GMW: NEW EVIDENCE OF HARM FROM GM FOOD TRIGGERS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE BAN

[Guest guest]

GMW: NEW EVIDENCE OF HARM FROM GM FOOD TRIGGERS CALL FOR

IMMEDIATE BAN

" GM WATCH " <info

Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:38:29 GMT

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

It's worth not just reading the main part of this press release but the

accompanying BRIEFING NOTE, which contains some very interesting

details and comments, including behind the scenes meetings of

scientists and

others that do not seem to have previously been made public.

 

EXCERPTS:

 

" We need to change the focus of the debate away from the limited

studies that have been done to date onto the size of the irreversible

legacy

that we are probably going to leave for future generations. " - Prof

Vyvyan Howard, Professor of Bioimaging, School of Biomedical Sciences,

University of Ulster

 

" If the kind of detrimental effects seen in animals fed GM food were

observed in a clinical setting, the use of the product would have been

halted and further research instigated to determine the cause and find

possible solutions. However, what we find repeatedly in the case of GM

food is that both governments and industry plough on ahead with the

development, endorsement and marketing [of] GM foods despite the

warnings of

potential ill health from animal feeding studies, as if nothing has

happened. This is to the point where governments and industry even

seem to

ignore the results of their own research! There is clearly a need more

than ever before for independent research into the potential ill

effects of GM food including most importantly extensive animal and human

feeding trials. " - Dr Michael Antoniou, Reader in Medical and Molecular

Genetics, King's College London

---

NEW EVIDENCE OF HARM FROM GM FOOD TRIGGERS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE BAN

 

UK Government and EC accused of criminal negligence and willful

suppression of facts

 

Press Notice 25th November 2005

Immediate Release

Source: GM Free Cymru

 

Three new studies of the health effects of GM foods have triggered

fresh demands for GM components in human food and animal feed to be

banned

immediately, and have also led to accusations of criminal negligence

aimed at the UK Government and European Commission.

 

The first of the studies, conducted by Russian scientist Irina

Ermakova, showed that an astounding 55% of the offspring of rats fed

on GM soya

died within three weeks of birth, compared with only 9% in the control

group (1). The second, conducted by Manuela Malatesta and colleagues

in the Universities of Pavia and Urbino in Italy, showed that mice fed

on GM soya experienced a slowdown in cellular metabolism and

modifications to liver and pancreas (2). And the third study,

conducted by CSIRO

in Australia, showed that the introduction of genes from a bean variety

into a GM pea led to the creation of a novel protein which caused

inflammation of the lung tissue of mice (3). So serious was the

damage that

the research was halted, and stocks of the GM pea have been destroyed.

The developers have now made a commitment that the " rogue " variety will

never be marketed.

 

These studies, all revealed in the scientific literature within the

past few weeks, have caused widespread alarm throughout the world, since

two of them suggest that GM soya (used in a large number of foods) might

be very dangerous, and since they appear to confirm the findings of Dr

Arpad Pusztai and Dr Stanley Ewen, whose paper on physiological changes

in rats fed on GM potatoes caused a worldwide sensation in 1999 (4).

The authors were given the full " shoot the messenger " treatment; they

were widely vilified by the scientific community, and following an

intervention from the office of Prime Minister Tony Blair Dr Pusztai was

sacked, his research team was dismantled, and his funding stopped. The

Ewen/Pusztai research has never been repeated, let alone extended, for

fear that their results will also be replicated. And there has never

been a comprehensive human feeding trial involving GM food.

 

There is now overwhelming evidence in the literature of deaths

attributable to GM products -- among laboratory and farm animals and

in the

human population. Some of this evidence is presented below. And yet the

GM industry, and the UK and EC regulators who are charged with the

protection of the public, seem to live in a permanent state of denial

reminiscent of that of the early days of the smoking/health debate.

Despite

opposition from European Member States, the European Commission appears

to be intent upon issuing one contentious and dangerous GM

authorization after another, and basing its decisions upon highly

selective and

biased research by the applicants themselves, while taking guidance

from a

despised European Food Safety Authority which has lost the confidence

of NGOs and consumer groups across Europe.

