More Evidence on the Health Hazards of GE Food

>From <www.gaia@gaianet.org>
4/30/04

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

In spite of the biotech industry's repeated assurances that GM foods are
proven to be safe, events in Europe show that scientists are not in
agreement over this matter.

An article published in the French paper Le Monde, reveals that the CGB (the
French committee for Genetic Engineering) believe that rats fed on a type of
GM maize (Monsanto's MY 863) show more irregularities in their health than
rats fed non-GM. At the same time, a different body of scientists have
looked at the same data and consider the results to be within natural
variables, and have concluded that the GM maize is safe.

This case shows that even within the scientific community, there is no
consensus on GM safety, and that where safety is assured, this could be due
to a subjective or biased interpretation of data.

Meanwhile, Spain has withdrawn the GM maize (Syngenta's Bt 176) that it was
growing (the only GM crop in Europe), after the European Food Security
Agency voiced concerns that the maize could cause resistance to antibiotics.
In France and Belgium, food standard agencies considering the import
application of a GM sweetcorn (Syntenta's Bt 11) refused to give approval
until safety tests for toxicity have been carried out on animals. And
yesterday, the Independent Science Panel met in the House of Commons in
London, to point out the accumulation of evidence that casts doubt on the
safety of GM food, and to demand an inquiry into GM food safety.

Best wishes,

Teresa

*************************
1. Confidential Report on a Worrying GM Corn
"L'Expertise Confidentialle sur un Inquietant Mais Transgenique"
Article from Le Monde (France). Date: 22 April 2004
Herve Kempf. Translated By Claire Robinson, GM Watch
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3308
2. Spain Withdraws GM Maize!
Article from GM Watch. Date: 28 April 2004
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3344
3. AFSSA Does not Approve a GMO Which Brussels Wants to Authorise
Article from Le Monde (France). Date: 24 April 2004
Herve Kempf. Translated by Eric Munier of Inf'OGM and Teresa Anderson of
the Gaia Foundation
4. Independent Scientists Call for Enquiry into GM Food Safety
Press Release from the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS).
Date: 28 April 2004
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php
***************************

1. Confidential Report on a Worrying GM Corn
"L'Expertise Confidentialle sur un Inquietant Mais Transgenique"

Article from Le Monde (France). Date: 22 April 2004
Herve Kempf. Translated By Claire Robinson, GM Watch
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3308

The French commission for genetic engineering, which delivers an opinion on
GMOs, has become worried about the marketing of a GM corn after studying the
results of an experiment on rats.

The European scientific committee however gave the GMO the green light on 19
April. A corn produced by Monsanto company, MY 863, received on April 19 the
go-ahead for marketing from the European scientific committee.

This corn, in the experts' view, does not affect the health of the animals,
[a fortiori(???)] that of humans.

Though the opinion is public, official reports of meeting of this scientific
committee, the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), are confidential. As
are the debates of the committees of the Member States, including those of
the French commission for genetic engineering (CGB).

However the CGB, on the contrary, put out on October 28, 2003 an
unfavourable report, and was very disturbed by the malformations observed in
a sample of rats fed on MY 863 corn.

No one would ever have known anything of it if an association, the Committee
of research and of information on genetic engineering (Crii-Gen), chaired by
the lawyer Corinne Lepage, ex-Minister for the environment of Alain Juppe,
had not forced the door of the CGB while obtaining, thanks to the commission
of access to administrative documents (CADA), these official reports, of
which Le Monde was made aware.

The opinion of the CGB is clear: the commission "is not able to show the
absence of health risks to animals with regard to MY 863 corn."

Quarrels of experts? Undoubtedly, but this at least leads us to think that
the scientific question of the influence of GMOs on health is not closed,
and that the expert procedures are not always able to bring clear answers.

The new Minister for ecology, Serge Lepeltier, said on April 15, at the time
of its first emergence in the press: "One needs much transparency. Our
fellow-citizens must know what it is. And then rigour is needed."

