false pretenses enabling the commercialization of bioengineered foods

[Guest guest]

Just received. Thought you might be interested.

A. ;-)

 

.. . . . . please take a gander at the

following from Nick Sandberg in the UK, whose

" Blueprint for a Prison

Planet " I just finished editing. Science isn't the

problem, it's the

arrogance of scientists, who rush off in high spirits

and begin

applying what they have barely begun to understand. And

there are

some things I doubt we will ever know enough about to

tamper with.

Here it is:

 

 

HAGELIN STUNS THE EPA WITH STIRRING " STARLINK "

TESTIMONY

 

On Tuesday, November 28, Dr. John Hagelin presented a

powerful

statement about the hazards of genetically engineered

foods to an

open meeting of an Environmental Protection Agency

panel in

Arlington, Virginia.

 

The Scientific Advisory Panel for the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) held the meeting to

consider the possible

allergenic effects of StarLink corn on human health.

StarLink, a

variety of genetically engineered corn that has not

been approved by

the EPA for human consumption, was recently discovered

to have

contaminated corn products being sold at supermarkets

around the

country.

 

Dr. Hagelin's testimony created an explosion of concern

among the

largely pro-genetic engineering audience at the open

meeting and

created a fresh wave of scientific scrutiny about the

hazards of GE

foods. His testimony is reprinted below, along with an

editorial from

the Providence Journal about his leadership in the

effort to protect

our food supply.

 

STATEMENT FOR THE FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL OPEN

MEETING ON

STARLINK CORN

Arlington, Virginia, November 28, 2000

JOHN HAGELIN, Ph.D., Institute of Science, Technology and Public

Policy

 

I speak to you as a scientist who is striving to ensure

that our best

scientific knowledge be applied for the solution-- and

prevention--of

society's problems. I am a nuclear physicist who has

published

extensively in superstring theory and, during the last

three

elections, I have been the Presidential candidate of

the Natural Law

Party.

 

I want to address an issue much deeper than whether the

CRY9C protein

in StarLink corn is likely to be allergenic.

 

I want to address the assumptions that underlie the

entire

agricultural bioengineering enterprise. I am deeply

concerned that

life scientists are implementing bioengineering

technologies without

adequately understanding the lessons we have learned

from the

physical sciences. One of the key revelations of modern

physics is

that phenomena unfold in a far less linear and

predictable fashion

than eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers

assumed.

 

Today we know that there are inherent limitations on

our ability to

make precise predictions about the behavior of a

system, especially

for microscopic systems and nonlinear systems of great

complexity.

 

Numerous eminent molecular biologists recognize that

DNA is a complex

nonlinear system and that splicing foreign genes into

the DNA of a

food-yielding organism can cause unpredictable side

effects that

could harm the health of the human consumer. Yet, the

genetic

engineering of our food--and the widespread presence of

genetically

altered foods in American supermarkets--is based on the

premise that

the effects of gene-splicing are so predictable that

all

bioengineered foods can be presumed safe unless proven

otherwise.

This refusal to recognize the risks of unintended and

essentially

unpredictable negative side effects is just plain bad

science. It is

astounding that so many biologists are attempting to

impose a

paradigm of precise, linear, billiard-ball predictably

onto the

behavior of DNA, when physics has long since dislodged

such a

paradigm from the microscopic realm and molecular

biological research

increasingly confirms its inapplicability to the

dynamics of genomes.

 

Moreover, the premise of predictability is not just

scientifically

unsound; it is morally irresponsible. The safety of our

food is being

put at risk in a cavalier, if not callous, fashion, not

only in

disregard of scientific knowledge, but in disregard of

recent

technological history. Here, too, lessons should have

been learned

from the physical sciences. Time and again, the

overhasty application

of nuclear technologies led to numerous health and

environmental

disasters.

 

For example, in the early days of nuclear technology,

the rush to

commercialize led to the sale of radium tipped wands

designed to

remove facial hair. Nine months later the cancers came.

 

Similarly, the failure to comprehend the full range of

risks and to

proceed with prudence has led to many disasters in the

nuclear power

industry.

