Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning GMOs.

[Guest guest]

califpacific <califpacific sent

 

Gettingwell, FWD.

 

> Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

 

 

> The scientists are extremely concerned about the hazards of GMOs

to biodiversity, food safety, human and animal health, and demand a

moratorium on environmental releases in accordance with the

precautionary principle.

 

 

> They are opposed to GM crops that will intensify corporate

monopoly, exacerbate inequality and prevent the essential shift to

sustainable agriculture that can provide food security and health

around the world.

 

 

> They call for a ban on patents of life-forms and living

processes which threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of

indigenous knowledge and genetic resources and violate basic human

rights and dignity.

 

 

> They want more support on research and development of non-

corporate, sustainable agriculture that can benefit family farmers

all over the world.

>

> Previous versions of this letter were submitted to many governments

and international forums including:

>

> World Trade Organization Conference in Seattle (November 30 –

Dec. 2, 1999)

> UN Biosafety Protocol Meeting in Montreal (24 – 28, Jan. 2000)

> UN Commission on Sustainable Development Conference on

Sustainable Agriculture in New York (April 24-May 5, 2000)

> UN Convention on Biological Diversity Conference in Nairobi (May

16-24, 2000)

> United States Congress (29 June, 2000)

 

 

>

> Signed by 525 scientists from 65 different countries, including:

>

> Dr. David Bellamy, Biologist and Broadcaster, London, UK

> Prof. Liebe Cavalieri, Mathematical Ecologist, Univ. Minnesota, USA

> Dr. Thomas S. Cox, Geneticist, US Dept. of Agriculture (retired),

India

> Dr. Tewolde Egziabher, Spokesperson for African Region, Ethiopia

> Dr. David Ehrenfeld, Biologist/Ecologist, Rutgers University, USA

> Dr. Vladimir Zajac, Oncovirologist, Genetisist, Cancer Reseach

Inst, Czech Republic

> Dr. Brian Hursey, ex FAO Senior Officer for Vector Borne Diseases,

UK

> Prof. Ruth Hubbard, Geneticist, Harvard University, USA

> Prof. Jonathan King, Molecular Biologist, MIT, Cambridge, USA

> Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Laboratoire de Biochimie & Moleculaire,

Univ. Caen, France

> Dr. David Suzuki, Geneticist, David Suzuki Foundation, Univ.

British Columbia, Canada

> Dr. Vandana Shiva, Theoretical Physicist and Ecologist, India

> Dr. George Woodwell, Director, Woods Hole Research Center, USA

> Prof. Oscar B. Zamora, Agronomist, U. Philippines, Los Banos,

Philippines

> add your name to the list!

>

>

> 1.9.2000

> Open Letter from World Scientists to All GovernmentsSummary

> We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension

of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both

commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for

patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes

to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into

the future of agriculture and food security for all.

>

> Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because

they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous

knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and

dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific

research and are against the welfare of animals.

>

> GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many

problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased

herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to

farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is

driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential

shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and

health around the world

>

> The hazards of GMOs to biodiversity and human and animal health are

now acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments.

Particularly serious consequences are associated with the potential

for horizontal gene transfer. These include the spread of antibiotic

resistance marker genes that would render infectious diseases

untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause

diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer.

>

> In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol negotiated in Montreal in

January 2000, more than 130 governments have pledged to implement the

precautionary principle and to ensure that biosafety legislations at

the national and international levels take precedence over trade and

financial agreements at the World Trade Organization.

>

> Successive studies have documented the productivity and the social

and environmental benefits of sustainable, low-input and organic

farming in both North and South. They offer the only practical way of

restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic

practices, and empower small family farmers to combat poverty and

hunger.

>

> We urge the US Congress to reject GM crops as both hazardous and

contrary to the interest of family farmers; and to support research

and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly

benefit family farmers all over the world.

>

> We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension

of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both

commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for

patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes

to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into

the future of agriculture and food security for all.

>

> 1 Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned

because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous

knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and

dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific

research and are against the welfare of animals(1). Life-forms such

as organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes are discoveries and hence

not patentable. Current GM techniques which exploit living processes

are unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable, and do not qualify

as inventions. Furthermore, those techniques are inherently unsafe,

as are many GM organisms and products.

>

> 2. It is becoming increasingly clear that current GM crops are

neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous diversion

preventing the essential shift to sustainable agricultural practices

that can provide food security and health around the world.

