Re: PROOF THAT GENETIC ENGINEERING IS DANGEROUS

["steef van duin" <greenserver@hetnet.nl>]

Dear Robert,

With growing interest I followed the discussion between you and Heine. I
have a few questions for you. Please give me  more info on the by Monsanto
inspired CLINTON-legislation and the way it works out in your part of the
world (1) and (2) the -let's call it - machinations by which this
legislation was put through and in which states.

Maybe you can enlighten me on these (and possibly other)  points, of which I
read many months ago something in The Guardian/The Observer (UK).

My background: I am an economic-historian/ and some of a philosopher.  I am
interested in the way technical inventions work out in society: who gets the
best out of it and who doesn't  (utilitarian versus egalitarian) and what is
'worked under the table' by profit-maximizing processes of multinationals
like Monsanto. I made (in my own language: Dutch) over years some critical
analyses of the way multinationals are manipulating the worldmarketprices of
food corn/wheat and  their ways of 'making' their political influence.

In your case you can disappear for fifteen years in the can, I understood of
your message to Heine. Another  example of (in my eyes rejectable)
manipulation and corruption of democratic processes: the reason for my
questioning.

Steef van Duin



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Robert Cohen <notmilkman@notmilk.com>
Aan: Heine J. Deelstra <h.j.deelstra@bioledu.rug.nl>
CC: gentech@gen.free.de <gentech@gen.free.de>
Datum: zondag 24 oktober 1999 0:23
Onderwerp: Re: PROOF THAT GENETIC ENGINEERING IS DANGEROUS


>Heine J. Deelstra wrote:
>Yes, but do you know of any evidence that the epsilon-N-acetyllysine in
>rBGH caused an increase in IGF-1 in milk?
>
>Dear Heine,
>
>You can play this game forever, and of course, my friend, there is
>really no scientific proof of anything.  Don't even attempt to play the
>devil's advocate with me on this one.
>
>In order to prove that rbGH was safe, FDA pulished the LANDMARK synpsis
>of bGH research in the August 24, 1990 issue of the journal SCIENCE.
>(Juskevich and Guyer).
>
>I that study, Monsanto and FDA went to great lengths to state that the
>only difference between rbGH and bGH was in the N-terminus (amio acid
>#191 became methionine).
>
>In citing Jerome Moore (Journal of Edocrinology study), the FDA
>scientists explained that a different amino acid in the middle of a
>protein chain would be disasterous, and means for non-approval.  Such
>errors occurred in diabetes and Alzheimers and sickle cell anemia.
>
>Little did they suspect that there was an error in the #144 position.
>
>All of the laboratory animals got cancer in the Richard, Odaglia and
>Deslex study.
>
>Can I prove it?  Damned right, I can.  I have the study.  Should I
>release it,  spend the next 15 years in a federal prison, thanks to
>CLINTON enacting Monsanto's ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT of 1996.
>
>I helped CANADA turn down the hormone, and I am damned proud of that.
>
>The "famous" 90 day study actually lasted for 180 days.  FDA calls the
>second 90 day portion "the reverse phase."  That's when all of the
>animals got cancer.
>
>Do I know that the increase of IGF-I was responsible?
>
>Nope.
>
>Do  know that levels of IGF-I increased?  Yep.
>
>FDA, WHO, NIH, JAMA called normal milk and genetically engineered milk
>indistinguishable.
>
>So much...for truth.  :>(
>
>Robert Cohen
>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
>subscribe or help is:
>
>              GENTECH-REQUEST@gen.free.de
>
>The searchable WWW list archive is available at
>
>              http://www.gene.ch/archives.html
>