GMW: Un-Spinning the Spin Masters on Genetically Engineered Food

[Guest guest]

GMW: Un-Spinning the Spin Masters on Genetically Engineered Food

" GM WATCH " <info

Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:36:17 GMT

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

first 2 parts of an excellent Jeffrey Smith article - well worth

reading in full.

---

Spilling the Beans, January 2006

 

Un-Spinning the Spin Masters on Genetically Engineered Food

 

Jeffrey Smith Responds to a Biotech Proponent's Accusations and Spin

 

Note from Jeffrey Smith

 

In September, 2005, the respected South African investigative magazine

Noseweek ran a five-page interview with me that was described by a GMO

campaigner as 'the hardest knock' that the country's biotech industry

had ever taken from the media. To read the interview, go to the

September 2005 issue of Spilling the Beans, at

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/Sept05Rammeddownourthroats/ind\

ex.cfm

 

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/Sept05Rammeddownourthroats/ind\

ex.cfm

 

Hans Lombard, a public relations consultant for the biotech industry,

wrote a rebuttal to Noseweek that was pure industry spin. Fortunately,

I was given the opportunity to respond. Both his letter and a

condensed version of mine were published side by side in their January

issue. The magazine put my full response on its website.

 

The following is the text of Lombard's letter, broken up so that I can

respond to each accusation.

The shortened version that was published is available with graphics

and photos at http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/100.pdf.

 

Noseweek has given permission for either the long or short versions to

be reprinted in whole or in part. South African publications, however,

must wait until February 1, 2006. Other publications and websites can

run the piece right away.

 

PART 1

 

Lombard:

 

GMO FOOD SAFER THAN CONVENTIONAL

 

Allegations by Jeffrey Smith of 'dangers and health risks' to humans

and animals posed by GMO food in the article: Rammed down our throats,

noseweek, September 2005 are blatant lies. Shocking, misleading

information with no substantiated scientific evidence.

 

What he failed to tell us is that his so-called 'best seller' book

condemning GMO crops which he hawked around South Africa has not

received the backing of any academy of science or medicine, any

faculty of agriculture/science, or any agricultural research institute

anywhere in the world.

 

Smith:

 

Hans Lombard, a public relations man paid to 'hawk' GM foods around

South Africa, provides a superb example of industry spin. He attacks

so-called 'lies' and 'misleading information' using nonexistent safety

tests that passed with flying colors, false attributions to national

academies and unsupported safety claims. It is a pleasure to respond

to these accusations.

 

'So-calledî'best seller without 'backing'

 

Seeds of Deception is the world's bestselling book on GM foods and

rated number one on the subject by the Ecologist. It documents

attempted bribes, fired and threatened scientists, hijacked regulatory

agencies, cover-ups, rigged research, and the ways in which industry

manipulation and political collusion got genetically modified (GM)

foods approved. It also explains why the foods threaten our health.

 

The revelations have had an impact. A master's thesis, for example,

concluded that the book had a major influence on the passage of the

first state regulation on GMOs in Vermont. A state representative

said, 'It certainly colored every conversation in the Statehouse about

GMOs. It was the subtext for everything after that, once it arrived.'

 

In the US, academic institutions don't 'back' books. The faculty use

what they want. Even though Seeds of Deception is not an academic text

book, it is assigned in several university classes, including Yale,

where I spoke last year.

 

Substantiated scientific evidence

 

I asked a prominent German biologist, Christine von Weizsaecker, to

write the foreword to my German edition. She explained that she

couldn't put her name on anything in which the science isn't

absolutely correct.

She therefore analyzed the book in great detail, and then had another

top biologist trace every quote to its original source, to make sure

it wasn't used out of context. It passed inspection and she wrote the

foreword.

 

Hawking my book

 

My visit to Southern Africa was to speak at conferences and to share

information about GM foods with the public and political leaders. It

was not about promoting my book, which wasn't even available in SA

bookstores at the time. This sentence, however, is about hawking my

book, which is now available through New Horizon distributors.

 

Lombard:

 

In response to only a few of his wild fear mongering and

scientifically unproven allegations, here are the facts:

 

*GM crops are not adequately tested for safety.

 

Quite the contrary. In fact no agricultural crop in history has been

subjected to such stringent scientific and medical tests. GMO crops

have passed these tests with flying colours.

 

The European Commission conducted 81 scientific research tests over a

period of 15 years and costing R640 million. It concluded: 'GM food is

both safe for humans and the environment. Biotech crops may even be

safer than conventional food.'

