GENTECH archive

[Index][Thread]

None




Message-ID: <019d01be58b5$b9378160$52a732ca@user>
From: "Clive Elwell" <jevans@thenet.co.nz>
To: "Rick Roush" <rroush@waite.adelaide.edu.au>
Cc: <gentech@gen.free.de>
Subject: Re: Dr. Arpad Pusztai, archive 731
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:28:45 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0194_01BE5921.C906A000"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0518.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0518.4

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0194_01BE5921.C906A000
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Again, whether pusztai made a mistake previously is not the issue now.=20
When you write:
"because BOTH transgenic and mixing experiments showed a problem, "
this is in contradiction to all the accounts i am receiving from the UK.
Here is an example:


Urgent Press briefing re: Dr. Arpad Pusztai=20
For more information please contact Luke Anderson on: 07957 188621

The intention of this briefing is to clarify some of the key points =
which are
being overlooked in the discussions centred on the research of Dr. Arpad
Pusztai:

1. Jack Cunningham has repeatedly said that =93It is simply not sensible =
to
conclude that if a laboratory experiment with a known toxin added caused =

damage to rats, that all other GM potatoes are therefore unsafe.=94 He =
has
clearly not looked at the science, nor it seems have many of the other
so-called experts who have repeated the same argument. The potatoes =
which had
the snowdrop lectin (GNA) added to them did not affect the rats in the =
same
way
as the potatoes genetically engineered with the snowdrop lectin even
though the
lectin was present in equal concentrations in both. This points to the =
process
of genetic engineering itself.=20

2. The snowdrop lectin was used precisely because it was not thought to =
be
toxic to mammalian systems. Dr. Pusztai, the world authority on lectins, =
had
been working with the snowdrop lectin for seven years and had high hopes =
for
its potential use in food crops. Indeed, the snowdrop lectin has been
genetically engineered into a number of crops with a view to =
commercialisation
(e.g. rice and oilseed rape). Cabbages genetically engineered with this =
lectin
are being grown in trials this year in Holland.=20

3. Unlike the snowdrop lectin, ConA (the lectin taken from the Jackbean) =
is
known to be toxic to mammalian systems. For this reason it was never =
seriously
considered by Dr. Pusztai for use in food crops. This was a source of =
much
confusion last August when the Rowett Institute told the press that =
these
experiments had involved potatoes genetically engineered with the =
jackbean
lectin. Dr. Pusztai never suggested that he was using potatoes =
genetically
engineered with this lectin. Potatoes which had the jackbean lectin =
added were
used in the experiments to test the responsiveness of the immune system
precisely because, being toxic, they stimulate it. Nor did Dr. Pusztai =
accept
that he was muddled or confused about the experiments. This is backed by =
the
twenty one distinguished scientists from twelve countries who looked in =
detail
at the data. The reason that Dr. Pusztai was not able to clear up this
confusion at the time was that he was sacked and threatened with legal =
action
if he spoke out.

4. Lectins are used in genetically engineered food that we are eating in
the UK
right now. Many crops, such as maize for example, have been genetically
engineered with the Bt toxin, now understood to be a form of lectin.
Genetically engineered Bt crops were grown last year on 7.7 million =
hectares
worldwide (mostly in the US). We are eating this Bt maize in the UK, and =
it
has
not been tested to see if it has similar effects. In fact, talk as it =
might
about the long regulatory process that GM products need to go through =
before
they are approved, the government does not at present require that GM =
foods
undergo thorough feed trials.

5. This is based on a concept called =91substantial equivalence=92, =
which
effectively means that if a GM product is seen to be grossly similar to =
a
non-GM product, it does not need to be thoroughly tested (on the =
assumption
that it we be no more dangerous than its non GM equivalent). The GM =
potatoes
that were being tested by Pusztai were declared by the Rowett Institute =
to be
substantially equivalent therefore by the government=92s own criteria =
they
would
not have been subject to the long-term trials carried out by Pusztai and =
his
team. The effect on the mammalian system would not therefore have been
discovered within the present regulatory framework.

