Upcoming Events

International | Sci-Tech

no events match your query!

Blog Feeds

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link The Party and the Ballot Box Sun Jul 14, 2019 22:24 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link On The Decline and Fall of The American Empire and Socialism Sat Jan 26, 2019 01:52 | S. Duncan

offsite link What is Dogmatism and Why Does It Matter? Wed Mar 21, 2018 08:10 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link The Case of Comrade Dallas Mon Mar 19, 2018 19:44 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Elaine Byrne: Lacking moral courage to name names

offsite link Real democracies and referendums Anthony

offsite link Public Services Card: Some still forced to comply Anthony

offsite link Catholic Church: Dark influence still active Anthony

offsite link Tom Parlon launches new career in comedy Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2020/02/24 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 24, 2020 09:00 | Herb Swanson
2020/02/24 09:00:01Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link No Weapon Left Behind: The American Hybrid War on China Sat Feb 22, 2020 18:38 | amarynth
Pepe Escobar : Posted with permission and x-posted with Strategic Culture Foundation The New Silk Roads ? or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) ? were launched by President Xi Jinping

offsite link 20 Questions with Vladimir Putin : Episode 2. Putin on Ukraine Fri Feb 21, 2020 17:06 | amarynth
From TASS Has Vladimir Putin seen the Servant of the People TV series? Is dialogue with Zelensky possible? How to view Ukrainians? national identity? Are Russians and Ukrainians one people?

offsite link 20 Questions with Vladimir Putin : Episode 1. Putin on the tasks of the government Fri Feb 21, 2020 17:05 | amarynth
From TASS We are launching a special project entitled “20 Questions with Vladimir Putin”. The Russian leader answered questions about amendments to the Constitution, the government?s resignation and other major

offsite link Reading the ?traitors? ? a good or a bad idea? Fri Feb 21, 2020 02:34 | The Saker
[this article was written for the Unz Review] There are two names which often trigger a very strong and hostile reaction from many Russians:  Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Vladimir Rezun aka

The Saker >>

Human Rights in Ireland
A Blog About Human Rights

offsite link Latest Listings Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:07 | Human Rights

offsite link Latest Updates Thu Nov 21, 2019 20:32 | Human Rights

offsite link US Holds China To Account For Human Rights Violations Sun Oct 13, 2019 19:12 | Human Rights

offsite link UN Human Rights Council Should Address Human Rights Crisis in Cambodia Sat Aug 31, 2019 13:41 | Human Rights

offsite link Fijian women still face Human Rights violations Mon Aug 26, 2019 18:49 | Human Rights

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Hot Potato - Don't Worry It Is Safe To Eat

category international | sci-tech | news report author Tuesday July 15, 2003 14:02author by Andrew Rowell Report this post to the editors

As the UK government continues to wriggle over weapons of mass destruction, of sexing up dossiers and general spin, Tony Blair argues that there is no greater charge against a prime minister than for him to have personally falsified claims on which to take a country to war.

That may be so, but another grave charge would be personally ordering the sacking of a scientist who was involved in some of the first independent tests on GM, especially if those tests showed evidence of harm, and also especially if the orders came from Monsanto, via the White House. This is what Dr. Arpad Pusztai, who raised concerns about GM food in 1998, claims happened to him.

Part of the recent argument between the BBC and the government concern the claims by a single unnamed in
telligence source that the government “sexed” up one of the dossiers on Iraq. In contrast five people have said that they were told that Tony Blair ordered the sacking of Dr. Pusztai. Here is Dr. Pusztai’s story. It raises many unanswered questions about new Labour, its link to the biotech industry and the safety of GM food.

Dr. Arpad Pusztai

As we witness the dawn of the biotech revolution, Dr Arpad Pusztai is a scientist who is convinced that he has uncovered vital evidence that shows there are potential major health risks with GM crops. Pusztai was catapulted from an unknown laboratory scientist based at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen to the forefront of a raging debate about the safety of GM foods, when he spoke on the World in Action TV programme in 1998.