 

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said today: " Neither the UK

government nor the European Commission can pretend any longer that GM

foods are harmless. They must stop singing from the hymn-sheets

provided for them by the GM industry, and -- not before time --

recognize

that they have a legal duty to protect residents and consumers. In our

view they are already guilty of criminal negligence and the willful

suppression of facts. There must be no further GM consents, and GM

foodstuffs must be banned immediately -- at least until such time that

independent research on animals and humans gives GM a clean bill of

health

(24). We already know enough to be confident that that will never happen

(25). "

 

Professor Malcolm Hooper (20) said: " The genetic modification to food

is not without danger to the consumer who may be affected by genetic

changes that subsequently lead to serious chronic illnesses (cancer and

chronic inflammatory disease). Further independent studies, divorced

from any influence of government or corporations, are now imperative and

urgent. "

 

Prof Vyvyan Howard (21) said: " We need to change the focus of the

debate away from the limited studies that have been done to date onto the

size of the irreversible legacy that we are probably going to leave for

future generations. "

 

ENDS

 

Contact:

Dr Brian John

GM Free Cymru

Tel 01239-820470

 

=============================

 

BRIEFING NOTE

 

OTHER EVIDENCE OF HARM

 

In spite of concerted efforts from the GM industry and from the

political establishment to prevent truly independent research on the

health

effects of GM food, there is now a mass of information in the public

domain to demonstrate that such food is potentially dangerous. We will

never know how many GM varieties have been developed and then quietly

abandoned before reaching the regulatory process as a result of deaths or

physiological damage during animal feeding trials, since studies by

Monsanto, Syngenta and the other GM corporations are conducted

in-house and

under conditions of great secrecy. But we do know of at least seven

cases where GM varieties have been withdrawn because of direct evidence

of health damage (5) (6) (7); and there are many instances of human and

animal deaths arising from GM feeding trials and premature release onto

the market of GM products (8-12).

 

In the most deadly case of all, the premature release of the GM food

supplement L-tryptophan in the USA led to a large number of human deaths

(estimates range from 39 to well over 100) and to the development of a

new disease (referred to as eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, or EMS)

which afflicted up to 10,000 people (8). When StarLink maize

(intended and

only approved for animal fodder) found its way into the US human food

chain in 2000, there was a massive food scare when it was realized that

it was potentially capable of triggering severe allergic reactions;

the crop was recalled (far too late), and $9 million had to be paid out

in compensation (6). People may well have died, but the medical impact

of the Starlink fiasco is a closely-guarded secret. In Hesse,

Germany, 12 dairy cows died in 2001-2002 after eating GM fodder maize

Bt176,

which contains the Cry1Ab protein (11). When broiler chickens were fed

on a diet of Chardon LL (T25) maize, the mortality rate was twice as

high as that of the control group. That fodder maize variety has now

been withdrawn. When the infamous Flavr-Savr GM tomato was tested, 7 out

of 40 rats died within two weeks due to necrosis (5). In the case of

the GM bovine growth hormone known as rBGH or BST Monsanto has

persistently attempted to promote its use in spite of abundant

evidence of

cattle deaths and attributable problems including mastitis (10).

Allergic

reactions among farm workers have been preliminarily linked to Monsanto

Bt maize and Bt cotton in the Philippines (2004) and India (2005),

respectively (14).

 

In 2005 Monsanto was heavily criticised across the world for the

obsessive secrecy with which it sought to keep animal feeding studies for

MON863 maize out of the public domain (6). The company even insisted

on a

" gagging order " on Dr Arpad Pusztai, the scientist retained by the

German Government to assess the scientific dossier submitted with the

Monsanto authorization application to the EU. The study found

" statistically significant " differences to kidney weights and certain

blood

parameters in the rats fed on the GM maize as compared with the control

groups, and a number of scientists across Europe who saw the study (and

heavily-censored summaries of it) expressed concerns about the health and

safety implications if MON863 should ever enter the food chain. There

was particular concern in France, where Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini of the

University of Caen had been trying (without success) for almost

eighteen months to obtain full disclosure of all documents relating to

the

MON863 study. At last, it required a resolute campaign from NGOs and a

German court order to obtain the release of the study, which was then

revealed to have been highly selective, and carefully designed to

minimize

negative health effects.