6. Cunningham has also said that =93The scientists who spoke out have =
not as
yet
provided any evidence to our advisory groups, to our scientists. They =
have
been
asked for it now for some considerable time. As soon as they do make =
their
findings available to us of course we shall examine them quickly and
comprehensively.=94 This is not true. The scientists have not been asked =
by the
government to provide information this information is publicly available =
now
and the Scottish Office were given the report in October. The government =
has
had access to this information for months.

7. Dr. Pusztai is an internationally renowned expert in the field of =
lectin
research. He has published 280 scientific papers and written 3 books. If
he, in
an institute funded by taxpayers=92 money, can have his reputation =
destroyed,
his
research suppressed, and be gagged under the BBSRC code which applies to =
all
publicly funded research scientists in the country, what message does =
this
give
to other scientists who may have controversial findings?

Comments from letters written to Dr. Pusztai in response to reading the
official Audit report made by the Rowett Research Institute and the
Alternative
report written by Pusztai himself, as the coordinator of the research =
team:

=93 I find Dr. Pusztai=92s conclusions to be entirely consistent with =
the data
presented in his alternative report. I find it deeply regretful that Dr.
Pusztai=92s conclusions were not presented by the Director of the Rowett
Research
Institute to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science And =
Technology
as a
minority report presenting evidence that there are grounds for concern =
in the
use of genetically engineered foods and a need for further research into =
their
effects on mammals. I regret that there has been no attempt by the =
Rowett
Research Institute to reestablish Dr.Pusztai=92s high scientific =
credentials
with
the media after the damage done to him by the Director in reporting =
publicly
that Dr. Pusztai was responsible for producing confusion and muddle =
about the
results and implications, a charge later withdrawn. This is the most =
serious
damage that any scientist can suffer and it requires rectification.=94

Professor Brian Goodwin, scholar in residence, Schumacher College

=93I believe that the results obtained indicate major potential problems =
that
could amount to adverse affects tantamount to food hazard. The audit =
report
seriously underplays the hazards revealed by these experiments and =
diverts the
testing of food safety to unspecified regulatory procedures. Great =
potential
risk has been highlighted. Simple toxicity experiments would not have
revealed
these dangers. Urgent attention must be given to demonstrating that the =
vector
used (in all GE food currently available in the UK) does not cause =
analagous
structural changes within the mammalian gut. Careful study of this =
report
leads
me to conclude that essential data concerning organ weights have been
withheld.
The missing data on organ weights does raise the possibility of =
deliberate
cover-up by the persons collating the (audit) report data.=94

Dr. Stanley Ewen, consultant histopathologist at the University of =
Aberdeen
Medical School

=93Caution in developing robust and exhaustive hazard assessments for
potentially
irreversible changes to staple constituents of the human food chain is
essential. The final opinion of the audit committee that =91The existing =
data
does not support any suggestion that the consumption by rats of =
transgenic
potatoes expressing GNA has an effect on growth organ development or =
immune
function=92 is surprising. A major problem with the (audit) report is =
that the
authors have been selective with the data they have included, which =
makes an
objective appraisal of their conclusions impossible from solely reading =
the
audit report. I have the impression from reading the audit report that =
it was
hastily compiled and systematically biased towards brushing aside your
experimental findings. I feel that it is urgent that the full data from =
these
experiments should be brought into the public arena and debated. The =
sequelae
of your findings are of considerable importance in the current debate on =
the
safety and hazard assessment of genetically modified foods.=94

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, Head of Research in Fetal and Infant Toxico-Pathology =
at
the
University of Liverpool

You also write, Rick:
"because the current assessment process looks at the transgenic product =
anyway"
What do you mean by "looks at"?

Clive Elwell





-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Roush <rroush@waite.adelaide.edu.au>
To: Clive Elwell <jevans@thenet.co.nz>
Cc: <gentech@gen.free.de>
Date: Monday, 15 February 1999 21:05
Subject: Re: Dr. Arpad Pusztai, archive 731


