| | Newsweek Online Debate on Organic Versus Genetically Engineered Foods | |
by Organic Consumers Association - 6/5/2006
In May, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) coordinated a response to Lee Silver's anti-organic article published in Newsweek (May 20, 2006). While Newsweek did not publish our reply (which was submitted jointly on behalf of CFS, the Sierra Club, Organic Consumers Association, Food & Water Watch, Cornucopia Institute, and the Soil Association), they did invite us to debate Lee Silver in an online forum.
A referenced version of that debate (with a final, previously unpublished post) follows. In the debate, Silver denies that he has any bias, stating "I am not an advocate, with an agenda, trying to 'sell' something." In fact, Silver serves as a "scientific advisor" to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a Monsanto-funded anti-environmental advocacy group that is well-known for promoting biotechnology and perpetrating an anti-organic campaign using the same discredited arguments that form the basis of Silver's writing. More on Lee Silver, ACSH, and this campaign follows.
Dear Dr. Silver, In [your book] Remaking Eden, you praise human cloning and genetically engineered babies and describe an "inevitable" human future in which a wealthy, gene-enhanced master class is served by an inferior class of people born the old fashioned, natural way.[1] So it should be no surprise that you support animal cloning and gene tinkering in food production. Proponents of these risky, untested technologies have acknowledged that marketing such reproductive techniques in animals is a precursor to their use in humans,[2] but your piece cleverly hides your real agenda.
You also portray gene altered food as safe and environmentally friendly, even though scientists and doctors around the world say that these technologies could pose irreversible damage to the environment, and health threats in our food.[3] The so-called "enviropig" is your prime example of the ecological virtues of genetic technologies, but even the developers of this genetic experiment have acknowledged that their real aim is to give factory hog farms a way to skirt environmental laws by cramming even more animals into their already over-crowded operations.[4] Surely you know that concerns about environmental harm from such gene-spliced pigs were recently highlighted by the National Academy of Sciences,[5] but you don't really care about the environment. Your rhetoric is merely a shield to cover your true aim: selling cloning and genetic engineering as the final solution for human "progress." Fortunately, Americans are repulsed by your ideas on cloning and engineering life, and won't be fooled by your false promises.
Dear Mr. Margulis, You begin and end your commentary with a misrepresentation of my prior-decade writing on human biotechnology, which is completely unrelated to the current article. Like every organic pig farmer, I accept animal eugenics and humane slaughter to produce pig flesh for consumption by organic consumers. In contrast, I suspect that you and I are both strong supporters of the ideal of inalienable human rights to life and liberty. There's a difference between nuanced speculation and blind advocacy. The science fiction scenario in Remaking Eden was presented to stimulate discussion of the idea that inconsequential individual genetic choices might, over hundreds of years, "generate nightmares of a kind not previously imagined," and "give rise to a polarized humanity more horrific than Huxley's imagined Brave New World." (Direct quotes from my book.) Professorial musing, yes. Praise, no. Unlike Mr. Margolis, I am not an advocate, with an agenda, trying to "sell" something. I have no financial interests in any biotech or agricultural company. Rather, I am a scientifically-trained university professor who is genuinely fascinated by the irrational "organic" belief system. How can organic food be "chemical-free" when organic farmers use chemical pesticides like C21H28O3 and C23H22O6? Why become hysterical over a pig engineered with miniscule amounts of a non-allergenic protein that occurs naturally in normal human guts, when pig cholesterol and charcoal-cooking clearly cause significant health risks. And if someday, genetic modification produces allergy-free soy or peanuts, how will you be able to sleep at night knowing that your all-organic stance could cause serious, avoidable, child suffering?
Dear Dr. Silver, You have predicted that human cloning will occur in 10 years,[6] and that engineering babies will be common by 2025[7]. You have repeatedly stated that such developments are "inevitable,"[8] yet you now oddly characterize your views as mere "professorial musings."