 

In the case of genetic engineering, even greater

caution is called

for: a nuclear disaster only lasts 10,000 years,

whereas gene

pollution is forever--self-perpetuating and

irreversible.

 

The irresponsible behavior that permitted the marketing

of

bioengineered foods has not been limited to the

scientific community,

but includes the executive branch of the federal

government. The

FDA's internal records reveal that its own experts

clearly recognized

the potential for gene-splicing to induce production of

unpredicted

toxins and carcinogens in the resultant food. These

same records

reveal that these warnings were covered up by FDA

political

appointees operating under a White House directive to

promote the

biotech industry.

 

It is unconscionable that the FDA claimed itself

unaware of any

information showing that bioengineered foods differ

from others, when

its own files are filled with such information from its

scientific

staff. And it is unconscionable that it permits such

novel foods to

be marketed based on the claim they are recognized as

safe by an

overwhelming consensus within the scientific community,

when it knows

such a consensus does not exist.

 

The StarLink fiasco further demonstrates the shoddiness

of the

government's regulation, since the system failed to

keep even an

unapproved bioengineered crop out of our food. Indeed,

the

contamination was discovered not by the government, but

by public

interest groups. The FDA had no clue and had taken no

measures to

monitor. This incident also demonstrates how difficult

it will be to

remove a bioengineered product from our food supply if

it is

eventually found to be harmful and, therefore, how

important it is to

prevent the introduction of new ones and to phase out

those currently

in use.

 

It is high time that science and the truth be

respected, and that the

false pretenses enabling the commercialization of

bioengineered foods

be acknowledged and abolished. I call upon the members

of this panel

to uphold sound science so that you can hold your own

heads up as the

facts about the hazards of bioengineered food become

increasingly

well known.

 

I call upon you not only to resist the pressures to

approve the

pesticidal protein in StarLink Corn; I call upon you to

honestly

acknowledge the inherent risks of genetic engineering

and to affirm

that, due to these risks, neither StarLink nor any

other

bioengineered food can be presumed safe at the present

stage of our

knowledge.

 

THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL Editorial

November 9, 2000

ONLY HAGELIN SAW GENETIC PERIL

 

One of the key issues that never got discussed in the

presidential

debates this campaign season was the most serious one

facing us

today. The fact is that our democracy has been stolen

by the powerful

lobbies of the special interests. The most conclusive

and blatant

example of this has been the dangerous experiment being

conducted by

the biotech industry on the American people. They have

genetically

manipulated our food supply so that 60 percent of the

food on our

supermarket shelves has been genetically engineered.

The most

outrageous thing is that they did it without the

knowledge or consent

of the American people.

 

Forty years ago, most scientists thought DDT a safe and

promising

addition to agriculture. Thalidomide was given to

pregnant women by

their doctors.

 

Nuclear power was touted as the cleanest energy source

on Earth.

 

Marketed prematurely, each of these technological

innovations brought

unforeseen, unwanted and tragic consequences that could

have been

easily avoided through proper long-term safety testing.

 

Haven't we learned anything from our mistakes?

 

>From soil to superviruses: In 1994, a genetically

engineered

bacterium developed to aid in the production of ethanol

produced

residues that rendered the land infertile. New crops

planted on this

soil grew three inches tall and fell over dead.

 

The food chain: In 1996, scientists discovered that

ladybugs that had

eaten the aphids that had eaten genetically engineered

potatoes died.

 

The immune system: In 1998, research by Dr. Arpad

Pusztai uncovered

the potential for genetically altered DNA to weaken the

immune system

and stunt the growth of baby rats.

 

Monarch butterflies: In May 1999, researchers at

Cornell University

discovered that monarch butterflies died unexpectedly

from eating

milkweed plants that had been dusted with the pollen of

genetically

engineered Bt corn.

 

Pregnant mice: A 1998 study showed that DNA from the

food fed to

pregnant mice ended up in their intestinal lining,

white blood cells,

brain cells, and their fetuses. This suggests that the

genetically

engineered DNA in the food we eat can end up in our own

cells.