Much apparently is at stake. The story starts in August 2002, when Monsanto
company submitted a request for authorization of marketing of a corn
genetically engineered to produce insecticidal proteins.

It did it in Germany: in the European procedure, the request for
examination of the GMO is lodged with a first State, which gives a
preliminary opinion.

The Commission of Brussels then distributes it to the Member States, in
order to collect their opinion. The opinions are finally brought before the
EFSA in Brussels, which makes a decisive "opinion". The German experts
immediately expressed reservations on MY 863, giving the reason that it
integrates an antibiotic resistance gene.

The file was passed in June 2003 to the scientific committees of the various
countries, with the precise details provided by Monsanto company.

But it is not the antibiotic which posed a problem with the French. The
file indeed included a study of nutrition on rats, the usual test to
evaluate the harmlessness of the GMO. One feeds with GM food a group of
animals, which one compares at the end of 90 days with a control group of
rats fed with the same corn, but not modified. The biological examination of
tens of indicators on all the rats makes it possible for toxicologists to
judge if there is a significant variation.

However, the French commission for genetic engineering (CGB) worried about
many biological effects: "significant increase in the white globules and the
lymphocytes in the males" of the batch fed with the MY 863;"reduced levels
of reticulocytes"(immature red blood cells) in the females; "significant
increase in blood sugar in the females"; "higher frequency of anomalies
(inflammation, regeneration)" in kidneys of the males.

After a long debate, the CGB indicated, in "the absence of satisfactory
interpretation of some of the significant differences observed", that it was
not "able to show the absence of health risks to animals".

Such an opinion is exceptional from a commission which was always rather
favorable, since its creation in 1986, to the authorization of GMOs.

However, a few days later, November 6, 2003, another French commission, the
French Agency of health safety of food (Afssa), returned, on the basis of
the same file, an opposite opinion: the differences observed, determined
the agency, "are without biological significance", and it estimates that MY
863 "does not present a nutritional risk".

In Brussels, the EFSA concluded in the same direction on April 19. It
however entered in detail the differences observed in the hematologic
[blood] parameters, the renal reticulocytes, malformations and albumin
levels. But, for each one, it estimates that these differences "fall into
the normal variation in control populations" or, in connection with renal
malformations, that they are "of minimal importance".

However, the CGB will not budge from its position an inch. Gerard Pascal,
director of research at the National Institute of agronomic research (INRA),
who was a rapporteur of the file on MY 863 with the CGB, of which he has
been a member since 1986, maintains his doubts.

"I hear the argument of natural variability, but what struck me in this file
is the number of anomalies. There are too many elements here where
significant variations are observed. I never saw that in another file. It
will have to be done again."

All the questioned experts confirm that the analysis of the statistical
results implies a share of subjectivity: "One can have different feelings
on the same case", notes Joel Guillemain, who studied MY 863 for Afssa.

There also exist, in other files, details of effects on animals: on the
four GMOs examined by the CGB in 2003, which gave place to nutritional tests
on rats, anomalies were raised.

For oilseed rape WP 73, "significant effects" were observed on the liver and
the kidneys of the animals, but they were related to a parameter which has
since been rectified. [???can any scientist explain this???GM Watch]

However, the tests on the rats were not carried out during 90 days as is
usual, but only for 28. The commission also regrets that "the idea to ask
for a test on dairy cows" was not retained or that follow-up data after the
marketing in Canada are not available.

On the corn T 1507, the commission observes "a significant difference in
food consumption" of the rats which ate the GMO. For corn NK 603,
"significant differences" in 50 statistical comparisons out of 1 200 were
found, but they "do not have toxicological significance".

A Member of the Commission worries finally about allergies to this product,
and estimates that "it is not possible to conclude from such a final manner
on the absence of such a risk ". In spite of internal dissent, these files
however received a favourable opinion from the commission, then of the EFSA.

*************************************

2. Spain Withdraws GM Maize!

Article from GM Watch. Date: 28 April 2004
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3344

Spain has withdrawn a GMO from the market at the request of the EU. The
concern is that Syngenta's (GM) Bt176 corn could generate resistance to
antibiotics.