>

> 3. Two simple characteristics account for the nearly 40 million

hectares of GM crops planted in 1999(2). The majority (71%) are

tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides, with companies engineering

plants to be tolerant to their own brand of herbicide, while most of

the rest are engineered with bt-toxins to kill insect pests. A

university-based survey of 8200 field trials of the most widely grown

GM crops, herbicide-tolerant soya beans - revealed that they yield

6.7% less and required two to five times more herbicides than non-GM

varieties(3). This has been confirmed by a more recent study in the

University of Nebraska(4). Yet other problems have been identified:

erratic performance, disease susceptibility(5), fruit abortion(6) and

poor economic returns to farmers(7).

>

> 4. According to the UN food programme, there is enough food to feed

the world one and a half times over. While world population has grown

90% in the past 40 years, the amount of food per capita has increased

by 25%, yet one billion are hungry(8). A new FAO report confirms that

there will be enough or more than enough food to meet global demands

without taking into account any yield improvementsthat might result

from GM crops well into 2030 (9). It is on account of increasing

corporate monopoly operating under the globalised economy that the

poor are getting poorer and hungrier(10). Family farmers around the

world have been driven to destitution and suicide, and for the same

reasons. Between 1993 and 1997 the number of mid-sized farms in the

US dropped by 74,440(11), and farmers are now receiving below the

average cost of production for their produce(12). The farming

population in France and Germany fell by 50% since 1978(13). In the

UK, 20 000 farming jobs were lost in the past year alone, and the

Prime Minister has announced a £200m aid package(14). Four

corporations control 85% of the world trade in cereals at the end of

1999(15). Mergers and acquisitions are continuing.

>

> 5. The new patents on seeds intensify corporate monopoly by

preventing farmers from saving and replanting seeds, which is what

most farmers still do in the Third World. In order to protect their

patents, corporations are continuing to develop terminator

technologies that genetic engineer harvested seeds not to germinate,

despite worldwide opposition from farmers and civil society at large

(16).

>

> 6. Christian Aid, a major charity working with the Third World,

concluded that GM crops will cause unemployment, exacerbate Third

World debt, threaten sustainable farming systems and damage the

environment. It predicts famine for the poorest countries(17).

African Governments condemned Monsanto's claim that GMOs are needed

to feed the hungry of the world: " We..strongly object that the image

of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant

multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe,

environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us… we

believe it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the

sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for

millennia and …undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.(18) " A

message from the Peasant movement of the Philippines to the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of the

industrialized countries stated, " The entry of GMOs will certainly

intensify landlessness, hunger and injustice.(19) "

>

> 7. A coalition of family farming groups in the US have issued a

comprehensive list of demands, including ban on ownership of all life-

forms; suspension of sales, environmental releases and further

approvals of all GM crops and products pending an independent,

comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, health and

economic impacts; and for corporations to be made liable for all

damages arising from GM crops and products to livestock, human beings

and the environment(20). They also demand a moratorium on all

corporate mergers and acquisitions, on farm closures, and an end to

policies that serve big agribusiness interests at the expense of

family farmers, taxpayers and the environment(21). They have mounted

a lawsuit against Monsanto and nine other corporations for

monopolistic practices and for foisting GM crops on farmers without

adequate safety and environmental impact assessments(22).

>

> 8. Some of the hazards of GM crops are openly acknowledged by the

UK and US Governments. UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

(MAFF) has admitted that the transfer of GM crops and pollen beyond

the planted fields is unavoidable(23), and this has already resulted

in herbicide-tolerant weeds(24). An interim report on UK Government-

sponsored field trials confirmed hybridisation between adjacent plots

of different herbicide tolerant GM oilseed rape varieties, which gave

rise to hybrids tolerant to multiple herbicides. In addition, GM

oilseed rape and their hybrids were found as volunteers in subsequent

wheat and barley crops, which had to be controlled by standard

herbicides(25). Bt-resistant insect pests have evolved in response to

the continuous presence of the toxins in GM plants throughout the

growing season, and the US Environment Protection Agency is

recommending farmers to plant up to 40% non-GM crops in order to

create refugia for non-resistant insect pests(26).