You also have repeatedly stated that the wealthy, by engineering superior children, may create greater economic and social divisions between genetically "improved" haves and have-nots. And you defend this new eugenics than the "old eugenics" since it will not be controlled by the state but by individual parents who simply want "better" children. Amazingly, you then suggest that genetic inequities can be avoided only if a "benevolent" world government oversees dispersal of the technologies![9]
The "old" American eugenicists of the early 20th century also believed that their aims were benevolent. But many changed after seeing Nazis using these same eugenic arguments to justify murder of disabled people and millions of others they considered "inferior."[10] Now comes your new round of eugenic advocacy, coupled to new genetic technologies. Are we to let "scientifically trained" academics manage this benevolently re-engineered world?
Your latest piece is related, since cloning animals for designer foods serves as a testing ground for these technologies,[11] while condemning animals to cruel and unnecessary suffering.[12] You favor gene-altered crops that come coupled with the end of seed saving, threatening 1.4 billion people who need saved seed to avoid starvation.[13] Are you really asleep to this actual abuse and injustice?
Dear Mr. Margulis, You know perfectly well that my science-fiction scenario of a "severed humanity" has a "dateline" of 2350 and that I have never spoken about such a bleak outcome in positive terms. But genetic modification of human embryos has already been used to overcome a defect that would have caused certain preterm death. Sixteen healthy babies were born into 16 loving families before the FDA called a halt to the procedure. (You can read more about this in my book "Challenging Nature"). Would you have denied these grateful parents their children? If so, your ideology is more important than any concern for human rights. To my mind, no government should have a Nazi-like authority to control the reproductive choices of law-abiding citizens.
This debate is supposed to be about GM agriculture and organic food, not the future evolution, or nonevolution, of humankind. I stated clearly that the cost/benefit ratio of each GM application had to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some will be beneficial, some will not. In contrast, you seem to have absolute faith--in the absence of empirical data--that every use of GM technology will be harmful, while all "natural" organic methods of food production are intrinsically good. You have repeatedly refused to engage in any discussion of the actual science. Instead you rely on purposeful misrepresentation, name-calling and unsubstantiated claims from selected sources. Tell me, Mr. Margulis, if not science, where does your absolutist faith in Mother Nature come from?
Dear Dr. Silver,Unsubstantiated claims? Your entire argument rests on fantasy foods that are not yet produced, like non-allergenic genetically engineered (GE) soybeans.[14] You tout these as an example of the power of GE, but really they're an example of why GE is NOT needed, since non-allergenic soybeans have been developed naturally.[15]
You want to discuss GE foods. Ok, but let's stick to actual GE foods currently marketed:
You say that more productive GE food will help return land to nature. But three studies have found that the most widely grown GE crop in the world produces less food per acre than its natural counterpart.[16] Production of this GE crop is currently contributing to forest destruction in South America.[17]
You say that since all pesticides dissipate they can't pose health threats this is simply nonsense. Studies commonly find pesticides on food, often at levels that scientists say could cause health problems, especially for children.[18] GE soybeans promote severe weed problems, forcing farmers to use more chemicals and return to using cancer-causing pesticides.[19]
You say that since a gene produces an enzyme that is harmless in the human gut, it should be safe engineered into our food. But a "harmless" gene in beans, when engineered into peas, unexpectedly created a potentially serious health hazard.[20] GE foods are not tested for such unexpected effects.
Why haven't you responded to the fallacies I raised regarding the "enviropig," the food security threats from GE patents, or the animal cruelty issues inherent in cloning which directly relates this discussion to your human-breeding views?
Dear Mr. Margulis, There are two protocols for "developing" new agricultural traits. The "natural," "organic" method, unchanged, inefficient and followed blindly for thousands of years, is to wait for high-energy, cosmic gamma rays to blast apart the DNA in seeds and pray that a random mutation produces the desired trait.
The alternative approach taken by modern scientists is to begin with knowledge of an organism's genes, proteins and other molecules and use it to design a particular genetic modification likely to likely to elicit the desired trait. The design is implemented through surgical modification of single genes inside single cells (growing in a petri dish). If analysis confirms that the correct alteration has been made, modified cells are grown into whole organisms (which are subjected to stringent testing before they can be commercialized). To say this is fantasy, Mr. Margulis, is to show your ignorance of modern molecular biology.
