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
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. We already know enough
to be confident that that will never happen."
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, subscribe 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.html
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 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."
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 faith 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/GMfeedsafetypapers.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/0/80256cad0046ee0c80256d1f005b0ce5?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%2Dtryptophan
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 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.