The withdrawal follows a report from the European Food Security Agency
(EFSA) calling for an end to cultivation of several genetically modified
corn varieties. Cultivation of Bt176 corn (maize) occupied 20,000 hectares
in Spain, the only member state of the European Union with any significant
commercial GM crop acreage.

Brussels established three groups of GM crops: those that contain marker
genes resistent to antibiotics with no efficient use in human medicine and
which do not need restriction; those that contain markers resistant to
antiobiotics that have specific uses, and which should thus only be used in
experimental work; and those that contain marker genes resistant to
antiobiotics that are very important for human therapeutics (tetracicline)
and which should be avoided to guarantee higher standards of health
protection.

Syngenta wants to replace the withdrawn Bt176 with Bt11 corn, but Bt11 has
not yet received authorisation in the EU. In fact, the French and Belgium
expert committees have both refused Syngenta's Bt11 corn the green light,
saying that Syngenta has not performed sufficient toxicological tests with
the actual GMO but mainly provided the results with a Bt11 fodder maize.
Both expert committees have demanded full toxicological studies with the GMO
for which the approval is requested.

These problems are of wider significance as Syngenta is trying to gain
approval for its maize elsewhere in the world and is likely to support its
applications with the same "evidence" which has been rejected by the French
and Belgian scientists.

Thanks to the GENET list for this information.

The original article about the Spanish withdrawal can be seen here: El
Estado espanol retirara un OGM a instancias de la UE. El maiz Bt 176 podria
provoca resistencias a los antibioticos, GARA, Spain
http://www.gara.net/orriak/P27042004/art79966.htm

The article about the Bt11 safety rejection can be seen here: L'Afssa
desapprouve un OGM que Bruxelles veut autoriser (The French Authority for
Food Safety does not approve a GMO which Brussels wants to authorise), Le
Monde, France, 24 Apr 20004, by Herve Kempf
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_articleweb/1,13-0,36-362233,0.html

These concerns arise at the same time that the French newspaper Le Monde has
exposed expert concerns about health risks with regard to Monsanto's MY 863
corn. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3308

*****************************************

3. AFSSA Does not Approve a GMO Which Brussels Wants to Authorise

Article from Le Monde (France). Date: 24 April 2004
Herve Kempf. Translated by Eric Munier of Inf'OGM and Teresa Anderson of
the Gaia Foundation

French experts want Bt11 maize to be tested on animals before giving
approval.

The progress of GM is still suffering from successive halts: two scientific
evaluation committees, in France and Belgium, have just refused to give
their approval to a transgenic maize. On April the 22nd, AFSSA (French
Agency of Food Sanitary Security) opposed the authorization of Bt11
sweetcorn, commercialised by Syngenta.

This cereal had already been twice refused by AFSSA, in 2000 and 2003, as
the experts had concluded that the scientific results were insufficient. In
2003, AFSSA already opposed an approval delivered by the European
Scientific Committee, in April 2002. At the same time, the French government
were joining the countries opposed to this approval during a meeting on
December the 8th 2003. In the brief note published last Thursday, AFSSA
declared that it "maintains its previous opinion which concluded that
to rigorously evaluate the impact of regular consumption of a maize carrying
the Bt11 event, toxicity / tolerance experiments on rats must be carried
out".

Implicitly replying to the European Commission, who wrote on February the
5th that "the results supplied by Syngenta [...] are in accordance with the
criteria and rules defined in the recommendation 618/97/EC", AFSSA
specifies: " Such toxicity / tolerance experiments are not required by the
actual regulation, though they might be advisable [...] because the
sweetcorn is the only one to be consumed by humans".

The opposition between the European Commission and AFSSA is due to the fact
that another maize - used as feed - had been authorised before the
moratorium took place, in 1999. According to the firm, because the genetic
sequence introduced in the Bt11 maize is the same as the one introduced in
the previous cereal (used as feed), a complete toxicological experiment is
not necessary. French experts did not agree with this point of view, nor the
did the Belgian experts.