 

Honeybees: Last May, a leading European zoologist found

the genes

from genetically engineered canola jumped the species

barrier and

were picked up by the bacteria in the digestive tracts

of bees. This

indicates that antibiotic-resistant genes in

genetically engineered

foods can cause the bacteria in our own intestines to

mutate into

superbugs that cannot be killed by antibiotics.

 

Superviruses: Viral promoters are invasive agents used

by genetic

engineers to trick a cell into accepting and

integrating an alien

gene into the cell's own DNA. Some scientists predict

that releasing

viral promoters into the gene pool could lead to the

creation of

superviruses and novel infectious diseases for

organisms at every

level of life--from bacteria to humans.

 

These are just some of the dangers that are discernible

in the

premature marketing of genetically engineered products.

The biotech

industry is eager to point to their so-called successes

while keeping

their failures under raps.

 

Next is the story of rBGH, recombinant bovine growth

hormone (or the

story of genetically engineered milk). A Monsanto

lawyer drafted a

letter to the FDA to get rBGH approved. He then stepped

down from

Monsanto and took an appointment as FDA deputy

commissioner for

policy. He then penned his own letter and helped draft

the FDA's 1992

policy on genetically engineered food and rBGH. The law

that

followed, in true violation of First Amendment rights,

states that

it's illegal to say rBGH is in milk and it's illegal to

state that

it's not in milk. The lawyer returned to corporate life

and became

Monsanto's vice president for public policy.

 

Incidentally, rBGH is banned in Canada, Europe,

Australia, and New

Zealand--all major dairy producers. It is also banned

in other

countries. I quote Neal D. Barnard, M.D., president of

the Physicians

Committee for Responsible Medicine, from a magazine

entitled Safe

Food News (to get this magazine and to sign the

national Genetically

Engineered Food Alert petition, call 1-800-REAL-FOOD).

 

" Monsanto's rBGH increases milk production. It also

increases udder

infections (mastitis) and reproductive problems in cows

and shortens

their life span. To treat the mastitis, farmers have to

give their

cows antibiotics. Studies have shown that milk from

rBGH cows often

contains residues from those antibiotics. And because

rBGH-induced

mastitis leads to increased amounts of white blood

cells--or pus--

this is also secreted into rBGH milk. But the risks of

rBGH go far

beyond even this. More troublesome is the fact that

rBGH has been

linked to increased risk of breast, prostate and colon

cancers. "

 

>From pizza to chips, soda to infant formula, ice cream

to cookies,

vitamins to candies, genetically engineered organisms

are in the

foods we feed our kids every day. Virtually every food

you can think

of is in the genetically engineered pipeline. And

coming soon . . .

rat genes in your lettuce, cows that make human milk,

and bananas

with vaccines.

 

The only presidential candidate who brought this issue

to the

forefront of his campaign and informed the American

people of the

hazards of genetically engineered foods has been the

quantum

physicist John Hagelin of the Natural Law/Independent

Party. As he

traveled the country during the campaign speaking in

public forums,

he talked frankly about the long-term consequences of

such

experimentation, asking the question:

 

" Who gave the biotech companies the right to threaten

our food and

environment? The Clinton-Gore administration and our

'Republicrat'

Congress, awash in biotech money. We need mandatory

labeling and

safety testing of genetically engineered foods, plus a

moratorium on

the release of these experimental lifeforms into the

environment

until proven safe. "

 

John Hagelin's message is urgent and of utmost

importance. It is

essential that the American people act without delay to

preserve

their own health and that of future generations.

---

[Guest guest]

Thanks A. for sharing such an important information with us.

Kiana

 

 

>aergo <aergo

>

>aergo

> false pretenses enabling the commercialization

>of bioengineered foods

>Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:36:22 -0600

>

>Just received. Thought you might be interested.

>A. ;-)

>

>. . . . . please take a gander at the

>following from Nick Sandberg in the UK, whose

> " Blueprint for a Prison

>Planet " I just finished editing. Science isn't the

>problem, it's the

>arrogance of scientists, who rush off in high spirits

>and begin

>applying what they have barely begun to understand. And

>there are

>some things I doubt we will ever know enough about to

>tamper with.