>

> 9. The threats to biodiversity from major GM crops already

commercialized are becoming increasingly clear. The broad-spectrum

herbicides used with herbicide-tolerant GM crops decimate wild plant

species indiscriminately, they are also toxic to animals. Glufosinate

causes birth defects in mammals(27), and glyphosate is linked to non-

Hodgkin lymphoma(28). GM crops with bt-toxins kill beneficial insects

such as bees(29) and lacewings(30), and pollen from bt-corn is found

to be lethal to monarch butterflies(31) as well as swallowtails(32).

Bt-toxin is exuded from roots of bt-plants in the rhizosphere, where

it rapidly binds to soil particles and become protected from

degradation. As the toxin is present in an activated, non-selective

form, both target and non-target species in the soil will be affected

(33), with knock on effects on species above ground.

>

> 10. Products resulting from genetically modified organisms can also

be hazardous. For example, a batch of tryptophan produced by GM

microorganisms was associated with at least 37 deaths and 1500

serious illnesses(34). Genetically modified Bovine Growth Hormone,

injected into cows in order to increase milk yield, not only causes

excessive suffering and illnesses for the cows but increases IGF-1 in

the milk, which is linked to breast and prostate cancers in humans

(35). It is vital for the public to be protected from all GM

products, and not only those containing transgenic DNA or protein.

That is because the process of genetic modification itself, at least

in the form currently practised, is inherently unsafe.

>

> 11. Secret memoranda of US Food and Drug Administration revealed

that it ignored the warnings of its own scientists that genetic

engineering is a new departure and introduces new risks. Furthermore,

the first GM crop to be commercialized - the Flavr Savr tomato - did

not pass the required toxicological tests(36). Since then, no

comprehensive scientific safety testing had been done until Dr. Arpad

Pusztai and his collaborators in the UK raised serious concerns over

the safety of the GM potatoes they were testing. They conclude that a

significant part of the toxic effect may be due to the " [gene]

construct or the genetic transformation (or both) " used in making the

GM plants(37).

>

> 12. The safety of GM foods was openly disputed by Professor Bevan

Moseley, molecular geneticist and current Chair of the Working Group

on Novel Foods in the European Union's Scientific Committee on Food

(38). He drew attention to unforseen effects inherent to the

technology, emphasizing that the next generation of GM foods - the so-

called 'neutraceuticals' or 'functional foods', such as vitamin

A 'enriched' rice - will pose even greater health risks because of

the increased complexity of the gene constructs.

>

> 13. Genetic engineering introduces new genes and new combinations

of genetic material constructed in the laboratory into crops,

livestock and microorganisms(39). The artificial constructs are

derived from the genetic material of pathogenic viruses and other

genetic parasites, as well as bacteria and other organisms, and

include genes coding for antibiotic resistance. The constructs are

designed to break down species barriers and to overcome mechanisms

that prevent foreign genetic material from inserting into genomes.

Most of them have never existed in nature in the course of billions

of years of evolution.

>

> 14. These constructs are introduced into cells by invasive methods

that lead to random insertion of the foreign genes into the genomes

(the totality of all the genetic material of a cell or organism).

This gives rise to unpredictable, random effects, including gross

abnormalities in animals and unexpected toxins and allergens in food

crops.

>

> 15. One construct common to practically all GM crops already

commercialized or undergoing field trials involves a gene-switch

(promoter) from the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) spliced next to

the foreign gene (transgene) to make it over-express continuously

(40). This CaMV promoter is active in all plants, in yeast, algae and

E. coli. We recently discovered that it is even active in amphibian

egg(41) and human cell extract(42). It has a modular structure, and

is interchangeable, in part, or in whole with promoters of other

viruses to give infectious viruses. It also has a 'recombination

hotspot' where it is prone to break and join up with other genetic

material(43).

>

> 16. For these and other reasons, transgenic DNA - the totality of

artificial constructs transferred into the GMO - may be more unstable

and prone to transfer again to unrelated species; potentially to all

species interacting with the GMO(44).

>

> 17. The instability of transgenic DNA in GM plants is well-known

(45). GM genes are often silenced, but loss of part or all of the

transgenic DNA also occurs, even during later generations of

propagation(46). We are aware of no published evidence for the long

term stability of GM inserts in terms of structure or location in the

plant genome in any of the GM lines already commercialized or

undergoing field trials.

>

> 18. The potential hazards of horizontal transfer of GM genes

include the spread of antibiotic resistance genes to pathogens, the

generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause disease and

mutations due to the random insertion of foreign DNA, some of which

may lead to cancer in mammalian cells(47). The ability of the CaMV

promoter to function in all species including human beings is

particularly relevant to the potential hazards of horizontal gene

transfer.