After in-depth research by a panel of leading scientists, the Royal

Scientific Society of London stated: 'There is no serious threat or

even existence of any potential environmental harm or human health

hazards in GM food.' Eight academies of science - Brazil, China,

India, Mexico, the Third World Academy, National Academy of Science

US, Germany, France and the Royal Canadian Society - concurred.

 

The British Medical Association says there is very little potential

for GM foods to cause harmful effects.

 

Smith:

 

Stringent tests, 81 studies

 

The European Commission had funded 81 projects on GMOs, not conducted.

As of 2001, when this count was made, most were in progress but not

yet published. An analysis of all peer-reviewed animal feeding safety

tests on GM foods, published in Nutrition and Health in 2003, found

only 10.[1]

 

Another comprehensive analysis published in October, 2005, raises that

number to 19.[2] Most of these are industry-sponsored and are

criticized as superficial and poorly designed. According to GMO in

animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks, 'relatively short-term

animal feeding/production experiments, particularly as they are

presently carried out, do not contribute much to GM safety.'[3]

 

Another peer-reviewed article in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering

Reviews exposed numerous health risks of GM foods that are not being

tested for, and cited ìserious deficiencies in both regulatory

oversight and corporate testing procedures.[4]

 

Geneticist David Suzuki said it a little clearer: 'Any politician or

scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid

or lying. The experiments have simply not been done.'[5]

 

Academies

 

To claim that there are no potential health hazards from GM is absurd.

To claim this as the position of eight national academies is

outrageous. I called Lombard's bluff, and read his quote to Fran

Sharples, the Director of the Board on Life Sciences at the US

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). She said, 'The academies have

issued numerous reports on assessing the risks of transgenic plants.

If the academy believed there were no such potential risks, why would

we have delved into these matters in these reports?'[6]

 

One of those NAS reports even acknowledged that the current system of

regulating GMOs might not detect 'unintended changes in the

composition of the food.'[7]

 

The Royal Society of Canada stated that it is 'scientifically

unjustifiable' to presume that GM foods are safe, and that the

'default presumption' is that unintended, potentially hazardous side

effects are present. A WHO spokesperson said that current regulations

are not adequate to determine the health effects, [8] the Indian

Council of Medical Research called for a complete overhaul of existing

regulations,[9] and the British Medical Association had called for a

moratorium of GM foods altogether. Why then do we read reports from

some scientific bodies that claim GM foods are totally safe?

 

It turns out that there is a fairly small group of biotech scientists

with strong support by industry who have managed to author all sorts

of 'official' or official-sounding reports. The usual suspects are

concentrated in the UK, and their Odes-to-Biotech are found in reports

for the UK's Royal Society and others. GMWatch.org has done a

brilliant job exposing the group's conflicts of interest, biased

science, and even their repeated use of threats to other scientists

who wish to publish adverse findings or opinions.

 

How did Lombard come up with his eight academies? I guess he's

referring to a report called Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture

(2000), which lists seven of the eight as contributors. But the report

hardly supports Lombard's claim of no potential risks. On the

contrary, it enumerates 'the potential for allergic reactions' and

'toxic compounds as a result of the GM technology.' Moreover, 'Public

health regulatory systems need to be put in place in every country to

identify and monitor any potential adverse human health effects of

transgenic plants.' Unfortunately, this recommendation has not been

instituted anywhere in the world, so we don't know if GM foods are

already causing widespread health problems.

 

PART 2

Lombard:

 

*After GM soyas were introduced in the UK allergies skyrocketed.

 

The Royal Society of London denies this and says. There is no evidence

that GM foods cause allergic reactions. Allergic risks posed by GM

plants are no greater than those posed by conventional crops.

Long before the advent of GM crops, medical scientists determined that

allergies were caused by milk, egg whites, peanuts and soya beans and

will continue to do so, GM or non-GM.

 

If the allegations regarding allergies were true, why does the EU

continue to import annually on average 17 million tons of soya from

the USA and Argentine, 90% GM?

 

Smith:

 

allergies

 

An allergy specialist from Ohio told me recently, 'I used to test for

soy allergy. Since they have genetically altered it, I tell people

just don't eat it unless it says organic. These things are so

potentially dangerous.'[10]

 

The British Medical Association had warned that GM foods may lead to

the emergence of new allergies. A finding in March 1999 is telling.