Overnight the Hungarian-born scientist, with some 35 years lab experience, found himself at the centre of an international media spotlight. The controversy would put him on a collision course with the UK and US governments, the bi
otech industry and the scientific establishment. His 150-second interview lead to Pusztai being suspended, silenced and threatened with losing his pension. His wife, Susan Bardocz, who also worked at the Rowett for 13 years, was eventually suspended too. Their research was locked up. Scientists and politicians alike vilified Pusztai.

As we search for answers as to whether GM foods are safe, two questions stand out. Given such a huge controversy over Pusztai’s experiments, and the preliminary nature of their findings, why were the political and scientific establishments so intent on rebutting him? More importantly why have the experiments never been repeated?

The saga has had very personal consequences. Pusztai has suffered two heart attacks and the saga has left him and his wife, Susan, needing permanent medication for high blood pressure. Pusztai is still angry about the whole affair. His only crime was to speak out, in his words, according to his conscience: ‘I obviously spoke out at a very sensitiv
e time. But things were coming to a head with the GM debate and I just lit the fuse’, he says. ‘I grew up under the Nazis and the Communists and I understand that people are frightened and not willing to jeopardise their future, but they just sold me down the river.’

His story begins in post-war communist Hungary. After the Hungarian revolution was crushed by the communists, the young Pusztai, a chemistry graduate, escaped to refugee camps in Austria and from there to England. By 1963, having finished his doctorate in biochemistry and post-doctorate at the Lister Institute, he was invited to join the prestigious Protein Chemistry Department at the Rowett Research Institute, which has become the pre-eminent nutritional centre in Europe.

Dr Pusztai was put to work on lectins, plant proteins that were going to be central in the GM controversy years later. Over the intervening years, Pusztai became the world’s leading expert on plant lectins, publishing over 270 scientific studies, and three books on the
subject. Two books were co-written with his wife, Susan. Pusztai became one of the Rowett’s most senior and renowned scientists.

In 1995, the Scottish Office Agriculture Environment and Fisheries Department commissioned a three-year multi-centre research programme under the coordinatorship of Dr Pusztai into the safety of GM food. At the time there was not a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal on the safety of GM food.

The scientists’ primary task was to establish credible methods for the identification of possible human/animal health and environmental hazards of GM. The idea was that the methodologies that they tested would be used by the regulatory authorities in later risk assessments of GM crops. For the first time, independent studies would be undertaken to examine whether feeding GM potatoes to rats caused any harmful effects on their health, bodies or metabolism.

The theory behind the modification of the potatoes was simple. For years Dr Pusztai had explored the beneficial effects
of lectins in foods as well as in nutritional supplements and pharmaceutical agents. Lectins can affect the digestive systems of insects and can act as natural insecticides. Arpad’s work had shown that one such lectin called GNA (Galanthus nivalis), isolated from the snowdrop, acted in this way. Pusztai had worked on the snowdrop lectin since the late 1980s.

The thinking was that, if you could genetically modify a potato with the lectin gene inside it, the potato could have an inherent built-in defence mechanism that would act as a natural insecticide, preventing aphid attack. Because it looked promising, the snowdrop gene had already been incorporated into several experimental crops, including rice, cabbagesand oil-seed rape.

But by late 1997, the first storm clouds were brewing at the Rowett. Preliminary results from the rat-feeding experiments were showing totally unexpected and worrying changes in the size and weight of the rat’s body organs. Liver and heart sizes were getting smaller, and so was
the brain. There were also indications that the rats’ immune systems were weakening.

150 Seconds That Changed The GM Debate

Finally in August 1998, Pusztai expressed his growing concerns on World in Action in a 150 second interview. So what did he say? ‘We’re assured that this is absolutely safe,’ said Pusztai. ‘We can eat it all the time. We must eat it all the time. There is no conceivable harm, which can come to us. But as a scientist looking at it, actively working in the field, I find that it’s very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs. We have to find guinea-pigs in the laboratory.’ Dr Pusztai had been told not to talk about his experiments in detail, but he did say, in a sentence that would become the centre of the controversy, that ‘the effect was slight growth retardation and an effect on the immune system. One of the genetically modified potatoes, after 110 days, made the rats less responsive to immune effects’.

