WESSEX
Campaign to ban genetically engineered food
What leading scientists and public figures have said about the dangers of genetically modified foods
Genetically engineered food Safety Problems - Award Winning Site - Click here
WILL
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS MEAN INFECTED FOOD, BODIES,
AND ECOSYSTEMS ?
(for
full details of the scientific case, including published
research, on the dangers of genetically modified foods
click here)
Medical
problems with genetically engineered insulin
Will GM crops deliver benefits to
farmers? - some realities behind biotechnology myths
Why genetic
engineering is not science based
World scientists issue call for ban on
GM environmental releases
The
safety of GE foods - Reasons to expect hazards and the
risk for their appearance
The
big lie - GM foods have been tested as safe - Mystery of
missing research
British Medical Association calls for
GMO moratorium - statement
Are GMOs essential for effective sustainable
agriculture in a hungry world?
Bogus
claims for 'golden eye' Vitamin A GM rice - Greenpeace
briefing
Feeding the world without GM foods - articles
NLP OECD
GM risks briefing paper
Fundamental
scientific conceptual errors in the
development of recombinant DNA technology
Corrupt Science-Business interface
Suppressing Dissent in Science With
GM Foods
(The internet address of this page is http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmoquote.htm)
Health Statistics -
Lies, Damn Lies, and GM foods? - click here
Special risks
with field scale environmental releases of GMOs
Special risks from the Cauliflower
Mosaic Virus promoter in transgenic crops
Political
compliance V sound science - biotech debacle set to
unfold further?
Population
duped by genetic engineers
''We simply do not have enough reliable scientific evidence on their safety to be able to make a valid decision as to whether there are potential health effects or not.''
Charles Saunders, chairman of the British Medical Association's public health committee
"The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into."
Professor Philip James (author of the "James" report on the structure and functions of the proposed UK Food Standards Agency to oversee national food safety standards), Director of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, on genetically engineered food.
Rowett
Research Institute
The
Foods Standards Agency
'Science'
magazine - Dec 2000 - GM risk-benefit analysis has not
been done
"There is... a need to
develop more effective and appropriate screening methods
to alert companies and government agencies to the
unexpected consequences of the often random insertion of
genetic traits into plants."
From Professor Philip James' evidence to the House of
Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, March
1999.
GM
warning over dangerous chemicals entering food chain
USDA
has not done GMO risk assessments
"If one is going to introduce a particular protein genetically one can look at the structure of the protein and ask if we know that this type of structure causes allergies. But if you say the structure may be slightly modified in this particular plant, how on earth are we going to assess whether that is going to induce in a very small subsection of the population an unknown allergenic response? I am not sure how we are going to cope with that yet."
From Professor Philip James' evidence to the House of Lords European Communities Committee, January 1999
Scientists
don't have GM safety answers - Nature magazine
Soya
allergy rates skyrocket -- Monsanto's Roundup-Ready Soy
Blamed
Covered
up US study shows damage to rats from BST
Canadian
senate investigation into GM rBST cover-up
Fox BST suit
US
consumers union - Potential Public Health Impacts Of The
Use Of rbGH In Dairy Production
"The experts [at the Royal Society of Canada] say this approach [of'substantial equivalence'] is fatally flawed for genetically modified, or GM, crops and exposes Canadians to several potential healthrisks, including toxicity and allergic reactions."
Toronto Star, 5 Feb 2000, on Royal Society of Canada report on Biotechnology
Toronto
star on Royal Society of Canada Report
Download
full CRS report
Canadian
'U-turn' Exposes Poor GM Safety Testing in US - Aug 2000
"Biotechnology relies to a large extent on our ability to introduce foreign genes into cells. A major problem with present day technology is the non-predictability of the integration of such transgenes. DNA introduced into plant cells mostly integrates at random, i.e. at non-predetermined positions of the genome. The biological process ultimately responsible for random integration is known as illegitimate recombination. DNA integrated at random frequently contains multiple copies and often copies are scrambled. Multiple copies also often induce gene silencing and hence instability in the expression of the introduced genes. In addition, the DNA integrates at loci of unknown stability and capacity for expression and randomly integrated copies may induce unpredictable and undesirable mutations in the host genome.....Although our understanding of the general biology of recombination in plants is constantly improving, we still lack the knowledge for precision engineering of plants' genes."
Study on behalf of the European Commission on GM food safety from Université Blaise Pascal Aubière (FR), Max-Planck-Institut für Züchtungsforschung Köln (DE), University of Ghent (BE)
European Commission lacks confidence in own GM safety tests - More Details
".....there is no precise harmonisation of methodologies to assure the safety of transgenic food products, it being difficult to use traditional animal feeding studies for toxicological assessments. This clearly raises biosafety issues for the use of GM products in food. In vivo and in vitro validated nutritional-toxicological testing procedures are urgently required. .....if the testing procedure investigated in this project does not allow assessment of the toxicity of the gene products introduced into the food product via the GM plants, the whole strategy for the safety assessment of novel foods from GM plants will need to be revised".
Study on behalf of the European
Commission on GM food safety from Institute of Food
Safety and Toxicology
Søborg, Denmark (DK)
European Commission lacks confidence in own GM safety tests - More Details
"One of the key issues in the risk assessment of GM crop plants is whether unexpected hazardous metabolic perturbations (so-called unintended effects) may have taken place in the organism due to genetic modification, that could affect its food or nutritional status. It is recognised that no adequate and effective animal models to identify and trace the sources of potential unintended effects are currently available. The objective of this project is to develop new methodologies that are of sufficient sensitivity and specificity to assess risks from this possible food-borne hazard. Implicit in this objective is the need to develop new knowledge which will serve as a basis to understand the implications of the genetic modification process on metabolic pathways in plants. ........The project is highly pertinent to EU legislation on Novel Foods and GM food crops in particular. It is especially relevant to underpin Community policies. The new methodology will also be of use for the agro-food industry as it contributes to a more informed awareness of the 'real risks' related to GM foods by providing an objective scientific data package directed towards a holistic view of the genetic modification process."