On April the 1st, the Belgian Council for Biosafety therefore refused to
give its approval for the Bt11 maize. Syngenta did not supply data showing
that the introduced genetic sequence - or transgene - was perfectly
identical and stable. Those two positions must affect the decision of the
European Council of Agricultural Ministers which will be held on April the
26th. The council must give its opinion on this Bt11 maize. Its
authorisation would mean the end of the 1999 "de facto" moratorium on new
GMOs.

This controversy takes place while another transgenic maize, MON863, is
profoundly dividing the experts. Speaking on air on RMC, the new french
Minister for Ecology, Serge Lepeltier, explained : "There is no way for
authorising anything in the next few days or weeks".

****************************

4. Independent Scientists Call for Enquiry into GM Food Safety

Press Release from the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS).
Date: 28 April 2004
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php

At a briefing to be held in Parliament tomorrow, the Independent Science
Panel (a group representing more than 1 000 scientists around the world)
will release its new dossier of evidence on the problems and hazards of GM
as well as the proven successes and benefits of sustainable agriculture. It
makes the case for banning all environmental releases of GM crops and for a
comprehensive shift to sustainable agriculture.

The ISP will call for a thorough enquiry into GM food safety and the
systematic abuse of science that has allowed commercial approval in the face
of damning evidence indicating that GM food is far from safe. There is ample
evidence to indicate all is not well with GM food and feed. But the
findings have been systematically suppressed, ignored, misrepresented or
simply not followed up.

The latest in a long series of scandals is the European Food Safety
Authority's positive assessment of Monsanto¹s GM maize Mon863, despite
damning evidence of serious health impacts: kidney malformations and
increase in white blood cells in male rats, increase in blood glucose and
reduced immature red blood cells in female rats.

Other evidence includes the following.

· Villagers in the south of the Philippines living near fields
planted with Monsanto's GM hybrid maize containing Bt toxin suffered
debilitating illnesses in two successive growing seasons.

· Between 2001 and 2002, twelve dairy cows died on a farm in Hesse,
Germany, after eating Syngenta's Bt176 GM maize, and others in the herd had
to be slaughtered on account of mysterious illnesses.

· Arpad Pusztai and colleagues found that GM potatoes with snowdrop
lectin adversely affected every organ system of young rats, and the stomach
and small intestine lining grew up to twice the thickness of controls.

· Scientists in Egypt found similar results in the gastrointestinal
tract of mice fed GM potato with Bt toxin.

· US Food and Drug Administration had data since the early 1990s
showing that rats fed GM tomatoes with antisense gene to delay ripening
developed small holes in their stomach.

· Aventis (now Bayer) found 100% increase in deaths of broiler
chickens fed glufosinate-tolerant GM maize T25 compared to controls.

· Numerous anecdotes from farmers and others indicating that
livestock, wildlife and lab animals avoid GM feed, and fail to thrive or die
when forced to eat it.

The Independent Science Panel
Special Parliamentary Briefing
The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World
Stanley Ewen, Mae-Wan Ho, Brian John, Lim Li Ching,
Michael Meacher MP, Peter Saunders
Chairing
Alan Simpson MP
Also attending
ISP members Michael Antoniou & Eva Novotny
MPs Joan Ruddock & Roger Williams
Noel Lynch (GLA) and Sue Mayer (GeneWatch)
Date: 29 April 2004
Time: 10:00 h to 12:00 h
Venue: Grand Committee Room*, House of Commons
*Due to over-subscription, we have been allocated a bigger room, which means
there will be a few extra places
Last chance to reserve a place by writing to tickets@I- sis.org.uk giving
name and organisation (if applicable)
Organised by the office of Alan Simpson MP in conjunction with the Institute
of Science in Society
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
The Institute of Science in Society
Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk
General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk
Website/Mailing List press-release@i-sis.org.uk
ISIS Director m.w.ho@i- sis.org.uk