 

There have still been virtually no studies of the impact of GM food

consumption on human health. But in one small study, referred to as the

" Newcastle Feeding Study " , showed in 2003 that even after one small meal

containing a GM soya component, transgenes could transfer out of GM

food into gut bacteria at detectable levels (15). The study was

commissioned by the FSA in the UK, and that body (which has consistently

promoted the merits of GM food) was so frightened by the implications

of the

result that it has refused absolutely to commission any repeat or

follow-up studies in spite of a flood of requests from NGOs and consumer

groups.

 

A CONSPIRACY OF FALSEHOOD

 

During the past decade, as the giant biotechnology corporations have

extended their power base and have taken over the role as the prime

funders of GM research, politicians worldwide have been happy to promote

the merits of biotechnology and to believe almost everything fed to them

by the spin-doctors of Monsanto, Syngenta and other companies. They

have blindly promoted the interests of these corporations in spite of

on-going and vociferous opposition from the public -- and from concerned

NGOs and consumer groups. Public opinion polls consistently show large

majorities in Europe who are opposed to the use of GMOs in food

supplies. Independent scientists who have had the temerity to

question the

objectivity of studies submitted with applications for GM approvals, or

who have themselves published " uncomfortable " research, have been

victimised, marginalised and " warned off " further involvement with

community

groups. The conclusion is inescapable that the British Government, and

the EC, to a corrupt scientific system which is based upon

the following contract: " we tell you in advance what the result is, and

you will be paid to get on with your work and provide us with the

evidence we need " .

 

For at least ten years the industry has consistently peddled the line

that nobody has ever died or even been harmed as a result of consuming

GM products. That is a lie, and it is still a lie if it is repeated a

thousand times. These are typical reproductions of the lie:

 

Eliott Morley, Environment Minister: " In terms of existing products

there has never been any indication that there is a health risk. "

Dr Christopher Preston: " Many studies have been published since 2002

and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test

species. "

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.h\

tml

CSIRO plant industry deputy director T. J. Higgins: " People have been

eating GM food for 10 years and there isn't a single piece of evidence

that it's any less safe than conventional food. "

 

SIGNS OF PANIC

 

There are signs that the new studies of damage inflicted by GM

foodstuffs is spreading panic in the corridors of power. That is why

representatives of the President of the EC rang up Manuela Malatesta

and her

colleagues in Italy. That is why there is growing mistrust between the

European Parliament and EFSA, which has a long reputation for

" facilitating GM approvals " instead of protecting the European public.

That is

why EFSA has been forced to hold a stakeholders meeting (17) and to

accept a barrage of criticism from NGOs and consumer groups furious

with its

secrecy, its complacency and its easy acceptance of all the evidence

placed before it by Monsanto and other GM corporations (18). That is why

the FAO organized an invitation-only workshop in its Rome HQ in

October 2005 with 12 invited scientists, in order to assess the

likelihood of

health damage in the general population arising from the spread of GM

foods. Dr Stanley Ewen, a practicing consultant histopathologist at

Grampian University Hospital Trust, was invited to give the opening

presentation. He subsequently said: " We laid down a definitive

protocol for

the testing of GM food using animals and, indeed, humans. However, Dr

Harry Kuiper of the European Food Safety Authority made it quite clear

that his organisation was content to accept the results of " objective

studies " carried out by the GM companies. I am concerned that such

objective studies are still only being developed. Additionally, that the

EFSA will only commission animal experiments if there were serious

molecular differences between the parent protein and the genetically

modified

protein. Then there would seem to be the question of who would fund

such experiments and where would they be carried out? I firmly believe

that there continues to be an urgent need for independent animal and

human testing. "

 

We understand from others present at that meeting that there was a

consensus that there are many gaps in scientific knowledge, particularly

related to GM health risks, and that new work on such risks must be

commissioned at the earliest opportunity; but that Dr Kuiper, on

behalf of

EFSA, effectively refused to sanction such new work and refused to

commit funding to it. As far as he is concerned, he is blind to any

ill-effects arising from the consumption of GM foods, and he is also

content

to continue leading the blind European Commissioners who foolishly

depend on him for guidance.