He continued: ‘If I had the choice, I would certainly not
eat it till I see at least comparable experimental evidence which we are producing for our genetically modified potatoes. I actually believe that this technology can be made to work for us. And if the genetically modified foods will be shown to be safe, then we have really done a great service to all our fellow citizens. And I very strongly believe in this, and that’s one of the main reasons why I demand to tighten up the rules, tighten up the standards.’

On the evening of the broadcast, the head of the Rowett Professor James ‘congratulated,’ Pusztai on his TV appearance, commenting on ‘how well Arpad had handled the questions’. The following morning a further press release from the Rowett noticed that a ‘range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr Pusztai’s concerns’.

The Riddle Of The Rowett

But it is here that the Rowett and Pusztai differ in what happened next. The day after the programme, on the Tuesday James maintains he asked Pusztai’s staff for the data for the 110-day
experiment, which he claims they told him did not exist. ‘I couldn’t believe it, says James, ‘I just said that this is the end of the world for us all’. James maintains that this is the reason why Pusztai was suspended on the Wednesday.

On Wednesday morning, Pusztai and Susan were told to hand over their data. All GM work was stopped immediately and Pusztai’s team was dispersed. His three PhD students were moved to other areas. He was threatened with legal action if he spoke to anyone. His phone calls and emails were diverted.

The Rowett press machinery was adopting Orwellian overtones and beginning to change the official story. First of all they said that Pusztai had got muddled with the wrong potatoes, then they had said that the experiments had not been done, but finally they reported that Pusztai had done the right experiments but the results were not ready yet

Other disputed events happened on the Tuesday too. Two phone calls, Pusztai says he was told, were put through to James from the Prime
Minister’s office. One was ‘around noon, the other was slightly earlier’. He learnt this information from two different employees at the Rowett, who could be sacked if their identities were known. The Pusztais were also later told by someone at the Rowett, currently in a senior management position at the Institute, that Bill Clinton had phoned Blair and told him to sort out the problem. ‘That was the beginning of all the trouble – Arpad was sacked as a consequence of what was said in those phone calls,’ says a friend.

The events of August 1998 have always puzzled Stanley Ewen, then a top pathologist from the University of Aberdeen who had worked with Pusztai for over a decade. Ewen too had often wondered what caused the sudden turn-around at the Rowett.

Speaking about the incident for the first time now he is retired from the University of Aberdeen, he confirms the Pusztais’ stories, but crucially he was told by yet another senior member of the Rowett. This makes four separate Rowett personnel who h
ave spoken in private about the phone calls. ‘On Tuesday, Blair phoned the Rowett twice, although everybody denies it’, Ewen says.

Another ex-employee who was prepared to talk is Professor Robert Ørskov OBE. Professor Ørskov worked at the Rowett for 33 years, and is one of the UK’s leading experts in ruminant nutrition. He too was told about the phone calls. Professor Ørskov says he was told that the phone calls went from Monsanto to Clinton to Blair. ‘Clinton rang Blair and Blair rang James – you better keep that man [Pusztai] shut up. James didn’t know what to do. Instead of telling him to keep his mouth shut, they should have told him to say it needs more work. But there is no doubt that he was pushed by Blair to do something.’

But Professor James is adamant the phone call never happened. ‘There is no way I talked to anybody in any circumstances’ he says. ‘It’s a complete pack of lies. I have never talked to Blair since the day of the opening of Parliament in 1997.’ This week Downing Street also cal
led the claims “total rubbish”.

Although there is no proof that phone calls ever took place, Pusztai points to other evidence about Blair and GM. It is a well-known fact that Blair had been persuaded to back GM by Clinton, leading even the BBC to remark that in the GM debate ‘a question mark remains over the government’s independence of pressure from Washington’. In the mid-1990s the Clinton administration was backing the biotech industry ‘second to none’. One White House staff member said the 1990s were going to be the decade of ‘successful commercialization of agricultural biotechnology products’.

