 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dangers
of Genetically Altered Foods. Date: Friday,13 July 2001 22:20:04 -0700 From:
James French. somatics@earthlink.net Subject:
Monsanto.. and the new ..... .... Well
here is a long story out of Scotland that comes to me via a friend Dr
Mercola... Do you know for sure that your seeds are
"organic"?... The
study had been undertaken to determine whether or not the spliced genes
themselves could be damaging to the mammal ingesting them. However,
preliminary data from the study suggests something even more startling.
The actual process of genetic alteration itself may cause damage to the
mammalian digestive and immune systems. Pusztai's
study found that rats fed transgenic potatoes (artificially bio
engineered to include a gene from another species) showed evidence of
organ damage, thickening of the small intestine, poor brain development. The
transgenic potatoes used in the study had been genetically engineered to
contain lectin, a sugar binding protein, to make the plants
pest-resistant. The adverse reactions only occurred in the group that
was fed the transgenic potatoes. The control group, fed plain potatoes
mixed with lectin from the same source, were normal. These
results indicated that the adverse reactions were not caused by the
added lectin, but by the process of genetic engineering itself.
"All the presently used genetically modified material has been
created using essentially the same technology, If there really is a
problem, it won't just apply to the potatoes, but probably to all other
transgenics. In
August 1998 Pusztai appeared on the British television program The World
in Action to report the findings of his study. In an attempt to quell
the resulting public furor, Rowett Institute director Philip James (who
had approved Pusztai's TV appearance) said the research didn't exist. He
fired Pusztai, broke up his research team, seized the data, and halted
six other similar projects. It
came out later that Monsanto, a leading U.S. biotech firm, had given the
Rowett Institute a $224,000 grant prior to Pusztai's interview and
subsequent firing. Evidence
emerged to support the legitimacy of Pusztai's research. The research
that James claimed did not exist showed up during an internal audit.
Later, Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, published a
peer-reviewed paper Pusztai had co-authored supporting the research. Prince
Charles began to question the safety of genetically engineered foods on
his website and became allies with Pusztai. Charles wrote an article in
the Daily Mail expressing concerns over the lack of pre-release safety
research on genetically engineered foods. Back
in 1992 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had determined that
genetically engineered foods were in most cases "the same as or
substantially similar to substances commonly found in food" and
thus are not required to undergo specific safety tests prior to entering
the market. The
FDA's policy was a dramatic shift away from the long- standing
requirement that companies prove their products are safe. Says Rebecca
Goldburg of the Environmental Defence Fund. "FDA's policy strongly
favors food manufacturers at the expense of consumer protection." According
to author Ben Lilliston, no independent or government-sponsored research
into the effects of genetically engineered foods on mammals is now being
carried out in either the United Kingdom or the United States. Update
by Ben Lilliston Genetically
engineered crops have been introduced in the U.S. in a quiet, almost
stealthy manner. Most Americans know little about this radically new way
of producing food, and even less about what type of risks these foods
pose. Traditionally,
U.S. regulatory agencies are some of the toughest in the world in
protecting human health and the environment. But, as the article points
out, genetically engineered foods have entered the marketplace almost
entirely unregulated. The
story was published at the beginning of a turbulent year for the biotech
industry. For the first time since engineered crops have been
introduced, we saw a decline in the overall planting of GE crops in the
U.S. In response to growing domestic and international criticism, the
Food and Drug Administration announced it was drafting new rules for
regulating these crops. Perhaps
the most important event in the last year was the contamination of the
food supply with the unapproved genetically engineered StarLink corn.
The corn had been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for
consumption by animals but not humans, because of concerns that it may
cause allergic reactions. The
StarLink discovery by a coalition of advocacy groups has resulted in
approximately 300 food products recalled, mass litigation within the
agriculture community, and drops in exports to key markets including
Japan. StarLink
has also raised questions about the U.S. regulatory system, and, at the
end of 2000, several bills in Congress were proposing major changes in
the way U.S. agencies regulate these crops. The
last year has seen dramatic changes within the agriculture community
regarding GE crops. Farmers are now having to worry about liability,
markets, and cross pollination. Grain elevators are facing increased
expenses associated with testing and segregating genetically engineered
and non-GE crops. And even giant grain processors like Archer Daniels
Midland are warning farmers about growing genetically engineered crops.