>

> 19. The possibility for naked or free DNA to be taken up by

mammalian cells is explicitly mentioned in the US Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) draft guidance to industry on antibiotic

resistance marker genes(48). In commenting on the FDA's document, the

UK MAFF pointed out that transgenic DNA may be transferred not just

by ingestion, but by contact with plant dust and air-borne pollen

during farm work and food processing(49). This warning is all the

more significant with the recent report from Jena University in

Germany that field experiments indicated GM genes may have

transferred via GM pollen to the bacteria and yeasts in the gut of

bee larvae(50).

>

> 20. Plant DNA is not readily degraded during most commercial food

processing(51). Procedures such as grinding and milling left grain

DNA largely intact, as did heat-treatment at 90deg.C. Plants placed

in silage showed little degradation of DNA, and a special UK MAFF

report advises against using GM plants or plant waste in animal feed.

>

> 21. The human mouth contains bacteria that have been shown to take

up and express naked DNA containing antibiotic resistance genes, and

similar transformable bacteria are present in the respiratory tracts

(52).

>

> 22. Antibiotic resistance marker genes from GM plants have been

found to transfer horizontally to soil bacteria and fungi in the

laboratory(53). Field monitoring revealed that GM sugar beet DNA

persisted in the soil for up to two years after the GM crop was

planted. And there is evidence suggesting that parts of the

transgenic DNA have transferred horizontally to bacteria in the soil

(54).

>

> 23. Recent research in gene therapy and nucleic acid (both DNA and

RNA) vaccines leaves little doubt that naked/free nucleic acids can

be taken up, and in some cases, incorporated into the genome of all

mammalian cells including those of human beings. Adverse effects

already observed include acute toxic shock, delayed immunological

reactions and autoimmune reactions(55).

>

> 24. The British Medical Association, in their interim report

(published May, 1999), called for an indefinite moratorium on the

releases of GMOs pending further research on new allergies, the

spread of antibiotic resistance genes and the effects of transgenic

DNA.

>

> 25. In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol successfully negotiated in

Montreal in January, 2000, more than 130 governments have agreed to

implement the precautionary principle, and to ensure that biosafety

legislations at the national and international levels take precedence

over trade and financial agreements at the WTO. Similarly, delegates

to the Codex Alimentarius Commission Conference in Chiba Japan, March

2000, have agreed to prepare stringent regulatory procedures for GM

foods that include pre-market evaluation, long-term monitoring for

health impacts, tests for genetic stability, toxins, allergens and

other unintended effects(56). The Cartegena Biosafety Protocol has

now been signed by 68 Governments in Nairobi in May, 2000.

>

> 26. We urge all Governments to take proper account of the now

substantial scientific evidence of actual and suspected hazards

arising from GM technology and many of its products, and to impose an

immediate moratorium on further environmental releases, including

open field trials, in accordance with the precautionary principle as

well as sound science.

>

> 27. Successive studies have documented the productivity and

sustainability of family farming in the Third World as well as in the

North(57). Evidence from both North and South indicates that small

farms are more productive, more efficient and contribute more to

economic development than large farms. Small farmers also tend to

make better stewards of natural resources, conserving biodiversity

and safeguarding the sustainability of agricultural production(58).

Cuba responded to the economic crisis precipitated by the break up of

the Soviet Bloc in 1989 by converting from conventional large scale,

high input monoculture to small organic and semi-organic farming,

thereby doubling food production with half the previous input(59).

>

> 28. Agroecological approaches hold great promise for sustainable

agriculture in developing countries, in combining local farming

knowledge and techniques adjusted to local conditions with

contemporary western scientific knowledge(60). The yields have

doubled and tripled and are still increasing. An estimated 12.5

million hectares worldwide are already successfully farmed in this way

(61). It is environmentally sound and affordable for small farmers.

It recovers farming land marginalized by conventional intensive

agriculture. It offers the only practical way of restoring

agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic practices. Most

of all, it empowers small family farmers to combat poverty and

hunger.

>

> 29. We urge all Governments to reject GM crops on grounds that they

are both hazardous and contrary to ecologically sustainable use of

resources. Instead they should support research and development of

sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family

farmers the world over.

>

>

>

>List of scientists who signed are at site.