When Pusztai spoke out in August 1998, the new Labour administration was already beginning to shape government policy for its second term. It was looking for drivers of the economy that could be trusted to deliver the growth and hence results that Labour needed. Hightech industries, such as biotechnology, were to be the central cogs of the engine that would drive the Blairite revolution, and deliver the co
veted second term. What Pusztai was saying could literally derail an entire industry and with it many of the hopes and aspirations of New Labour.

Pusztai Backed By Colleagues

By the end of 1998, the Pusztai saga could have slowly subsided, with the scientist forbidden to talk to inquiring journalists. But wherever he went, scientific colleagues were curious to find out what had really happened to their colleague. Although banned from talking to the press, he was not banned from talking to other scientists outside the Rowett. In February 1999 30 international scientists from 13 countries published a memo supporting Pusztai that was published in the Guardian which sparked a media frenzy over GM.

A week after the international scientists backed Pusztai, a secret committee met to counter the growing alarm over GM. Contrary to reassurances by the government that GM food was safe, the minutes show the cross departmental committee formed to deal with the crisis, called MISC6, knew the reassurances were
premature. It ‘requested’ a paper by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) on the ‘human health implications of GM foods’.

What would happen, the minutes asked, if the CMO/CSA’s paper ‘shows up any doubts? We will be pressurised to ban them immediately. What if it says that we need evidence of long-term effects? This will look like we are not sure about their safety’.

The “Star Chamber”

That very same day – 19 February – The Royal Society publicly waded into the Pusztai controversy saying it was going to review the evidence on GM, but Pusztai argues it was nothing more than an attack on him.

‘Their remit was to screw me and they screwed me,’ he argues. ‘They have never done it before and I had never submitted anything to them. They took on a role in which they were self-appointed, they were the prosecutors, the judges and they tried to be the executioners as well. I see no reason why I should have cooperated with them in my own hanging.’

But hung Pusztai wa
s. On 18 May 1999, the Royal Society issued its damning verdict against Pusztai, at a press conference. The report said that Pusztai’s work was ‘flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn from it’. The same day, 18 May, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee attacked Pusztai too.

It is beyond coincidence that The Royal Society and the Science and Select Committee published on the same day. Political insiders say that pressure was put on the Science and Technology Committee and The Royal Society to discredit Pusztai, thereby enabling the government to take control again.

This behind-the-scene coordination was partly revealed by a memo showing that the government had set up a ‘Biotechnology Presentation Group’, which included senior Ministers. A decision was taken to ‘present the government’s stance as a single package by way of an oral statement in the House. This would allow the government to get on the front foot’.

This is
exactly what happened. On 21 May, just three days after The Royal Society and Select Committee published – Jack Cunningham stood up in the House of Commons: ‘Biotechnology is an important and exciting area of scientific advance that offers enormous opportunities for improving our quality of life.’

Cunningham then laid his killer punch: ‘The Royal Society this week convincingly dismissed as wholly misleading the results of some recent research into potatoes, and the misinterpretation of it - There is no evidence to suggest that any GM foods on sale in this country are harmful’.

The Lancet

However Pusztai and Ewen had submitted a paper to the Lancet, which was finally published in October 1999. Ewen faxed a copy of the article to the Rowett before publication, as Pusztai was still required to show them any papers based on his work there. However publication was delayed by two weeks for technical reasons. ‘The rubbishing brigade had been given two weeks to do the dirty on the article. I was almost
sure they would stop it,’ says Pusztai.

First of all came the misinformation. ‘Scientists Revolt at Publication of “Flawed” GM Study’, ran The Independent, ‘the study that sparked the furore over genetically modified food has failed the ultimate test of scientific credibility’. Connor said that the referees were against publication.

