Use your BACK button to return to article index.
Three new studies of the health effects of GM foods have triggered
new 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 key 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.
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. The European Commission appears to be intent upon issuing
one contentious and dangerous GM authorization after another, basing
its decisions upon highly selective and biased research by the
applicants themselves, and 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 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 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 are well documented in the Philippines
(2004) for Monsanto Bt maize and in India (2005) for Bt cotton (14).
On 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 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 a secret
workshop in its Rome HQ on 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 new work on GM health 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
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. 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. So was another
variety called Endless Summer. Trials of the Flavr-Savr tomato showed
that 7 out of 40 rats died within two weeks due to necrosis.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/
0/80256cad0046ee0c80256d1f005b0ce5?OpenDocument
6. The StarLink maize fiasco occurred in 2000. See also: http://
www.i-sis.org.uk/biotechdebacle_updated.php
7. A 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 -- 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. NB The work of the Norwegian scientist Terje Traavik and his
colleagues. "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. 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 they
were 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 secret FOA meeting in Rome.
Copies of these letters are available on request.