Through what logic can you claim that predesigned genetic modifications are more dangerous than "natural" random, DNA mutations (not subjected to any safety testing). Actually, simple calculations indicate that, every year, hundreds of American children suffer severe allergic reactions to organic soy products. In contrast, not a single allergic reaction to any commercially available product of genetic modification has ever been demonstrated, even though 300 million North Americans have been eating GM food for more than a decade. (Your example was never commercialized.) By the way, here are a few of the carcinogenic chemicals in every cup of organic coffee that are more dangerous than currently used synthetic chemicals: acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzofuran, 1,2,5,6-dibenz(a)anthracene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, hydroquinone, d-limonene, 4-methylcatechol, styrene and toluene. But risk is meaningless in isolation.
Dear Dr. Silver,
As you know, GE hypoallergenic soybeans and enviropigs are not marketed many GE foods that you and other biotech proponents refer to are not even in existence. These foods are fantasies, or more precisely, they are public relations vehicles you use to avoid the reality that the currently marketed GE foods offer no benefits, but pose potentially severe risks.
The human experiment you referred to was not proven safe and could have severe risks.[21] You've said "It takes the mavericks, the maverick scientists and the people who have some guts to work with the maverick scientists and clinicians to bring [cloning and engineering humans] into the public domain."[22] You don't care about "choice" -- you want to give renegade clinics that have no regard for medical ethics or patient safety unfettered access to prey on desperate, infertile women for uncontrolled human experiments.
You've said, "I have great faith in biotechnology."[23] But your "faith" ignores evidence from a century disasters perpetrated by GE food corporations. Monsanto and other GE companies are among the worst polluters of the 20th century,[24] from their deadly pesticides and other cancer-causing pollutants. Often, these companies knew about these problems for decades - while they covered-up studies, fought regulation and mounted propaganda campaigns (often hiring "scientifically trained" academics as spokesmen)[25] to claim that their products were "scientific miracles."[26]
Now they're using these tactics to sell GE crops and cloned animals. For example, you serve on the Advisory Board of the American Council of Science & Health (ACSH),[27] an anti-environmental advocacy group that's funded by Monsanto and other polluters. Your anti-organic claims (which have been refuted elsewhere[28] ) are spouted repeatedly by other ACSH activists as part of a coordinated pro-biotech propaganda campaign.[29]
While I support responsible science, I'm happy to acknowledge that I advocate for strong regulations to protect the public and children's health from risky genetic technologies and unethical medical experimentation. Why do you hide your advocacy?
[1] Silver claims his work is merely "musings," and not praise or support of cloning. But in an interview with NPR (hear it at http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/980109.totn.01.ram), Silver stated "I don't see any problem having a [cloned] child born that is genetically identical to its motherSI don't understand what the ethical problem with that is." He also wrote in Time magazine (Lee M. Silver, "Can You Make My Kid Smarter? A Dispatch from the frontiers of 21st century genetics," Time, November 8, 1999) that ethical debates about human engineering have no basis and will eventually fade away. His suggestion that there are no valid ethical concerns about these technologies is tacit support. Indeed, proponents of human cloning also see Silver's book as praise for these technologies: the pro-cloning website humancloning.org describes Silver as a "supporter of human cloning" and says of Remaking Eden, "If you want to know how human cloning and its technology will benefit mankind, this book will explain it to you."
[2] Silver has said that animal testing will be essential to prove the safety of human cloning. For example, in a 1999 PBS/Frontline interview, Silver stated, "One should not use this [cloning] technology until they are convinced that it is safe and efficient, shown with the use of animals." When Silver was asked about his prediction that human cloning would occur in two years, he replied, "I don't think I said that ... I predicted that human cloning would be with us in 10 years and I still believe that is the caseS." In 1998, Silver told NPR (note 1), "I have great faith in biotechnologySfive to ten years down the road, I am quite confidant [cloning] will be feasible... [cloning] will become efficient and safeSand nobody is going to care the less about it in 10-20 years"; find the PBS/Frontline interview transcript online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fertility/interviews/silver.ht ml . Others agree that human cloning will inevitably follow cloning in animals: University of Missouri animal cloner Randall Prather told the Wall Street Journal that ""What has been developed for animals has always been applied to humans. I'm sure the [cloning] technology will spill over." See Antonio Regalado, "Cloned Livestock Mustn't Be Eaten Yet, FDA Warns," Wall St Journal, June 5, 2001. Earlier this year, Prather helped produce cloned, gene-altered "heart healthy" pigs, which were widely touted as showing the power of GE -- even though half of the "heart healthy" animals were euthanised when it was discovered that they suffered from fatal heart defects.