 

COMMENTS

 

Responding to the three new GM studies, and to the avalanche of new

work demonstrating that GM foods are actually harmful to human beings and

other animals, Dr Michael Antoniou (22) said: " If the kind of

detrimental effects seen in animals fed GM food were observed in a

clinical

setting, the use of the product would have been halted and further

research instigated to determine the cause and find possible solutions.

However, what we find repeatedly in the case of GM food is that both

governments and industry plough on ahead with the development,

endorsement and

marketing GM foods despite the warnings of potential ill health from

animal feeding studies, as if nothing has happened. This is to the point

where governments and industry even seem to ignore the results of their

own research! There is clearly a need more than ever before for

independent research into the potential ill effects of GM food including

most importantly extensive animal and human feeding trials. " (24)

 

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: " With news of these

three studies, we have come to the inescapable conclusion that there is

something seriously wrong with GM food. Any averagely intelligent

person must also come to that conclusion. We think that GM soya is

particularly dangerous. The GM industry, the regulatory authorities in

Britain and Europe, and the politicians who are supposed to look after

us,

have been living in a permanent state of denial about GM ever since Arpad

Pusztai and Stanley Ewen published their Lancet paper in 1999. If they

persist in the pretence that all is well in the GM garden for a moment

longer, they will compound their criminal negligence and their willful

suppression of facts (23). They have already lost the trust of the

present generation of consumers; if they continue to treat the

protection

of biotechnology multinationals as a greater priority than the

protection of consumer health they will be guilty of a deliberate and

cynical

betrayal of the interests of future generations. We want nothing less

than an immediate ban on all GM crops, all GM food and all GM animal

feed. "

 

 

NOTES AND REFERENCES

 

1. See Jeffrey Smith: fully referenced article in " Spilling the

Beans, " Oct 2005:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=299

The study was a preliminary study and has not yet been peer-reviewed

and published by the author. But her results were so worrying to

independent scientists that dissemination became imperative.

 

2. Manuela Malatesta and her colleagues have published five papers

2002-2004.

http://www.greenplanet.net/Articolo9833.html & prev=/search?q=Manuela+Malatesta & hl\

=en & lr= & ie=UTF-8 & sa=G)

Mangiare OGM non fa differenza? Non proprio.......

Abstracts of the papers can be found here:

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMfeedsafetypaper\

s.html

 

3. Study conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Research Organisation.

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/2005/53/i23/abs/jf050594v.html

New Scientist article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347

 

4. Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically

modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small

intestine. Lancet 354:1353-1354

 

5. The Flavr-Savr tomato was withdrawn in 1996, amid claims that it

was a commercial failure. So was another variety called Endless Summer.

But trials of the Flavr-Savr tomato showed there were health concerns

which contributed to the " commercial " decision.

http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/0/80256cad0046ee0c80256d1f005b0c\

e5?OpenDocument

 

6. The StarLink maize fiasco occurred in 2000and is well documented.

See also:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biotechdebacle_updated.php

 

7. A new GM soya was developed, containing genes from Brazil nuts

(1996). A novel protein was accidentally created which had the potential

to affect people with nut allergies -- so the GM soya was withdrawn:

http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/Food_causing_disease/15-737-740,32410.asp

 

8. As a consequence of the L-tryptophan scandal (1989) there were c 100

deaths (Jeffrey Smith). See these:

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?ObjectID=283 & find=L%2D\

tryptophan

www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm

 

9. Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. 1998. Fine structural changes in the ileum

of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic

potatoes. Nat Toxins. 6:219-33.

