People eating genetically modified food will have a short lifespan - Science and Scientist Abused

[Guest guest]

In the same context, please read this: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LetterToNatureReErmakova.php andhttp://www.i-sis.org.uk/abuseOfScience.phpISIS Press Release 20/09/07 Science and Scientist AbusedISIS Letter to Nature BiotechnologyPlease circulate widely and write your own letter to Nature Biotechnology Andrew Marshall, Editor, Nature Biotechnologya.marshallRichard Charkin, Chief Executive, MacMillan Ltdc/o execAnnette Thomas, Managing Director of Nature Publications, Londonc/o execPhilip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief, Nature Publications, Londonc/o exec and p.campbellWe are writing on behalf of the Institute of Science in Society* to express our deep concern over your recently published article about Dr Irina Ermakova and her work (“GM soybeans and health safety - a controversy re-examined”, Marshall, A. Nature Biotechnology 25, 981 – 987, 2007, http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n9/abs/nbt0907-981.html ). The article is grossly unfair to Dr Ermakova and certainly not in the best traditions of scientific publishing.We have been told Dr Ermakova was given to understand that she would be the co-author of an article describing her work. What actually appeared was one written by you, containing comments by a panel composed entirely of people linked to the biotech industry. These comments were never shown to Dr. Ermakova before the article was published, and she was given no right of reply.There are journals that routinely publish criticisms of papers along with the papers themselves. This can be an effective way of drawing attention to important but possibly controversial work, while not allowing it to go unchallenged. These journals generally adhere to some important rules. The target paper is written by the researcher(s); not by a journalist. Comments from other scientists are published along with the paper, followed by a general reply by the author(s). Some of the commentators may be known to be critical of or even hostile to the author’s point of view, but the panel will include others who are not. That is quite different from what you have done. You were wrong not to make it clear to Dr Ermakova how you proposed to use her contribution, even to the extent of not showing her the proofs of what would actually appear in your journal. Such practice is more appropriate to a tabloid newspaper than to a serious scientific journal, and a public acknowledgement of the oversight from you would be in order. You were also wrong not to allow Dr. Ermakova to reply to the criticisms. She must now be given the appropriate platform in your journal to respond fully to the criticisms of her work, without further comment either from you or from your panel of committed biotech supporters.Dr, Mae-Wan HoProfessor Peter T. Saunders,Institute of Science in SocietyPO Box 51885London NW2 9DHwww.i-sis.org.uke-mail: m.w.hoTel: 44-(0)20-7272-5636*The Institute of Science in Society is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to providing critical and accessible information on cutting-edge science and to promoting social accountability and ecological sustainability in science People eating genetically modified food may have rat-short lifespan Genetically modified food is connected with great economic concerns http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/16372_GMF.html It is generally believed that rats, cockroaches and cyanobacteria can survive any biological catastrophe. But recently, researchers have once again stated that there is a delayed action poison which can slowly kill even enduring rodents. Leading expert of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute for higher nervous activity and neurophysiology, Doctor of Biology Irina Yermakova, conducted an experiment on rats. The rodents are traditionally used for important experiments as they have morphology and biochemistry resembling the human ones. The experimental rats were given food containing genetically modified components. The rats survived during the experiment but their conduct seriously changed: they became nervous, anxious and even aggressive for no reason at all. The researcher discovered abnormal pathologic changes in the liver and testicles of the rats. This is important that descendants of the experimental rats fed with GMF had really terrible problems. Alien components turned out to be lethal for little rats. Generally, all rats of one litter survive. But over 55 percent of experimental rats' babies were born dead or died soon after they came to the world. At that, their death was really agonizing, they were found with their intestines swollen. Other new-born rats had really weak health. At the same time, mothers did not reveal their motherly instinct actively. Similar experiments were conducted on other animals and fixed approximately the same results. So, the experiments reveal that transgenes are very poisonous for descendants and are in fact a delayed action biological weapon. There are opponents and supporters of genetically modified foodstuffs. At that, people need to know that transgenic products are very profitable. This in its turn means that genetically modified foodstuffs are connected with great economic concerns. Those who support cultivating of transgenic plants and production of products with genetically modified components say that these components proved to be safe as a result of large-scale researches. But the Greenpeace international non-governmental organization disagrees with these statements. Greenpeace states that research institutions that allegedly prove safety of genetically-modified components cannot provide accurate information about transgenes' safety and even debar people from getting acquainted with such information. There is still no reliable information proving the danger of transgenes for humans, but the tragedy of experimental rats is really alarming. Russians undoubtedly have the right to know if products contain genetically modified components and decide themselves if they will include them into the everyday ration or not. But it is important that unfair producers must not deceive customers about the content of their products. According to the recent data of the Russian Opinion Poll Center, over 95 percent of Russians prefer products free from transgenic components even when they cost more. Majority of parents are absolutely negative as concerning genetically modified components in baby and kids food. Today, Russia has no unified system of marking products containing genetically modified components. It means that even when producers claim they use no genetically modified components they may still do it and deceive customers. Greenpeace activists initiated an independent research aimed to find out if products marked as containing no transgenic components contain genetically modified components or not. In the framework of the research, experts studied sausage produced in large cities of Russia, crab sticks made in the Kaliningrad Region and China, potato mash and evaporated milk formulas produced by Russian subsidiaries of foreign companies. Out of the 42 tested products 18 proved to be containing no transgenic components, 6 products contained just hundredths of genetically modified components, and 10 products fixed not more than 1.33 percent of genetically modified components. But 6 sorts of sausage and crab sticks fixed too high content of transgenic components. Greenpeace reported the results of the experiment in the middle of October; it is not ruled out that the situation is that distressing in Russia in general. The results of the Greenpeace experiment seem to be today the only reliable guide for choosing safe products free from transgenes. Today, when Russian stores offer a great variety of products and Russians have a chance to choose, everyone should remember the fate of the experimental rats fed with transgenes and eat food which is safe for health. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~You received this message because you are d to the Google Groups "MedicalConspiracies" group. To post to this group, send email to: MedicalConspiracies (AT) googl (DOT) com