[3] There are many reviews of the environmental and health risks from GE crops, and dozens of studies on specific ecological and health risks (more than can possibly be cited here). For some reviews on environmental risks, see Margaret Mellon, The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996; M.A. Altieri, "The Ecological Impacts of Transgenic Crops on Agroecosystem Health." Ecosystem Health, Volume 6, Number 1, March 2000, pp. 13-23(11); L. L. Wolfenbarger1 and P. R. Phifer, "The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants." Science, vol 290, December 15, 2000; A. R. Watkinson, et.al., "Predictions of Biodiversity Response to Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Crops." Science, vol. 289, September 1, 2000; Charles Mann, "Biotech Goes Wild." MIT Technology Review, July/August 1999; Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
for reviews of health issues, see British Medical Association, "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health." May 1999; The Lancet, "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods," vol. 353, #9167, May 29, 1999; Royal Society of Canada, "Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the regulation of food biotechnology in Canada." Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada. February 2001, available at www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/indexEN.html http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/indexEN.html ; Marion Nestle, "Allergies to transgenic foods questions of policy." NEJnlMed, vol 334, #11, March 14, 1996; Patrice Courvalin, Transgenic Plants and Antibiotics. La Recherche 309, May 1998, pp. 36-40; David Schubert, "A Different Perspective on GM Food." Nature Biotechnology, vol 20, October 2002, p. 969; Millstone, E., et al. "Beyond 'substantial equivalence." Nature 401, 525-526, 1999; Jean Halloran and Michael Hansen, "Why We Need Labelling of Genetically Engineered Food." Consumers International, April 1998, online at http://www.consumersinternational.org/campaigns/biotech/whylabel.html http://www.consumersinternational.org/campaigns/biotech/whylabel.html ; Mark Lappé, et.al., "Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans." Journal of Medicinal Food, 1, 241-245, 1999.
[4] In Reuters, "And This Little Piggy Was Environmentally Friendly," June 24, 1999, online at http://www.genet-info.org/genet/1999/Jun/msg00051.html, "enviropig" developer John Phillips was cited stating:
OPork producers live under very stringent environmental regulations and can only raise so many hogs per hectare,' said John Phillips, a molecular biologist at Guelph University. If the phosphorous found in a pig's manure is reduced by 50 percent, then theoretically farmers can raise 50 percent more pigs and still meet environmental restrictions. In North America, Europe and in some parts of Asia, the only thing holding back a farmer's hog output is the restrictions on phosphorous leaching into the water table, Phillips said. OIn the Netherlands, the environmental limitations on the number of animals they can raise per hectare of land is just squeezing that industry,' he added.
[5] National Academy of Sciences, 2002. "Animal Biotechnology: Science Based Concerns." National Academies Press, p. 84, online at http://newton.nap.edu/openbook/0309084393/html/84.html http://newton.nap.edu/openbook/0309084393/html/84.html
[6] Ibid, Note 2.
[7] In 1999, Silver wrote (Time magazine, note 1) of a fertility clinic in the year 2024 offering genetically enhanced babies. Silver also told the Chicago tribune in 2001 that "Sby around 2010, parents will be able to genetically ensure their babies won't grow up to be fat or alcoholicS", see Sally Deneen, "A Genetic Glimpse: Ordering Designer Children Like Pairs of Shoes," Chicago Tribune, March 11, 2001.
[8] In addition to Remaking Eden (which was originally subtitled "How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family," not how they "might someday" transform it), Silver emphasizes the inevitability of cloning and human breeding in his NPR interview (note 2), saying "When human clones come along, and they will come along somedayS"; he has also repeated these statements in numerous public lectures over the past decade (personal communication with Jaydee Hanson and Richard Hayes).
