Dr. Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly employed at the Rowett
Institute in Edinbourgh, UK, was in charge of an experimental 1.6 mio
Brit.Pounds project about genetically engineered (GE) crops to support
the expectations on effectiveness and safety for the environment and
harmlessness for human health.
However, the independent nutritional and metabolic studies with GE
potatoes showed that, contrary to these expectations, this GE foodstuff
interfered with the growth, organ development and the immune system of
animals. After having spoken about his concerns in a TV interview he
lost his job, experienced aggressions in scientific newspapers without
being allowed to defend himself. "The reaction was a public explosion.
The events should serve as a general reminder that scientists carry an
extraordinarily high responsibility for society and the future of
mankind." he says. The situation was only changed by the british
parliament, who asked him for a report, thus allowing him to speak
publicly.
The first of the following articles was presented at the workshop
"Towards a Culture of Individual and Institutional Responsibility"
during the INES2000 Conference in Stockholm, 14. - 18. June 2000.
Pusztai examines the methods and tactics used by the industry and the
political establishment in the hope to destroy his scientific standing
and thus to discredit the results of the project work. The second
article provides more background information about the project and the
results.
Günter Emde
Arpad Pusztai
Scientific results in conflict with business and state interests
In 1995 the Scottish Office Agriculture Environment and Fisheries
Department comissioned a three-year multicentre research programme under
my coordinatorship with the main task to establish credible methods for
the identification of possible human/animal health and environmental
hazards of genetically engineered/modified (GE or GM) foodstuffs which
could then be used by the regulatory authorities for risk assessment
In our studies we used potatoes transformed with the gene of Galanthus
nivalis agglutinin, GNA, a natural insecticidal lectin-protein from
snowdrop bulbs as a model. After regeneration and appropriate selection
steps two agronomically excellent transformed potato lines were
obtained. As expected, these GM potatoes showed increased resistance to
aphid and nematode pests. Unfortunately and unexpectedly, we also found
two potentially negative effects which were the result of genetic
engineering and which indicated that the GM potatoes could harm
beneficial, non-target insects such as ladybirds
damage the gut, other organs and immune system of mammalian species such
as rats
The question was what a conscientious scientist should do with a finding
of such great and potentially far-reaching consequences for the society
and the environment, particularly in the circumstances when it was known
that the public have been eating untested GM foodstuffs for almost two
years.
There were but two choices:
* to keep quiet to enable us to continue our research work
* to publicly indicate my concern over the possible health hazards of
untested GM food
My appearance in Granada "World in Action" TV programme on 10 August
1998 was followed by a media explosion, condemnation by the scientific
establishment and gagging by the Rowett and an unprecedented campaign of
villification by the scientific and political establishment ever since.
It has since become clear to many, including myself, that the reason and
motivation behind this attempt to destroy a scientist who took seriously
the idea of "academic freedom" and spoke out according to his
conscience, was the intolerance of a profit-driven establishment. It
appears that with the rapidly diminishing state-funding, financing of
scientific research has largely been taken over by venture
capital-funded huge transnational corporations promoting genetic
engineering-based biotechnology that promises to bring huge profits and
previously unimaginable power in the 21st century, the age of the
"biotechnology revolution". In this the interest of governments and the
biotechnology industry has become intertwined, pursuing their goals with
the fervour of missionaries of this quasi-religious crusade.
