Independent Scientists' Letter for Joint International GMO Opposition Day

[Guest guest]

GMW: Independent Scientists' Letter for Joint International

GMO Opposition Day

" GM WATCH " <info

Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:19:27 GMT

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

 

well argued, carefully referenced letter - very useful.

---

 

from: Dr Dominique Beroule, on behalf of the JIGMOD Coordinating

Committee <alter.campagne

 

Dear Colleague,

 

Attached is the Independent Scientists' Letter provided for the 8th of

April 2006 Joint International GMO Opposition Day (JIGMOD; see:

http://altercampagne.free.fr/ ). This letter will officially be read

during the planned international

video-conference, and notably used at the related demonstrations (9th

of April in Chicago, 20th of April in Brussels). It is aimed at

parlementarians, and possibly at exercising an influence over the

corporate

shareholders of Biotech multinationals. It was mainly written by

Professor

Arpad Pusztai, and reviewed by anonymous contributors.

 

For the sake of accessibility to non-specialists, it comprises a

synthetic easy-to-read text completed with more technical references.

You may

also notice that it is focused on the health dimension, to which our

decision makers are more particularly sensitive.

 

Currently circulated among the scientists who are likely to co-sign it,

this letter will be proposed for signature to the participating

organizations.

 

If you wish to be one of the signatories, you may simply send us an

email indicating your professional position and coordinates, at the

following address: alter.campagne

 

With our best regards,

 

Dr Dominique Beroule, on behalf of the JIGMOD Coordinating Committee.

 

P.S. Could you please pass on this message to your circle, and spread

the word over your grassroot contacts? Thank you in advance.

---

MEMORANDUM

 

The current generation of genetically modified (GM) crops uneccessarily

risks the health of the population and the environment. Present

knowledge is not sufficient to safely and predictably modify the plant

genome,

and the risks of serious side-effects far outweigh the benefits. We

urge you to stop feeding the products of this infant science to our

population and ban the release of these crops into the environment

where they

can never be recalled.

 

The current technology was rushed to market long before the science was

worked out. Its introduction was accompanied with rigged research,

bribes,1 gagged scientists,2 cover-ups3 and regulatory agencies stacked

with industry representatives.4 With mounting evidence of serious health

and environmental problems, we must act quickly to end the charade and

this dangerous abuse of public trust.

 

Current safety assessments are inadequate to catch most of the harmful

effects. When a foreign gene is artificially inserted into a living

organism such as a GM crop, the preexisting natural gene of the organism

can unintentionally be deleted, switched off, permanently switched on,

mutated or fragmented. Hundreds of natural genes may change the way they

generate their proteins (basic molecules that form living cells), and

even the newly introduced protein may differ from what was intended.

 

· Key assumptions used as the basis for safety claims have been

overturned and several adverse findings suggest that GM foods are unsafe.

GM-fed animals had problems with their growth, organ development and

immune responsiveness, blood5 and liver cell6 formation, as well as

damaged

organs (bleeding stomachs,7 excessive cell growth,8 inflammation in

lung tissue9), sterility problems10 and increased death rates,11

including

among the offspring.12

 

· Risks are increased by the fact that the genes inserted into GM food

not only survive digestion, but transfer into body organs and

circulation. Transgenes have been found in the blood, liver, spleen and

kidneys.13 DNA can even travel via the placenta into the unborn.14 The

only

human clinical trial showed that transgenes from soy transfer into

intestinal bacteria.15

 

· Claims that no one has gotten hurt from GM foods are misleading,

since no one monitors human health impacts. We do know that soya

allergies

skyrocketed by 50 percent after GM soybeans were imported to the UK,16

and a GM food supplement killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-

10,000 to fall sick.17

 

· Some GM crops create their own pesticide called Bt. Their approval

relied on the assumption that Bttoxin is not bioactive in mammals. But

Bt-toxin caused powerful immune responses and abnormal and excessive

cell growth in mice. Filipinos living next to Bt cornfields developed

mysterious symptoms during the time of pollination - three seasons in

a row

- and blood tests showed an immune response to Bt.18 A November 2005

report from India claims that Bt cotton also creates allergic

responses.19 What if Bt genes transfer to gut bacteria like soya genes

do? They

could turn our internal flora into living pesticide factories.

 

Despite the Public Relation spin, GM crops increase the use of

herbicides20, lower average yield, and endanger food security. They are

detrimental to sustainable and organic farming, and trap farmers in a

cycle of

indebtedness and dependence. They endanger biodiversity21, harm

beneficial insects22, damage soil bacteria23, contaminate non-GM

varieties24

and may persist in the environment for generations.25

 

Insurance companies do not want to cover the risks inherent in GMOs.26

Consumers do not want them.27

 

Please act today to protect our health, our environment, and future

generations.

 

1 Monsanto fined $1.5m for bribery (7 January, 2005) BBC

News(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm)

 

2 Delborne, J.A. (August 27, 2004) Transforming Scientific Dissent into

Dissidence: Analysis of " The Pulse of Scientific Freedom in the Age of

the Biotech Industry " , Annual Conference of the Society for the Social

Studies of Science, Ecole des Mines, Paris.