>Here it is:

>

>

>HAGELIN STUNS THE EPA WITH STIRRING " STARLINK "

>TESTIMONY

>

>On Tuesday, November 28, Dr. John Hagelin presented a

>powerful

>statement about the hazards of genetically engineered

>foods to an

>open meeting of an Environmental Protection Agency

>panel in

>Arlington, Virginia.

>

>The Scientific Advisory Panel for the Federal

>Insecticide, Fungicide,

>and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) held the meeting to

>consider the possible

>allergenic effects of StarLink corn on human health.

>StarLink, a

>variety of genetically engineered corn that has not

>been approved by

>the EPA for human consumption, was recently discovered

>to have

>contaminated corn products being sold at supermarkets

>around the

>country.

>

>Dr. Hagelin's testimony created an explosion of concern

>among the

>largely pro-genetic engineering audience at the open

>meeting and

>created a fresh wave of scientific scrutiny about the

>hazards of GE

>foods. His testimony is reprinted below, along with an

>editorial from

>the Providence Journal about his leadership in the

>effort to protect

>our food supply.

>

>STATEMENT FOR THE FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL OPEN

>MEETING ON

>STARLINK CORN

>Arlington, Virginia, November 28, 2000

>JOHN HAGELIN, Ph.D.

>Director, Institute of Science, Technology and Public

>Policy

>

>I speak to you as a scientist who is striving to ensure

>that our best

>scientific knowledge be applied for the solution-- and

>prevention--of

>society's problems. I am a nuclear physicist who has

>published

>extensively in superstring theory and, during the last

>three

>elections, I have been the Presidential candidate of

>the Natural Law

>Party.

>

>I want to address an issue much deeper than whether the

>CRY9C protein

>in StarLink corn is likely to be allergenic.

>

>I want to address the assumptions that underlie the

>entire

>agricultural bioengineering enterprise. I am deeply

>concerned that

>life scientists are implementing bioengineering

>technologies without

>adequately understanding the lessons we have learned

>from the

>physical sciences. One of the key revelations of modern

>physics is

>that phenomena unfold in a far less linear and

>predictable fashion

>than eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers

>assumed.

>

>Today we know that there are inherent limitations on

>our ability to

>make precise predictions about the behavior of a

>system, especially

>for microscopic systems and nonlinear systems of great

>complexity.

>

>Numerous eminent molecular biologists recognize that

>DNA is a complex

>nonlinear system and that splicing foreign genes into

>the DNA of a

>food-yielding organism can cause unpredictable side

>effects that

>could harm the health of the human consumer. Yet, the

>genetic

>engineering of our food--and the widespread presence of

>genetically

>altered foods in American supermarkets--is based on the

>premise that

>the effects of gene-splicing are so predictable that

>all

>bioengineered foods can be presumed safe unless proven

>otherwise.

>This refusal to recognize the risks of unintended and

>essentially

>unpredictable negative side effects is just plain bad

>science. It is

>astounding that so many biologists are attempting to

>impose a

>paradigm of precise, linear, billiard-ball predictably

>onto the

>behavior of DNA, when physics has long since dislodged

>such a

>paradigm from the microscopic realm and molecular

>biological research

>increasingly confirms its inapplicability to the

>dynamics of genomes.

>

>Moreover, the premise of predictability is not just

>scientifically

>unsound; it is morally irresponsible. The safety of our

>food is being

>put at risk in a cavalier, if not callous, fashion, not

>only in

>disregard of scientific knowledge, but in disregard of

>recent

>technological history. Here, too, lessons should have

>been learned

>from the physical sciences. Time and again, the

>overhasty application

>of nuclear technologies led to numerous health and

>environmental

>disasters.

>

>For example, in the early days of nuclear technology,

>the rush to

>commercialize led to the sale of radium tipped wands

>designed to

>remove facial hair. Nine months later the cancers came.

>

>Similarly, the failure to comprehend the full range of

>risks and to

>proceed with prudence has led to many disasters in the

>nuclear power

>industry.

