Hi :
The following 3 articles is from GEAN (Genetic Engineering Action Network)
bulletin. The latest news about GM corn toxicity highlights earlier safety
issues raised by Arpad Puztai, the British scientist who first revealed
safety problems with GM potatoes ten years ago. Of course Monsanto dismisses
the issues raised as "faulty science." The food war continues as more of the
US public and world wide resistance to GM products increases with
unfulfilled claims of "feeding the hungry" & "protecting the environment".
Corporate ag, lead by Monsanto, is the bigger problem as they clobber
farmers with higher seed & ag input costs. What's really at stake: control
over science, nature, food and farming.
Tony Del Plato
Today's Topics:
1. [genet-news] POLICY & REGULATION: Was 2009 the year the world
turned against GM? (fwd) (Phil Bereano)
2. [genet-forum] A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn
Varieties on Mammalian Health & Monsanto Response (fwd) (Phil Bereano)
3. [genet-news] RISK ASSESSMENT & APPROVAL: Monsanto options
volatile after critical GMO research report (fwd) (Phil Bereano)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:47:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Phil Bereano <[email protected]>
Subject: [Geactivists] [genet-news] POLICY & REGULATION: Was 2009 the
year the world turned against GM? (fwd)
To: gean <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
good piece for quotations, etc
**********************************************
please note new address:
Philip L. Bereano
Professor Emeritus
Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering
Box 352315, Sieg Hall
University of Washington
Seattle, Wash 98195 USA
ph: (206) 543-9037
fx: (206) 543-8858
[email protected]
**********************************************
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 14 Jan 2010 10:15:01 +0100
From: GENET - news&information <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [genet-news] POLICY & REGULATION: Was 2009 the year the world
turned
against GM?
------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------
TITLE: WAS 2009 THE YEAR THE WORLD TURNED AGAINST GM?
SOURCE: The Ecologist, UK
AUTHOR: Claire Robinson & Jonathan Matthews
URL:
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/395845/was_2009_the_year_the_world_turned_against_gm.html
DATE: 11.01.2010
------------------ archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------
WAS 2009 THE YEAR THE WORLD TURNED AGAINST GM?
Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews are co-editors of GMWatch
Despite promising the world in 2009, biotech corporations have increasingly
raised the hackles of scientists and citizens worldwide
2009 was a year in which the biotech industry, Gates and their US
Administration allies did everything in their power to drive the world down
the GM road, but it was also a year marked by remarkable global resistance.
It was a year too in which the truth emerged more clearly than ever about
not just the severe limitations and risks of GM crops, but the viability of
the many positive alternatives to GMOs alternatives from which the
profit-driven GM-fixation diverts much needed attention and resources.
The scene had been set in 2008 with the IAASTD report, produced by 400
scientific experts and signed up to by some 60 governments. That made it
clear that after more than 10 years of commercialisation, GM crops had done
nothing to help with the eradication of hunger or poverty, or the reversal
of the environmental degradation caused by agriculture.
The IAASTD instead championed as the way forward: agro-ecological farming;
and research conducted by the UN Environment Programme also suggested
organic, small-scale farming could deliver increased yields without the
accompanying environmental and social damage of industrial farming. The
UNEP?s analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields
had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been
used. In 2009 the contribution of such sustainable approaches to cooling the
planet was also widely acknowledged while news of Monsanto?s attempts to
dress up environmentally destructive GM monocultures as climate friendly
earned it a worst lobbying award.
Mainstream criticism
But what was most remarkable in 2009 was the way in which criticism of the
biotech industry went mainstream. Alarmingly for the industry, some of the
hardest hitting criticism it faced was to be found in editorials and
investigative articles that appeared in the likes of Scientific American,
the New York Times, the Associated Press and, most astonishingly of all
perhaps, the staunchly pro-GM journal Nature Biotechnology.
And in different ways they were all making the same fundamental point - the
GM industry has been allowed to gain an unprecedented stranglehold over the
use of seeds. An editorial in Scientific American, for instance, complained
that ?it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as
advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto
power over the work of independent researchers?.