>

>

>

>

> See World Scientists' Statement, Institute of Science in Society

website

> See Ho, M.W. and Traavik, T. (1999). Why Patents on Life Forms

and Living Processes Should be Rejected from TRIPS – Scientific

Briefing on TRIPS Article 27.3(b). TWN Report, Penang. See also ISIS

News #3 and #4

> James, C. (1998,1999). Global Status of Transgenic Crops, ISAAA

Briefs, New York.

> Benbrook, C. (1999). Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences

of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based

Varietal Trials in 1998, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper No. 1,

Idaho.

> " Splitting Headache " Andy Coghlan. NewScientist, News, November

20, 1999.

> " Metabolic Disturbances in GM cotton leading to fruit abortion

and other problems "

> " Genetically Altered Crops – Will We Answer the Questions? " Dan

McGuire, American Corn Growers Association Annual Convention, Las

Vegas Nevade, Feb.4, 2000; see also " Biotech News " Richard Wolfson,

Canad. J. Health & Nutrition, April, 2000.

> See Watkins, K. (1999). Free trade and farm fallacies. Third

World Resurgence 100/101, 33-37; see also El Feki, S. (2000). Growing

pains, The Economist, 25 March, 2000.

> Agriculture: towards 2015/30, FAO Global Perspectives Studies

Unit http://www.fao.org/es/esd/at2015/toc-e.htm

> This is now admitted in an astonishing series of articles by

Shereen El Feki in The Economist (March 25, 2000), hitherto generally

considered as a pro-business right-wing magazine.

> Farm and Land in Farms, Final Estimates 1993-1997, USDA National

Agricultural Statistics Service.

> See Griffin, D. (1999). Agricultural globalization. A threat to

food security? Third World Resurgence 100/101, 38-40.

> El Feki, S. (2000). Trust or bust, The Economist, 25 March,

2000.

> Meikle, J. (2000). Farmers welcome £200m deal. The Guardian, 31

March, 2000.

> Farm Aid fact sheet: The Farm Crisis Deepens, Cambridge, Mass,

1999.

> US Department of Agriculture now holds two new patents on

terminator technology jointly with Delta and Pine. These patents were

issued in 1999. AstraZeneca are patenting similar techniques. Rafi

communique, March, 2000

> Simms, A. (1999). Selling Suicide, farming, false promises and

genetic engineering in developing countries, Christian Aid, London.

> " Let Nature's Harvest Continue " Statement from all the African

delegates (except South Africa) to FAO negotiations on the

International Undertaking for Plant Genetic Resources June, 1998.

> Letter from Kilusang Mgbubukid ng Pilipinas to OECD, 14 Feb.

2000

> Farmer's Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture,

National Family Farm Coalition, USA,

> Farmer's rally on Capitol Hill, September 12, 1999.

> McGuire, D. (2000). Genetically altered crops: will we answer

the questions? American Corn Growers Association Annual Convention,

Las Vegas, Feb. 4, 2000.

> MAFF Fact Sheet: Genetic modification of crops and food, June,

1999.

> See Ho, M.W. and Tappeser, B. (1997). Potential contributions of

horizontal gene transfer to the transboundary movement of living

modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. Proceedings

of Workshop on Transboundary Movement of Living Modified Organisms

resulting from Modern biotechnology : Issues and Opportunities for

Policy-makers (K.J. Mulongoy, ed.), pp. 171-193, International

Academy of the Environment, Geneva.

> " The BRIGHT Project: Botanical and Rotational Implications of

Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerance: Progress Report, March

2000, sponsored by MAFF, SERAD, HGCA, BBRO, Aventis, Crop Care,

Cyanamid, Monsanto

> Mellon, M. and Rissler, J. (1998). Now or Never. Serious New

Plans to Save a Natural Pest Control, Union of Conerned Scientists,

Cambridge, Mass.

> Garcia,A.,Benavides,F.,Fletcher,T. and Orts,E. (1998). Paternal

exposure to pesticides and congenital malformations. Scand J Work

Environ Health 24, 473-80.

> Hardell, H. & Eriksson, M. (1999). A Case-Control Study of Non-

Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides. Cancer85, 1355-1360.

> " Cotton used in medicine poses threat: genetically-altered

cotton may not be safe " Bangkok Post, November 17, 1997.

> Hilbeck, A., Baumgartner, M., Fried, P.M. and Bigler, F. (1998).

Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis-corn-fed prey on

mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea

(Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology 27, 480-96.

> Losey, J.E., Rayor, L.D. and Carter, M.E. (1999). Transgenic

pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399, 214.