[9] In addition to his "prior decade" Remaking Eden, Silver repeats his notions about genetic haves and have-nots in his 2003 "Evolution and the Future of Humankind" (at http://www.leemsilver.net/SilverArticles/02SilverEvolution.pdf ). In this, Silver describes the difference between the old and new eugenics (which he calls "reprogenetics"), stating that "While eugenics is controlled by the government, reprogenetics can be controlled at the level of individual prospective parentsS" He ends his essay by saying that "the only alternative" to a world in which genetic haves and have-nots divide horrifically is "a single world state in which all children are provided with the same genetic enhancementsS"
[10] Many excellent histories of American and Nazi scientific and medical abuses have outlined this history (one resource is the eugenics bibliography at http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/bio-ethics/bibliographylombard o.cfm http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/bio-ethics/bibliographylombar do.cfm ); some histories include Daniel Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, Harvard University Press, October 1995; Stefan Kuhl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, And German National Socialism, Oxford University Press, 1994; Diane B. Paul, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 To the Present, Humanity Books, December 1995; Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis, Harvard University Press, 1988; Jeremiah A. Barondess, "Care of the Medical Ethos: Reflections on Social Darwinism, Racial Hygiene, and the Holocaust." Annals of Internal Medicine, December 1, 1998, Volume 129, Issue 11, Part 1, pp. 891-898.
[11] Silver has stated, "One should not use this [cloning] technology until they are convinced that it is safe and efficient, shown with the use of animals." See Note 2, above.
[12] Numerous studies and statements by animal cloners acknowledge the often cruel and horrific defects in clones. Some common defects in clones are noted in Jorge Piedrahita, et.al., "Somatic Cell Cloning: The Ultimate Form of Nuclear Reprogramming?," J. Am. Soc. Nephrol 15:1140-1144, 2004. The study states that in animal clones:
"64% of cattle, 40% of sheep, and 93% of mice exhibit some form of abnormality. A large percentage of these animals die during gestation or shortly after birthSIn cattle [abnormalities] include large offspring syndrome, diabetes, pulmonary hypertension, dilated cardiomyopathy, internal hemorrhaging umbilical artery, viral infection, dystocia, kidney problems, leg malformations, pneumonia, heart defects, liver fibrosis, osteoporosis, joint defects, anemia, and placental abnormalities. In sheep, abnormalities include large offspring syndrome, arthritis, and kidney, liver, and brain defects. Mice exhibit obesity, large offspring syndrome, enlarged placentas, umbilical hernias, respiratory failure, and failure to foster pups. Goats and pigs exhibit relatively few abnormalities, but they include bacterial infections of the lungs (goats) and abnormal teat numbers, cleft lips, and malformed limbs (pigs).
Studies and reports that found clones to be inherently defective include Merritt McKinney, "Flawed genetic Omarking' seen in cloned animals," Reuters Health, May 29, 2001; Kang, et. al., "Aberrant methylation of donor genome in cloned bovine embryos," Nature Genetics 2001;28:173-177; Helen Altonn, "Cloning Isn't Safe, UH Researchers warn," Star Bulletin, July 6, 2001; Rick Weiss, "Clone Study Casts Doubt on Stem Cells," Washington Post, July 6, 2001; National Academy of Sciences, "Animal Biotechnology: Science Based Concerns," Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 66. Online at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084393/html/R1.html http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084393/html/R1.html ; "Duplicate Dinner," New Scientist, May 19, 2001; James Meek, "Tears of a clone," The Guardian (London), April 29 2002; Sharon Cohen, "Cloning May Be Key in Animal Copies," Associated Press, July 13, 2001; "The Use of Transgenic Animals in the European Union," The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 281,2, at http://altweb.jhsph.edu/science/pubs/ECVAM/ecvam28.htm http://altweb.jhsph.edu/science/pubs/ECVAM/ecvam28.htm ; Rick Weiss, "Human Cloning Bid Stirs Experts Anger, Washington Post, March 7, 2001.