The editorial went on to note that, ?food safety and environmental
protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific
scrutiny?, and Scientific American called on the industry to ?immediately
remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going
forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale
of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all
products currently on the market?.
Et tu, Brute?
A correspondent for an agricultural trade publication noted that nobody in
the biotech industry could provide him with a single example of any other
kind of product on the market that was protected in the way GM seeds were
from scientific scrutiny.
And the science correspondent of the Financial Times - another solidly
pro-GM publication - complained, ?Imagine pharmaceutical companies trying to
prevent medical researchers comparing patented drugs or investigating their
side-effects - it is unthinkable. Yet scientists cannot independently
examine raw materials in the food supply or investigate plants that cover a
lot of rural America?.
An article in Nature Biotechnology noted how even when research critical of
GM did get published it was met by a wall of apparently orchestrated, ad
hominem and unfounded attacks by GM proponents who, in the words of an
editor for the Entomological Society of America, ?denigrate research by
other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is
not helpful in advancing knowledge and is outside the ideals of scientific
inquiry?.
And it wasn?t just scientific enquiry that Monsanto was exposed as
strangling. An Associated Press investigation reported on confidential
Monsanto contracts showing how the world?s biggest seed developer is
squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and aggressively
protecting its multibillion-dollar market dominance.
Farmers hit
Meanwhile disenchanted farmers pointed to how the GM giant is using its
market power to raise prices for farmers and limit their access to non-GM
seeds. And another new report showed GM seed prices increasing so
dramatically that they have already cut average farm incomes for US farmers.
So in 2010 amidst the inevitable deluge of vacuous hype about GM being vital
to deal with hunger, poverty and the impact of climate change, population
growth, fuel scarcity and every other concern known to humankind, nobody
should be in any doubt as to what?s really at stake: control over science,
nature, food and farming.
And over that kind of stranglehold, it can only be a fight to the death.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GENET-news is a public news service from GENET.
Visit GENET website to learn more about GENET: www.genet-info.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:44:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Phil Bereano <[email protected]>
Subject: [Geactivists] [genet-forum] A Comparison of the Effects of
Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health & Monsanto Response (fwd)
To: gean <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
This is the text of the French article (there is a link to the original). I
have tried to attach the monsanto response (I hope it isn't too big, and
that this is really what I think it is--my system doesn't let me check). If
not someone will let the list know and I will strip it out and send as text
(but it is 12 pages long).
Phil
**********************************************
please note new address:
Philip L. Bereano
Professor Emeritus
Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering
Box 352315, Sieg Hall
University of Washington
Seattle, Wash 98195 USA
ph: (206) 543-9037
fx: (206) 543-8858
[email protected]
**********************************************
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:18:18 +0000
From: GENET-forum <[email protected]>
To: GENET-forum <[email protected]>
Subject: [genet-forum] A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn
Varieties on
Mammalian Health & Monsanto Response
Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726 ?Ivyspring International Publisher
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
Jo?l Spiroux de Vend?mois1, Fran?ois Roullier1, Dominique Cellier1,2,
Gilles-Eric S?ralini1,3 ?
1. CRIIGEN, 40 rue Monceau, 75008 Paris, France
2. University of Rouen LITIS EA 4108, 76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan, France
3. University of Caen, Institute of Biology, Risk Pole CNRS, EA 2608,
14032 Caen, France
How to cite this article:
de Vend?mois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, S?ralini GE. A Comparison of the
Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci
2009; 5:706-726. Available from <http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm>
Abstract
We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ
system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized
genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are
present in food and feed in the world. NK 603 has been modified to be
tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains
residues of this formulation. MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to
synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides. Approximately
60 different biochemical parameters were classified per organ and
measured in serum and urine after 5 and 14 weeks of feeding. GM maize-
fed rats were compared first to their respective isogenic or parental
non-GM equivalent control groups. This was followed by comparison to six
reference groups, which had consumed various other non-GM maize
varieties. We applied nonparametric methods, including multiple pairwise
comparisons with a False Discovery Rate approach. Principal Component
Analysis allowed the investigation of scattering of different factors
(sex, weeks of feeding, diet, dose and group). Our analysis clearly
reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize
consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were
mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying
organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also
noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system.