However four out of the six reviewers were for publication. ‘A clear majority of The Lancet’s reviewers were in favour,’ says Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet. Then came the ‘threats’. Three days after The Independent article, Richard Horton received a phone call from Professor Lachmann, the former Vice-President and Biological Secretary of The Royal Society and President of the Academy of Medical Sciences.

According to Horton, Professor Lachmann threatened that his job would be at risk if he published Pusztai’s paper, and called Horton ‘immoral’ for publishing something he knew to be ‘untrue’. Towards the end of the conversation Horton maintains that Lachmann
said that if he published this would ‘have implications for his personal position’ as editor. Lachmann confirms that he rang Horton but vehemently denies that he threatened him.

After the article was published, Horton and The Lancet were once again attacked for publishing the work by the biotechnology industry and The Royal Society. Horton likened the actions of the Royal Society to a “Star Chamber”. The publication of The Lancet paper also had a detrimental effect on Stanley Ewen’s long-term employment with the University of Aberdeen, and rather than get recognition for his work, all he seemed to get was anguish.

‘I felt that I had done so much work that had been unacknowledged’, says the pathologist. ‘I felt that I deserved some recognition, but this was being blocked at a very high level by other spokespersons. It wasn’t helpful to my career. When you do these sorts of things it is very difficult for your pension. Because that is what it comes down to in the final analysis: money’. Eventually he fe
lt that he had no option left and Ewen retired on the 26 March, 2001. He now works as a consultant to the NHS.

Why Have The Experiments Never Been Repeated?

But the fundamental flaw in the scientific establishment’s response is that in 1999 everyone agreed that more work was needed. Three years later, that work remains to be undertaken. A scientific body, like The Royal Society, that allocates millions in research funds every year, could have funded a repeat of Pusztai’s experiments. Is it that it is easier to say there is no evidence to support his claim, because no evidence exists, than it is to say that no one has looked?

Don’t Worry It is Safe to Eat – The True Story of GM Food, BSE, and Foot and Mouth, by Andrew Rowell was published by Earthscan on 10th July

author by Raymond McInerneypublication date Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:53author email raymond.mcinerney at ul dot ieauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

How the us government is misrepresenting the facts about the risks of genetically engineered foods,

And how EU regulators approved them by disregarding sound science and the precautionary principle


Executive Director

Alliance for Bio-Integrity

(A U S-Based Public Interest Group)


The US Food and Drug Administration Covered Up the Warnings of Its Own Scientists About the Risks of GE Foods and Has Been Systematically Misrepesenting the Key Facts

Genetically engineered (GE) foods have been allowed on the market in the United States, Europe, and other nations because of systematic misrepresentations by the US government, and their continued marketing depends on continuation of the misrepresentations.
This fraud was exposed by a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that compelled it to release its internal files on GE foods. I coordinated this lawsuit as Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity.
The FDA's records reveal that its own scientific experts overwhelmingly concluded that genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding and has unique potential to produce unintended and essentially unpredictable new toxins and other harmful substances. They cautioned that a GE food could not be considered safe unless it had undergone rigorous toxicological tests using the whole food. The uniformity of opinion is attested by the FDA official responsible for summarizing the expert input, who reported: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." (Photocopies of 24 key FDA documents are in a numbered set on our website www.biointegrity.org The preceding quote is from #1.)
Nevertheless, FDA bureaucrats, who admit they have been operating under an on-going White House directive "to foster" the biotech industry, disregarded their experts’ input and in May, 1992 instituted a policy that presumes GE foods are as safe as conventional ones and do not require any testing. Further, they covered up the warnings from their scientists and then declared themselves unaware of any information showing that GE foods differ from others in any meaningful way. They additionally claimed there is overwhelming recognition among experts that GE foods are as safe as others, even though they knew their own experts regarded them as uniquely hazardous – and even though they knew that there was not a consensus about the safety of GE foods in the scientific community at large. For example, the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator acknowledged this lack of consensus in a letter to a Canadian health official on October 23, 1991 commenting on a document that discussed GE foods. He stated: "As I know you are aware, there are a number of specific issues addressed in the document for which a scientific consensus does not exist currently, especially the need for specific toxicology tests." (FDA document #8 at www.biointegrity.org )
The FDA has continued to issue deceptive statements for nine years. For instance, on May 3, 2000, the FDA Commissioner declared: "FDA’s scientific review continues to show that all bioengineered foods sold here in the United States today are as safe as their non-bioengineered counterparts." But the year before, the FDA clearly acknowledged it does not perform substantial reviews of GE foods, stating: "FDA has not found it necessary to conduct comprehensive scientific reviews of foods derived from bioengineered plants … consistent with its 1992 policy." (Reported in The Lancet, Vol. 353, No. 9167, May 29, 1999) As of July 2003 the FDA continues to claim there is an overwhelming consensus among experts that GE foods are safe despite the fact the agency has repeatedly been notified through formal channels that numerous eminent scientists consider these new foods to be inherently more hazardous than their conventional counterparts.
If the FDA had not misrepresented the facts about the unique risks and the scientific concerns but instead had honestly acknowledged them, no GE foods would yet have come to market in the US. Nor would they have yet been marketed in Europe, since if the US had not approved them, the EU would not have done so.
EU Regulators Have Failed to Follow Sound Science and the Requirements of Their Law