In our age, the scientific, industrial and political establishment feel
justified to use all means, power and money at their disposal to crush
anyone standing in their way because they have managed to convince
themselves that genetic engineering is the future and only salvation for
mankind and those opposing it or even caution against its unquestioning
adoption must be modern-day luddites
It is instructive to examine the methods used by the scientific
establishment to publicly destroy the scientific credibility of the
scientist whose results are in conflict with the intertwined interests
of business and the state: The establishment selects some or all the
following options:
* Silence the scientist by referring to his/her contract not to
disclose anything without permission
* Confiscate all data and deprive him/her the possibility of doing more
research work
* Set up a committee of local "senior scientists" to investigate
his/her "misdemanour"
* Release the damning findings of the committee to the press but
without publishing them in full
* Repeat the above at the national level with most high-power
scientific committees of the land
* Recruit senior establishment figures to tell the media why they
should not believe the scientist
They then declare that the results of the scientists cannot be trusted
because:
* The design of the experiments was flawed
* The methods used were unsatisfactory and/or biased
* Inappropriate controls were used
* The conclusions were not supported by the results
* The results were unpublished or published in a journal of low
scientific standing
* There are other better (unspecified) data which contradict the
results
* The results are not statistically significant or obtained using poor
statistics
* The results are unrepresentative
Accordingly, the whole study will have to be repeated with more refined
design and methodology
In any case, the scientist whose results are in question is
untrustworthy because he/she is:
* Unreliable, too old and confused
* Not properly qualified
* Driven by ulterior motives of seeking publicity and fame
* Dishonest as he/she misappropriated data not belonging to him/her
* Dishonest as he/she falsified some crucial data
* Dishonest as he/she fabricated data
Accordingly, it will be necessary to repeat the study under the guidance
and control of higher scientific authorities and with scientists of
higher qualifications
The question is how many honest scientists have been silenced and
destroyed who had tried to be true to their scientific ideals by
reporting their findings to society regardless whether these were liked
by big business and the state or not? How many of them are around to
tell their tale? Unfortunately, far too few to the detriment of us all.
The question is whether there is any way out of this predicament? I am
sure there is! For this, in my opinion, we must help the public to
understand if they want high-quality, honest and independent advice in
this complex technological age, they will have to pay for it from the
public purse. It is in fact not so long ago that biological sciences
were relatively free from the clutches of big business. Before the
introduction of gene-manipulation based biotechnology and patenting new
life forms promising huge financial returns, most biological and
nutritional investigations were financed from the public purse. As a
result University departments and state-funded institutes carrying out
such research were public watchdogs. By acting on behalf of the
community and being free from commercial interests the advice scientists
provided for the community was accepted and highly regarded by society.
Returning to this role would be the only way to release the scientists
from their servitude to big business and state interests which is all
the more important because a democratic society which suppresses
academic freedom and the inventiveness of the individual de facto writes
its own death warrant.
Arpad Pusztai
The GM food debate - A personal crusade
In 1995 the Science Advisory Unit of the Scottish Office realised that
even though the introduction into the food/feed chain of some
genetically modified (GM) foodstuffs was imminent, no nutritional or
toxicological evaluation of their potential health effects on
human/animal consumers has ever been carried out. To rectify this the
then Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department
(SOAEFD) announced a major programme of research work. The main
objective of this unique 3-year project was to find novel and effective
testing methods which could be used for establishing whether the effects
of GM crops on pests, beneficial insects, the environment, nitrogen
re-cycling and other bacteria, and human and animal consumers, were
beneficial or harmful. Our proposal and competitive tender to SOAEFD
was written by myself and Dr Susan Bardocz of the Rowett Research
Institute (Aberdeen) with the help of scientists at the Scottish Crop
Research Institute (SCRI; Invergowrie) and University of Durham (UD).
It was favourably peer-reviewed by the Biotechnology and Biology Science
Research Council and was selected by SOAEFD for funding over that of 27
other proposals. I was chosen by the scientists involved in the project
to coordinate the work. The value of this and a following connected
programme was £1.6 million. In line with its great importance for the
UK, most of our work was done on potatoes, "Desiree", which had been
genetically engineered by scientists of a Cambridge-based biotech
company (Axis Genetics) to have increased pest resistance using a gene
from the snowdrop bulb. The product of of this gene (GNA) was
previously shown to be toxic for potato pests but not for animals
(rats).
We made significant advances during the three years. Thus, it was
established that our GM-potatoes which had successfully been field-grown
in the UK were indeed more resistant to aphids and nematodes and
appeared to have no or only minimal harmful effects on soil bacteria.
However, SCRI and UD scientists also run into problems, the most
important of which was the demonstration that GM potatoes were not only
harmful for aphid pests but also for ladybirds which under natural
conditions control aphid damage. Even more worrying was our findings at
the Rowett that, as a result of genetic engineering, the composition of
the potatoes changed for the worse and young rats fed on potato diets
grew less well on some of the GM potatoes than on non-GM potato diets.
Moreover, some organs, including the digestive tract, and the immune
system did not develop normally in the young rats eating GM potatoes.