We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity,
possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In
addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the
genetic modification cannot be excluded.
**********
Monsanto Response: de Vendomois et al. 2009
Asessment of Quality and Response to Technical Issues
--
GENET-forum
providing background information for the
European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering
contact:
Hartmut MEYER (Mr)
phone....... +49-531-5168746
fax......... +49-531-5168747
email....... hartmut.meyer(*)genet-info.org
skype....... hartmut_meyer
url......... www.genet-info.org
-------------- next part --------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more info on GENET activities check:
www.genet-info.org/members-section.html
GENET-forum is a networking mailing-list for GENET members and friends.
You can participate by emailing to: [email protected]
Contact GENET coordinator for more information: [email protected]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:45:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Phil Bereano <[email protected]>
Subject: [Geactivists] [genet-news] RISK ASSESSMENT & APPROVAL:
Monsanto options volatile after critical GMO research report (fwd)
To: gean <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
**********************************************
please note new address:
Philip L. Bereano
Professor Emeritus
Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering
Box 352315, Sieg Hall
University of Washington
Seattle, Wash 98195 USA
ph: (206) 543-9037
fx: (206) 543-8858
[email protected]
**********************************************
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 14 Jan 2010 10:12:01 +0100
From: GENET - news&information <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [genet-news] RISK ASSESSMENT & APPROVAL: Monsanto options volatile
after critical GMO research report
PART 1
------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------
TITLE: MONSANTO OPTIONS VOLATILE AFTER GMO RESEARCH REPORT
SOURCE: Forexyard, USA
AUTHOR: Reuters, UK, by Carey Gillam
URL:
http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/Monsanto-options-volatile-after-GMO-research-report-2010-01-13T180105Z
DATE: 13.01.2010
------------------ archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------
MONSANTO OPTIONS VOLATILE AFTER GMO RESEARCH REPORT
...........................................................................
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
Jo?l Spiroux de Vend?mois, Fran?ois Roullier, Dominique Cellier, Gilles-Eric
S?ralini
Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726, http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
...........................................................................
- Monsanto put option volume swells early
- Research report says organ damage in rats
- Monsanto says products safe, touts new offerings
- Shares fall as much as 3.4 pct. Shares now up 0.31 pct
KANSAS CITY, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Monsanto Co was the subject of active market
moves on Wednesday because of research that showed organ damage in animals
that ate its biotech corn, juxtaposed with the company?s new biotech
products aimed at bringing in billions in new sales.
Monsanto shares fell as low as $80.50 early in the day, and were down 18
cents at $83.13 at midmorning. They recovered their losses and even rose
slightly later in the day, heartened by the company?s research and
development efforts in agricultural seed technology.
Options volume also surged amid the dueling views of the world?s largest
biotech seed company.
Monsanto?s option volume was double the recent average daily turnover with
about 31,000 puts and 19,000 calls traded, according to option analytics
firm Trade Alert.
?There was a lot of put activity this morning in Monsanto,? said
WhatsTrading.com option strategist Frederic Ruffy, who cited the GMO
research report as a key factor.
?Some investors were buying the January $80 puts in reaction to the morning
drop in Monsanto shares expecting further declines while other investors
were looking at the April $75 puts to hedge possible share price losses in
the months ahead,? Ruffy said.
January options expire on Friday after the close.
St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto is a darling of Wall Street for its strong
growth patterns and its dominance of the lucrative agricultural seed market.
But questions about the safety of the company?s genetic tinkering with key
food crops such as corn and soybeans persist.
The research paper drawing attention this week was published by the
International Journal of Biological Sciences and authored by a group of
European scientists who said they found signs of organ damage in rats fed
three genetically modified corn types consumed by people and animals
worldwide.
The biotech corn types have been genetically altered to make tolerant
dousings of Monsanto?s weedkilling Roundup and to develop their own
insecticides to ward off pests.
Signs of toxicity appeared in rats? kidneys, livers, hearts, adrenal glands
and spleens, according to the report.
