GM Peas: Dangerous Immune Response In Mice

Reprinted with permission from Spilling the Beans Newsletter, Nov/Dec 2005, by Jeffrey M. Smith, Author of Seeds of Deception

Previous:  1     2     3

Part 4 of 4: GM Industry Spin

No report on GM research is complete without the fourth pillar — spin. How do you suppose the industry will respond to these pea findings that expose an inept regulatory process that under normal test procedures would almost certainly have allowed these peas onto the market? Consider the response of GM pea developer TJ Higgins, 'I think that this shows that the regulatory system works.' [15]

But before we condemn Higgins as a spin master, we must consider that he might have been the victim of spin himself. I have spoken with many biotech scientists, people of high integrity and a strong belief in what they are doing, who have absolutely no idea about the wretched state of regulations or safety assessments. They focus on their own area of expertise and have bought the industry spin about safety.

I called Higgins in Australia and quizzed him on the state of affairs of regulations and assessments of other GM foods. He said, 'I didn’t feel that we were breaking particularly new ground. . . . We were following basically the recommendations for a proper risk assessment and I feel it is typical of the kinds of assessments that have been done for other GM crops around the world.' Lead researcher Simon Hogan told me the same thing. I pointed out to both scientists several unique features of their study and challenged them to name a single GM food on the market that has had the same level of tests. They couldn’t come up with any, but they were sure that these tests were done. They’re in for a shock.

Years ago, a pro-GM scientist with high integrity also had confidence in GM regulators and industry scientists. Higgins had asked him to coauthor a rat feeding study with his GM peas, because the scientist was the world’s most qualified person to do the work. This scientist was also awarded a UK government research grant to create a rigorous safety assessment protocol, which was to be required in the UK and eventually the EU. One day, he was asked to review several confidential industry studies that were used to get GM foods approved. He told me that reading those studies was perhaps the greatest shock of his life. The studies were so superficial, so poorly done, he realized that industry was doing as little as possible to get their foods on the market as quickly as possible. They were not doing safety studies. A few weeks later, this scientist confirmed that a GM potato he was working on caused considerable damage in rats, including damage to their immune systems. Unlike Higgins, this man knew full well that his dangerous potatoes could have sailed through industry 'safety' studies and onto plates around the world. He went public with his concerns.

The scientist’s name is Arpad Pusztai, and he paid dearly for his integrity. At the hands of a pro-GM government and industry-backed scientists, he was fired, silenced with threats of a lawsuit and mercilessly attacked. It was biotech spin at its 'finest.'

Pusztai has since published his potato research and is now considered a top expert in GM safety testing. He just published a review of all the peer-reviewed assessments and has studied nearly every industry submission. He assured me that the GM pea immune study does, in fact, break new ground. Likewise, Professor G.E. Seralini, who has officially reviewed all of the submissions to Europe as well as all the commentaries on the submissions, wrote me: 'To my knowledge, no GM plant on the market has undergone such detailed experiments to assess allergenicity.' Doug Gurian-Sherman and Bill Freese, who are experts on submissions to US authorities, also acknowledge that industry immune studies are considerably weaker than the pea study. And Judy Carman, who has studied the GM applications to Australia and New Zealand, concurs. In fact, Marc Rothenberg, who is a co-author of the pea study and was also on the expert panel that analyzed the allergenicit y of StarLink corn, said of the pea research, 'It was very unique. It was much more extensive and rigorous than what was previously done.'

It appears that the director of the pea assessment (Higgins) and the lead researcher in the study (Hogan) were uninformed about the state of affairs in GM crop assessments. They appeared to be unaware that their study was actually a breakthrough. If Higgins had known that his peas would likely have been approved if they were tested only with the less expensive, less rigorous research typically used for GM crops, he might not be so quick to defend GM regulations worldwide.

I sent Higgins a peer-reviewed paper called 'Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods.' [16] It not only shreds the assessment process in the US, it also presents a case study of how one GM corn variety gained approval based on wrong assumptions, poor research, ineffective regulations and spin—the four pillars. I wrote Higgins, 'I am confident that after reading this article, you will agree with the authors that the tests used for approving thisBt corn, as well as other varieties, were not sufficient to protect the public.' I asked that he then make corrective statements about GM regulations. More importantly, Higgins is The Deputy Chief of CSIRO Plant Industry. If he acknowledges that even one GM crop has not been thoroughly tested, I asked him to propose that his organization immediately conduct rigorous safety assessments on that crop to protect the health of consumers. I understand that CSIRO has business relationships with Bayer Crop Science and Monsanto. The close ties between research organizations and the biotech industry has, in many instances, stifled criticism of GM crops and even stopped important research from being conducted. I am hopeful that Higgins, who pioneered new safety assessments on GM food crops and canceled his own 10 year pea project based on the findings, will direct his institution to similarly break new ground. I will be sure to report his response in future columns.

In the meantime, my Institute for Responsible Technology is passing the hat to collect money to fund independent research on the GM foods already on the market. We are not willing to wait.

Previous:     2    3

Savvy Vegetarian Review of 'Seeds of Deception' by Jeffrey M. Smith

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at the website Responsible Technology

References:

[1] V. E. Prescott, et al, Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53

[2] Cry1Ac protoxin is a systemic and mucosal adjuvant (Vazquez-Padron et al, 2000b)

[3] Bernstein, et al., (1999). Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives 107(7), 575-582

[4] David Schubert, 'A different perspective on GM food,' Nature Biotechnology vol. 20, 2002, p. 969

[5] David Schubert, 'A different perspective on GM food,' Nature Biotechnology vol. 20, 2002, p. 969

[6] J Ordlee, et al, 'Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans,' The New Englandd Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1996

[7] Pusztai, A. et al. (2003) Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. In: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D’Mello) pp.347-372. CAB International, Wallingford Oxon, UK, also additional communication with Arpad Pusztai

[8] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on -Endotoxin- Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes, Natural Toxins Volume 6, Issue 6, 1998. Pages: 219-233 Published Online: 29 Jun 1999

[9] Monsanto Rat Study

[10] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John

[11] Mark Townsend, 'Why soya is a hidden destroyer,' Daily Express, March 12, 1999

[12]SAP Report No. 2000-06, December 1, 2000, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting, November 28, 2000, Assessment of Scientific Information Concerning StarLink™ Corn

[13] Jeffrey M. Smith, Bt-maize (corn) during pollination, may trigger disease in people living near the cornfield, Press Release February 2004, and Allen V. Estabillo, Farmer's group urges ban on planting Bt corn; says it could be cause of illnesses, Mindanews /19 October 2004

[14] Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; cattle dead, Bhopal, Nov 23 2005

[15] GM crop failure shows rules force: CSIRO November 19, 2005

[16] William Freese and David Schubert, Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews – Vol. 21, November 2004

Previous:  1    2    3

Savvy Vegetarian Review of 'Seeds of Deception' by Jeffrey M. Smith

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at the website Responsible Technology

SV Articles and Reviews on Related Topics:

Congress Weakens Organic Standards

"Ecological Organic Agriculture", by Francis Thicke:

EPA's Dirty Air Agreement

Farmers Backs Against The Wall Over GMO

Food Revolution Review

GE Soy - Rat Babies Died - Jeffrey M. Smith

"Got Local Organic Milk?", by Ken Roseboro:

Mad Cow Disease In The US

Organic Consumers Association

'Seeds of Deception, Genetically Engineered Foods', by Jeffrey. M. Smith

State of the Eco-Union, Joel Salatin

Send a link, resource, book, recipe etc. to Savvy Veg

Download Free Savvy Vegetarian Reports

Get Free Savvy Vegetarian Advice