[13] Genetic engineering corporations forbid farmers from saving seed from GE crops, and are developing GE seed sterilization technologies that make seed saving impossible. As the development organization Rural Advancement Foundation International (now ETC Group) stated, "Over 1.4 billion people depend upon saved-seed for their food securitySIn the developing world, 80% of all farmers rely on farm-saved seed as their primary seed source." See "RAFI Translator: Dead Seed Scroll?," October 23, 1998, online at http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=165 . Monsanto and other biotech companies aggressively pursue farmers who they suspect of "illegally" saving seed from GE crops, see "Monsanto vs U.S. Farmers" online at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm
[14] Proponents of GE food often refer to altered crops and animals in development as if they have actually been fully realized, tested for safety, and marketed. But in fact, 99% of the acreage of all the GE crops approved for commercial production today are in four foods soy, corn, canola and cotton (produced mainly for fiber, though some cottonseed oil is used in food) and in two GE varieties: herbicide tolerant crops and insect resistant varieties. None of these crops offer any benefits to consumers they are not less allergenic, tastier, healthier, or enhanced in any way. But, since they have not been assessed for long-term health effects, American consumers are bearing all the risks of these genetic experiments. And they cannot avoid these risks by eliminating GE foods from their diets, since in the U.S. these foods are not labeled.
[15] University of Illinois and USDA researches have developed two soy lines free from the protein implicated in most soy allergies, see http://www.allergizer.com/50226711/two_new_varieties_of_nonallergenic_soybea ns.php http://www.allergizer.com/50226711/two_new_varieties_of_nonallergenic_soybe ans.php
[16] Elmore et.al., 2001. "Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines," Agron J, 93: pp. 408-412 (finding a 5-10% yield drag in side-by-side trials comparing RR and related varieties of natural soy); Charles Benbrook, 2001. "Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success for Roundup Ready Soybeans: Glyphosate Efficacy is Slipping and Unstable Transgene Expression Erodes Plant Defenses and Yields," Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center, Sandpoint, ID, May 3, online at http://www.biotech-info.net/troubledtimes.html http://www.biotech-info.net/troubledtimes.html (finding a 4% yield drag in RR soy); Ron Eliason, 2004. "Stagnating National Bean Yields," presentation, Midwest Soybean Conference, Des Moines, IA, cited by Dan Sullivan, NewFarm.org, online at http://www.newfarm.org/features/0904/soybeans/index.shtml http://www.newfarm.org/features/0904/soybeans/index.shtml
[17] Miguel Altieri and Walter Pengue, "Genetically Engineered Soybeans: Latin America's New Colonizer." The Seedling, January 2006, online at http://www.grain.org/seedling/?type=63 http://www.grain.org/seedling/?type=63 . The authors note that "In Latin AmericaS[GE] soybean fields are taking over forests and savannah in an unprecedented mannerSwith the advent of herbicide tolerant [GE] soybean, many farmers now cultivate in highly erodible landsS.Large-scale soybean monocultures have rendered Amazonian soils unusable."
[18] For example, see Brian P. Baker, Charles M. Benbrook, Edward Groth III, and Karen Lutz Benbrook, "Pesticide residues in conventional, IPM-grown and organic foods: Insights from three U.S. data sets," Food Additives and Contaminants, Volume 19, No. 5, May 2002, pages 427-446, summary online at http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm ; also, the states of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts sued the EPA for exposing children through food to five pesticides that have not been assessed for safety on children. Documents from the lawsuit note that "According to the EPA's own data, each of the [five] targeted pesticides is found on food that is frequently consumed by children," and that "Pesticides can cause a range of health problems including damage to the nervous system, cancer, reproductive dysfunction, and damage to the immune and endocrine systems. Some of these health problems occur at lower doses in children than in adults." A follow-up lawsuit filed by NRDC and the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides is currently being heard in federal court. Sensitivity to pesticides may be much more acute for infants, see Clement Furlong, et.al., "PON1 status of farmworker mothers and children as a predictor of organophosphate sensitivity." Pharmacogenetics and Genomics. 2006, 16:183-190; also, "Report Card: Pesticides in Produce," Environmental Working Group, October 2003, online at http://www.foodnews.org/reportcard.php http://www.foodnews.org/reportcard.php ; "Case Study: Organochlorine Pesticides," Coming Clean, online at http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/cs_organochl.htm; also, see "Pesticides in Food: Latest Results," Friends of the Earth press release, November 12, 2002, online at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/20021112142301.html
