Re: reply to archive 1112
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: reply to archive 1112
- From: NinaLynn@aol.com
- Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 06:42:07 EDT
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
For me, the important point here is that Dr. Pusztai did his study because he
was unable to find even one independent, peer-reviewed scientific publication
demonstrating the safety of even one genetically engineered food crop on the
basis of a feeding study.
Since then, another expert reported the same thing to me: that there has been
no such study that he is aware of.
I have seen numerous people malign the supposedly "bad science" of Dr.
Pusztai, yet when I have asked them to cite me one independent, peer-reviewed
scientific publication demonstrating the safety of even one genetically
engineered food crop on the basis of a feeding study, they have failed to do
I encourage anyone who knows of such a study to cite one here. I would
appreciate being disproved on this issue. Let us remember, of course, that
the burden of proof lies on the people who seek to introduce these products
to prove them safe, not on the public to prove them dangerous while they are
already on the supermarket shelves.
And, of course, ~independent~ means not sponsored by a biotechnology company
and also independent of governmental regulatory agencies, whose agents are
frequently recruited from the biotechnology industry. I have posted this
request before and gotten back a Monsanto-sponsored study and a statement of
-- Nina Moliver
In a message dated 5/12/1999 11:02:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< I highly object to the suggestion that Dr. Pusztai proved himself unworthy.
If anybody proved himself unworthy it is Prof James, Pusztai's boss. If any
proved themselves unworhy, it is those idiots who attacked Pusztai on the
that his srudy was not peer-reviewed and published. If anybody proves himself
unworthy it is people who suggest that NO ONE in industry wants to release
with lectins, whereas the field trials with "lectin-plants" are happening for
I would like to know which way of safety testing the proponents have in mind?
Rick Roush wrote:
> I found this message of 3 May while looking back for one of your other
> messages. EVERYONE trusted Pusztai until he made a large mistake, not just
> in coming up with results that someone didn't like, but because he
> misrepresented them. I also trust people until they prove themselves
> unworthy. Even the rest of his team has disavowed him. So far as I am
> aware, NO ONE in industry wants to release plants with lectins. I
> understood that this was a project under study by UK government scientists.
> Arguing that no amount of tests can ever provide enough answers allows no
> compromises and will clearly satisfy only the opponents of transgenic
> >...... First, Dr.
> >Pusztai was someone who was trusted by industry, until he came with
> >results that
> >were not so much appreciated, to say it mildly. For years, industry has
> >used Dr.
> >Pusztai's studies in order to get permission for field trials with
> >lectins. I think that industry still has to make a major apology to Dr.
> >Dr. Pusztai and his team would be one of the few teams that have the
> >expertise and credibility to perform such research, as far as I am
> >Second: it will be very difficult to establish what exactly would be
> >required to
> >have testing that would be acknowledged by both sides. I know that
> >suggestions are
> >made to test GE food as thoroughly as medicines. I object to this since
> >exactly in the field of medicines where after thorough testing almost
> >always side
> >effects in certain groups of people (or animals) show up.
> >Third: it may remain doubtful that all possible effects can ever be
> >determined, no
> >matter how many tests are being performed.