  No, Clive, I believe that you are incorrect on the facts here. I went =
back to my notes from emails last August to check my recollections (see =
example below). Without doubt, Dr Pusztai said then that the lectin was =
harmful. The problem was apparently that he had said that the GE =
potatoes were at fault, when in fact he had inadvertantly looked at data =
in which the lectin was mixed into the food.
 =20
  This example does not undermine the assessment process, both because =
BOTH transgenic and mixing experiments showed a problem, and because the =
current assessment process looks at the transgenic product anyway, at =
least for the cases of insect resistant plants with which I am familiar.
 =20
  Rick=20
 =20
 =20
 =20
  > Surely Dr Pusztai's findings showed that this lectin becomes harmful =
when
  >it is
  >transferred by GM into the potato. This was shown in feeding trials =
with
  >rats which suffered severe organ damage, even brain damage - a =
finding that
  >has now been confirmed by a senior pathologist. However, the lectin =
is NOT
  >harmful when mixed with normal potato and fed to the rats. This =
indicates
  >that
  >it is the MODIFICATION ITSELF which is the problem, which is why this
  >research
  >is so explosive as it undermines the whole basis on which GM foods =
have been
  >assessed to date.
  >Whether this particular lectin is in use or not seems to me to be
  >immaterial, as far as what Dr Pusztai's research points to.
  >
  >Clive Elwell
 =20
 =20
 =20
  As the BBC called it=20
  BBC Wednesday, August 12, 1998 Published at 15:42 GMT 16:42 UK
 =20
  Genetics scientist suspended
 =20
  Dr Arpad Pusztai will now retire
  BBC Science Correspondent James Wilkinson reports
 =20
  The scientist at the
  centre of controversial claims over the risks of eating
  genetically-modified (GM) food has been suspended.
 =20
  Dr Arpad Pusztai claimed research on rats fed with genetically
  modified potatoes had suffered immune damage.
 =20
  He had gone on the ITV World In Action programme to raise questions
  about the safety of GM food in the human diet on the basis of the
  study.
 =20
  But his employers, the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, said the
  scientist had got into a "muddle" and had provided misleading
  information.
 =20
 =20
  Professor Phillip James, Director of the Aberdeen-based Rowett
  Research Institute, said Dr Arpad Pusztai had been interpreting the
  wrong data.
 =20
  "Dr Arpad Pusztai had got
  himself, under the intense pressure of media interest and huge complex
  experiments, into a state where he actually thought he was looking at
  the transgenic study when he was not."
 =20
  Professor James described the mistake as tragic. "He went too fast,
  too early."
 =20
  Dr Arpad Pusztai will now retire. In a statement, the Rowett said he
  would not in future have responsibility for institute, UK or European
  studies into GM food.=20

------=_NextPart_000_0194_01BE5921.C906A000
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 5.00.0518.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Again, whether pusztai made a =
mistake previously=20
is not the issue now. </FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>When you write:</FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><EM>&quot;because BOTH transgenic =
and mixing=20
experiments showed a problem, &quot;</EM></FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>this is in contradiction to all the =
accounts i=20
am receiving from the UK</FONT>.</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D3>Here is an=20
example:</FONT></FONT><EM></EM></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT =
size=3D3><EM></FONT></FONT></EM>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D3><EM><BR>Urgent Press =
briefing re: Dr.=20
Arpad Pusztai <BR>For more information please contact Luke Anderson on: =
07957=20
188621<BR><BR>The intention of this briefing is to clarify some of the =
key=20
points which are<BR>being overlooked in the discussions centred on the =
research=20
of Dr. Arpad<BR>Pusztai:<BR><BR>1. Jack Cunningham has repeatedly said =
that=20
&ldquo;It is simply not sensible to<BR>conclude that if a laboratory =
experiment=20
with a known toxin added caused <BR>damage to rats, that all other GM =
potatoes=20
are therefore unsafe.&rdquo; He has<BR>clearly not looked at the =
science, nor it=20
seems have many of the other<BR>so-called experts who have repeated the =
same=20
argument. The potatoes which had<BR>the snowdrop lectin (GNA) added to =
them did=20
not affect the rats in the same<BR>way<BR>as the potatoes genetically =
engineered=20
with the snowdrop lectin even<BR>though the<BR>lectin was present in =
equal=20
concentrations in both. This points to the process<BR>of genetic =
engineering=20
itself. <BR><BR>2. The snowdrop lectin was used precisely because it was =
not=20
thought to be<BR>toxic to mammalian systems. Dr. Pusztai, the world =
authority on=20
lectins, had<BR>been working with the snowdrop lectin for seven years =
and had=20
high hopes for<BR>its potential use in food crops. Indeed, the snowdrop =
lectin=20
has been<BR>genetically engineered into a number of crops with a view to =