Study on behalf of the European Commission on GM food safety from State Institute for Quality Control of Agricultural Products (RIKILT) Wageningen, Netherlands
European Commission lacks confidence in own GM safety tests - More Details
"We all wish there was a test where you plug in a protein and out pops a 'yes' or 'no' answer."
Sue MacIntosh, a protein chemist with biotechnology company AgrEvo, on the difficulties of carrying out allergy testing on GM foods.
Scientists
call for tougher GM tests
'Substantial
Equivalence' - a flawed food safety system for GM crops
FDA
scientists question soy safety - but where is GM testing?
"Well, I agree with you in the sense that when you use these methods you don't know what part of the chromosome that the new gene is being introduced into and that is, you know, what I would say is a drawback to the technology."
Professor Bevan Mosely, former head of the Institute of Food Research, Reading, and a current member of the United Kingdom's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) responsible for reviewing the safety of genetically modified foods, in a response to the question - "So how can we know that something isn't really going to go horrendously wrong?" - put to him by Charles Colett of Radio Wey Valley, Hampshire, United Kingdom, February 1998.
UK
soya allergies increase dramatically - GM soya is suspect
- March 99
Special risks with field scale
environmental releases of GMOs
"Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in Genetically Modified Foods."
Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition and formerly an ardent advocate of food biotechnology (A year earlier Dr Chesson chaired the audit committee which ruled there was no evidence to support Dr Pusztai's claims on the toxicity of GM potatoes).
Horizontal
GM crop gene transfer to bacteria in guts of bees
GM
cover ups - Pusztai interview in 'The Hindu'
"I personally think that the
chance of creating some novel food problems with the GM
product is there. I think it is unlikely but I
wouldn't put my hand on my heart and swear it was not
so."
Sir Robert May, President of the Royal Society (and Chief
Scientific Officer to the UK Government 1995-2000)
"These findings demonstrate the fragmentary nature of current knowledge of genome structure and function and regulation of gene expression in general, and the limited understanding of several physiological, ecological, agronomical and toxicological aspects relevant to present-day and planned genetic modifications of crops"
Plant Research International (No. 12) 70 pp, 2000
"I don't think any of us would disagree that, if an alternative exists to a GE solution, it's to be preferred"
Mr Hodson QC acting on behalf of the Life Sciences Network at the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification 8th Feb 2001, p3480 or proceedings - line 2 http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz/inquiry/08FEB01.pdf
"The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."
Dr. Linda Kahl US Food and Drug Agency compliance officer - internal memorandum
"A genetically engineered plant may contain an identical profile of expected plant toxicant levels (ie expected toxicants) as is normally found in a closely related, natural plant. However, gentically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants. The presence of high levels of toxicants in the bioengineered plant food could occur by two or more mechanisms.........
The unexpected toxicants could be closely related chemicals produced by common metabolic pathways in the same plant genus/species; however, unexpected toxicants could also be uniquely different chemicals that are usually expressed in unrelated plants....
The task of assessing the presence or the abscence of expected and unexpected toxicants in plants and the control plant could be very difficult, because thousands of plant biochemicals have been shown to have toxic effects on animals and microorganisms."
Dr. Edwin J. Mathews Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service US - memorandum to the FDA Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology Working Group
"At this time it is unlikely that
molecular and compositional analysis can reasonably
detect or predict all possible changes in toxicant levels
or the development of new toxic metabolites as a result
of gentic modifications introduced by the methods of
biotechnology."
Dr. Samuel I. Shibko Director of Division of
Toxicological Review and Evaluation, Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service US - memorandum
to Dr. James Maryansksi, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator
"There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this document.....
Unexpected Effects - This is the industry's pet idea, namely that there are no unintended effects that will raise the FDA's level of concern. But time and time again, there is no data to backup their contention, while the scientific literature does contain many examples of naturally occurring pleitropic [multi-response] effects. When the introduction of gene's into [a] plant's genome randomly occurs, as in the case of the current technology (but not traditional breeding) it seems that many pleiotropic [multi-response] effects will occur. Many of these effects might not be seen by the breeder because of the more or less similar growing conditions in the limited trials that are performed...
.......introduced proteins (enzymes) that while acting on one specific, intended substrate to produce a desired effect, will also affect other cellular molecules, either as substrates, or by swamping the plant's regulatory/metabolic system and depriving the plant of resources needed for other things. It is not prudent to rely on plant breeders always finding these types of changes (especially when they are under pressure to get a product out)."
Dr. Louis Priybl of the US Food and Drug Administation Microbiology Group - internal memorandum on FDA GM food safety testing policy document
"In addition to the human food safety and environmental concerns outlined in the appendices to the Notice, CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerens .....
Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems. For example, increased levels of glucosinolates or erusic acid in rapeseed may produce a residue problem in edible products."
Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator. Subject: "Regulation of Transgenic Plants—FDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology."
"The scientific case put forward for this GM maize is not adequate. If the GM maize was approved for commercial growing in the UK then people would be justified in turning their back on consuming milk derived from it. As a scientist I wouldn't drink milk from cows fed GM maize with the present state of knowledge."
Professor Bob Orskov, director of the International Feed Resource Unit in Aberdeen, Scotland at UK MAFF hearings in London, October 2000, concerning proposals to allow Aventis's GM forage maize, Chardon LL onto the National Seed List.
Transgenic Animal Feed Could Affect Dairy Products
"As hon. Members have said, some of the new [genetically engineered] wonder drugs have been accepted, and I think rightly so. There is some comfort in the regulatory process for medicine which, I admit, is not in place for food and agriculture."
Jeff Rooker, Minister of State for Food Safety, House of Commons, July 30 1998
Medical
problems and fatalities with genetically engineered
insulin
Six
Gene Therapy Deaths Kept From NIH
GE
insulin class action suit
"Why don't we require a pharmaceutical type analysis of the safety of these foods with proper trials?"