The researchers said there was a ?clear negative impact? in the rats that
ate GM corn varieties for just 90 days, and they said additional long-term
(up to two years) animal feeding studies should be performed.
?Our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of
hepatorenal toxicity... These substances have never before been an integral
part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for
those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently
unknown.?
Monsanto called the results faulty. It said several studies show its biotech
corn to be safe and said the new report has ?unsubstantiated conclusions.?
?Statistical fluctuations occur commonly in any large study with many
endpoints, and statistical significance alone does not determine when an
observation can be translated into evidence of risk,? said Dan Goldstein,
Monsanto?s director of medical sciences and outreach.
Monsanto has spent the last week touting what it says is an accelerated
research and development effort in agricultural seed technology with a focus
on 11 key biotech seed projects that offer $8 billion of gross revenue
opportunity by 2020.
The company is rolling out new biotech corn and soybean seeds for planting
in the United States this spring, and says early demand has been strong.
(Additional Reporting by Doris Frankel in Chicago. Reporting by Carey
Gillam. Editing by Robert MacMillan)
PART 2
------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------
TITLE: STUDY LINKS MONSANTO GM CORN TO ORGAN FAILURE
SOURCE: Democracy Now, USA
AUTHOR:
URL:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/13/headlines/study_links_monsanto_gm_corn_to_organ_failure
DATE: 13.01.2010
------------------ archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------
STUDY LINKS MONSANTO GM CORN TO ORGAN FAILURE
A new study claims to have uncovered new health effects caused by
genetically modified corn from the agricultural giant Monsanto. The
International Journal of Biological Sciences says GM corn helped cause organ
damage in rats. The study?s author called Monsanto?s GM methods ?a very
serious mistake, dramatic for public health.?
Real Video Stream
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2010/jan/video/dnB20100113a.rm&proto=rtsp
MP3 Download
http://media.libsyn.com/media/democracynow/dn2010-0113-1.mp3
PART 3
------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------
TITLE: MONSANTO RESPONSE: DE VENDOMOIS ET AL. 2009
SOURCE: Monsanto, USA
AUTHOR: For the Record
URL:
http://www.monsanto.com/products/techandsafety/fortherecord_science/2010/monsanto_response_de_vendomois.asp
DATE: 12.01.2010
------------------ archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------
MONSANTO RESPONSE: DE VENDOMOIS ET AL. 2009
...........................................................................
PDF Download: Monsanto Response: de Vendomois et al. 2009
http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/science/seralini.pdf
...........................................................................
(A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health)
Regarding: MON 863, MON 810 and NK603
Assessment of Quality and Response to Technical Issues
Synopsis:
- The laboratory findings primarily related to kidney and liver function
reflect the large proportion of tests applicable to these organ systems.
This is not a defect in the design of the study, but simply the reality of
biochemical testing - there are good clinical tests of these systems which
are reflected in blood chemistry. The function of other organ systems is
assessed primarily via functional assessment, organ weight, and organ
pathology rather than through blood or urine biochemical assays.
- The authors apply a variety of non-standard statistical approaches. Each
unique statistical approach and each comparison performed increases the
number of statistically significant findings which will occur by chance
alone. Thus, the fact that de Vendomois et al. find more statistically
significant findings than reported in the Monsanto analysis is entirely
expected. The question, which de Vendomois et al. fail to address, is
whether these non-routine statistical tests contribute anything of value to
a safety assessment. Do they help to ascertain whether there are
biologically and toxicologically significant events? In our opinion
(consistent with prior reviews of other publications from Seralini and
colleagues) they do not.
- The authors undertake a complex ?principle component analysis? to
demonstrate that kidney and liver function tests vary between male and
female rodents. This phenomenon is well-recognized in rodents (and, for that
matter, humans) as a matter of gender difference. (This does not indicate
any toxic effect, and is not claimed to do so by the authors, but may be
confusing to those not familiar with the method and background.)