The entire food sector is wary of the impacts these crops are having on
our ability to export. The
mainstream media has been consistently behind the ball on the story of
genetically engineered crops-particularly the regulatory angle. While
they have been quick to cover the latest scientific breakthroughs by the
industry, and report extensively on the promise of the technology, they
have ignored the inability of U.S. regulatory agencies to keep up with
the advances and unique risks of biotech foods. While
the StarLink debacle has received considerable coverage, few reporters
have identified the underlying cause, which is the overwhelmed,
antiquated system that allowed it to happen. There
are numerous resources on the web for more information on genetically
engineered foods: Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy
- http://www.sustain.org/biotech/ Greenpeace
USA
- http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/ge/ Union
of Concerned Scientists
- http://www.ucsusa.org Ag
Biotech Info-Net
- http://www.biotech-info.org Update
by Karen Charman Genetic
technologies, like chemical and nuclear technologies before them, have
the potential to alter in unforeseen and unwelcome ways all that we
depend upon for our survival-our environment, our food, and our health.
Like the products of chemical and nuclear technologies, biotechnology
products are being ushered out into the environment and onto the market
for people to consume without fully considering, let alone
understanding, either their long- or short-term impacts. Through
intellectual property patents, biotechnology grants private corporations
ownership to previously un-owned living things. The economics behind
biotechnology are the technology's driving force, but discussion of life
patents and their implications are absent from most media accounts and,
consequently, public debate. Scientific
understanding of how genes work in organisms is in its infancy. The same
is true for scientific understanding of ecology. Yet, without a thorough
understanding of the web of life and how its different components
interact with each other, it's impossible to know what the true impact
of releasing these novel organisms will be or to assess whether we
should be taking this genetic gamble. Much
less risky solutions exist to the problems biotech purports to solve.
But they are not being presented in the mainstream media. Instead, most
coverage continues to uncritically spread industry-promoted myths
about biotechnology while failing to comprehensively and accurately
report the technology's impacts, risks associated with biotechnology,
and why it is being pushed so hard. Biotech
food has become a flash point with consumers overseas and now that
opposition is growing here on the home turf, biotech promoters are
attempting to manage the public debate with sophisticated PR.
Unfortunately, much of the PR continues to appear in the mainstream
media. A number of citizen groups are now doing excellent work on
genetic engineering issues. The
Organic Consumers Association www.purefood.org has a website with a
tremendous amount of information and links to other sites covering
genetic engineering. The
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy www.iatp.org has in-depth
information on economics and trade issues related to agricultural
biotechnology. The
Ag BioTech InfoNet compiles scientific reports and technical analysis on
biotechnology and genetic engineering in food production, processing and
marketing. Update
by Joel Bleifuss The
U.S. media has not covered the disturbing public health questions raised
by Arpad Pusztai's research into genetically engineered potatoes.
Genetic engineering continues to receive a clean bill of health by U.S.
regulatory agencies despite the fact that no independent,
government-supported research into the effects of genetically engineered
foods on mammals has been or is being conducted. This
is in large part because the biotech industry has a sophisticated PR
apparatus in place that has so far successfully been able to spin the
industry's line that genetically altered food is absolutely safe. Concerns
raised by scientists like Pusztai or Michael Hansen at Consumers Union
are all but ignored. As Hansen told me, "But for the folks that
criticize it, Pusztai's study is still a much better-designed study than
the industry-sponsored feeding studies I have seen in peer-reviewed
literature. Pusztai's are the kinds of experiments that need to be done
with engineered foods.” Project
Censored.org - #7 of the Top 25 Censored Stories of 2000 In These
Times January 10, 2000. Title: No Small (Genetic) Potatoes Author:
Joel Bleifuss -
www.inthesetimes.com Extra! May/June
2000 Title:
Genetic Gambling Author:
Karen Charman Multinational
Monitor January-February,
2000 Title:
Don't Ask, Don't know Author:
Ben Lilliston www.essential.org/monitor/mm2000/mm0001.05.html
Corporate
news coverage: Wide coverage in England including The Independent, The
Herald, Irish Times, The Guardian, The Times London Washington Post,
10/15/99 p. A-3 (negative review) The
Wall Street Journal attempted to debunk the story with the headline
"Attack of the Killer Potato," 2/16/99 Faculty
evaluators: Lynn Cominsky, Myrna Goodman, Richard Senghas Student
Researchers: Katie Anderson, Kate Sims, Stephanie Garber, DR.