Researchers at the UK's York Laboratory tested 4,500 people for

allergic reactions and sensitivities to a wide range of foods. Soy had

previously affected 10% of consumers. In 1999, however, that jumped to

15%. Soy entered the top ten list of allergens for the first time in

the seventeen years of testing. Reactions included irritable bowel

syndrome, digestion problems, skin complaints, chronic fatigue,

headaches and lethargy.

Blood tests confirmed an antibody reaction to soy. GM soy had recently

entered the UK and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John

Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said, 'We believe this

raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods.'[11]

 

The joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of GM foods

said, 'A clear need exists to pay particular attention to

allergenicity when assessing the safety of foods produced through

genetic modification.'[12] But GM foods have genes from bacteria,

viruses and other organisms. The proteins they create were never part

of the human food supply; no one knows if they're allergenic.

According to the US Food and Drug Administrationís (FDA) 1992 policy,

'At this time, FDA is unaware of any practical method to predict or

assess the potential for new proteins in food to induce allergenicity

and requests comments on this issue.'

[13]

 

A Washington Post article - written seven years later - said there is

still 'no widely accepted way to predict a new food's potential to

cause an allergy. The FDA is now five years behind in its promise to

develop guidelines for doing so. With no formal guidelines in place,

it's largely up to the industry to decide whether and how to test for

the allergy potential of new food.[14] But this is problematic,

according to the FDA's own scientist, who had written years earlier,

'Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is

non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task.'[15] According to

the US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, 'Only surveillance and clinical

assessment of exposed individuals will confirm the allergenicity.[16]

Unfortunately, no such surveillance exists.

 

The FAO/WHO does suggest criteria that minimize the likelihood that

allergenic GM crops would get approved. The GM soy already on the

market, however, fails those criteria - sections of its GM protein are

identical to known allergens. The same is true for the GM white corn

used in the South African staple, millimeal. It is engineered to

create a Bt toxin to kill insects. Farm workers and others exposed to

Bt spray have exhibited allergic symptoms including allergic rhinitis,

angioedema, dermatitis, pruritus, swelling, erythema with conjunctival

injection, exacerbations of asthma, angioedema and rashes.[17]

 

A November 2005 study[18] found that a GM pea under development caused

severe immune responses in mice, and the plans to commercialize the

crop were scrapped. The tests used, however, were those typically used

for medical testing, not for GM food. If those same peas were

subjected to normal GM food safety assessments, they could††have

sailed through the approval process. More importantly, since none of

the GM crops on the market have ever been tested in this same rigorous

way, they too may be harmful.

 

EU imports

 

The EU imports GM soy for use as animal feed. Fortunately, European

food manufacturers such as Carrefour, Tesco, Asda and Marks and

Spencer, are committed to switch to non-GM sources.

 

Lombard:

 

*GM cotton produced in Andra Pradesh, India, reduced yields by 18% and

was subsequently banned.

Again, the Indian authorities in Andra Pradesh reject this allegation

as an outright lie. Chengal Reddy, chairman of the Federation of

Farmers' Associations in Andra Pradesh, denies that there has been a

Bt cotton failure.

 

According to him, Bt cotton plantings in 2002/03 was a roaring success.

Mangala Rai, director-general of the Indian Council of Agricultural

Research, says cotton farmers in Andra Pradesh increased their Bt

cotton yields by 30% and reduced pesticide sprayings by 65%.

 

So much so, that the Indian Government approved the planting of an

additional 40 000 ha of Bt cotton in†Andra Pradesh, Karnataka,

Maharashtraand Gujarat. Furthermore, the Indian Government has

approved three new Bt cotton varieties. Andra Pradash now has the

choice of six Bt cotton hybrids.

 

If Smith's allegation is true, why is it that India increased the area

under approved biotech cotton from 100,000 ha two years ago to 500,000

in 2004, involving more than 300,000 small-scale farmers?

 

Smith:

 

According to the April 13, 2005 Deccan Herald, 'A study that tracked

genetically modified Bt cotton crop for three years in Andhra Pradesh

has proved conclusively that it has failed on all fronts including

yield, cost of cultivation, returns to farmers and resistance to

pests. On the other hand, the non-Bt cotton performed better on all

counts. [19]

 

This was the only independent study 'on Bt cotton done on [a]

season-long basis continuously for three years in 87 villages.'