However, most worryingly, many of these effects could not be accounted
for by the gene (from snowdrops) used for genetic engineering but the
main culprit appeared to be the GM technology itself which may have been
responsible for the damage by introducing changes in the plants own
genes.
Early in January 1998 I first voiced my concern in a BBC 2 Newsnight
programme that we shall soon be eating GM foodstuffs with genes in them
which we have never eaten before and whose consequences cannot be
predicted. There was very little media and public response to this
programme because for most people this appeared to be a distant
possibility. However, coming closer to the end of the three-year
projects the seriousness of our findings put me into an increasingly
difficult situation. My concern became amplified by the then general
realisation that several GM foodstuffs, including GM soya and GM maize,
whose health effects have never been tested and which are found in
60-70% of all ready-made food, have meanwhile been allowed into the food
chain and sold in the supermarkets. The question was what to do? How
could I reconcile my duties to fellow citizens who after all funded my
research and indicate my concern to them while at the same time adhering
to the unwritten rules of the scientific tradition of not talking about
unpublished results in public? Eventually my quandry was resolved when
the Granada "World in Action" team approached us for an interview. With
the full backing of the Rowett I gave a short interview that was
broadcast on 10 August 1998. In the 150 seconds of the TV programme
without disclosing experimental details I indicated my serious concern
about the introduction of GM foodstuffs into the food chain because our
novel and rigorous testing methods revealed that feeding of diets
containing GM-potatoes damaged the health of our young rats. I also
emphasized in the TV programme that "it was unfair to use our fellow
citizens as guinea pigs in a botched human experiment", we therefore
very urgently need to extend the same rigorous testing methods as we
used for GM potatoes to GM soya and GM maize which we have by then been
eating for over 18 months.
The aftermath of the TV broadcast was sensational. Some politicians,
the biotech industry and a number GM scientists did read the danger
signals and realised that our results with GM potatoes might have had
implications for GM food generally. Even though my comments were
confined to our GM potato work, because we used the same genetic
engineering technique for our potatoes as the biotech scientists had
used for creating most if not all of the present GM crops, none of which
were tested by methods similar to ours openly and independently, a
concerted campaign was started up to destroy my scientific credibility.
It was hoped that by shooting the messenger bringing bad news the
message will also be destroyed. Politicians, ministers, advisors to the
government, practically all committees of the scientific establishment
including the Royal Society competed with each other to rubbish our
experiments and spread misinformation through the media. Nothing was
sacred and every angle was explored to ruin our reputation. They got
hold of internal reports of our work which were for our collaborators in
the programme and never meant to be published. The results were taken
out of context and the various committees were falling over each other
to condemn our work with their "scientific criticisms". Fortunately,
this steam hammer approach was so much out of all proportion and was not
only unfair but also seen to be unfair by most people in the country
that the campaign misfired and did more damage to the establishment than
to my reputation. For most Britons I was the little David guy who stood
up to the Goliaths of politics, industry and scientific administrators
and who was not given a fair chance to defend himself and what he stood
for. I was seen by people as the scientist who honestly tried to
cooperate with the Royal Society Working Group and its Chairperson to
establish the truth about GM but who, despite all the promises, never in
fact got in touch with me. I was the guy who was given 35 minutes while
I was doing an experiment in Norway, to respond the last referee's
criticisms to internal reports on our work placed on the internet by the
Rowett against my wishes. It is of no great surprise that as I was not
given a fair chance to defend myself by properly publishing our work,
The Lancet editor called the Royal Society's attitude and treatment of
me as "breathtaking impertinence". In the British public's mind I
represented those other true scientists who before me tried to warn
society about the dangers of BSE, nuclear power or DDT and were
ridiculed by the same or similar establishment figures and politicians.
I now more than ever believe that our pioneering work, particularly as
some of it has been published in high-profile peer-reviewed scinetific
journals, will stand the test of time. Even though we were not allowed
to complete some of our experiments and could not therefore establish
the reasons for the damage caused to the rats by feeding them on GM
potatoes, as said by 24 independent scientific experts, we have started
something worthwhile on which future studies of GM food could and should
be based. My invitation to the OECD Conference in Edinburgh on the
"Human Health Aspects of GM Food" has indicated to many people that the
time for the sterile debates of the last 18 months whether GM food is
safe or not for consumers and the environment is over.