Moreover, the EU regulators have ignored the unique potential of GE foods for unpredictable results, failed to require the kinds of tests recommended by the FDA experts, and have instead relied on tests that do not adequately screen for the potential negative effects about which they warned.
The inadequacy of the current tests is highlighted by the fact that eminent experts submitted declarations to a US federal court in May 1999 asserting there is no reliable evidence demonstrating that any GE food is safe. (e.g. www.biointegrity.org/laceydeclaration.html ) Accordingly, the court stated that there are "significant disagreements among scientific experts" regarding safety.
The basic approach on which EU (and Canadian) regulation of GE foods is based – the concept of "substantial equivalence" – is so unsound that a report from the Royal Society of Canada issued February 5, 2001 criticizes it as "scientifically unjustifiable." In the words of the Toronto Star: "The experts say this approach is fatally flawed … and exposes Canadians to several potential health risks, including toxicity and allergic reactions." (Feb. 5, 2001)
Further, even within the narrow parameters in which they have operated, the EU regulators have failed to uphold adequate standards. For one thing, the research on which they have relied is generally deficient and does not meet basic scientific protocols. Experts with the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) thoroughly reviewed many of the data packages the manufacturers submitted to the regulators and have reported they lack key information that is routinely provided in scientific research and is required to enable meaningful review by others. They stated that such research could not have qualified for publication in peer-reviewed journals and should not have been accepted by the regulators. (PHAA Written Comments to ANZFA, October 2000.) And a team of Japanese scientists who reviewed Monsanto’s tests on its "Roundup Ready" soybean (which has been approved in the EU) found so many irregularities in the safety assessment they concluded it was "inadequate and incomplete." Their November 2000 report concludes: "The safety assessment of the Monsanto Roundup Ready soybean needs to be reassessed." (The team was headed by Dr. Masaharu Kawata, an Assistant Professor in the School of Science at Nagoya University. Their report was published in the Japanese journal Technology and Human Beings, vol.11, Nov. 2000, pp. 24-33)
Moreover, even this deficient data has in many cases revealed potential problems that the regulators have ignored. For instance, the EU authorities have approved several GE foods that are clearly different from their conventional counterparts, even though the differences raise reasonable doubts about safety. These foods include three of Monsanto’s GE crops: a variety of maize, a variety of canola, and the Roundup Ready soybean. (Details provided in # 14 below.)
Although consumer resistance has prevented most GE foods from being marketed in Europe, large quantities of GE crops have been imported for animal feed; and EU citizens have for years been unknowingly consuming meat, milk and eggs from animals raised on this feed because no labels have been required. Nor will they be required on the end product by the new laws of 2003. Moreover, the US FDA experts stated that feeding GE crops to farm animals presents "unique … food safety concerns" because residues of unexpected substances could make meat and milk products harmful to humans. (See FDA document #10 at www.biointegrity.org ) However, their warnings were covered up by the FDA administrators, and the kinds of tests they called for have not been conducted.
Consequently, the marketing of GE foods in the EU is contrary to the guiding principle of EU food law, which is based on the precautionary principle. For instance, the European Commission has stated it "...will be guided in its risk analysis by the precautionary principle in cases where the scientific basis is insufficient or some uncertainty exists." Green Paper: General Principles of Food Law in the EU, 30 April 1997.