Jack Cunningham, UK cabinet minister with overall responsibility for biotechnology, raising a variety of issues in relation to GM crops and food in a leaked internal memo to one of his civil servants, February 1999
Ministers 'ignoring public' on GM food
"Almost everything we grow, everything we eat is the root result of human intervention, human breeding and so on. But this is unnatural in a different sort of way from the kinds of breeding programs that have characterized humanity for ten thousand years....
So the question which people have, I believe, not only a right but a duty to ask, is how wisely will we use these unprecedented new powers? What are the risks associated with doing something this new and this profound at the very wellsprings of life? How are they going to be managed? How will we have credible oversight? How will we have credible and effective monitoring of the introduction of this technology? Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging....
We have not yet identified, yet alone cloned, the gene for wisdom, and some skepticism about our ability to manage powerful new technologies is appropriate.... "
Robert Shapiro,Chief Executive of Monsanto - speech on genetic engineering presented at State of the World Forum, Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco, CA , October 27, 1998
FBI find illegal GMOs in US animal feed
allegations
Fraud and corruption in US gm approvals system
US Government
deception about GMOs exposed - Feb 2000
Scientists
'asked to fix results for backer' - Daily Telegraph - Feb
2000
Monsanto
and the regulators - Ecologist magazine
"But we realize that with
any new and powerful technology with unknown, and to some
degree unknowable - by definition - effects, then there
necessarily will be an appropriate level at least, and
maybe even more than that, of
public debate and public interest."
Bob Shapiro, Chief Executive of Monsanto,
admitting that the effects of genetic engineering are
unknown and "to some degree" unknowable (SWF
News interview, San Francisco, 27 October 1998).
Meningitis
fear over GM food
US NLP presents 500,000 signature petition to
Congress on transgenic foods - June 99
New GM warning over danger chemicals entering
food chain
"We're in a crisis position where we know the weaknesses of the genetic concept, but we don't know how to incorporate it into a more complete understanding. Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this. They all know what I know. But they don't want to look at it because it's too complicated and it's going to cost too much to figure it out."
Richard Strohman, Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley
"We don't know shit about biology."
Craig Venter, the scientist whose company completed the sequencing of the human genome in 2000 ("Decoding the genome" Ralph Brave, Jan. 9, 2001)
"In everyday language the talk is about a
gene for this and a gene for that. We are now finding
that that is rarely so. The number of genes that work in
that way can almost be counted on your fingers, because
we are just not hard-wired in that way."....
(Times, MONDAY FEBRUARY 12 2001)
"Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus [CaMV] is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus meaning that it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV."
Dr. Joseph Cummins, professor emeritus in genetics from the university of West-Ontario
The
use of the Cauliflower Mosaic viral promoter (CaMV 35S) ,
Joseph Cummins
Professor
Cummins - more on viral recombination effects in
transgenic plants
The Virus
Hazard
"At present, the success of transgene expression is variable, and many transformation experiments have to be carried out in order to isolate a small number of useful lines. Many factors can influence the behaviour of foreign DNA when it integrates into the plant genome. Such factors include the position of integration, possible rearrangements of the exogenous DNA by recombination, and the activation of endogenous plant defence systems that have evolved to suppress the activity of 'invading' DNA. (Fig.17)..."
"Fig.17 Transgene rearrangements often occur at regions rich in DNA secondary structure, such as the CAMV 35S promoter, which can form the cruciform structure shown above. This allows recombination to occur, as shown by the green arrow."
John Innes Centre and Sainsbury Laboratory Annual Report 1998/99, p22 -23
"A recent study of transgenic rice carried out at the John Innes Institute supports previous evidence that there is a 'recombination hotspot' in the CaMV 35S promoter. A recombination hotspot is a site prone to recombination, ie, breaking and joining with other DNA. Furthermore, some of the recombination events are 'illegitimate' or nonhomologous, and do not require substantial similarity in nucleic acid base sequence.
The results show that the CaMV promoter is very likely to recombine with other DNA in the host genome, including dormant viral DNA, as well as with other viruses in the host cell. Transgenic lines containing CaMV promoters, which includes practically all that have been released, are therefore prone to instability due to rearrangements, and also have the potential to create new viruses or other invasive genetic elements.
Such elements cannot be contained or controlled once they have entered the wider environment. It is now indisputable that recombination events will take place at the CaMV promoter in the current generation of transgenic plants. The continued release of such transgenic plants is unwarranted especially in the light of the new findings."
Angela Ryan, Molecular Biologist, Institute of Science in Society and Biology Department, Open University, on work carried out by the John Innes Centre on the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter used in most transgenic plants and published in The Plant Journal 17(6), pp 591-601 (March, 1999).
Viral
danger from GM crops confirmed - John Innes Study details
Cauliflower Mosaic
Viral Promoter — A Recipe for Disaster? Microbial
Ecology in Health and Disease 1999 ; 11 (4).
"Clearly the assumption that a transformed crop is exactly the sum of the original crop and the introduced gene is not acceptable. RDNA techniques are profoundly different from traditional breeding methods and are well known to cause unexpected metabolic perturbations. The principle of substantial equivalence is not scientifically justifiable; hence we can make no a priori assumption of the safety of any rDNA manipulation."
From 'The Promise of Plant Biotechnology - The Threat of Genetically Modified Organisms', article by Patrick Brown, Professor of Pomology and Director of International Programs, College of Agriculture & Environmental Science, University of California, Davis: http://www.lifesciencenz.com/repository/external_news_material/promise_opponent.htm .
"Next time you hear a scientist asserting that gene splicing is safe, remind yourself that there is no scientific evidence for that statement. We are profoundly ignorant about what we are doing to the code that generates all life. And unfortunately some scientists, including those entrusted with public safety, are willing to lie".
Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College.
"A review of existing scientific literature reveals that key experiments on both the environmental risks and benefits are lacking....Our inability to accurately predict ecological consequences, especially longterm, higher order interactions, increases the uncertainty associated with a risk assessment and may require modifications in our risk management strategies."
L. L. Wolfenbarger 1 and P. R. Phifer 2, SCIENCE VOL 290 15 DECEMBER 2000 2088093
Lethal effects of bt corn on Monarch Butterfly
"The basic features of general risk assessment of GMOs are understandably different from those associated with chemicals. Genetically modified organisms are living organisms and therefore, unlike chemicals that may become diluted, GMOs have the potential to disperse to new habitats, colonize those sites, and multiply. Their novel activities, including the production of metabolic products, enzymes and toxins will occur as long as the GMOs remain metabolically active. Once established, living organisms cannot be recalled."
Seidler RJ, Watrud LS & George SE - 1998. Assessing risks to ecosystems and human health from genetically modified organisms. In "Handbook of environmental risk assessment and management" Editors: Calow, P. Publisher: Blackwell Science Ltd Oxford, UK. pp. 110-146.
"...the public are ahead of many scientists and policy advisors in their instinctive feeling for a need to act in a precautionary way."
The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (funded by the UK government), report on "The politics of GM food: Risk, science & public trust"
Economic and Science Research Council - THE GM FOOD MESS
"There is already a crisis of credibility for policy makers. There should be no hidden agendas. There should be clear and specific reasons for policy being made behind closed doors. In Britain we have the opposite. In my view that is the wrong way round. We need to change the culture. The policy makers got it wrong. GM food is a socially sensitive technology. It is significantly out of step with public opinion, or has become so."
Professor John Durrant, head of science communication at the Science Museum, speaking at the OECD conference in Edinburgh on GM food safety, February 2000.
How US put pressure on Blair over GM food - see fourth item
"This [genetic engineering] is a matter far too important to be left solely in the hands of the scientific and medical communities. The belief that…science always moves forward represents a form of laissez-faire nonsense dismally reminiscent of the credo that American business if left to itself will solve everybody's problems. Just as the success of a corporate body in making money need not set the human condition ahead, neither does every scientific advance automatically make our lives more 'meaningful'."
Dr. James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA and Nobel Laureate
"The genetic modification of food is
intrinsically dangerous. It involves making irreversible
changes in a random manner to a complex level of life
about which little is known. It is inevitable that this
hit-and-miss approach will lead to disasters. It must
disrupt the natural intelligence of the plant or animal
to which it is applied, and lead to health-damaging
side-effects."
Dr Geoffrey Clements, leader of the Natural Law Party,
UK.
Tryptophan toxicity incident - $2 billion in claims for deaths and disease
"If you look at the simple principle of genetic modification it spells ecological disaster. There are no ways of quantifying the risks......The solution is simply to ban the use of genetic modification in food."
Dr Harash Narang, microbiologist and senior research associate at the University of Leeds, who originally caused a scientific and political storm by claiming a link between mad cow disease and CJD in humans.
GE crops with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes suspected to disturb soil ecology
"Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children"
Dr Vyvyan Howard: expert in infant toxico-pathology at Liverpool, University Hospital, UK
UK soya allergies increase dramatically - GM soya is suspect - March 99
"We believe the time has come for the technology to be assessed on how safe it is for the environment and for sustainable farming. The current research is not designed to evaluate risk, only to find out how to make it work."
Dr Neil Macgregor, a soil microbiologist, is an academic member of the Soil & Earth Sciences group in the Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, New Zealand.
"I definitely think we need more
knowledge before we make the same mistakes with GM
foods that we made with penicillin - and I most
clearly think we should stop doing this until we know
more about it,"
Steven Jones, professor of genetics at
University College, London
"The issues have simply not been addressed and I think that's what is profoundly unsatisfactory. The fundamental problem of the way in which GM foods have been approved is that they haven't really been tested properly at all. All that has happened is something which I would characterise as an exercise in wishful thinking."
Dr. Erik Millstone, Sussex University, on the inadequacies of GM food testing interviewed in a Channel 4 report on the "substanial equivalence" proceedure for GM foods which the program claimed is a testing system agreed in a backroom deal between governments and companies designed to get GM products onto the market quickly and cheaply.
'Substantial
Equivalence' - a flawed food safety system for GM crops
Monsanto
employees and government regulatory agencies employees
are the same people!
"A further area of concern has to do with plants that are modified to contain genes from viral pathogens of crops which might exchange these genes with other viral pathogens, creating entirely new viral strains with unknown properties. An epidemic of African Cassava Mosaic Virus currently devastating the cassava crop in East Africa has been shown to be the result of natural recombination. Researchers need to make sure that viral genes added to a plant to confer resistance do not also lead to the creation of new viruses..."
"...The question of allergic reactions to new proteins is more theoretical [than the creation of antibiotic resistance]. It comes, of course, from transplanted genes producing proteins in the plants which may cause allergic reactions in people eating the food. There is a lot of rhetoric about allergies, but there appears to be a real rise in the number of allergic reactions in industrialized countries. The extent and the etiology are the subject of heated debate amongst specialists. Is it possible that new plant varieties could create new allergies or exacerbate existing ones? Of course."
Professor Gordon Conway, President of the Rockefeller Foundation and former vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex
Viral danger from GM crops confirmed - John Innes Study details
"An ecosystem, you can always intervene and change something in it, but there's no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."
Professor Richard Lewontin, Professor of Genetics, Harvard University
Impact of bt varieties on Monarch butterflies - University of Iowa
"Genetic modification of food is a dangerous game of ecological roulette. To take one example, I'm sure there will be a significant increase in deaths from certain types of cancer. If that is the only adverse effect we will have been lucky.
We simply cannot predict the ecological effects of genetic modification. GM forces evolution to take place in one generation rather than hundreds.