> See Wraight, C.L., Zangerl, R.A., Carroll, M.J. and Berenbaum,

M.R. (2000). Absence of toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis pollen to

black swallowtails under field conditions. PNAS Early Edition

www.pnas.org; despite the claim in the title, the paper reports

toxicity of bt-pollen from a high-expressing line to swallowtail

larvae in the laboratory. The issue of bt-crops is reviewed

in " Swallowing the tale of the swallowtail " and " To Bt or Not to Bt " ,

ISIS News #5

> Deepak Saxena, Saul Flores, G, Stotzky (1999) Transgenic plants:

Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn Nature 402, 480, p

480.

> Mayeno, A.N. and Gleich, G.J. (1994). Eosinophilia-myalgia

syndrome and tryptophan production : a cautionary tale. Tibtech 12,

346-352.

> Epstein, E. (1998). Bovine growth hormone and prostate cancer;

Bovine growth hormone and breast cancer. The Ecologist 28(5), 268,

269.

> The secret memoranda came to light as the result of a civil

lawsuit spearheaded by lawyer Steven Druker against the US FDA, May

1998. For details see Biointegrity website:

> Ewen, S.W.B. and Pusztai, A. (1999). Effects of diets containing

genetially modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on

rat small intestine. The Lancet 354, 1353-1354; see also

 

> Pat Phibbs, P. (2000). Genetically modified food sales 'dead' In

EU Until safety certain, says consultant , The Bureau of National

Affairs, Inc., Washington D.C. March 23, 2000.

> See Ho, M.W. (1998,1999). Genetic Engineering Dream or

Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business,

Gateway, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin.

> See Ho, M.W., Ryan, A., Cummins, J. (1999). The cauliflower

mosaic viral promoter – a recipe for disaster? Microbial Ecology in

Health and Disease 11, 194-197; Ho, M.W., Ryan, A., Cummins, J.

(2000). Hazards of transgenic crops with the cauliflower mosaic viral

promoter. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (in press);

Cummins, J., Ho, M.W. and Ryan, A. (2000). Hazards of CaMV promoter.

Nature Biotechnology (in press).

> Reviewed in Ho, 1998,1999 (note 37); Ho, M.W., Traavik, T.,

Olsvik, R., Tappeser, B., Howard, V., von Weizsacker, C. and McGavin,

G. (1998b). Gene Technology and Gene Ecology of Infectious Diseases.

Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 10, 33-59; Traavik, T.

(1999a). Too early may be too late, Ecological risks associated with

the use of naked DNA as a biological tool for research, production

and therapy, Research report for Directorate for Nature Management,

Norway.

> N Ballas, S Broido, H Soreq, A Loyter (1989) Efficient

functioning of plant promoters and poly(A) sites in Xenopus oocytes

Nucl Acids Res 17, 7891-903.

> Burke, C, Yu X.B., Marchitelli, L.., Davis, E.A., Ackerman, S.

(1990). Transcription factor IIA of wheat and human function

similarly with plant and animal viral promoters. Nucleic Acids Res

18, 3611-20.

> Reviewed in Ho, 1998,1999 (note 37); Ho, M.W., Traavik, T.,

Olsvik, R., Tappeser, B., Howard, V., von Weizsacker, C. and McGavin,

G. (1998b). Gene Technology and Gene Ecology of Infectious Diseases.

Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 10, 33-59; Traavik, T.

(1999a). Too early may be too late, Ecological risks associated with

the use of naked DNA as a biological tool for research, production

and therapy, Research report for Directorate for Nature Management,

Norway.

> Kumpatla, S.P., Chandrasekharan, M.B., Iuer, L.M., Li, G. and

Hall, T.c. (1998). Genome intruder scanning and modulation systems

and transgene silencing. Trends in Plant Sciences 3, 96-104.

> See Pawlowski, W.P. and Somers, D.A. (1996). Transgene

inheritance in plants. Molecular Biotechnology 6, 17-30.

> Reviewed by Doerfler, W., Schubbert, R., Heller, H., Kämmer, C.,

Hilger-Eversheim, D., Knoblauch, M. and Remus, R. (1997). Integration

of foreign DNA and its consequences in mammalian systems. Tibtech 15,

297-301.

> Draft Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker

Genes in Transgenic Plants, US FDA, September 4, 1998.

> See Letter from N. Tomlinson, Joint Food Safety and Standards

Group, MAFF, to US FDA, 4 December, 1998.

