More Nonsense from Monsanto
Open Letter
Tony Combes Esq
Director of Corporate Affairs
Monsanto UK Ltd 6th December 2005
Dear Tony
More Nonsense from Monsanto
We refer to the comments made today in the Western Mail, in which you accuse us of knowingly making false allegations -- in effect, of lying. We are not amused, and we want an apology. We refer to the points below:
"Tony Combes is director of corporate affairs with GM company Monsanto UKLtd. He said it was impossible to draw meaningful conclusions from the first twostudies without a full description of the methodology they used and a full review of their findings by other scientists."
We never pretended that the Ermakova and Malatesta studies were fully written up and peer reviewed. But they were perfectly justified in drawing attention to their findings, which appear to show potentially damaging physiological changes associated with GM food. It would have been irresponsible of them to have said nothing. And how dare you belittle those studies and those scientists? Since when did Monsanto give full descriptions of the methodologies used in its studies, and since when did they allow full review of all their studies by other scientists? Those papers that have gone forward for peer review have been carefully selected as part of your "no harm" promotional campaign over the last decade. In fact, you moved heaven and earth to prevent other scientists from seeing your full 90-day rat feeding study on MON863. And we are quite aware that recently when other scientists have had a chance to look at Monsanto studies your experiments have been slated as biased and poorly designed, and as being carefully crafted to give the desired results........
"And he said the CSIRO decision to halt research and destroy the GM pea that inflamed lung tissue in laboratory mice showed how the regulatory system wasworking exactly as intended." This is nonsense. As confirmed by the Australian Government, the regulatory system did not come in to play at all with the pea study. If it had, the GM pea would probably have been approved! The findings must have been VERY serious for the research team at CSIRO to call an immediate halt to their research. And to repeat the point we made -- how many GM varieties have been developed, tested internally by Monsanto, and pulled because of damage to test animals? Would you like to tell us? "Mr Combes said claims of fatalities and ill-health among people and cattlehad been disproved." By whom? Would you like to give us chapter and verse in support of your claim that there were no deaths attributable to L-tryptophan, no health problems related to Starlink and the Flavr-savr tomato or to Bt cotton, and no problems related to BST (bovine growth hormone) or Bt maize in cattle? "All of these allegations are just as false as GM Free Cymru's absurdallegation that I was once employed by Defra," said Mr Combes.
We are outraged that a company like Monsanto, with a long and well-documented history of corporate misbehaviour, should accuse us of lying (1). And for the record, we never alleged that you were employed by DEFRA. What we did was enquire of DEFRA whether you had ever answered incoming phone calls from members of the public on GM matters, and on what basis. We have it on record from a member of the public that when she rang DEFRA she was amazed that you were the man who answered the phone. Of course that has been denied by DEFRA -- we are not surprised! What we do know is that there was a cosy -- and improper - relationship for a number of years between DEFRA and the GM industry. For example, we know that Judith Jordan of Aventis and Graham Davis of DEFRA travelled to a meeting about two FSE sites in Mathry, Pembs, in the same car. Was that simply a noble attempt to save fuel? We doubt it.
"They need to read, mark and learn from the scientific literature rather than relying on media reports of other single-issue pressure groups."
What an arrogant and insulting statement! We venture to suggest
that
we read, mark and understand as much of the scientific literature as
you do, and that our contacts in the scientific community are rather
more likely to give us sound and independent advice as to the
significance of certain publications than are the paid employees of
Monsanto. It is certainly our impression that "single issue
pressure
groups" are often better informed on the science of GM than are
spokesmen such as yourself and even DEFRA civil servants -- and we take
it as read that NGOs are more likely to tell the truth. Their members
and science advisers are, after all, unpaid and concerned members of
the public. You and your colleagues are paid nice fat salaries to
say
what you are required to say, and the public knows perfectly well that
you will NEVER say anything which might negatively affect corporate
profits. It is also our conviction that Monsanto is perfectly capable
of hiding from public view any negative health affects revealed within
its own laboratories, and of lying through its teeth to protect itself.Finally, having come onto the discussion of scientific literature, may
we suggest that when you send off your little list of "wants" to
Father
Christmas this year, you ask him for a copy of "Biology of Nutrition
in
Growing Animals", ed Mosenthin et al (2005 -- only £145); Jeffrey
Smith's book "Seeds of deception"; the report entitled "Monsanto
v US
Farmers" from the Center for Food Safety; and a copy of Prof
David
Schubert's article called "Response to Bradford et al." That's
a
reasonable reading list to start with, and once you have coped with
those items we will be happy to suggest other essential items for your
Christmas reading.
We look forward to receiving our apology in the near future.