commercialisation<BR>(e.g. rice and oilseed rape). Cabbages genetically=20
engineered with this lectin<BR>are being grown in trials this year in =
Holland.=20
<BR><BR>3. Unlike the snowdrop lectin, ConA (the lectin taken from the =
Jackbean)=20
is<BR>known to be toxic to mammalian systems. For this reason it was =
never=20
seriously<BR>considered by Dr. Pusztai for use in food crops. This was a =
source=20
of much<BR>confusion last August when the Rowett Institute told the =
press that=20
these<BR>experiments had involved potatoes genetically engineered with =
the=20
jackbean<BR>lectin. Dr. Pusztai never suggested that he was using =
potatoes=20
genetically<BR>engineered with this lectin. Potatoes which had the =
jackbean=20
lectin added were<BR>used in the experiments to test the responsiveness =
of the=20
immune system<BR>precisely because, being toxic, they stimulate it. Nor =
did Dr.=20
Pusztai accept<BR>that he was muddled or confused about the experiments. =
This is=20
backed by the<BR>twenty one distinguished scientists from twelve =
countries who=20
looked in detail<BR>at the data. The reason that Dr. Pusztai was not =
able to=20
clear up this<BR>confusion at the time was that he was sacked and =
threatened=20
with legal action<BR>if he spoke out.<BR><BR>4. Lectins are used in =
genetically=20
engineered food that we are eating in<BR>the UK<BR>right now. Many =
crops, such=20
as maize for example, have been genetically<BR>engineered with the Bt =
toxin, now=20
understood to be a form of lectin.<BR>Genetically engineered Bt crops =
were grown=20
last year on 7.7 million hectares<BR>worldwide (mostly in the US). We =
are eating=20
this Bt maize in the UK, and it<BR>has<BR>not been tested to see if it =
has=20
similar effects. In fact, talk as it might<BR>about the long regulatory =
process=20
that GM products need to go through before<BR>they are approved, the =
government=20
does not at present require that GM foods<BR>undergo thorough feed=20
trials.<BR><BR>5. This is based on a concept called &lsquo;substantial=20
equivalence&rsquo;, which<BR>effectively means that if a GM product is =
seen to=20
be grossly similar to a<BR>non-GM product, it does not need to be =
thoroughly=20
tested (on the assumption<BR>that it we be no more dangerous than its =
non GM=20
equivalent). The GM potatoes<BR>that were being tested by Pusztai were =
declared=20
by the Rowett Institute to be<BR>substantially equivalent therefore by =
the=20
government&rsquo;s own criteria they<BR>would<BR>not have been subject =
to the=20
long-term trials carried out by Pusztai and his<BR>team. The effect on =
the=20
mammalian system would not therefore have been<BR>discovered within the =
present=20
regulatory framework.<BR><BR>6. Cunningham has also said that &ldquo;The =

scientists who spoke out have not as<BR>yet<BR>provided any evidence to =
our=20
advisory groups, to our scientists. They have<BR>been<BR>asked for it =
now for=20
some considerable time. As soon as they do make their<BR>findings =
available to=20
us of course we shall examine them quickly =
and<BR>comprehensively.&rdquo; This=20
is not true. The scientists have not been asked by the<BR>government to =
provide=20
information this information is publicly available now<BR>and the =
Scottish=20
Office were given the report in October. The government has<BR>had =
access to=20
this information for months.<BR><BR>7. Dr. Pusztai is an internationally =

renowned expert in the field of lectin<BR>research. He has published 280 =

scientific papers and written 3 books. If<BR>he, in<BR>an institute =
funded by=20
taxpayers&rsquo; money, can have his reputation =
destroyed,<BR>his<BR>research=20
suppressed, and be gagged under the BBSRC code which applies to =
all<BR>publicly=20
funded research scientists in the country, what message does =
this<BR>give<BR>to=20
other scientists who may have controversial findings?<BR><BR>Comments =
from=20
letters written to Dr. Pusztai in response to reading the<BR>official =
Audit=20
report made by the Rowett Research Institute and =
the<BR>Alternative<BR>report=20
written by Pusztai himself, as the coordinator of the research=20
team:<BR><BR>&ldquo; I find Dr. Pusztai&rsquo;s conclusions to be =
entirely=20
consistent with the data<BR>presented in his alternative report. I find =
it=20
deeply regretful that Dr.<BR>Pusztai&rsquo;s conclusions were not =
presented by=20
the Director of the Rowett<BR>Research<BR>Institute to the House of =
Lords Select=20
Committee on Science And Technology<BR>as a<BR>minority report =
presenting=20
evidence that there are grounds for concern in the<BR>use of genetically =

