns about GM food. For

two days he was a hero at his institute. Then, on a Tuesday afternoon,

two phone calls from the prime minister's office were allegedly forwarded

through the institute's receptionist to the director. On Wednesday

morning, Phillip James fired Arpad after 35 years and silenced him with

threats of a lawsuit. The 20-member research team was dismantled and the

UK government abandoned its plans for long-term safety study

requirements for GM foods. The Rowett Institute then issued several

statements

trashing Arpad and his research in an apparent attempt to protect the

biotech industry.

 

Eventually, Arpad was invited to speak before Parliament, his gag order

lifted, and his research published in the prestigious Lancet. In spite

of his work being cut off in the middle, his rat study remains the most

in depth animal feeding safety study ever published on GM foods.

Tragically, no similar studies have yet been applied to the GM foods

on the

market and no one is monitoring to see if the organs, immune system, and

cells of humans eating GM foods are being similarly influenced.

 

Arpad has since been commissioned to review all published animal

feeding studies on GM foods. There are only about a dozen. In his paper,

published as a chapter in the book Food Safety5 he reported consistent

shortcomings in industry-sponsored research. Their poor designs would

allow

significant problems to go unnoticed. When problems were identified,

they were not followed-up.

 

Arpad and his wife have made presentations on GM foods around the

world. In 2001, they appeared before New Zealand's Royal Commission of

Inquiry on Genetic Modification, where the sentiments and experience of

several other presenters echoed their own. Parliament member Sue Kedgley

testified: " Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a

number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the

research that is taking place… and the increasingly close ties that are

developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if

they express these fears publicly, even at such a Commission… or even if

they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out

of their institution. " 6

 

Mae-Wan Ho, a biophysicist and geneticist, told the Commission that the

scientific evidence on GM foods " simply did not support the claims…

that the technology is precise and safe. " Ho has sustained numerous

attacks for her opinions, including being hounded out of her position

at the

UK's Open University.

 

Epidemiologist Judy Carman testified that the few animal feeding

studies on GM foods are too short to adequately test for cancer or for

problems in the offspring, and are not evaluating " biochemistry,

immunology,

tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function. "

Carman, who has investigated outbreaks of disease, said that health

problems associated with GM foods might be impossible to track in the

human

population or take decades to discover. Carman is repeatedly attacked

for her critical stance. One pro-GM scientist threatened disciplinary

action through her Vice-Chancellor. Another circulated a defamatory

letter to government and university officials in October 2004,

alleging that

Carman was unethical and that her work was similar to " inaccurate

anti-vaccine scaremongering that kills people. "

 

Geneticist Michael Antoniou, who works on human gene therapy, told the

New Zealand Commission, " genetic engineering technology, as it's being

applied in agriculture now, is based on the understanding of genetics

we had 15 years ago, about genes being isolated little units that work

independently of each other. " He explained that genes actually " work as

an integrated whole of families. " In 2003, Antoniou represented

non-governmental organizations on the UK's supposedly balanced GM Science

Review Panel that was part of the nationwide " GM Nation? " public

debate. He

was shocked to find scientists there still supporting obsolete theories

of gene independence, even claiming that the order of genes in the DNA

was entirely irrelevant. But Antoniou was outnumbered by eleven

scientists representing either the biotech industry or appointed by the

pro-biotech UK government. His well-supported arguments fell on deaf

ears.

Since the debate, new studies have further verified Antoniou's position

by showing that genes are not randomly located along the DNA, but

clustered into groups with related functions.7

 

Virologist Terje Traavik testified that GM crops " might be the basis

for real ecological and health catastrophes. " Three years later, in a

February 2004 meeting with delegates to the UN biosafety protocol

conference, Traavik presented preliminary evidence from three studies

which

might fulfill his earlier prediction. 1. Philippinos living next to a GM

cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;8 2.

Promoters—genetic material routinely inserted into GM crops—were found

to transfer to rat organs after a single transgenic meal;9 and 3. Key

safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned,

calling into question the safety of using these viruses as vaccines.10

Traavik, naturally, was attacked.11

 

Biologist Phil Regal told the Commission, " I think the people who boost

genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for

forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition; you know, `we made a

mistake, let's start over.' " Sue Kedgley had a different idea. She said,

" I would recommend that perhaps we could set up human clinical trials

using volunteers of genetically engineered scientists and their

families, because I think they are so convinced of the safety of the

products

that they are creating and I'm sure they would very readily volunteer to

become part of a human clinical trial. "

 

For more information about Arpad Pusztai, see Seeds of Deception.

Footage from the New Zealand Royal Commission is found on the forthcoming

video, Healthy Eating Means No Genetically Engineered Foods, available at

www.seedsofdeception.com.

 

Publishers and webmasters may offer this article or monthly series to

your readers at no charge,

by e-mailing a request to us. Individuals may read the column each

month, by subscribing to a free newsletter at www.seedsofdeception.com.

Also on the site, you will find these columns formatted as a two page

handout.

 

© Copyright 2004 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted to

reproduce this in whole or in part.

 

Note to rs: As of August, 2004, this publication no longer

summarizes the news on genetically engineered foods and crops. This is

because there are already other free electronic newsletters that do an

excellent job of this. We recommend GM Watch, www.gmwatch.org, and The

Campaign, www.thecampaign.org.

--

 

Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Chapter 1, Yes! Books, Iowa USA

2003, www.seedsofdeception.com

Personal interviews with Arpad Pusztai.

Ibid

Stanley W B Ewen, Arpad Pusztai, EFFECT OF DIETS CONTAINING GENETICALLY

MODIFIED POTATOES EXPRESSING GALANTHUS NIVALIS LECTIN ON RAT SMALL

INTESTINE, LANCET, Research letters, Volume 354, Number 9187, 16 October

1999

Arpad Pusztai, Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health

Effects; Food Safety - Contaminants and Toxins, Chapter 16: pp. 347-372,

CABI Publishing Wallingford, UK, 2003 www.cabi-publishing.org

Testimony presented here is found in the transcripts from the Royal

Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification

Laurence D. Hurst, Csaba Pál & Martin J. Lercher, THE EVOLUTIONARY

DYNAMICS OF EUKARYOTIC GENE ORDER, Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 299 –310,

2004; doi:10.1038/nrg1319 Abstract: In eukaryotes, unlike in bacteria,

gene order has typically been assumed to be random. However, the first

statistically rigorous analyses of complete genomes, together with the

availability of abundant gene-expression data, have forced a paradigm

shift: in every complete eukaryotic genome that has been analysed so far,

gene order is not random. It seems that genes that have similar and/or

coordinated expression are often clustered. Here, we review this

evidence and ask how such clusters evolve and how this relates to

mechanisms

that control gene expression.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Media-maizepollen.php

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Media-rattissue.php

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Media-virusesrecombined.php

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Media-Terje-Traavik-Rebuttal.pdf

 

 

 

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