Pages

Sunday, June 27, 2010

[MedicalConspiracies] GM industry silences scientists who find harm in GM products

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Health_and_Healing] [Ban-GEF] GM industry silences scientists who find harm
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:33:47 -0400
From: Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum. <bettym19@mindspring.com>
Reply-To: Health_and_Healing@yahoogroups.com


 >From: Robert Mann <robtm@xtra.co.nz> >Subject: [Ban-GEF] GM industry silences scientists who find harm > >         <mailto:ban-gef-request@txinfinet.com?subject=subscribe> >Sender: ban-gef-bounces@txinfinet.com >Errors-To: ban-gef-bounces@txinfinet.com > >Great article summarizing how the GM industry  >silences scientists who find harm with GMOs! > > >http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/gmo/problems_with_genetically_modified_foods_2902100104.html > >Biochemist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300  >articles and 12 books to his credit and was the  >world's top expert in his field.  But when he  >accidentally discovered that genetically  >modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the  >biotech industry's bad-boy poster child, setting  >an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle. > >In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3  >million grant by the UK government to design the  >system for safety testing genetically modified  >organisms (GMOs).  His team included more than  >20 scientists working at three facilities,  >including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen,  >Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in  >the UK, and his employer for the previous 35  >years.  The results of Pusztai's work were  >supposed to become the required testing  >protocols for all of Europe.  But when he fed  >supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn't go as planned. > >Within just 10 days, the animals developed  >potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller  >brains, livers, and testicles, partially  >atrophied livers, and damaged immune  >systems.  Moreover, the cause was almost  >certainly side effects from the process of  >genetic engineering itself. In other words, the  >GM foods on the market, which are created from  >the same process, might have similar affects on humans. > >With permission from his director, Pusztai was  >interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns  >about GM foods.  He became a hero at his  >institute - for two days.  Then came the phone  >calls from the pro-GMO prime minister's office  >to the institute's director.  The next morning,  >Pusztai was fired.  He was silenced with threats  >of a lawsuit, his team was dismantled, and the  >protocols never implemented.  His Institute, the  >biotech industry, and the UK government,  >together launched a smear campaign to destroy Pusztai's reputation. > >Eventually, an invitation to speak before  >Parliament lifted his gag order and his research  >was published in the prestigious Lancet.  No  >similar in-depth studies have yet tested the GM  >foods eaten every day by Americans. > > >Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the  >Russian National Academy of Sciences, was  >shocked to discover that more than half of the  >baby rats in her experiment died within three  >weeks.  She had fed the mothers GM soy flour  >purchased at a supermarket.  The babies from  >mothers fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only  >suffered a 10% death rate.  She repeated her  >experiment three times with similar results. > >Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary findings  >at a conference in October 2005, asking the  >scientific community to replicate her study.  >Instead, she was attacked and vilified.  Her  >boss told her to stop doing anymore GM food  >research.  Samples were stolen from her lab, and  >a paper was even set fire on her desk.  One of  >her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying,  >"Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem." > >Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at  >Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise  >doubts about the cause of the deaths. She did  >not conduct a biochemical analysis of the  >feed.  Without it, we don't know if some rogue  >toxin had contaminated the soy flour.  But more  >recent events suggest that whatever caused the  >high infant mortality was not unique to her one  >bag of GM flour.  In November 2005, the supplier  >of rat food to the laboratory where Ermakova  >worked began using GM soy in the  >formulation.  All the rats were now eating  >it.  After two months, Ermakova asked other  >scientists about the infant mortality rate in  >their experiments.  It had skyrocketed to over 55%. > >It's been four years since these findings were  >reported.  No one has yet repeated Ermakova's  >study, even though it would cost just a few thousand dollars. > > >Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading  >Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his  >research into Roundup, the herbicide sold in  >conjunction with Monsanto's genetically  >engineered RoundupReady crops.   Dr. Carrasco,  >who works in Argentina's Ministry of Science,  >said his studies of amphibians suggest that the  >herbicide could cause defects in the brain,  >intestines, and hearts of fetuses.  Moreover,  >the amount of Roundup used on GM soy fields was  >as much as 1,500 times greater than that which  >created the defects.  Tragically, his research  >had been inspired by the experience of desperate  >peasant and indigenous communities who were  >suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used  >on the GM soy fields throughout Argentina. > >According to an article in Grain, the biotech  >industry "mounted an unprecedented attack on  >Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even  >issuing personal threats."  In addition, four  >men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and  >were extremely aggressive, attempting to  >interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his  >study.  "It was a violent, disproportionate,  >dirty reaction," he said.  "I hadn't even  >discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached." > >Argentina's Association of Environmental Lawyers  >filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup,  >and the Ministry of Defense banned GM soy from its fields. > > >Epidemiologist Judy Carman used to investigate  >outbreaks of disease for a state government in  >Australia.  She knows that health problems  >associated with GM foods might be impossible to  >track or take decades to discover.  Moreover,  >the superficial, short-term animal feeding  >studies usually do not evaluate "biochemistry,  >immunology, tissue pathology, gut function,  >liver function, and kidney function" and are too  >short to test for cancer or reproductive or  >child health.  Dr. Carman has critiqued the GMO  >approval process on behalf of the Public Health  >Association of Australia and speaks openly about  >her concerns.  As a result, she is repeatedly  >attacked.  Pro-GM scientists threatened  >disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor,  >and circulated a defamatory letter to government and university officials. > >Carman was awarded a grant by the Western  >Australia government to conduct some of the few  >long-term animal feeding studies on  >GMOs.  Apparently concerned about what she might  >find, GMO advocates wrote letters to the  >government demanding that the grant be  >withdrawn.  One scientist tried to convince the  >Western Australia Agriculture minister that  >sufficient safety research had been conducted  >and he should therefore cancel the grant.  As  >his evidence, however, he presented a report  >summarizing only 60 GMO animal feeding studies -  >an infinitesimal amount of research to justify  >exposing the entire population to GM foods. > >A closer investigation, however, revealed that  >most of the 60 were not safety studies at  >all.  They were production studies, measuring,  >for example, the animals' carcass weight.  Only  >9 contained data applicable to human  >health.  And 6 of the 9 showed adverse effects  >in animals that ate GM feed! Furthermore, there  >were several other studies with adverse findings  >that were mysteriously missing from the  >compilation.  Carman points out that the report  >"does not support claims that GM crops are safe  >to eat.  On the contrary, it provides evidence  >that GM crops may be harmful to health." > >When the Western Government refused to withdraw  >the grant, opponents successfully interfered  >with Carman's relationship with the university  >where she was to do the research. > > >Prominent virologist Terje Traavik presented  >preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at  >the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that: >* Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield  >developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating; >* Genetic material inserted into GM crops  >transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and >* Key safety assumptions about genetically  >engineered viruses were overturned, calling into  >question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines. >The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr.  >Traavik. Their excuse?-he presented unpublished  >work. But presenting preliminary data at  >professional conferences is a long tradition in  >science, something that the biotech industry  >itself relied on in 1999 to try to counter the  >evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn. > >Ironically, three years after attacking Traavik,  >the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a  >peer-reviewed publication for not citing  >unpublished data that had been presented at a  >conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM  >Bt corn into streams can kill the "caddis fly,"  >which may seriously upset marine ecosystems. The  >study set off a storm of attacks against its  >author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall, which  >Nature described in a September 2009 article as a "hail of abuse." > >Companies Prevent Studies on Their GM Crops > >When Ohio State University plant ecologist  >Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects  >in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International  >and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by  >withholding GM seeds and genes.  After Marc  >Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant  >reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in  >Monsanto's GM soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz,  >told them they could no longer provide  >samples.  Research by a plant geneticist at a  >leading US university was also thwarted when two  >companies refused him GM corn.  In fact, almost  >no independent studies are conducted that might  >find problems. According to a scathing opinion  >piece in an August 2009 Scientific American,  >"Agritech companies have given themselves veto  >power over the work of independent researchers.  >. . .  Only studies that the seed companies have  >approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal." > >A group of 24 corn insect scientists protested  >this restriction in a letter submitted to the  >Environmental Protection Agency.  They warned  >that the inability to access GM seeds from  >biotech companies means there can be no truly  >independent research on the critical questions.  >The scientists, of course, withheld their  >identities for fear of reprisals from the companies. > >Restricted access is not limited to the  >US.  When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct  >animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under  >review in Japan, both the government and the  >bean's maker DuPont refused to give him any  >samples.  Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas  >discovered that Monsanto's GM corn hurt  >endangered species in his country.  Monsanto  >immediately shut off his supplies.  Dr. Darvas  >later gave a speech on his preliminary findings  >and discovered that a false and incriminating  >report about his research was circulating.  He  >traced it to a Monsanto public relations  >employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared  >on her desk - so she faxed it out. > > >GMO Contamination: Don't Ask and Definitely Don't Tell > >In 2005, a scientist had gathered seed samples  >from all over Turkey to evaluate the extent of  >contamination by GM varieties. According to the  >Turkish Daily News, just before her testing was  >complete, she was reassigned to another  >department and access to her lab was denied. > >The unexpected transfer may have saved this  >Turkish scientist from an even worse fate, had  >she discovered and reported contamination.  Ask  >Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist from UC  >Berkeley.  In 2001, he discovered that the  >indigenous corn varieties in Mexico-the source  >of the world's genetic diversity for corn-had  >become contaminated through cross pollination  >with GM varieties. The government had a ban  >against GM corn to prevent just this  >possibility, but apparently US corn imported for  >food had been planted nonetheless. > >Dr. Chapela submitted the finding to Nature, and  >as a courtesy that he later regretted, informed  >the Mexican government about the pending  >publication.  He was called in to meet with a  >furious Director of the Commission of Biosafety  >and GMOs. Chapela's confirmation of  >contamination would hinder introduction of GM  >corn.  Therefore the government's top biotech  >man demanded that he withdraw his  >article.  According to Chapela, the official  >intimidated and threatened him, even implying,  >"We know where your children go to school." > >When a traumatized Chapela still did not back  >down, the Underminister for Agriculture later  >sent him a fax claiming that because of his  >scientific paper, Chapela would be held  >personally responsible for all damages caused to  >agriculture and to the economy in general. > >The day Chapela's paper was published, Mary  >Murphy and Andura Smetacek began posting  >messages to a biotechnology listserve called  >AgBioWorld, distributed to more than 3,000  >scientists.  They falsely claimed that Chapela  >was biased, that his paper had not been  >peer-reviewed, that Chapela was "first and  >foremost an activist," and his research was  >published in collusion with  >environmentalists.  Soon, hundreds of other  >messages appeared, repeating or embellishing the  >accusations.  The listserve launched a petition  >and besieged Naturewith a worldwide campaign demanding retraction. > >UC Berkeley also received letters from all over  >the world trying to convince them not to grant  >Chapela tenure.  He had overwhelming support by  >his college and department, but the  >international biotech lobby was too  >much.  Chapela's tenure was denied.  After he  >filed a lawsuit, the university eventually reversed its decision. > >When investigators later analyzed the email  >characteristics sent by agitators Mary Murphy  >and Andura Smetacek, the two turned out not to  >be the average citizens they claimed.  According  >to the Guardian, both were fabricated names used  >by a public relations firm that worked for  >Monsanto. Some of Smetacek's emails also had the  >internet protocol address of  >gatekeeper2.monsanto.com-the server owned by Monsanto. > >Science and Debate is Silenced > >The attacks on scientists have taken its  >toll.  According to Dr. Chapela, there is a de  >facto ban on scientists "asking certain  >questions and finding certain results."  He  >says, "It's very hard for us to publish in this  >field. People are scared."  He told Nature that  >young people "are not going into this field  >precisely because they are discouraged by what they see." > >New Zealand Parliament list-MP Sue Kedgley told  >a Royal Commission in 2001: "Personally I have  >been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a  >number of scientists who have serious concerns  >about aspects of the research that is taking  >place . . . and the increasingly close ties that  >are developing between science and commerce, but  >who are convinced that if they express these  >fears publicly, . . .  or even if they asked the  >awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution." > >University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal  >testified before the same Commission, "I think  >the people who boost genetic engineering are  >going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for  >forgiveness, like the Pope did on the  >inquisition."  Sue Kedgley has a different  >idea.  She recommends we "set up human clinical  >trials using volunteers of genetically  >engineered scientists and their families,  >because I think they are so convinced of the  >safety of the products that they are creating  >and I'm sure they would very readily volunteer  >to become part of a human clinical trial." > >To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs,  >and what you can do to help end the genetic  >engineering of our food supply, visitwww.ResponsibleTechnology.org. > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: >http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp >_______________________________________________ >Ban-GEF mailing list >Ban-GEF@txinfinet.com >http://204.greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/ban-gef   «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»  § Health_and_Healing - PULSE ON 21st CENTURY ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE! §  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health_and_Healing Subscribe send email to: Health_and_Healing-subscribe@yahoogroups.com    DETOX WITH ALL NATURAL PURE GREEN CALCIUM BENTONITE CLAY USED INTERNAL/EXTERNAL   http://clayadvantage.com/  THE OPEN LINE NEWSPAPER, HEALTH NEWS, SPIRITUAL, ENVIRONMENT, ETC. http://WWW.THEOPENLINE.ORG    ENERGY HEALING TECHNIQUE FOR CHRONIC PAIN, PTSD & OTHER ISSUES THAT TROUBLE YOU.  http://vibrantenergy.webs.com   

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.