- De Vendomois et al. appear to draw from this a conclusion that there is a
gender difference in susceptibility to toxic effects. While such differences
are possible, no difference in susceptibility can be demonstrated by gender
differences in normal baseline values. Utilizing this alleged difference in
gender susceptibility, the authors proceed to identify statistically
significant, but biologically meaningless differences (see next bullet) and
to evaluate the extent to which these changes occur in males verses females.
- De Vendomois et al. fail to consider whether a result is biologically
meaningful, based on the magnitude of the difference observed, whether the
observation falls outside of the normal range for the species, whether the
observation falls outside the range observed in various reference materials,
whether there is evidence of a dose-response, and whether there is
consistency between sexes and consistency among tested GM materials. These
failures are similar to those observed in previous publications by the same
group of authors.
- While the number of tests that are statistically significant in males
verses females would ON AVERAGE be equal in a random distribution, this
ratio will fluctuate statistically. The authors have not, in fact,
demonstrated any consistent susceptibility between genders, nor have they
demonstrated that the deviations from equality in regards to numbers of
positive tests fall outside of expectation. For example, if you flip a coin
10 times, on average you will get 50% heads and 50% tails but it is not
unusual to get 7 heads and 3 tails on a particular 10 tosses. If you do this
over and over and consistently get on average 7 heads and 3 tails then there
may be something different about the coin that is causing this unexpected
result. However, de Vendomois et al. have not shown any such consistent
difference.
- While de Vendomois et al. criticize the lack of testing for cytochrome
P450, such testing is not routinely a part of any toxicity testing protocol.
These enzymes are responsible for (among other things) the metabolism of
chemicals from the environment, and respond to a wide variety of external
stimuli as a part of their normal function. There is no rational reason to
test for levels of cytochromes in this type of testing, as they do not
predict pathology. De Vendomois et al. could have identified thousands of
different elements, enzymes and proteins that were not measured but this
does not indicate a deficiency in the study design since there is no logical
basis for testing them.
- While de Vendomois et al. criticize the occurrence of missing laboratory
values, the vast majority of missing values are accounted for by missing
urine specimens (which may or may not be obtainable at necropsy) or by a
small number of animals found in a deceased condition (which are not
analyzed due to post-mortem changes). Overall, despite the challenges in
carrying out such analyses on large numbers of animals, almost 99% of values
were reported.
- The statistical power analysis done by de Vendomois et al. is invalid, as
it is based upon non-relevant degrees of difference and upon separate
statistical tests rather than the ANOVA technique used by Monsanto (and
generally preferred). The number of animals used is consistent with
generally applicable designs for toxicology studies.
- Prior publications by Seralini and colleagues in both the pesticide and GM
crops arenas have been found wanting in both scientific methodology and
credibility by numerous regulatory agencies and independent scientific
panels (as detailed below).
- In the press release associated with this publication, the authors
denounce the various regulatory and scientific bodies which have criticized
prior work, and claim, in advance, that these agencies and individuals
suffer from incompetency and/or conflict of interest. In effect, the authors
claim that their current publication cannot be legitimately criticized by
anyone who disagrees with their overall opinions, past or present.
To summarize, as with the prior publication of Seralini et al. (2007), de
Vendomois et al. (2009) uses non-traditional and inappropriate statistical
methods to reach unsubstantiated conclusions in a reassessment of toxicology
data from studies conducted with MON 863, MON 810 and NK603. Not
surprisingly, they assert that they have found evidence for safety concerns
with these crops but these claims are based on faulty analytical methods and
reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these
products.
[...]
[please download the pdf for reading the details]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GENET-news is a public news service from GENET.
Visit GENET website to learn more about GENET: www.genet-info.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Geactivists mailing list
[email protected]
http://geaction.org/mailman/listinfo/geactivists_geaction.org
End of Geactivists Digest, Vol 68, Issue 16
*******************************************
--
The nonviolent approach does not immediately change the heart of the
oppressor. It first does something to the hearts and souls of those
committed to it. It gives them new self-respect; it calls up resources of
strength and courage they did not know they had.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
--
The nonviolent approach does not immediately change the heart of the
oppressor. It first does something to the hearts and souls of those
committed to it. It gives them new self-respect; it calls up resources of
strength and courage they did not know they had.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please
visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