engineered foods and a need for further research into their<BR>effects =
on=20
mammals. I regret that there has been no attempt by the =
Rowett<BR>Research=20
Institute to reestablish Dr.Pusztai&rsquo;s high scientific=20
credentials<BR>with<BR>the media after the damage done to him by the =
Director in=20
reporting publicly<BR>that Dr. Pusztai was responsible for producing =
confusion=20
and muddle about the<BR>results and implications, a charge later =
withdrawn. This=20
is the most serious<BR>damage that any scientist can suffer and it =
requires=20
rectification.&rdquo;<BR><BR>Professor Brian Goodwin, scholar in =
residence,=20
Schumacher College<BR><BR>&ldquo;I believe that the results obtained =
indicate=20
major potential problems that<BR>could amount to adverse affects =
tantamount to=20
food hazard. The audit report<BR>seriously underplays the hazards =
revealed by=20
these experiments and diverts the<BR>testing of food safety to =
unspecified=20
regulatory procedures. Great potential<BR>risk has been highlighted. =
Simple=20
toxicity experiments would not have<BR>revealed<BR>these dangers. Urgent =

attention must be given to demonstrating that the vector<BR>used (in all =
GE food=20
currently available in the UK) does not cause analagous<BR>structural =
changes=20
within the mammalian gut. Careful study of this report<BR>leads<BR>me to =

conclude that essential data concerning organ weights have=20
been<BR>withheld.<BR>The missing data on organ weights does raise the=20
possibility of deliberate<BR>cover-up by the persons collating the =
(audit)=20
report data.&rdquo;<BR><BR>Dr. Stanley Ewen, consultant histopathologist =
at the=20
University of Aberdeen<BR>Medical School<BR><BR>&ldquo;Caution in =
developing=20
robust and exhaustive hazard assessments =
for<BR>potentially<BR>irreversible=20
changes to staple constituents of the human food chain is<BR>essential. =
The=20
final opinion of the audit committee that &lsquo;The existing =
data<BR>does not=20
support any suggestion that the consumption by rats of =
transgenic<BR>potatoes=20
expressing GNA has an effect on growth organ development or=20
immune<BR>function&rsquo; is surprising. A major problem with the =
(audit) report=20
is that the<BR>authors have been selective with the data they have =
included,=20
which makes an<BR>objective appraisal of their conclusions impossible =
from=20
solely reading the<BR>audit report. I have the impression from reading =
the audit=20
report that it was<BR>hastily compiled and systematically biased towards =

brushing aside your<BR>experimental findings. I feel that it is urgent =
that the=20
full data from these<BR>experiments should be brought into the public =
arena and=20
debated. The sequelae<BR>of your findings are of considerable importance =
in the=20
current debate on the<BR>safety and hazard assessment of genetically =
modified=20
foods.&rdquo;<BR><BR>Dr. Vyvyan Howard, Head of Research in Fetal and =
Infant=20
Toxico-Pathology at<BR>the<BR>University of =
Liverpool</EM></FONT></FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT =
size=3D3><EM></EM></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D3>You also write,=20
Rick:</FONT></FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D3>&quot;<EM>because the =
current=20
assessment process looks at the transgenic product=20
anyway&quot;</FONT></FONT></EM></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D3>What do you mean by =
&quot;looks=20
at&quot;?</FONT></FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT =
size=3D3></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D3>Clive=20
Elwell<BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT =
size=3D3></FONT><B></B></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><B>-----Original =
Message-----</B><BR><B>From:=20
</B>Rick Roush &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:rroush@waite.adelaide.edu.au">rroush@waite.adelaide.edu.au=
</A>&gt;<BR><B>To:=20
</B>Clive Elwell &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:jevans@thenet.co.nz">jevans@thenet.co.nz</A>&gt;<BR><B>Cc:=
=20
</B>&lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:gentech@gen.free.de">gentech@gen.free.de</A>&gt;<BR><B>Dat=
e:=20
</B>Monday, 15 February 1999 21:05<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: Dr. Arpad =
Pusztai,=20
archive 731<BR><BR></DIV>