Manipulating DNA creates a new substance and it may not behave in the same ways as the origninal version. And existing tests, which only detect already-known toxins, may not reveal man-made ones.
We simply do not know what we are doing."
Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition
"…GM crops really do carry theoretical dangers that could be ironed out, given time, but will not because the companies that develop them cannot afford to wait.
…it is entirely unsurprising that GM crops could be toxic. Most domestic crops have poisonous relatives (potatoes and tomatoes belonging to the nightshade family, Solanaceae) or are descended from poisonous ancestors (potatoes, tomatoes, parsnips etc). The modern crops may still contain the genes that make the toxins: not lost, but merely dampened down. Most genes are pleiotropic - they have many different and often unrelated effects. Many genes affect the function of other genes.
Thus an alien gene parachuted by genetic engineering into the genome of a potato or a tomato could well reawaken the ancient genes of toxicity. Now and again we should expect this. We can test to see if this has happened but we cannot do this in one generation. Genes combine through sexual reproduction; a gene that has no effect in one combination may make itself felt in another. We would need to breed a GM crop for many crosses before we plumb the possibilities of any freshly introduced gene. How long would this take? How long can a company wait for returns on its investment? The pressure to cut corners is constant and inevitable…"
Colin Tudge, Research Fellow, London School of Economics
The approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready Soy as a food not based on reliable scientific evidence.
"[Most scientists] warn that it is likely to be impossible to enforce [labelling] laws once many [GM] food products enter food processing systems... I don't think many scientists would oppose labelling of something clearly modified, but the problem arises in the use of overseas ingredients which may have been modified."
Sir John Scott, President of the Royal Society, New Zealand
Labelling laws fail to protect consumers from gm ingredients - Feb 99
"We don’t know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated into the genome [the individual’s DNA]. I’m more worried about humans than about the environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it’s a long-term thing, you need to do long-term experiments."
Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign.
"I see worries in the fact that we have the power to manipulate genes in ways that would be improbable or impossible through conventional evolution. We shouldn’t be complacent in thinking that we can predict the results."
Colin Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
"Evolutionary history should provide the primary basis for assessing biological integrity".
Paul Angermeier & James Karr, "Biological Integrity vs. Biological Diversity...Protecting biotic resources", BioScience, vol. 44 #10, Nov. 1994
"If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects on the immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say that the effects are predictable."
Professor Arpad Pusztai, of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, on the health risks associated with genetically engineered food.
And on the ability of the regulatory system to cope with prospect of the arrival of large numbers of GM crops:
"Once the floodgate was opened, it's almost impossible. A committee cannot deal with it."
DrPusztai gave his now famous "World in Action" Granda TV interview in August 1998 revealing toxic effects on rats fed genetically modified potatoes, immediately after which he was suspended by his employer, the Rowett Research Institute, and forbiden to discuss the subject in public.
Pusztai
report on GM potatoes
Pusztai
commentary on debate following publication of his work in
the Lancet
Suppression
of dissent in science - Research in Social Problems and
Public Policy, Vol 7
Over half a year later Dr Pusztai commented further on this situation in an interview with the Indpendent on Sunday newspaper, the day before giving evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee on the nature and implications of his research on genetically modified pototoes:
"I believe in the technology. But it is too new for us to be absolutely sure that what we are doing is right. But I can say from my experience if anyone dares to say anything even slightly contra-indicative, they are vilified and totally destroyed."
No faith in
GM approvals system
GM
safety research stokes new row
The
New Thought Police – Suppressing Dissent in Science
And a later comment:
"The biotech companies are not charitable institutions which could not save the world population from starvation even if they wanted to because the Third World cannot afford their very expensive and potentially destructive GM technology driven by the profit motive. Unfortunately, in this world of ours most people, politicians and industrialists only notice the consequences of economic, ecological and health problems created by human greed when they turn into disasters. Let us hope that when such a disaster resulting from genetic modification will surely come, it will be small enough that humanity will still be able to recover from it”. Dr. Arpad Pusztai
"We are at the bottom of a very steep learning curve of research. We're only in the foothills."
David Horton, Editor of the Lancet, explaining his decision to publish Dr Pusztai's research on GM potatoes, acknowledging that despite the controversy there was genuine scientific difference of opinion, and highlighting how little work has been done on the health implications of GM foods prior to their introduction.
Research that sparked GM safety concerns published in Lancet
"It's hard to have an educated debate because it's happening so quickly....that it is overwhelming even scientists."
Juan Enriquez, researcher at Harvard University's David Rockefeller Center.
"The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction."
Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist, medical doctor, and Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University, world famous for his accurate prediction of the dangers of " Mad cow disease". Professor Lacey has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered foods, because of 'the essentially unlimited health risks'
And additionally with reference to the BSE crisis,
"We know to our cost that an organism which was utterly unknown to science 30 years ago, the prion, is capable of jumping from species to species, and changing its own physical characteristics each time it crosses the barrier. This shows that it is impossible to forsee what dangers lie in store... If we continue to create new life forms artificially, we lay ourselves open to the possibility of similar unimaginable dangers."
New Scientist - BSE's hidden horror
"Over the last fifteen years, I and other scientists have put the FDA on notice about the potential dangers of genetically engineered foods. Instead of responsible regulation we have seen bureaucratic bungling and obfuscation that have left public health and the environment at risk."
Dr. Philip Regal, Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior at the University of Minnesota and an internationally recognised plant expert, on the decision (May 1998) by concerned scientists and consumers to sue the US Federal Department of Agriculture (FDA) for failing to protect public health and provide consumers with relevant information about GM foods.
"... it is my considered judgement that the evidence to date, in its entirety, indicates there are scientifically justified concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods and that some of them could be quite dangerous. Further, in the absence of reliable toxicological tests, it is not possible to determine which of these new foods are dangerous and which are not."