Conducted by Dr Abdul Qayoom, former Joint Director of Agriculture in

Andhra Pradesh, and Mr Sakkari Kiran of the Permaculture Institute of

India, the study showed that growing Bt cotton cost 12% more, yielded

8.3% less, and the returns over three years were 60% less.[20]

 

Problems with the GM variety included failure to germinate, drought

damage, root-rot, leaf curl virus, brittle stems, increased pests,

smaller bolls, increased labor requirements per acre and a shorter

harvest season. According to the three year study, some farmers

complained 'that they were not able to grow other crops after Bt'

because it had infected their soil very badly.[21]

 

Years earlier, approvals of Bt cotton had been secured by an 'expert

team' that visited a few farmers growing it for the first time. The team

issued a glowing report, claiming higher yields, less pesticides, and

greater profits. When a film crew interviewed those same farmers, they

discovered that just the opposite was true. They also described problems

with the cotton's quality: GM cotton was more light weight, weaker,

less bright, had shorter staple length and sold for less. One farmer

said,

'We have to beg the traders to sell the cotton to them.' When

government officials saw the video, they investigated and confirmed

that the

expert team's report contradicted the facts.

 

Another report identified a yield loss in the Warangal district of

30-60%. The official report, however, was tampered with. The local

Deputy Director of Agriculture confirmed on Feb 1, 2005 that the yield

figures had been secretly increased to 2.7 times higher than what

farms reported. Once the state of Andhra Pradesh tallied all the

actual yields, they demanded approximately $10 million USD from

Monsanto to compensate farmers for losses. When the company refused,

on June 3 the government banned Monsanto from the state. According to

state agricultural commissioner Poonam Malakondiah, the state will not

even allow Monsanto to carry out trials.[22] The Bt varieties that

Lombard says are now sold in Andhra Pradesh are other companies'

products. But a November 8, 2005 report by the Monitoring & Evaluation

Committee shows stunted growth and massive pest damage to these

varieties as well.[23]

 

Lombard can easily obtain contradictory statistics. Ask Monsanto. They

commissioned studies to be done by market research agencies, not

scientists. One, for example, claimed four times the actual reduction

in pesticide use, twelve times the actual yield, and 100 times the

actual profit.[24]

 

Lombard quotes Chengal Reddy. Of course Reddy will use Monsantoís

statistics, as 'he has worked closely with the company since the

mid-1990s,' [25] and even proposed that his group 'be the operational

arm'[26] of the biotech organization in the state. GMwatch.org

exposes more on this 'non-farmer' and his 'federation' that appears to

be ìsignificantly different from that which it claims.[27]

 

In spite of Monsanto's ban in Andhra Pradesh, their faulty cotton was

allowed in Madhya Pradesh. According to a November 14, 2005 article in

NewKerala.com, it has been a disaster there too. Rampant wilting in

200,000 acres caused an estimated $87.5 million USD in damages. The

article also described a health report that showed 'Bt cotton was

causing severe to moderate allergy to people coming in contact with

it.'[28]

 

On†November 10, 2005, The Hindu reported that 'Up to 75 per cent of

the Bt cotton seeds planted in parts of Tamil Nadu ìfailed to

germinate this season,'[29] and on November 27 they said that India's

central government 'conceded the failure of Bt cotton in Andhra

Pradesh and Rajasthan'.[30]

 

Why are farmers still buying Btcotton. I'm not sure. But the following

accounts may help explain it. Monsanto ran a poster series called,

'TRUE STORIES OF FARMERS WHO HAVE SOWN BT COTTON.' One featured a

farmer who claimed great benefits. When investigators tracked him

down, he turned out to be a cigarette salesman, not a farmer. Another

poster gave the yield figures of the featured farmer which was four

times what he actually achieved. One photo of a farmer standing next

to a tractor was used to suggest that sales of Bt cotton allowed him

to buy it. But the farmer was never told what the photo was to be used

for, and said that with the yields from Bt, 'I would not be able to

buy even two tractor tires.'

 

In addition to posters, the cotton marketers used dancing girls,

famous Bollywood actors, even religious leaders to pitch their

products. Some newspaper ads looked like a news stories and featured

relatives of seed salesmen claiming to be happy with Bt. Sometimes

free pesticides were given away with the seeds, and some farmers who

helped with publicity got free seeds.

 

As for Lombard's increased acreage statistics, according to the

Executive Director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, (the

organization that helped investigate these marketing deceptions) 'The

assertion by Monsanto that the increase in acreage of Bt Cotton is an

indication of the success of Bt Cotton is as questionable as their

false advertising.'[31]

 

In Andhra Pradesh, 71% of farmers who used Bt cotton ended up with

financial losses. When they realized that they were deceived, farmers

attacked the seed dealer's office and even 'tied up Mahyco Monsanto

representatives in their villages,' until the police rescued them.[32]

Tragically, other farmers committed suicide. In Vidarbha, Maharashtra

alone, between July 2 and November 17, 2005, an estimated 114

impoverished cotton farmers have taken their own lives.[33]

 

REFERENCES

[1] Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, 'In Vivo Studies on Possible Health

Consequences of genetically modified food and Feedówith Particular

Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant

Materials,' Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003

 

[2] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz: GMO in animal nutrition: potential

benefits and risks. In " Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals " , R.

Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.), 2OO5. Elsevier Limited,

pp. 513-540

 

[3] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz: GMO in animal nutrition: potential

benefits and risks. In " Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals " , R.

Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.), 2OO5. Elsevier Limited,

pp. 513-540

 

[4] William Freese and David Schubert, Safety Testing and Regulation

of Genetically Engineered Foods, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering

Reviews - Vol. 21, November 2004

 

[5] Andrea Baillie, 'Suzuki Warns of Frankenstein Foods,' CP Wire,

October 18, 1999

 

[6] Personal communication with Fran Sharples, November 14, 2005

 

[7] SAFETY OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS: APPROACHES TO ASSESSING

UNINTENDED HEALTH EFFECTS, Committee on Identifying and Assessing

Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health,

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National

Academies, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS , Washington, D.C., 2004

 

[8] World Health Organization questions safety assessment of

Genetically Engineered foods, Press Advisory, Californians for GE-Free

Agriculture, October 14, 2004

 

[9] Ashok B. Sharma, 'ICMR Wants Overhaul Of GM Foods Regulation,'

Financial Express, New Delhi, India July 25, 2004

 

[10] Personal communication with John Boyles, MD

 

[11] Mark Townsend, 'Why soya is a hidden destroyer,' Daily Express,

March 12, 1999

 

[12] Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods, Report

of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods

Derived from Biotechnology 22 - 25 January 2001

 

[13] 'Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,'

Food and Drug Administration Docket No. 92N-0139

 

[14] Rick Weiss, 'Biotech Food Raises a Crop of Questions,' Washington

Post, August 15, 1999, p. A1

 

[15] Carl B. Johnson, Memo on the 'draft statement of policy 12/12/91,'

January8, 1992

 

[16] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, 'Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and

Benefits Assessments,' March 12, 2001, p. 76. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf

 

[17] Bernstein, et al., (1999). Immune responses in farm workers after

exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environmental Health

Perspectives 107(7), 575-582

 

[18] V. E. Prescott, et al, Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase

Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity, J.

Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53

 

[19] Genetically-modified Bt cotton a cropper: Study, Deccan Herald

april 13,2005, From R Akhileshwari DH News Service Hyderabad

 

[20] Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in

Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002 in

Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of

Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.

 

[21] Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in

Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002 in

Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of

Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.

 

[22] Angry Andhra uproots Monsanto, Financial Express, June 04, 2005

 

[23] New report on Bt cotton problems in India (8/11/2005),

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5918

 

[24] Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in

Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002 in

Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of

Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.

 

[25] HYPERLINK " http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=108 "

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=108

 

[26] Crop protection association seeks sweeping review of Insect,

Financial Express, August 26, 2000

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe/daily/20000826/fco26064.html

 

[27] http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=196

 

[28] Wilting of Bt cotton in MP [Madhya Pradesh], farmers demand ban on

companies, NewKerala.com, 14 Nov 2005

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews & id=52326

 

[29] Gargi Parsai, Bt cotton seeds fail to germinate, The Hindu, 10

Nov 2005 http://www.hindu.com/2005/11/10/stories/2005111007110500.htm

 

[30] Gargi Parsai, Centre admits failure of Bt cotton in 2 States, The

Hindu, Nov 27 2005, HYPERLINK

" http://www.hindu.com/2005/11/27/stories/2005112716091200.htm

 

[31] Marketing of Bt Cotton in India ñ Aggressive, Unscrupulous and

FalseÖ., HYPERLINK

" http://www.grain.org/research_files/Marketing_in_India.pdf "

http://www.grain.org/research_files/Marketing_in_India.pdf

 

[32] Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in

Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002 in

Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of

Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.

 

[33] Press Notice, Debt Burden Cotton Growers Suicides in West

Vidarbha (Maharashtra-India) Has Crossed 114 Mark Today in Last 150

Days, November 17, 2005

 

Permission is granted to reproduce issues of Spilling the Beans in

whole or in part. Just email us at column to let

us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track.

© Copyright Jeffrey M. Smith 2006

 

 

 

 

 

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