<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px"></FONT>No,=20
  Clive, I believe that you are incorrect on the facts here. I went back =
to my=20
  notes from emails last August to check my recollections (see example =
below).=20
  Without doubt, Dr Pusztai said then that the lectin was harmful. The =
problem=20
  was apparently that he had said that the GE potatoes were at fault, =
when in=20
  fact he had inadvertantly looked at data in which the lectin was mixed =
into=20
  the food.<BR><BR>This example does not undermine the assessment =
process, both=20
  because BOTH transgenic and mixing experiments showed a problem, and =
because=20
  the current assessment process looks at the transgenic product anyway, =
at=20
  least for the cases of insect resistant plants with which I am=20
  familiar.<BR><BR>Rick <BR><BR><BR><BR>&gt; Surely Dr Pusztai's =
findings showed=20
  that this lectin becomes harmful when<BR>&gt;it is<BR>&gt;transferred =
by GM=20
  into the potato. This was shown in feeding trials with<BR>&gt;rats =
which=20
  suffered severe organ damage, even brain damage - a finding =
that<BR>&gt;has=20
  now been confirmed by a senior pathologist. However, the lectin is=20
  NOT<BR>&gt;harmful when mixed with normal potato and fed to the rats. =
This=20
  indicates<BR>&gt;that<BR>&gt;it is the MODIFICATION ITSELF which is =
the=20
  problem, which is why this<BR>&gt;research<BR>&gt;is so explosive as =
it=20
  undermines the whole basis on which GM foods have been<BR>&gt;assessed =
to=20
  date.<BR>&gt;Whether this particular lectin is in use or not seems to =
me to=20
  be<BR>&gt;immaterial, as far as what Dr Pusztai's research points=20
  to.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Clive Elwell<BR><BR><BR><BR><B><?fontfamily><?param =
Times><?bigger><?bigger>As the=20
  BBC called it =
<BR><?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily></B><?fontfamily><?param =
Times><?bigger><?bigger>BBC=20
  Wednesday, August 12, 1998 Published at 15:42 GMT 16:42 =
UK<BR><BR>Genetics=20
  scientist suspended<BR><BR>Dr Arpad Pusztai will now retire<BR>BBC =
Science=20
  Correspondent James Wilkinson reports<BR><BR>The scientist at =
the<BR>centre of=20
  controversial claims over the risks of eating<BR>genetically-modified =
(GM)=20
  food has been suspended.<BR><BR>Dr Arpad Pusztai claimed research on =
rats fed=20
  with genetically<BR>modified potatoes had suffered immune =
damage.<BR><BR>He=20
  had gone on the ITV World In Action programme to raise =
questions<BR>about the=20
  safety of GM food in the human diet on the basis of =
the<BR>study.<BR><BR>But=20
  his employers, the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, said=20
  the<BR>scientist had got into a &quot;muddle&quot; and had provided=20
  misleading<BR>information.<BR><BR><BR>Professor Phillip James, =
Director of the=20
  Aberdeen-based Rowett<BR>Research Institute, said Dr Arpad Pusztai had =
been=20
  interpreting the<BR>wrong data.<BR><BR>&quot;Dr Arpad Pusztai had=20
  got<BR>himself, under the intense pressure of media interest and huge=20
  complex<BR>experiments, into a state where he actually thought he was =
looking=20
  at<BR>the transgenic study when he was not.&quot;<BR><BR>Professor =
James=20
  described the mistake as tragic. &quot;He went too fast,<BR>too=20
  early.&quot;<BR><BR>Dr Arpad Pusztai will now retire. In a statement, =
the=20
  Rowett said he<BR>would not in future have responsibility for =
institute, UK or=20
  European<BR>studies into GM food.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily>=20
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0194_01BE5921.C906A000--