Philip J. Regal, Ph.D. Professor in the College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, USA; internationally renowned expert on the genetics of plants. (From a declaration submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 28 May, 1999, Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et al. versus Shalala, et al.)
Details
of FDA lawsuit launched May 1998
More
information on the work of Professor Regal
The Ecologist - Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators
"Assurances of safety based on an absence of documented human health problems are not going to convince that many people. The general public understands how hard it is for medical epidemiologists to trace the causes of ill health. They know the causes of some of our major diseases are still not known with any certainty and most are convinced that diet affects health in extraordinarily complex ways.
The industry and government are going to have to invest in some careful, detailed safety and nutritional testing in laboratory animals and humans. If a series of "worst case" scenario studies conducted by respected, independent scientists consistently back up "substantial equivalence" findings, food safety controversies will subside, if no newproblems emerge. If new research does point to unforeseen problems, the biotech industry will be in for a rough ride....."
Dr Charles Benbrook, private consultant on integrated pest management and former Director of the Agriculture Department of the US Academy of Sciences - paper presented 6 September 2000 to a meeting of the Association of Formulation Chemists in Orlando questioning the need for GMOs in world agriculture and the ability of industry and farmers to deploy them responsibly.
More of Dr Benbrook's comments including full paper - click here
"Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children".
Dr Vyvyan Howard: expert in infant toxico-pathology at Liverpool University Hospital, UK
"There is no process - across all US federal agencies - to evaluate the hazards of GE organisms as we have for chemicals. For chemicals, we have formal risk assessment guidelines; science policies; conferences where scientific issues are debated. That's not the case with GE......
In the US each risk assessment for GE organisms is done on an ad hoc basis by different scientists in different departments of different agencies....There is rarely any formal peer review. When peer review panels are put together, they are not necessarily unbiased. They can be filled with GE proponents or confined to questions which avoid the important issues, so that a predetermined decision can be justified.
This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist, Suzanne Wuerthele.
The Revolving Door between biotechnolgy companies and government regulators
"The FDA has placed the interest of a handful of biotechnology companies ahead of their responsibility to protect public health. By failing to require testing and labelling of genetically engineered foods, the agency has made consumers unknowing guinea pigs for potentially harmful, unregulated food substances."
Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), commenting on the same FDA court action.
International
Center for Technology Assessment
Andrew
Kimbrell interview on the hazards of human and animal
cloning
Ministers
'ignoring public' on GM fooD - UK
"[Genetic Engineering's] ambition is to replace nature's wisdom with people's cleverness, to treat nature not as a model and mentor but as a set of limits to be evaded when inconvenient, not to study nature but to re-structure it. The transformation of plant genetics is being accelerated from the measured pace of biological evolution to the speed of the next quarter's earnings report".
Amery Lobbins, author of 'The Next Industrial Revolution'
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A's [Food and Drug Administration] job."
Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, in an interview with the New York Times Sunday Magazine
Buried Data in Monsanto's Study on Roundup Ready Soybeans
"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety."
FDA Federal Register, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties".
"I was recently on a TV talk show where I debated the safety of genetically modified food with someone representing the Food Technology Association. I began with a brief statement on the hazards of rBGH, the synthetic bovine-growth hormone that is now present in nearly all U.S. dairy products. I described how, in 1989, someone dropped off at my office a batch of documents that had been stolen from the Food and Drug Administration's files on Monsanto, the company that manufactures rBGH. Included was a Monsanto document from 1987 indicating that the company was fully aware of rBGH's danger and was conspiring with the FDA to suppress information critical to veterinary and public health.....
I've now come to believe that we need Nuremberg-type trials to hold industries accountable for these sorts of public-health crimes. The tobacco industry would be one example, but there is a wide range of other industries whose executives we need to begin holding accountable. Scientists, too. There are a vast number of indentured scientists in this country willing to jump through any hoop for the sake of profit. In addition, we need to bring to account regulatory officials and members of expert advisory committees and all the people who are supposed to be overseeing public health but are instead facilitating the poisoning of the American people, and, in fact, the people of the world. I am dead serious about this....
If we are able to assemble a collection of distinguished jurists and focus the world's attention on war crimes in remote Kosovo, how is it that we can do nothing similar about the massive, premeditated withholding of information on carcinogens by major multinational corporations?"
From: 'An Epidemic of Deception: Why We Can't Trust The Cancer Establishment', An Interview With Dr Samuel Epstein by Derrick Jensen, originally published in The Sun [not the UK one!], March 2000. In 1996, Epstein represented the European Union at World Trade Organization talks about the use of genetically engineered hormones in meat production. He is currently professor emeritus of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health in Chicago.
The FDA Again Ignores Its Own Warnings - irradiated food
According to an article by Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva since water is as central to food production as seed is, and without water life is not possible, Monsanto is now trying to establish its control over water. As part of this strategy during 1999, Monsanto plans to launch a new water business, starting with India and Mexico since both these countries are facing water shortages.
"....we believe that discontinuities (either major policy changes or major trendline breaks in resource quality or quantity) are likely, particularly in the area of water and we will be well-positioned via these businesses to profit even more significantly when these discontinuities occur....
These pressures and the world's desire to prevent the consequences of these pressures, if unabated, will create vast economic opportunity.... "
Robert Farley of Monsanto, THE HINDU, Saturday, May 1, 1999
"[The release of novel GM rape plants] may pose unique risks to human health and the environment, which could include toxicity and allergenicity to humans, gene transfer to other oilseed rape crops, and effects on other species."
UK junior environment minister Angela Eagle's warning to MPs, which was reported in Farmers Weekly 23rd January 1998 as being in conflict with the Government's own advisory committees on GMOs.
GM OSR cross pollination found up to 2.5 km away - Scottish Crop Research Institute
"There are a lot of people in Europe in favour of biotechnology, who are prepared to take risks, but a considerable number are resistant and see no benefits. Many people see biotech taking us into the realm of unknown dangers. ...This is a Pandora's box and a lot of people wonder whether it's worth opening it."
