PUSZTAI GAGGED ON GM MAIZE THAT CAUSED RAT ABNORMALITIES

[Guest guest]

GMW: PUSZTAI " GAGGED " ON GM MAIZE THAT CAUSED RAT ABNORMALITIES

 

 

" GM WATCH " <info

 

Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:19:22 GMT

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

 

 

PUSZTAI " GAGGED " ON GM MAIZE THAT CAUSED RAT ABNORMALITIES

 

 

 

EXCERPT: " ...in relation to public safety, I would specifically

highlight the situation regarding MON 863. I also refer to the

concerns raised

in a French study last year (4). In spite of these concerns, the

supporting Monsanto dossier held by EFSA, and the report on a 90-day rat

feeding study, are treated as secret, as is a review document by Dr Arpad

Pusztai, commissioned by the German competent authority. His review has

not been released and he is effectively " gagged " and prevented from

either revealing his findings verbally or issuing copies of his report. "

------

OPEN LETTER TO

 

 

Geoffrey Podger Esq

Executive Director

European Food Safety Authority

 

 

14 March 2005

 

Dear Mr Podger,

 

EFSA Opinions, Secrecy and the Public Interest

 

Thank you for your letter dated 10 February 2005 in which you referred

me to The EFSA Journal, 99, 1-94; and in which you sought to clarify

the EFSA position in relation to the work of Dr Stanley Ewen and Dr

Arpad Pusztai (1).

 

Having perused the " Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on

Genetically Modified Organisms for the risk assessment of genetically

modified plants and derived food and feed " it is clear that:

 

1. Guidance given to the biotech corporations is effectively advice on

how to obtain " a positive opinion. "

 

2. Following receipt of the applicant's dossier by the relevant

national competent authority, the EFSA then takes advice from the

Scientific

Panel and agrees an " opinion " .

 

3. The EFSA is extremely reluctant to set its own research parameters

or to conduct or commission independent studies.

 

4. The EFSA accepts substantial equivalence and safety as already

established, even where hybrids are created from two or three GM lines.

 

In our view this whole process is complacent, is designed to facilitate

the introduction of GM crops and foods, and to assist GM developers to

extend their influence and to increase their profits. The process also

acts against the public interest in that the dossiers submitted by

applicants can be labelled as " commercially confidential " and therefore

kept away from independent scrutiny. In consequence, one presumes that

only your Scientific Panel members are able to view full dossiers.

 

You will undoubtedly be aware that the Aarhus Convention demands

openness within the European Commission on GMO matters. This is

especially

important since the European Commission now admits (2) that:

 

1. The science on GMOs is constantly evolving and that " new risk

considerations sometimes arise spontaneously and change the scope of

the risk

assessment "

 

2. Concerns about antibiotic resistant genes and secondary effects on

beneficial insects are " legitimate scientific concerns "

 

3. Member states should be able to determine their own level of

protection.

 

Given the foregoing, the recent discovery by Greenpeace (3) that there

is no effective monitoring by the EFSA, or anybody else, following the

commercialisation or import of MON810 and its 17 related varieties now

listed, is of grave concern.

 

However, in relation to public safety, I would specifically highlight

the situation regarding MON 863. I also refer to the concerns raised in

a French study last year (4). In spite of these concerns, the

supporting Monsanto dossier held by EFSA, and the report on a 90-day rat

feeding study, are treated as secret, as is a review document by Dr Arpad

Pusztai, commissioned by the German competent authority. His review has

not been released and he is effectively " gagged " and prevented from

either revealing his findings verbally or issuing copies of his report.

The lack of openness, transparency and inclusiveness in this process

is against the public interest, and is completely unacceptable.

 

Clearly if individual GM maize varieties cannot be publicly

demonstrated as being safe to eat, the EFSA assumption regarding the

safety of

double or triple hybrids can have no scientific validity whatsoever. We

are fully aware that one of the " hallmarks " of genetic modification is

its unpredictability, and that one of the characteristics of a GM

variety is its potential for instability.

 

I would be very grateful for your comments.

 

Yours Sincerely

Ian Panton

GM Free Cymru

 

References:

 

(1) http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_guidance/660_en.html

 

(2) http://www.foeeurope.org/biteback/Ombudsman/index.htm

 

(3) http://www.greenpeace.org/press/release?item_id=745983 & campaign_id=

 

(4) http://www.crii-gen.org/m_fs_axbis.htm

------

To make comments to the EU Commission go to

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/biotechnology/authorisation/public_comments_\

en.htm

There is a guide to EU regulations on the GeneWatch website at

http://www.genewatch.org/CropsAndFood/Regulations/Regs_Flowchart.htm

To see what dossiers are available go to

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gm_ff_applications/catindex_en.html

 

 

 

 

 

--------