Use your BACK button to return to article index.

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru.
16th February 2007

======================
SECRET MONSANTO GM POTATO STUDY SUPPRESSED FOR 8 YEARS

GM Potatoes are "unfit for human consumption"
===================================

A secret feeding study of Monsanto GM potatoes, conducted in 1998 by
the Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences
and suppressed for 8 years, showed that the potatoes did considerable
damage to the organs of the rats in the study (1) (2). In comparison
the rats in the "control groups" which were fed on normal potatoes or
on a non-potato diet were healthier, and had much less organ and
tissue damage. This research, fully supported by Monsanto through
the provision of
the GM potatoes, was conducted at approximately the same
time as Arpad Pusztai's research in the Rowett Institute.

The potatoes used in the study were Monsanto GM NewLeaf potatoes
bred in 1995 from the Russet Burbank variety to be resistant to the
Colorado Beetle. The GM event was registered as 082, and the
potatoes are included in the Bt group of GM crops. They also contain
an antibiotic resistance marker gene (3). The potatoes were
deregulated in the USA in 1998, without any feeding studies being
required. Another line was deregulated in 1999. Even earlier, in
1996, Monsanto started to introduce the potatoes into Russia and
Georgia, and probably into many other countries with lax approval
regimes as well (4). For some reason (probably to assist in the
consent process) Monsanto co-operated in some feeding studies
involving rats from the Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy
of Medical Sciences. Something "inconvenient" showed up in these
feeding studies, but the Institute refused to release all the
information into the public domain and in 1999 the researchers
presented a "doctored" version of their Report in support of
Monsanto's application for Russian commercialization. The consent
was duly given in 2000 by the Russian regulators on the basis of this
corrupt piece of science.

However, Greenpeace and other consumer groups mounted a protracted
and immensely frustrating campaign to obtain a sight of the feeding
study Report. In May 2004 the Nikulinski District Court in Russia
ruled that information relating to the safety of GM food should be
open to the public. On the basis of this ruling Greenpeace tried to
obtain the GM potato report; but the Institute and Monsanto refused
to release it. So Greenpeace and local activist groups again took
the Institute to court, and in October 2005 won a ruling that the
Report must be released. At last it was handed over, and examined by
Dr Irina Ermakova at the request of Greenpeace. She produced a brief
Russian paper on her findings, and we have now produced an English-
language version with the kind agreement of Greenpeace (5).

Ironically, the NewLeaf GM potato was a failure, and it proved to
give poor yields and to be susceptible to disease in European
environments. While Monsanto was enthusiastically promoting its GM
potatoes in Eastern Europe, it was having second thoughts in the
United States and Western Europe, and pulled out of GM potato
development in 2002 (6). The results of the 1998 GM potato rat feeding
study may well have had a bearing on that decision.

Dr Irina Ermakova, the Greenpeace consultant, has herself conducted
animal feeding experiments with GM materials. In her very restrained
commentary on the Russian study (1) she criticized the small scale of
the experiment and its design, and was especially critical of the
complacent conclusions drawn by the authors from evidence which was
actually profoundly worrying. The GM potato was nutritionally
inferior to its conventional counterpart and to other Russian potato
varieties. The research results showed that both "normal" Russet
Burbank potatoes and the GM variety caused "serious morphological
changes in the internal organs" of the animals in the trials. They
also showed that the group of animals fed on the GM potatoes suffered
greater weight loss than the other animals, and statistically
significantly greater damage to kidneys, liver and large gut. There
was also greater damage to blood serum, testes and prostate. Dr
Ermakova concluded: "The GM potatoes were the most dangerous of the
feeds used in the trials........ and on the basis of this evidence
they CANNOT be used in the nourishment of people."

Given the small scale of the feeding trials (only ten animals in each
feeding group) and doubts about the statistical significance of some
of the Report's findings, Dr Ermakova stressed the importance of
follow-up studies on a larger scale and with more careful
experimental design. But no matter what the shortcomings of the work
may be, the Institute of Nutrition research did nothing to show that
the Monsanto GM potatoes are safe. That should not be a surprise to
anybody, since Bt
potatoes are classified as pesticides in the US and have never been
tested
for toxicity or allergenicity (7).

According to Dr Brian John of GM Free Cymru, it is incredible that
Monsanto and the Institute of Nutrition have kept the research secret
until now. "That obsessive secrecy has clearly been against the
public interest," he says, "and it tells us a great deal about
Monsanto's priorities. If the company had any regard at all for the
health of consumers, it would have published these results world-wide
in 1999, and at the very least it would have commissioned follow-up
research which might have confirmed or discredited the study's
findings. Instead of that, it connived with the Russian researchers
to keep the information away from public scrutiny, just as it did
with the feeding study results for MON863 maize in 2005. On that
occasion too, it took a court case and massive media coverage to
obtain sight of the research team's raw data and to reveal evidence
of damage to health." (8)

While Monsanto attempted to suppress the information from the 1998
Russian study,
it connived in the vilification of Dr Arpad Pusztai, a respectable and
careful scientist whose findings were very similar (9) (10). The
company must
have known that the release of its own feeding study information
would have
supported his findings and would have contributed to a general
understanding on
health concerns specific to GM potatoes. "The actions of Monsanto in
this case have been
utterly reprehensible," says Dr John. "The company has continued to
promote its GM potatoes as perfectly harmless, while for eight years
it has managed to keep out of the public domain clear evidence that
they are harmful to animals and hence to human beings
also. And it has got away with it because the science establishment
and the GM regulators within the EU -- as in Russia -- cannot see
scientific corruption when it is staring them in the face." (11)

ENDS

Contact:

Brian John or Ian Panton
GM Free Cymru
Tel 01239-820470 or 01437-720075

NOTES

(1) Medical-biological investigations of transgenic potatoes,
resistant to the Colorado beetle (under agreement with Monsanto Co.)
Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Institute of Nutrition
Moscow, 1998. Signed off by VA Tutelian, Deputy Director.
Physiological, biochemical
and morphological investigations in rats. Full Report 275 pp,
including raw data.

(2) The commentary on the rat feeding study by Dr Irina Ermakova is
here:
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/

(3) <http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=RBMT21-129%
2C+RBMT21-350%2C+RBMT22-082&frmat=LONG>
Full petition (240 pp) for the deregulation of New Leaf GM potatoes
(event 082) in the US:
<http://www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/05-242-028.pdf>

(4) GM potatoes in Georgia:
http://www.foei.org/publications/link/gmo/16.html

(5) http://www.greenpeace.org/russia/en/news/evidence-of-food-
products-safe#

(6) http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Monsanto-Dumps-Potatoe.htm
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/
23.genetically_modified_potato.html

(7) http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/safety.htm
http://www.cathnews.com/news/409/doc/15colgm2.doc
http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html
http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/meetings/2000/october/
brad3_enviroassessment.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad.htm

(8) http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/rats060205.cfm
http://www.spinwatch.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1239

(9) http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/98/august98/81798world_in_action.html
http://www.voteyeson27.com/monsanto.htm
http://www.theecologist.co.uk/archive_detail.asp?content_id=753

(10) Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically
modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small
intestine. Lancet 354:1353-1354

(11) See, for example:
http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmo/ajp.htm
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/pusztai-
picnic.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/291105.stm
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=113