>

>In the case of genetic engineering, even greater

>caution is called

>for: a nuclear disaster only lasts 10,000 years,

>whereas gene

>pollution is forever--self-perpetuating and

>irreversible.

>

>The irresponsible behavior that permitted the marketing

>of

>bioengineered foods has not been limited to the

>scientific community,

>but includes the executive branch of the federal

>government. The

>FDA's internal records reveal that its own experts

>clearly recognized

>the potential for gene-splicing to induce production of

>unpredicted

>toxins and carcinogens in the resultant food. These

>same records

>reveal that these warnings were covered up by FDA

>political

>appointees operating under a White House directive to

>promote the

>biotech industry.

>

>It is unconscionable that the FDA claimed itself

>unaware of any

>information showing that bioengineered foods differ

>from others, when

>its own files are filled with such information from its

>scientific

>staff. And it is unconscionable that it permits such

>novel foods to

>be marketed based on the claim they are recognized as

>safe by an

>overwhelming consensus within the scientific community,

>when it knows

>such a consensus does not exist.

>

>The StarLink fiasco further demonstrates the shoddiness

>of the

>government's regulation, since the system failed to

>keep even an

>unapproved bioengineered crop out of our food. Indeed,

>the

>contamination was discovered not by the government, but

>by public

>interest groups. The FDA had no clue and had taken no

>measures to

>monitor. This incident also demonstrates how difficult

>it will be to

>remove a bioengineered product from our food supply if

>it is

>eventually found to be harmful and, therefore, how

>important it is to

>prevent the introduction of new ones and to phase out

>those currently

>in use.

>

>It is high time that science and the truth be

>respected, and that the

>false pretenses enabling the commercialization of

>bioengineered foods

>be acknowledged and abolished. I call upon the members

>of this panel

>to uphold sound science so that you can hold your own

>heads up as the

>facts about the hazards of bioengineered food become

>increasingly

>well known.

>

>I call upon you not only to resist the pressures to

>approve the

>pesticidal protein in StarLink Corn; I call upon you to

>honestly

>acknowledge the inherent risks of genetic engineering

>and to affirm

>that, due to these risks, neither StarLink nor any

>other

>bioengineered food can be presumed safe at the present

>stage of our

>knowledge.

>

>THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL Editorial

>November 9, 2000

>ONLY HAGELIN SAW GENETIC PERIL

>

>One of the key issues that never got discussed in the

>presidential

>debates this campaign season was the most serious one

>facing us

>today. The fact is that our democracy has been stolen

>by the powerful

>lobbies of the special interests. The most conclusive

>and blatant

>example of this has been the dangerous experiment being

>conducted by

>the biotech industry on the American people. They have

>genetically

>manipulated our food supply so that 60 percent of the

>food on our

>supermarket shelves has been genetically engineered.

>The most

>outrageous thing is that they did it without the

>knowledge or consent

>of the American people.

>

>Forty years ago, most scientists thought DDT a safe and

>promising

>addition to agriculture. Thalidomide was given to

>pregnant women by

>their doctors.

>

>Nuclear power was touted as the cleanest energy source

>on Earth.

>

>Marketed prematurely, each of these technological

>innovations brought

>unforeseen, unwanted and tragic consequences that could

>have been

>easily avoided through proper long-term safety testing.

>

>Haven't we learned anything from our mistakes?

>

> >From soil to superviruses: In 1994, a genetically

>engineered

>bacterium developed to aid in the production of ethanol

>produced

>residues that rendered the land infertile. New crops

>planted on this

>soil grew three inches tall and fell over dead.

>

>The food chain: In 1996, scientists discovered that

>ladybugs that had

>eaten the aphids that had eaten genetically engineered

>potatoes died.

>

>The immune system: In 1998, research by Dr. Arpad

>Pusztai uncovered

>the potential for genetically altered DNA to weaken the

>immune system

>and stunt the growth of baby rats.

>

>Monarch butterflies: In May 1999, researchers at

>Cornell University

>discovered that monarch butterflies died unexpectedly

>from eating

>milkweed plants that had been dusted with the pollen of

>genetically

>engineered Bt corn.