George Gaskell, professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics
"Biotech companies claim their methods are precise and sophisticated. In fact, there is a random element in gene insertion methods. Genetic research shows that many weaknesses in plants, animals and humans have their origin in tiny imperfections in the genetic code. Therefore, side-effects and accidents are inevitable, and scientists have assessed the risks from GM-foods and crops as unlimited."
Inose, T. (1995) International Journal of Food Science Technology 30:141
"If it's safe, then prove it."
Editorial headline on genetically engineered foods, New Scientist 4th January 1997
Media cover up on gmo cancer threat
"Eventually we are going to have some problems . I don't think the risks are being taken seriously or addressed seriously by the system we have now."
Dr. Allison A. Snow, plant ecologist at Ohio State University
"Information provided to governments and food suppliers by the biotechnology industry is not fully representative of the technical limitations of genetic engineering, and therefore does not give a complete picture of the potential dangers in its use."
"Once released into the environment, unlike a BSE epidemic or chemical spill, genetic mistakes cannot be contained, recalled or cleaned up, but will be passed on to all future generations indefinitely".
Dr Michael Antoniou, senior lecturer in molecular pathology from Guy's, King's and St Thomas's Medical School, Guy's Hospital, London; biotechnology advisor to the farming and food industries; and chief biotechnology advisor to the Natural Law Party
Dr
Antoniou on Genetic Engineering
NLP
wins vital soyabean genetics case against major Dutch
retailers
Dr Antoniou on GM crops
"The process of genetic engineering always involves the risk of altering the genetics and cellular functioning of a food organism in unanticipated ways. These unanticipated alterations can result in GE foods being allergenic, toxic, or reduced in nutritional value".
Professor John Fagan, award-winning Geneticist, Maharishi University of Management, Iowa, USA.
Dr Fagan on the dangers of genetically modified food
"Millions of ordinary people are very worried about genetically modified foods and I am one of them....With genetically modified foods I believe we have reached the thin edge of the wedge, we are messing with the building blocks of life and it's scary."
Malcom Walker, Chairman and Chief Executive of Iceland Foods, 26th December 1996
Iceland
Foods ban GMOs
French
supermarket boycotts suppliers who do not label GM foods
"The huge arrogance of the companies developing GMO crops and their determination to destroy the line of accountability which links the developer to the product is breath-taking. When something goes wrong, as it inevitably will, there will be a great benefit to those who have taken a stance against genetically modified organisms."
Jonathan Porritt, patron of The Soil Association
Illegal
GM soya beans planted in Brazil
US
imports illegal GM maize into Europe
Mistake
leads to unauthorised release on GM oilseed rape in
Swedish trials
Monsanto
sends genetically modified sugar beet to Dutch sugar
refinery by mistake
Biotech company releases unapproved
genetically modified plant material into Canadian
environment
"It is clear to me everywhere in the world that scientists do not make policy decisions. If we treat science as something that provides absolute truth and perfect answers, then I think we are stretching to its limits its role which is essential in the policy making process."
Tassos Haniotis, agriculture counselor for the European Commission
"There are still hungry people in Ethiopia, but they are hungry because they have no money, no longer because there is no food to buy ....we strongly resent the abuse of our poverty to sway the interests of the European public."
Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher of the Institute of Sustainable Development in Addis Ababa, in response to a comment in late 1997 by a British scientist who claimed that those who want GMOs banned are undermining the position of starving people in Ethiopia.
GM
technology will damage third world farming - Christian
Aid
GM
could 'impoverish poor farmers'
FAMINE
SOLUTION CLAIMS BY GM FIRMS EXPOSED
The
corporate takeover of corn in SE Asia
Bogus
claims for 'golden eye' Vitamin A GM rice - Greenpeace
briefing
Letter
in Independent - No Need for GM Rice
"...farmers are likely to be weaned from pesticides to be force fed biotech seeds, in other words, taken off one treadmill and set on a new one!"
"The trend towards a quasi-monopolization of funding in agricultural development into a narrow set of technologies is dangerous and irresponsible. Also, too many hopes and expectations are being entrusted in these technologies, to the detriment of more conventional and proven technologies and approaches that have been very successful and which potential lies mostly unused in the developing countries.
It is only too obvious to concerned scientists, farmers and citizens alike that we are about to repeat, step by step, the mistakes of the insecticide era, even before it is behind us. I would even argue that these new miracle technologies are mostly not necessary, let alone desirable, to solve the world's food security problem. I am not denying that in some instances they may be of use in increasing the qualities and agronomic characteristics of food crop varieties, but these improvements must remain a within family or genus 'engineering' affair, that merely speeds up nature's own evolutionary path."
Hans R.Herren, Director General, The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology Nairobi, Kenya, and winner of the 1995 World Food Prize
Maarten J. Chrispeels, Member of the National Academy of Sciences, Division of Biology Unive of California San Diego, California 92093, Plant Physiology, September 2000, Vol. 124, pp. 3ñ6 http://www.plantphysiol.org © 2000 American Society of Plant Physiologists:
" Crop improvement through biotechnology need not be equated with transgenic plants. For example, marker-assisted breeding is a powerful biotechnology that can find widespread application with the crops of the poor. Detailed linkage maps of these crops will be tremendously useful...........Agricultural research has to start with studying farming practices ... .......The major objective has to be the productivity and profitability of smallholder farms with synergy between food crops, cash crops, livestock, agroforestry, and aquaculture with integrated management of soil, water, and nutrients (Serageldin, 1999). This goal and the process for achieving it are more important than the introduction of GM crops."