MERCOLA'S COMMENT: This
is the best review I have read of the original research I had mentioned
earlier, regarding the potential implications of eating genetically
modified food. Let me repeat. Back
in 1992 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had determined that
genetically engineered foods were in most cases "the same as or
substantially similar to substances commonly found in food" and
thus are not required to undergo specific safety tests prior to entering
the market. No
Safety Testing Has EVER Been Done on These Foods with the exception of
the study mentioned above which clearly has negative health
implications. It is
hard to believe that the these companies have been able to manipulate
the system for the detriment of all future generations. Well
that's it Jim "Key
Points in the Discussion of Dr. Arpad Pusztai's Research"
1.
Jack Cunningham has repeatedly said that "It is simply not sensible
to conclude that if a laboratory experiment with a known toxin added
caused damage to rats, that all other GM potatoes are therefore
unsafe." He has clearly not looked at the science, nor it seems
have many of the other so-called experts who have repeated the same
argument. The potatoes which had the snowdrop lectin (GNA) added to them
did not affect the rats in the same way as the potatoes genetically
engineered with the snowdrop lectin even though the lectin was present
in equal concentrations in both. This points to the process of genetic
engineering itself. 2.
The snowdrop lectin was used precisely because it was not thought to be
toxic to mammalian systems. Dr. Pusztai, the world authority on lectins,
had been working with the snowdrop lectin for seven years and had high
hopes for its potential use in food crops. Indeed, the snowdrop lectin
has been genetically engineered into a number of crops with a view to
commercialisation (e.g. rice and oilseed rape). Cabbages genetically
engineered with this lectin are being grown in trials this year in
Holland. 3.
Unlike the snowdrop lectin, ConA (the lectin taken from the Jackbean) is
known to be toxic to mammalian systems. For this reason it was never
seriously considered by Dr. Pusztai for use in food crops. This was a
source of much confusion last August when the Rowett Institute told the
press that these experiments had involved potatoes genetically
engineered with the jackbean lectin. Dr. Pusztai never suggested that he
was using potatoes genetically engineered with this lectin. Potatoes
which had the jackbean lectin added were used in the experiments to test
the responsiveness of the immune system precisely because, being toxic,
they stimulate it. Nor did Dr. Pusztai accept that he was muddled or
confused about the experiments. This is backed by the twenty one
distinguished scientists from twelve countries who looked in detail at
the data. The reason that Dr. Pusztai was not able to clear up this
confusion at the time was that he was sacked and threatened with legal
action if he spoke out. 4.
Lectins are used in genetically engineered food that we are eating in
the UK right now. Many crops, such as maize for example, have been
genetically engineered with the Bt toxin, now understood to be a form of
lectin. Genetically engineered Bt crops were grown last year on 7.7
million hectares world-wide (mostly in the US). We are eating this Bt
maize in the UK, and it has not been tested to see if it has similar
effects. In fact, talk as it might about the long regulatory process
that GM products need to go through before they are approved, the
government does not at present require that GM foods undergo thorough
feed trials. 5.
This is based on a concept called 'substantial equivalence', which
effectively means that if a GM product is seen to be grossly similar to
a non-GM product, it does not need to be thoroughly tested (on the
assumption that it we be no more dangerous than its non GM equivalent).
The GM potatoes that were being tested by Pusztai were declared by the
Rowett Institute to be substantially equivalent therefore by the
government's own criteria they would not have been subject to the
long-term trials carried out by Pusztai and his team. The effect on the
mammalian system would not therefore have been discovered within the
present regulatory framework. 6.
Cunningham has also said that "The scientists who spoke out have
not as yet provided any evidence to our advisory groups, to our
scientists. They have been asked for it now for some considerable time.
As soon as they do make their findings available to us of course we
shall examine them quickly and comprehensively." This is not true.
The scientists have not been asked by the government to provide
information. This information is publicly available now and the Scottish
Office were given the report in October. The government has had access
to this information for months. 7. Dr. Pusztai is an internationally renowned expert in the field of lectin research. He has published 280 scientific papers and written 3 books. If he, in an institute funded by taxpayers' money, can have his reputation destroyed, his research suppressed, and be gagged under the BBSRC code which applies to all publicly funded research scientists in the country, what message does this give to other scientists who may have controversial findings?
|
|
|
|
|