[19] V.K. Nandula, et.al., 2005. "Glyphosate-resistant weeds: current status and future outlook." Outlooks on Pest Management 16: pp.183-187. The authors note, "In recent years, the intense use of glyphosate in [GE] crops has increased selection pressure to evolve natural resistance to glyphosate in several weed populations." In 2005, weed problems in GE crops forced Monsanto launch a new website, http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com, devoted entirely to advice for farmers facing uncontrollable weeds in their RR fields. Chemicals suggested for use with RR crops on the site or from other sources include paraquat (a chemical banned in much of Europe), 2,4-D (banned in five countries), alachlor (not approved or banned in much of Europe), and others, see "Monsanto and University of Missouri Investigate Case of Difficult To Control Waterhemp In Missouri," press release, Sept. 23, 2005 at http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com/layout/press_releases/09-23-05.asp Boyd Kidwell,"Ground Zero for the War on Resistant Weeds," 6/26/05, online on at http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com/layout/weed_management/wm_oi_ground_ zero.asp
Adrea Johnson, "Research Shows Value of Pre-Emergent Herbicide in Glyphosate Systems," July 7, 2005, Farm & ranch guide, online On Monsanto website at http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/05/10-03-05.asp Monsanto and University of Missouri Investigate Case of Difficult To Control Waterhemp In Missouri, Sept. 23, 2005 at http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com/layout/press_releases/09-23-05.asp
[20] Vanessa 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, pp. 9023-9030. Australian scientists took a gene from beans which they assumed would be safe engineered into peas, stating in a promotional film (produced by Australia Advances, available from CFS) that "one little gene" from beans would protect peas from an insect pest, and would be safe for people to eat because "we've been eating beans for a long time, and there's been a lot of research to show that this does not have any effect on our ability to digest starchS." But testing showed that in peas, the protein was modified (glycosylated) differently than in beans, provoking immune responses such as tissue swelling and respiratory inflammation in animals. Such tests are not conducted by biotech companies in the U.S. on GE crops intended for marketing and have not been conducted on currently marketed GE foods.
[21] Silver's remark about "16 healthy babies" is a reference to human experiments involving cytoplasmic (mitochondrial) transfer. Cytoplasmic transfer is considered experimental by scientists who have stated that "At present, in the absence of validation by proper cell culture experiments or detailed animal research, the application of such therapies [as cytoplasmic transfer] in humans is difficult to justify." (Rachel Levy, Kay Elder and Yves Menezo, "Cytoplasmic transfer in oocytes: biochemical aspects." Human Reproduction Update, Vol.10, No.3 pp.241-250, 2004, http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/3/24
1). Other scientists warn that "there are concerns about the safety of cytoplasmic transfer for future children" (R.G. Gosden, "The Role of Cytoplasmic Transfer." McGill University, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Poster at The First World Congress On: Controversies in Obstetrics, Gynecology & Infertility, Prague, Czech Republic 1999. http://www.obgyn.net/firstcontroversies/prague1999gosden.htm Interestingly, while here Silver attempts to equate the technology with cloning and GE, he has previously stated that the technologies are completely different: in his 1998 NPR interview (note 2), when asked about the possibility that mitochondrial DNA in cytoplasm would lead to genetic intermingling, Silver stated that cytoplasm transfer is completely different than cloning or engineering humans, because "mitochondria have nothing to with our phenotypesS.they essentially do not contribute anything to the kinds of phenotypes that we find interestingS."
[22] PBS/NOVA, "18 Ways to Make a Baby." Interview, October 9, 2001, transcript online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2811baby.html
[23] NPR interview, note 1.