As this very interesting report from India demonstrates it is becoming increasingly clear that once they have open access to the facts people in developing countries reject the use of GMOs in global agriculture. This report on Dr Tom Wakeford's citizens jury project in India, which sat for over four days and heard from the Indian government and GM giant Monsanto before giving their verdict on GM crops, can be downloaded as a pdf file from Action Aid via http://www.actionaid.org/about_us/pub.html
"While Mr Blair and his
advisors still maintain that we need to develop this
technology to help the poor and hungry it is an
illustration of the arrogance with which they habitually
view the world that they have failed to ask the people
who really matter.
We have started a process that needs to be repeated
globally so that the western political and scientific
elite can no longer misrepresent their needs."
Dr Tom Wakeford, University of East London
"This is the start of the
new colonialism. It is an issue of control and national
sovereignty. To achieve this the TNCs [Trans National
Corporations] want to ensure that the people are
de-skilled and that the great body of agricultural
knowledge and skill, that has been built up over
millennia, is lost."
P.V. Satheesh, of the Deccan Development
Society
"Monsanto claims in its letter to me that there is no difference between ordinary soya beans and what it calls round-up soya beans, and therefore that they should not be segregated. I maintain that members of the public who notice what is going on simply do not believe that, and will increasingly demand to know what is in the food they eat - roundup or otherwise... the Government and the EU should resist the power of the giant food companies in the United States, which are effectively dictating what we must eat, without giving any convincing estimates of the long-term effects."
Colin Pickthall, Member of Parliament for West Lancashire, speaking in the House of Commons, 13th December 1996
Canadian
Government report on toxic effects of BST
Canadian
government scientists claim BST approval coercion
BST
background
Milk
composition of cows fed on gm soya changes
Leaked
document on biotechnology industry public relations
strategy
"At the moment, as is so often the case with technology, we seem to spend most of our time establishing what is technically possible, and then a little time trying to establish whether or not it is something we should be doing in the first place."
HRH the Prince of Wales on genetically engineered food 19th September 1996
Royal support for genetic food withdrawal
"rBGH poses an even greater risk to human health than ever considered. The FDA and Monsanto have a lot to answer for. Given the cancer risks, and other health concerns, why is rBGH milk still on the market?"
Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, author of report which concludes that milk from cows in the US injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) increases risks of breast and colon cancers in humans.
BST
(rBGH) cancer link
BST
background
genetically
engineered Bovine Growth Hormone scandal
"...the allergic potential of these newly introduced microbial proteins is uncertain, unpredictable and untestable,..."
Warning from The New England Journal of Medicine in 1996 against the use of micro-organisms rather than food plants as gene donors
"Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; or the artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays. All such earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species. The hub of the new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species lines, but across any boundaries that now divide living organisms.The results will be essentially new organisms. Self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled.
Up to now living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors. It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain. For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."
Dr. George Wald, the professor emeritus in biology from Harvard and Nobel laureate in medicine
"It’s never been easy to safely introduce genes into cells ….It has involved attaching genes to viruses with possible harmful side effects. Getting the gene - once it’s in the cell - into the right place, then finally getting it to behave itself - to produce the right amount of material in the cell, to produce it at the right time during a person’s lifetime, in developmental stages and then making absolutely sure that the gene, because it’s not in its usual place, doesn’t interfere with any other genes that are near to it - we haven’t really made much progress in any of these phases yet."
Professor Weatherall, Regis Professor of Medicine at Oxford University speaking on BBC Radio 4 Medicine Now, 27 August 1996 on the experimental nature of genetic engineering
Medical
problems and fatalities with genetically engineered
insulin
Gene
Therapy Death Raises Questions
Gene
Therapy Death Puzzles Scientists, Regulators
Hundreds
of gene therapy experiments failed
"My worry is that other advances in science may result in other means of mass destruction, maybe more readily available even than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a possible area, because of these dreadful developments that are taking place there."
Joseph Rotblat, the British physicist who won the 1995 Nobel Prize after years of battling against nuclear weapons
"Gene technology is driven by bad science. It may well ruin our food supply, destroy biodiversity and unleash pandemics of antibiotic resistant infectious diseases."
Dr Mae-Wan Ho, head of the Bio-Electrodynamics laboratory at the Open University in Milton Keynes, UK
The hazards of genetically modified foods by Dr Mae-Wan Ho
"We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves."
Statement by 24 leading African agriculturalists and environmental scientists representing their countries at the UN in response to claims by Monsanto that GM crops will help feed the world's growing population.
World
hunger myths
FAO report reveals
GM crops not needed to feed the world
Christian
Aid - comment on limitations and problems of GM Vitamin A
rice
A
Blind Approach to Blindness Prevention - genetically
engineered 'golden rice' - Vandana Shiva
British
scientists - Organic farming can 'feed the world'
Thailand
To Ban Altered Seeds
Food
security, protecting the environment and reducing poverty
in the developing world - no role for GM
Are GMOs
essential for effective sustainable agriculture in a
hungry world?
The Golden Rice - An Exercise in How Not to Do
Science
Feeding the world without GM foods - articles
"History has many records of crimes against humanity, which were also justified by dominant commercial interests and governments of the day. Despite protests from citizens, social justice for the common good was eroded in favour of private profits. Today, patenting of life forms and the genetic engineering which it stimulates, is being justified on the grounds that it will benefit society, especially the poor, by providing better and more food and medicine. But in fact, by monopolising the 'raw' biological materials, the development of other options is deliberately blocked. Farmers therefore, become totally dependent on the corporations for seeds".
Prof. Wangari Mathai of the Green Belt Movement Kenya
"We were the experts. We didn't have many of the answers ... Rather than explain that to a general public it was thought better to give the impression that we had everything under control, which we didn't and which we never have."
Jim Hope, a scientist at the Neuropathogenics Unit, Edinburgh, on the earlier BSE crisis.
"There is still no positive proof of a causal relation between the use of thalidomide during pregnancy and malformations in the new-born."
Frank Getman, President Merrill Company, Feb 2nd 1961
Alliance for
Bio-Integrity, Home Page
Council For
Responsible Genetics Home Page