(http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/WebCSI/4S/download_paper/download_paper.php?paper=delbo\

rne.pdf

 

)

 

3 GMO: French authorities wish confidentiality on sanitary studies:

" OGM : les autorités françaises veulent la confidentialité sur les études

sanitaires " (2005)

(http://www.novethic.fr/novethic/site/article/index.jsp?id=95406)

 

4 Among many other cases, (May 2004) 'Independent and objective

consultants servicing the agricultural, agricultural supply trade,

rural and

food industries' (http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=308 & page=P )

 

5 French experts very disturbed by health effects of Monsanto GM corn

(March 24 2004), (http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3308),

Translation of Le Monde article (June 2005) " L'expertise

confidentielle sur

un inquiétant maïs transgénique, " Confidential report on a worrying GM

corn. Also see Spilling the Beans,

(http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExpos\

ed/index.cfm)

by Herve Kempf,

22.04.04,(http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-362061,0.html

)

 

6 Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, et al (2002) " Ultrastructural

Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei

from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean " . Cell Structure and

Function Vol. 27, No. 4 pp.173-18.

(http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3622)

 

7 Pusztai, A. et al. (2003) Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human

Health Effects. In: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF

D'Mello) pp.347-372. CAB International, Wallingford Oxon, UK

 

8 Ewen, SWB & Pusztai, A. (1999) Effects of diets containing

genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on

rat small

intestine. Lancet 354, 1727-1728.

 

9 Prescott V.E., Campbell P.M., Moore A., Mattes J., Rothenberg M. E.,

Foster P.S., Higgins T.J.V., and Hogan S.P. (November 16, 2005)

Transgenic Expression of Bean-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in

Altered

Structure and Immunogenicity, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,

Volume 53, Issue 23, , pp. 9023 –

9030(http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/pssp,,.html)

 

10 - Bt Corn Linked to Hog Breeding Problems (May 20, 2002), in

http://www.gmfreecymru.org.uk/crops_bt.htm

- Sterility indirectly favoured by round-up ready GM crops : Richard

S., Moslemi S., Sipahutar H., Benachour N., and Seralini G.-E. (2005)

Differential Effects of Gly phosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells

and Aromatase Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 113, Number 6,

June 2005. (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7728/7728.pdf )

 

11 Report for the Chardon LL Hearing, Non-Suitability of Genetically

Engineered Feed for Animals, Dr. Eva Novotny, Scientists for Global

Responsibility (May 2002).

(http://www.sgr.org.uk/GenEng/animalfeel_all.pdf

)

 

12 The study was presented at several conferences starting on October

10, 2005, but has not been published or subjected to peer-review. The

results must be considered preliminary and unverified, but medical

organizations and others are calling for the immediate repetition of the

study, given the disturbing findings. See

www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/Oct05RatsDieWhenMothersEatGMSoy/index\

..cfm

 

13 Pusztai, A. and Bardocz, S. (2005) GMO in animal nutrition:

potential benefits and risks. In " Biology of Nutrition in Growing

Animals " , R.

Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.), Elsevier Limited, pp.

513-54O.

 

14 Doerfler W; Schubbert R (1994) " Uptake of foreign DNA from the

environment: the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of

entry, " Journal of molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-504.

 

15 Netherwood, et al (2 February 2004) Assessing the survival of

transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature

Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number.

 

16 Townsend M. (March 12, 1999) " Why Soya is a hidden destroyer, " Daily

Express.

 

17 Smith J. (2003), Seeds of Deception, Chapter 4 Deadly Epidemic, Yes!

Books 2003. See also www.seedsofdeception.com, L-tryptophan section.

 

18 Preliminary evidence presented at a conference by the Norwegian

Institute for Gene Ecology, for delegates to the 2004 UN Biosafety

Protocol

Conference. See

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=36 as

well as several newspaper reports.

 

19 " Bt cotton causing allergic reaction; cattle dead " (November 23,

2005)

(http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692 & cat=Health

)

 

20 Benbrook CM (November 2003) Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops

on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years, BioTech

InfoNet, Technical Paper No 6.

 

21 Independent Scientific Steering Committee (21 March 2005) Managing

GM crops with herbicides: Effects on farmland wildlife

(http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/fse/results/fse-summary-05.pdf )

 

22 Koechlin, F (March 1999) " Bt Crops and Their Impacts on Insects and

Food Webs " ( http://www.biotech-info.net/insects2.html )

 

23 Damage to soil bacteria, notably through horizontal transfer:

Heinemann J.A, Traavik T. (2004) Problems in monitoring horizontal gene

transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 22, pp

1105-1109.

 

24 Daniels R., Boffey C., Mogg R., Bond J. & Clarke R. (March 2004) The

Potential for dispersal of herbicide tolerance genes from

geneticallymodified, herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape crops to wild

relatives, Final

report to DEFRA, contract ref: EPG 1/5/151.

(http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research/pdf/epg_1-5-151.pdf )

 

25 Jager, M.J. & Tappeser, B. (April 10, 1995). Risk Assessment and

Scientific Knowledge. Current data relating to the survival of GMOs and

the persistence of their nucleic acids: Is a new debate on safeguards in

genetic engineering required? - considerations from an ecological point

of view. TWN-Workshop on Biosafety, New York.

http://psrast.org/wanho.htm

 

26 " Survey reveals: insurance companies say no to GMO " (October 9,

2003) ( http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/836 )

 

27 Warwick H., Meziani, G. (September 2002) Seeds of Doubt, UK Soil

Association, based on an estimate by Charles Benbrook, former executive

director of the US National Academy of Sciences' Board on Agriculture.

 

 

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