[24] The history of pesticide/GE companies as major polluters has been widely documented (eg, in Dan Fagin & Marianne Lavelle, Toxic Deception, Common Courage Press; February 1999; Jed Greer & Kenny Bruno, Greenwash, Apex Press, 1996; "The Monsanto Files," The Ecologist, vol 28, number 5, September/October 1998; and many others). Monsanto is by far the world leader in producing GE crops, and has been cited as a major polluter by government and in numerous lawsuits. In just one example, the Washington Post reported how the company covered up decades of its pollution in Alabama (Michael Grunwald, "Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution -- PCBs Drenched Alabama Town, But No One Was Ever Told," Washington Post, Jan 1, 2002). Ultimately, an Alabama jury found the company guilty of the health damaging pollution, including convicting Monsanto on the rare charge of "outrage." Under Alabama law, conviction of outrage requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society." Other major GE crop developers include:
Dow, the pesticide and chemical company responsible for one of the world's worst-ever toxic disaster in Bhopal, India, in which an estimated 8,000 people died, and another 150,000 suffer from exposure related illnesses.
DuPont: the chemical and pesticide company was recently hit with the largest administrative fine in the history of the EPA for covering up decades of studies showing that a compound used to make the company's Teflon products may pose a substantial threat to human health.
Bayer: In 1999, ABC News reported that recently discovered documents linked Bayer to the Nazi experiments conducted at Auschwitz; amazingly, as recently as 2002 the company was involved in scandals around testing pesticides on human subjects without their consent (see http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0902/09.php)
Syngenta: formed by the merger of Novartis (which was formed by the merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz) and AstraZeneca's agro-divisions. Syngenta's legacy includes a cancer-cluster near the company's former plant in Toms River, NJ, development of some of the world's most dangerous pesticides, and a recent incident in which the company covered up evidence about potential safety risks from an unapproved GE crop it sold to American farmers for four years (see http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/syngenta32505.cfm)
[25] Two resources on corporate propaganda campaigns and corporation's use of "third-party" scientific proxies to sell their message are by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton: Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future. Penguin Group, 2002; and Toxic Sludge Is Good for You. Common Courage Press, 1995.
[26] Like DDT, nuclear power and a host of previous risky technologies, a promotion for Silver's new book describes new developments in biotechnology as "scientific miracles."
[27] Silver's bio lists his role as an "Advisory Board" member from 2000-present; the ACSH website lists Silver as a "Scientific Advisor."
[28] See, for example, Soil Association/Sustain, "Organic Farming: Myth and Reality," online at http://www.sustainweb.org/pdf/myth_real.pdf http://www.sustainweb.org/pdf/myth_real.pdf . Regarding Silver's oft-repeated claim that organic farming uses dangerous pesticides, the report notes that there are 450 pesticides available to conventional farmers, just six products with active pesticidal ingredients are permitted in organic growing and all six are also used in conventional farming, without the tight restrictions under which organic growers must abide. In response to ACSH Science Advisor Dennis Avery's similar attacks on organics (note 28), see Nancy Creamer, North Carolina State University, "Myth vs. reality: Avery's rhetoric meets the real world of organic." Organic Farm Research Foundation Information Bulletin, Number 10, Summer 2001, online at http://www.ofrf.org/publications/news/IB10.pdf
[29] Most famously, by fellow ACSH Advisory Board member Dennis Avery, who has repeatedly been exposed for lying about studies on organic food, most prominently by the New York Times -- see Marian Burros, "Anti-Organic, and Flawed," NY Times, February 17, 1999; ACSH Executive and Medical Director Gilbert Ross has also promoted the safety of pesticides in anti-organic statements to the Times, see Marian Burros, "Study Finds Far Less Pesticide Residue on Organic Produce," NY Times, May 8, 2002. Ross is most well-known for his conviction and imprisonment for Medicare fraud, in a case that, according to government documents, involved an "elaborate conspiracy" of running clinics that sold unneeded drugs to street addicts in order to use their medicare numbers for false billings. The clinics "engaged in practices that were medically indefensible...(and) lacked substantial medical equipment and were very dirty and unsanitary." Ross was convicted of racketeering, mail fraud, and criminal forfeiture, and found by the court to be "a highly untrustworthy individual." A review of the case from government documents is at http://www.hhs.gov/dab/decisions/cr-478.htm
Provided by Organic Consumers Association on 6/5/2006
|
|
|
Popular & Related Products
Popular & Featured Events
Dimensions of Wellness
|
|