 

10. The rBGH bovine growth hormone (BST) has been promoted globally by

Monsanto in the full knowledge of science showing damage to both cattle

and those who consume the milk of cows treated with rBGH.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?ObjectID=193 & find=BST

 

11. The deaths of cattle in Hesse, Germany, have been linked with

Bt176 maize, but there appear to have been determined efforts to

" lose " key

scientific information and to attribute the cattle deaths to

mismanagement and other factors.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php

 

12. Broiler chickens fed on Chardon LL -- the mortality rate was twice

as high as that of the control group (NB the infamous case of Prof Alan

Gray of ACRE and the failure of that Committee to examine evidence

placed before it........)

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/appeal.php

 

13. Rats fed on Chardon LL -- weight gain was much reduced

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/appeal.php

 

14. The work of the Norwegian scientist Terje Traavik and his

colleagues is on-going and has still to be published. But see: " Filipino

islanders blame GM crop for mystery sickness. Monsanto denies scientist's

claim that maize may have caused 100 villagers to fall ill " -- John

Aglionby in Kalyong, southern Philippines, The Guardian, Wednesday 3

March

3, 2004

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1160789,00.html

Allergic reactions and cattle deaths 2005 attributable to Bt cotton In

India (Madhya Pradesh):

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

 

15. The Newcastle feeding study (published 2003) involved a small

portion of GM soya fed to just seven ileostomy patients:

http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/statement

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=990

Comments by Dr Michael Antoniou

http://www.gmwatch.org/print-archive2.asp?arcid=143

 

16. Re the Monsanto rat feeding study on MON863 maize, which the

company was desperate to keep out of the public domain (2004):

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=221

Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up, by

Jeffrey M. Smith

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=640430

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/381_en.html

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5270

 

17. See this for the Stakeholders Meeting:

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5804

 

18. See, for example:

ttp://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/Bt11reportOct05.pdf

 

19. Workshop on Safety of Genetically Modified Foods held at FAO

Headquarters, Rome, 13 - 14 October

ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/meetings/2005/gm_workshop_info.pdf

 

20. Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry,

School of Sciences, University of Sunderland, UK

 

21. Professor of Bioimaging, School of Biomedical Sciences, University

of Ulster, Coleraine campus

 

22. Reader in Medical and Molecular Genetics, King's College London

 

23. The regulatory system for GM crops and foodstuffs is a disgrace,

and needs to be scrapped and replaced. The GM authorizations process in

both Europe and the USA is underpinned by the scientifically

nonsensical concept of " substantial equivalence " , by which a cow with

BSE would

be considered to be " substantially equivalent " to one without. Further,

the authorities depend almost exclusively upon the " science " submitted

by the biotechnology corporations with their applications, which is

almost always partial and selective. In other words, it is corrupt.

Again, the regulatory process is designed - quite specifically - to

facilitate authorizations rather than to protect the consumer. The

regulatory

bodies themselves are packed with placements from the GM industry --

people whose very careers depend upon a continuation of the GM

enterprise. The precautionary principle, which is supposed to

underpin the

regulatory process, has now been effectively replaced by the

" anti-precautionary principle " , by which GMs are assumed to be

harmless unless

opponents can prove otherwise, on a variety-specific basis. But

independent

scientists cannot undertake effective research because the genetic

constructs of new GM varieties are closely guarded secrets, and because

governments will not fund their studies. And finally, in Europe at

least,

the Commission is more concerned about politics than science, and is

determined to issue GM authorizations, come hell or high water, just to

show the Americans and the WTO that there is no GM moratorium in place.

 

24. Letters have now gone from GM Free Cymru to the UK Food Standards

Agency and to the European Food Safety Authority demanding the

initiation of an urgent programme of independent research into the health

effects of GM food, on the lines discussed at the recent unpublicised FOA

meeting in Rome. Copies of these letters are available on request.

 

25. According to a letter received 24.11.05 from Arpad Pusztai, " A

consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished,

including MON863, indicates major problems with changes in the immune

status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods, the latest example of

this

coming from the GM pea research in Australia. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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