Yours sincerely,
Brian John
GM Free Cymru
(1) In 1998 Monsanto endeavoured to stop publication of the ground
breaking book 'Against The Grain: The Genetic Transformation of Global
Agriculture' by Dr Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey together with The
Ecologist special edition ' The Monsanto Files'. In the event 'Against
The Grain' was published by Common Courage Press in the US, then
Earthscan in the UK, whilst the ' The Monsanto Files' saw the light of
day from the presses of an alternative printer. Monsanto must be one
of the least popular corporations on the planet, and the number of
times it has been accused of lies, deception, bribery and other
misdemeanours by farmers, scientists and members of the public is a
challenge even for Google. A sample of web pages herewith, which
you
may not have seen:
http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=210
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=25&page=1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm
http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=15&page=1&op=1
=====================================================
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/1000farming/tm_objectid=16451552%26met
hod=full%26siteid=50082%26headline=%2dban%2dthese%2dgm%2dfoods%2dnow%2d-name_p
age.html#story_continue
Ban these GM foods now'
Dec 6 2005
Steve Dube, Western Mail
THREE new studies into the health effects of GM foods have triggered fresh demands for GM components in human food and animal feed to be banned immediately.
The first of the key studies, conducted by Russian scientist Irina Ermakova, shows that 55% of the offspring of rats fed on GM soya died within three weeks of birth, compared with only 9% in the control group.
The second, conducted by Manuela Malatesta and colleagues in the Universities of Pavia and Urbino in Italy, showed that mice fed on GM soya experienced a slowdown in cellular metabolism and modifications to liver and pancreas.
The third study, by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation CSIRO in Australia showed that the introduction of genes from
a bean
variety into a GM pea led to the creation of a novel protein which caused
inflammation of the lung tissue of mice.
The damage was so serious that the research was halted, and stocks of
the GM
pea have been destroyed. The developers have now promised that the variety
will never be marketed.
The three studies, which have all been published in scientific literature in the past few weeks, have caused widespread alarm because two of them suggest that GM soya - used in a large number of foods and cattle feed - might be dangerous.
The campaign group GM Free Cymru says the studies also appear to confirm the findings of Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Stanley Ewen, whose paper on physiological changes in rats fed on GM potatoes caused a sensation in 1999.
The authors were widely vilified and Dr Pusztai was sacked, his research team was dismantled, and his funding stopped following an alleged intervention from the Prime Minister's office.
The Ewen/Pusztai research has never been repeated to establish its
scientific veracity but Dr Brian John of GM Free Cymru, pictured, said
there was now
overwhelming evidence of deaths attributable to GM products among laboratory
and farm animals and in the human population.
In the most deadly case of all, the premature release of the GM food
supplement L-tryptophan in the USA led to a large number of human deaths - estimated
at more than 100 - and the development of a new disease, eosinophilia
myalgia syndrome, or EMS, which afflicted up to 10,000 people.
When StarLink maize, intended for animal fodder, found its way into the
US
human food chain in 2000, there was a massive food scare when it was realised
that it was capable of triggering severe allergic reactions. The crop
was
recalled, and $9m was paid out in compensation.
"We will never know how many GM varieties have been developed and
then
quietly abandoned before reaching the regulatory process as a result of
deaths or
physiological damage during animal feeding trials, since studies by Monsanto,
Syngenta and the other GM corporations are conducted in-house and under
conditions of great secrecy," said Dr John.
"But we do know of at least seven cases where GM varieties have been
withdrawn because of direct evidence of health damage, and there are many instances
of human and animal deaths arising from GM feeding trials and premature
release onto the market of GM products.
"Yet the GM industry, and the UK and EC regulators who are charged with the protection of the public, seem to live in a permanent state of denial."
He accused the European Commission of basing its decisions to approve GM crops on highly selective research carried out by the GM companies.
But he said the new studies showed that more research was needed into the health effects of eating genetically modified food.
"Neither the UK government nor the European Commission can pretend any longer that GM foods are harmless," he said.
"They must stop singing from the hymn-sheets provided for them by the GM industry, and recognise that they have a legal duty to protect residents and consumers.
"There must be no further GM consents, and GM foodstuffs must be banned immediately - at least until such time that independent research on animals and humans gives GM a clean bill of health."
Academic experts are backing their call for more research.
Professor Malcolm Hooper, Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry at the School of Sciences in the University of Sunderland, said genetic modification of food was not without danger to the consumer.
"They may be affected by genetic changes that subsequently lead to serious chronic illnesses such as cancer and chronic inflammatory disease," he said.
"Further independent studies, divorced from any influence of government or corporations, are now imperative and urgent."
Prof Vyvyan Howard is Professor of Bioimaging at the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Ulster.
He said, "We need to change the focus of the debate away from the limited studies that have been done to date onto the size of the irreversible legacy that we are probably going to leave for future generations."
Tony Combes is director of corporate affairs with GM company Monsanto
UK
Ltd.
He said it was impossible to draw meaningful conclusions from the first
two
studies without a full description of the methodology they used and a
full
review of their findings by other scientists.
And he said the CSIRO decision to halt research and destroy the GM pea that inflamed lung tissue in laboratory mice showed how the regulatory system was working exactly as intended.
Mr Combes said claims of fatalities and ill-health among people and cattle had been disproved.
"All of these allegations are just as false as GM Free Cymru's absurd allegation that I was once employed by Defra," said Mr Combes.
"They need to read, mark and learn from the scientific literature rather than relying on media reports of other single-issue pressure groups."