> See Barnett, A. (2000). GM genes 'jump species barrier'. The

Observer, May 28.

> Forbes, J.M., Blair, D.E., Chiter, A., and Perks, S. (1998).

Effect of Feed Processing Conditions on DNA Fragmentation Section 5 -

Scientific Report, MAFF; see also Ryan, A. and Ho, M.W. (1999).

Transgenic DNA in animal feed. ISIS Report, November 1999 sis.org.uk>

> Mercer, D.K., Scott, K.P., Bruce-Johnson, W.A. Glover, L.A. and

Flint, H.J. (1999). Fate of free DNA and transformation of the oral

bacterium Streptococcus gordonii DL1 by plasmid DNA in human saliva.

Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65, 6-10.

> Reviewed in Ho, 1998,1999 (note 37).

> Gebbard, F. and Smalla, K. (1999). Monitoring field releases of

genetically modified sugar beets for persistence of transgenic plant

DNA and horizontal gene transfer. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 28, 261-

272.

> See Ho, M.W., Ryan, A., Cummins, J. and Traavik, T. (2000).

Unregulated Hazards, `Naked' and `Free' Nucleic Acids, ISIS Report

for Third World Network, Jan. 2000, London and Penang sis.org.uk>

> Viewpoint, Henry Miller, Financial Times, March 22, 2000

> See Pretty, J. (1995). Sustainable Agriculture, Earthscan,

London; also Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land - Agriculture, Food

and Community Regeneration in Rural Europe, Earthscan, London; see

also Alternative Agriculture: Report of the National Academy of

Sciences, Washington D.C., 1989.

> Rosset, P. (1999). The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small

Farm Agriculture In the Context of Global Trade Negotiations, The

Institute for Good and Development Policy, Policy Brief No. 4,

Oakland.

> Mruphy, C. (1999). Cultivating Havana: Urban Agriculture and

Food Security in the Years of Crisis, Institute for Food and

Development Policy, Development Report No. 12, Oakland.

> Altieri, M., Rosset, P. and Trupp, L.A. (1998). The Potential of

Agroecology to Combat Hunger in the Developing World, Institute for

Food and Development Policy Report, Oakland, California.

> Peter Rosset, Food First Institute.

> RELEVANT LINKS

> from the ISIS website

>

> Ethical Aspects of Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms

>

> Questionable 'Stability' at JIC

>

> Michael Meacher Meets Scientists

>

> The Need for Another Research Paradigm

>

> The Unnecessary Evil of `Therapeutic' Human Cloning

>

> MAFF Reveals New Scientific Findings Confirming Fears Over Health

Hazards of GMOs

>

> Genetically Modified GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial

>

> Transcript of witness Statement by Mae-Wan Ho

>

> The Biotechnology Debate has United the World against Corporate Rule

>

>

> The only radical science magazine on earth

> Science in Society 16 OUT NOW! Order your copy from our online

store.

>

> Science in Society gets inside science, puts science under the

political spotlight to demand it is accountable to society

>

> Join the I-SIS mailing list; enter your email address [input]

[input] html [input] asci

>

> [input]

>

> I-SIS is a not-for-profit organisation, depending on dontations,

membership fees, and subscriptions to continue its work. Find out

more about membership here

>

> Detail of living daphnia, examined using polarised light more

>

> printer friendly version

>

>

>

>

> Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

>

> To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

> Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > The hazards of GMOs to biodiversity and human and animal health

are

> now acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments.

> Particularly serious consequences are associated with the potential

> for horizontal gene transfer. These include the spread of antibiotic

> resistance marker genes that would render infectious diseases

> untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause

> diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer.

 

This includes herbs being contaminated, losing their healing

properties, and developing properties that are harmful to health.

 

> > Successive studies have documented the productivity and the social

> and environmental benefits of sustainable, low-input and organic

> farming in both North and South. They offer the only practical way

of

> restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic

> practices, and empower small family farmers to combat poverty and

> hunger.

 

This includes the growing of herbs. If a few corporations control

most of the farmable land in the world, those corporations will

decide what gets grown and what does not. Considering that many of

these corporations are part of or have ties to pharmaceutical

companies, how much land is going to be allocated to the growing of

herbs? Herbs that cost far less and often are safer and more

effective than expensive pharmaceutical.

 

" Ask not for whom the bell tolls .... "

 

Victoria