The present GM technology, and particularly the use of viruses,
bacterial plasmids, antibiotic resistance genes, etc is in the opinion
of many people, nutritional scientists and geneticists, unpredictable
and therefore potentially dangerous. The possible risks of creating
superweeds, superbugs and new viruses and damaging the development of
the young, the immune system and generally the health of both humans and
animals, particularly as these changes are likely to be irreversible, is
unacceptable to most people. The sooner it is accepted by the biotech
industry that without proper, double-blind, placebo-controlled drug type
biological testing done openly, independently and transparently on GM
foodstuffs before they are approved (but retrospectively also including
the ones which are already in the food chain), the general public will
have none of it. It is not good enough to use these words as slogans.
GM scientists must understand that the science base of GM food must be
broadened by including physiologists, nutritionists, immunologists, etc,
because molecular biologists have no such expertise. They also must
understand that the conflict of interest, such as the one shown up by
the revelation that the much heralded field trials of GM crops will be
overseen by scientists who are receiving pay from companies promoting
the interest of the GM biotech industry, is not likely to be acceptable
by most fair-minded people. These scientists must appear to be above
board to all people and accepting honoraria from biotech concerns is a
handicap in that respect. It is reckoned by most that what is good for
members of Parliament, namely that they ought declare their interests,
should also be good for the scientists who control these field trial
experiments which may determine the future of our countryside. The same
ought to apply to those scientists who will be carrying out human health
safety assessment on GM crops. They must not only be independent of the
GM biotech industry but also be seen to be independent. One of the
reason for my public support was that nobody could accuse me of having a
vested interest in whether the GM potatoes we worked with were found
safe or unsafe. Indeed, I have lost everything as a result of publicly
revealing my concern over their safety.
There is a crying need for starting up major large-scale trials on the
safety of GM food on human/animal health on a case-by-case basis. This
is more than topical now that even Tony Blair seems to have realised
that GM crops may not only bring benefits but can also present
considerable dangers to human health and the environment. It is also
imperative that, till the results of these tests are known, the GM
foodstuffs already in the food chain should be withdrawn and no further
releases allowed. It has to be pointed out that the planned farm-scale
field trials of GM crops are irrelevant in this respect because they
will not address the human health safety concerns. Moreover, many
people think that these field trials are, at best, also irrelevant for
the environment and, at worst, they will contribute to the genetic
pollution of our countryside and therefore they ought to be abandoned or
re-designed in such a way that any pollution may be contained.
Accordingly, we need a moratorium to allow an open debate in which all
these safety issues are discussed that an agreed programme of biological
testing of GM crops and foodstuffs can start up. For food safety
assessment our work with GM potatoes and young rats and the novel
testing methods we developed could be used as a starting point. If
these show up no major animal health problems we can progress to
clinical trials with human volunteers. The methods and protocols are
available and only the political will and the money is needed as I said
in my closing sentences at the Edinburgh Conference. As we are in the
process of setting up the new Food Standard Agency under Sir John Krebs,
one of its main tasks ought to be creation of an independent,
state-funded food safety laboratory, perhaps funded by a levy on the GM
biotech companies planning to get their GM products included in the
food/feed chain but without their direct involvement in the funding. To
increase the credibility and public acceptability of this new food
laboratory it should be made mandatory for its scientific personnel to
declare their possible conflicts of interest before they are hired and
make it compulsory for them to report any changes which might affect
their independence. It is my belief that the right way to follow with
GM food that I outlined in this personal crusade document would go a
long way to restore the public's faith in science which has been
severely dented by finding scientists on the wrong side of the arguments
concerning BSE, nuclear mishaps, DDT, etc.
____________________________________________________________________________
.Source of Paper............Paracelsus - Clinical Practice in the Healing Arts.............
........ sponsored by Integrative Medical Arts - IBISmedical.com ........
http://franklin.oit.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=paracelsus
visit the HealthWWWeb and Integrative Medical Arts websites:
.. http://www.HealthWWWeb.com .. http://www.integrativemedicalarts.com ..
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..
learn more about IBIS - The Integrative BodyMind Information System,
Interactions: IBIS Guide to Drug-Herb and Drug-Nutrients Interactions, and
other IBISmedical.com Products
......... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..
......Integrative Medicine, Natural Health and Alternative Therapies....