>

>Pregnant mice: A 1998 study showed that DNA from the

>food fed to

>pregnant mice ended up in their intestinal lining,

>white blood cells,

>brain cells, and their fetuses. This suggests that the

>genetically

>engineered DNA in the food we eat can end up in our own

>cells.

>

>Honeybees: Last May, a leading European zoologist found

>the genes

>from genetically engineered canola jumped the species

>barrier and

>were picked up by the bacteria in the digestive tracts

>of bees. This

>indicates that antibiotic-resistant genes in

>genetically engineered

>foods can cause the bacteria in our own intestines to

>mutate into

>superbugs that cannot be killed by antibiotics.

>

>Superviruses: Viral promoters are invasive agents used

>by genetic

>engineers to trick a cell into accepting and

>integrating an alien

>gene into the cell's own DNA. Some scientists predict

>that releasing

>viral promoters into the gene pool could lead to the

>creation of

>superviruses and novel infectious diseases for

>organisms at every

>level of life--from bacteria to humans.

>

>These are just some of the dangers that are discernible

>in the

>premature marketing of genetically engineered products.

>The biotech

>industry is eager to point to their so-called successes

>while keeping

>their failures under raps.

>

>Next is the story of rBGH, recombinant bovine growth

>hormone (or the

>story of genetically engineered milk). A Monsanto

>lawyer drafted a

>letter to the FDA to get rBGH approved. He then stepped

>down from

>Monsanto and took an appointment as FDA deputy

>commissioner for

>policy. He then penned his own letter and helped draft

>the FDA's 1992

>policy on genetically engineered food and rBGH. The law

>that

>followed, in true violation of First Amendment rights,

>states that

>it's illegal to say rBGH is in milk and it's illegal to

>state that

>it's not in milk. The lawyer returned to corporate life

>and became

>Monsanto's vice president for public policy.

>

>Incidentally, rBGH is banned in Canada, Europe,

>Australia, and New

>Zealand--all major dairy producers. It is also banned

>in other

>countries. I quote Neal D. Barnard, M.D., president of

>the Physicians

>Committee for Responsible Medicine, from a magazine

>entitled Safe

>Food News (to get this magazine and to sign the

>national Genetically

>Engineered Food Alert petition, call 1-800-REAL-FOOD).

>

> " Monsanto's rBGH increases milk production. It also

>increases udder

>infections (mastitis) and reproductive problems in cows

>and shortens

>their life span. To treat the mastitis, farmers have to

>give their

>cows antibiotics. Studies have shown that milk from

>rBGH cows often

>contains residues from those antibiotics. And because

>rBGH-induced

>mastitis leads to increased amounts of white blood

>cells--or pus--

>this is also secreted into rBGH milk. But the risks of

>rBGH go far

>beyond even this. More troublesome is the fact that

>rBGH has been

>linked to increased risk of breast, prostate and colon

>cancers. "

>

> >From pizza to chips, soda to infant formula, ice cream

>to cookies,

>vitamins to candies, genetically engineered organisms

>are in the

>foods we feed our kids every day. Virtually every food

>you can think

>of is in the genetically engineered pipeline. And

>coming soon . . .

>rat genes in your lettuce, cows that make human milk,

>and bananas

>with vaccines.

>

>The only presidential candidate who brought this issue

>to the

>forefront of his campaign and informed the American

>people of the

>hazards of genetically engineered foods has been the

>quantum

>physicist John Hagelin of the Natural Law/Independent

>Party. As he

>traveled the country during the campaign speaking in

>public forums,

>he talked frankly about the long-term consequences of

>such

>experimentation, asking the question:

>

> " Who gave the biotech companies the right to threaten

>our food and

>environment? The Clinton-Gore administration and our

>'Republicrat'

>Congress, awash in biotech money. We need mandatory

>labeling and

>safety testing of genetically engineered foods, plus a

>moratorium on

>the release of these experimental lifeforms into the

>environment

>until proven safe. "

>

>John Hagelin's message is urgent and of utmost

>importance. It is

>essential that the American people act without delay to

>preserve

>their own health and that of future generations.

>---

>

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com