Recent evidence provides added justification for concern about unexpected harmful side effects. First, the discoveries of the human genome project released February 2001 (a) confirm that the foundational assumptions of genetic engineering are overly simplistic and seriously unsound and (b) indicate that recombinant DNA techniques entail greater potential for unpredictable hazards than was previously suspected even by experts advocating a more precautionary approach. Second, there is mounting evidence of GE plants with substantial – and unexpected – alterations in chemical composition. (a) Aventis’s data shows statistically significant differences between T25 herbicide-resistant maize and its conventional counterpart in terms of carbohydrate, amino acid and fatty acid composition. (b) The Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) analyzed Monsanto’s data from controlled studies on three of its GE plants (herbicide resistant maize and canola, and pesticide-producing corn) and in all three cases discovered several statistically significant differences in chemical composition (including amino acid profiles) between the GE organism and its non-GE counterpart. The PHAA report (October 2000) states that the differences in the amino acids cannot be attributed solely to the known products of the inserted genes and cautions that these plants may contain unexpected – and to date unidentified – new proteins that could be harmful to humans. (c) Recent investigation by Japanese scientists reveals that Monsanto’s data on its Roundup Ready soybean, the most widely planted GE crop, shows important differences between the GE bean and its conventional counterpart. For instance, after heat processing of both the GE and non-GE beans, the concentrations of three harmful substances were significantly higher in the GE samples. Third, research at UK’s John Innes Centre confirms that the viral promoter used in almost all GE plants can facilitate various abnormal genetic recombinations. This could lead to serious disruptions or to generation of new and hazardous chemicals. Additionally, experts warn that parts of existing viruses could recombine into novel and more dangerous viruses.
Accordingly, hundreds of scientists have signed an open letter to the world’s governments warning of the hazards and calling for a moratorium on all GE foods. Signatories include professors of biology from Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the director of the renowned Woods Hole Research Center. Further, nine scientific experts were so concerned they took the unprecedented step of joining as plaintiffs in the Alliance for Bio-Integrity’s lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). By asserting that they regard GE foods to entail unique risks, they refuted FDA’s claim that experts overwhelmingly recognize them as safe. They include a professor of molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley; the co-director of Targeted Mutagenics at Northwestern University Medical School; and a renowned expert in plant genetics at the University of Minnesota whose declaration to the court stated: "…there are scientifically justified concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods, and some of them could be quite dangerous." Further, the respected UK medical journal The Lancet has strongly criticized the presumption that GE foods entail no greater risks of unexpected effects than conventional ones, stating that there are "good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist" and that "governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health." (May 29, 1999).
Because of the systematic misrepresentations by the US government and the extensive warnings about the risks of GE foods raised by that government’s own experts, the EU should boldly resist US pressures to import additional GE foods. Moreover, in light of the above facts, it is evident that (a) there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that any GE food is safe and (b) there is a deep degree of doubt about their safety on the part of numerous experts. Accordingly, it is difficult to see how the presence of any GE food on the EU market is consistent with the precautionary principle that EU regulators are legally bound to uphold "… in cases where the scientific basis is insufficient or some uncertainty exists." Green Paper: General Principles of Food Law in the EU, 30 April 1997. Therefore, it is prudent and proper for the EU authorities to promptly ban all GE foods, including those they have already approved.

Related Link: http://www.globalcountry.org.uk/news.php?f=uk20030708p_gm.htm
© 2001-2020 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy