My 16 year old daughter told me some weeks ago that she had just heard on local FM radio that “the government” was going to fund an independent assessment into the safety of GM food.
What she didn’t know was that the WA government is going to funding a known anti-GM activist with no laboratories or expertise to undertake studies that require both expert knowledge and facilities.
Dr Rick Roush an Australian based at the University of California was one of several signatories to the following letter of protest sent to the Premier of Western Australia on 5th December:
The Hon Dr Geoff Gallop, BEc MA MPhil DPhil MLA
Dear Premier Gallop,
We were shocked and disappointed to see media reports that Agriculture Minister Kim Chance will fund a long-term animal feeding trial with the Institute for Health and Environmental Research in Adelaide. We note that Mr. Chance’s website confirms your government will fund an “independent’ study to gain data on the safety or otherwise of GM food crops.
There is universal support among all major scientific societies around the world for the safety of the regulatory system and all currently registered GM foods. Contrary to the assertions in Mr. Chance’s media release, these current food assessments (including those by Food Standards Australia New Zealand) do actively and intensively review the possibility that “when a gene is taken out of one organism and put into another, the protein expressed by that gene may be different.”
There is substantial scientific evidence confirming the safety of currently approved biotech crops, and absent new questions, there is little or no basis for further animal studies. Nobody, of course, will object to properly conducted further studies if your government wishes to fund them. Our concern is that Mr. Chance has apparently decided to award funds for this research to a group with a well-known agenda against GM crops, and worse, apparently with no technical expertise, no reputable scientific track record and no facilities suitable for conducting the study!
In his media release, Mr. Chance expressed concern that adverse effects from a novel type of GM pea “had only come to light recently, despite 10 years of research and development.” In fact, the pea project has been underway for ten years precisely because GM research is undertaken in great detail and products are not rushed to market. Mr. Chance seems unaware that CSIRO has been conducting other safety tests on this crop for a number of years, including some in the 1990s in collaboration with anti-GM critic Arpad Pusztai; the detrimental effects found were minimal (citation below). The facts remain both that the current review process did find the problems in the GM peas and that no foods with this specific insecticide resistance gene are grown anywhere in the world other than in well-controlled, small-scale experiments.
Most of us became aware of the Institute for Health and Environmental Research (SA) in 2003, when their leading figure, Dr. Judy Carmen, toured around with UK activist Dr Mae-Wan Ho to speak against GM crops and food safety. Ho has a relentlessly anti-science agenda against GM crops (and modern Darwinian theory).
The Institute for Health and Environmental Research seems to consist of two other people in addition to Carmen, and a website. None of them have scientific records in conducting or analyzing long term feeding studies, certainly no refereed papers in this area (or many in any other area of science), which is the usual measure of scientific quality.
Moreoever, the bios on the IHER website reveal the clear anti-biotech bias of all three.We are sure that there are far better qualified and unprejudiced scientists in Australia, including in Western Australia, who could carry out this research. We are therefore alarmed at an apparent lack of adherence to scientific norms in awarding this project to the Institute for Health and Environmental Research. Following reports that Mr. Chance has previously declared that he would not eat GM food, we are deeply disturbed about the objectivity of the agenda being pursued by Mr.
Chance.In sum, Mr. Chance’s decision gives us great concern for the respect your government shows for scientific enquiry, peer review, international standards, and the processes of competitively awarding research funds.
We look forward to hearing from you that proper, internationally upheld standards will be observed in awarding this research competitively to qualified researchers, if the research is to be undertaken at all.Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Klaus Ammann, Honorary Professor University of Bern, Director of the Bern Botanic Garden
Professor Bruce M. Chassy, Campus Biotechnology Center, University of Illinois, Urbana
Professor Bruce D. Hammock, Distinguished Professor of Entomology & Cancer Research Center, University of California, Davis
Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin, Director University of California Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program, and Co-Director NIH Training Program in Biomolecular Technology
Professor Vivian Moses, CropGen, London
Dr. Alan McHughen, Biotechnology Specialist University of California, Riverside
Dr. Drew L. Kershen, Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma
Dr. Tom DeGregori , Professor of Economics, University of Houston
Dr. Alex Avery, Director of Research, Center for Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute
Dr. Rick Roush, Director of University of California Integrated Pest Management and Sustainable Agriculture Programs
Dr. Henry Miller, MD, Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University [Founding director of the U.S. FDA’s Office of Biotechnology,1989-1993]
Dr. Piero Morandini, Department of Biology, University of Milan
Professor C. S. Prakash, Director, Center for Plant Biotechnology Research, Tuskegee University
Reference Cited
Pusztai A, Grant G, Bardocz S, Alonso R, Chrispeels MJ, Schroeder HE, Tabe LM, Higgins TJV. Expression of the insecticidal bean alpha-amylase inhibitor transgene has minimal detrimental effect on the nutritional value of peas fed to rats at 30% of the diet. J Nutr 1999; 129: 1597-603. end of letter
I worry, given the extent to which government and the media are so quick to embrace pseudo-environmental causes in the name of ‘independent’ science.
Frances Urquhardt says
This all sounds like a bit of a furphy. The REAL threat from the GM food industry is the contamination of the natural food base by GM patent holders who then sue (into oblivion) the growers whose crops they have polluted! (e.g. the Monsanto arseholes in US/Canada).
detribe says
Which US legal suits in particular Frances?
kyan gadac says
a “relentlessly anti-science agenda” – i suppose that’s why he’s web sites called ‘science in society’ – and how is opposing GM against ‘modern Darwinian theory’. So what bit of theory in particular, Jennifer?
Maurice Wetherall BSc. (Hons), Dip Ed says
So Jennifer, What is your response to the release of this book: “GMO Free”, More than 600 scientists from 72 countries have called for a moratorium on the environmental release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This book represents the research and concerns of many of these scientists. The evidence they have compiled makes a strong case for a worldwide ban on GM crops to make way for a comprehensive shift to sustainable agriculture and organic farming.
Authors: Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Lim Li Chingmore
..Or can you so easily discount the actions of over 600 Scientists.
Have any of your signatories (listed above) disclosed any possible conflict of interests?
Piero Morandini says
Concerning the petition mentioned in one comment above of 600 scientists from 72 countries for a moratorium on the environmental release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Could you please provide more details about it? I am fairly sure that most of the scientist involved are not familiar with either breeding or plant molecular genetics (the relevant fields, in this case). A computer scientist claiming authority over plant breeding is like a chemist claiming authority over surgery. Would you undergo surgery from the hand of a chemist?
Provide us the details of your petition and I can immediately tell you what is the scientific respectability of their opinion.
Cheers, Piero
Piero Morandini says
Concerning the possible conflict of interests, I hereby state that I am a researcher working in a govermentally funded university. I do not get money (or any other form of funding) from industry nor I gain anything from undersigning such kind of statements. On the contrary I get a damage as I need to take time to investigate into the matters before signing them.
Be sure that the overwhelming majority of the scientist involved in the debate are in favour of the GM crops approved so far.
Best regards,
Piero Morandini
Rashelle says
Gosh Peiro you make me laugh!
As a mere researcher, it is obvious the 600 scientists quoted in this book have more expertise in this area than you do … Why did you ever think anyone would listen to your analysis on the validity of this book? To echo your previous post: A government researcher claiming authority over plant breeding is like a chemist claiming authority over surgery. I think it’s clear that you are not a key player in this debate. But of more importance: Why didn’t we see the response from Kim Chance? I am sure his reply would have challenged a lot of the unsubstantiated claims made by Dr Ammann. A well researched paper submitted to The Australian Government last year entitled ‘Eating in The Dark’ is worth looking at. The report which calls for tighter regulation on genetically modified foods banned in Europe is available on the internet. The fact there was no balance to this story, should set the alarm bells ringing…