RESOURCES
DOCUMENTS:
MONSANTO GM FEEDING STUDY EVALUATIONS
Download the suppressed Pusztai Report: PDF or MS Word version
See also Monsanto GM maize conspiracy revealed (GM Free Cymru press release, 24 May 2005)
Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 24 May 2005
MONSANTO AGREES TO RELEASE GM FEEDING STUDY EVALUATIONS
In a major new development in the MON863 scandal, Monsanto has agreed
that it does not object to the widespread dissemination of the "Pusztai
Report" on its controversial 90-day rat feeding studies.
After an extended campaign from NGOs to achieve the publication of Dr
Pusztai's evaluation, Monsanto's UK head of Corporate Affairs, Tony
Combes, has now written to GM Free Cymru (1) to say that the company
has not been responsible for the suppression of this Report, and
claiming that the refusal to release it into the public domain was
entirely down to the German Regulatory Authorities. Some of the
findings of the rat feeding study were exposed in a special feature in
the "Independent on Sunday" newspaper on 22 May 2005 (2), and the
repercussions of the newspaper coverage have gone around the world.
Dr Arpad Pustai, one of the few genuinely independent scientists
specializing in plant genetics and animal feeding studies, was asked by
the German authorities in the autumn of 2004 to examine Monsanto's
1,139-page report on the feeding of MON863 to laboratory rats over a
90-day period. The study found "statistically significant" differences
to kidney weights and certain blood parameters in the rats fed on the
GM maize as compared with the control groups, and a number of
scientists across Europe who saw the study (and heavily-censored
summaries of it) expressed concerns about the health and safety
implications if MON863 should ever enter the food chain. There was
particular concern in France, where Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini of the
University of Caen has been trying (without success) for almost
eighteen months to obtain full disclosure of all documents relating to
the MON863 study (3).
Dr Pusztai was forced by the German authorities to sign a "declaration
of secrecy" before he was allowed to see the rat feeding study, on the
grounds that the document is classified as "CBI" or "confidential
business interest" (4). However, he assumed that this would not
prevent the publication of his findings by the Germans themselves,
should his evaluation highlight any health and safety concerns. In
the event, his evaluation was highly critical of the methodology of the
study, and he also expressed concerns about what the researchers had
found. These concerns were identical to those of Prof Seralini and
scientists in Germany and elsewhere, but the German Government refused
to publish them and insisted that Dr Pusztai should respect his
"gagging order." So he has been unable to circulate his written
material and unable to speak on the record about what he has found.
The gagging of scientists like Prof Seralini and Dr Pusztai is serious
enough, but the MON863 scandal was compounded when the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) examined the reactions of all the EU regulatory
bodies, decided that it did not like what was contained in the "Pusztai
Report", and commissioned other experts to evaluate the evaluation (5).
Then, having got the recommendation that it wanted -- namely that the
statistically significant physiological changes in the rats fed on
MON863 were not really significant at all -- EFSA published a
Statement (6) advising the EC that MON863 was perfectly safe and
wholesome. More seriously, in the EFSA Statement, and in subsequent
Monsanto press releases, Dr Pusztai was named and criticized in spite
of the fact that it was known by all concerned that he was effectively
"gagged" and could not defend himself (7).
The "Pusztai Report" actually consists of three separate short
documents (8), and although Dr Pusztai himself cannot release them,
they have been circulating widely among NGOs and the GM scientific
community in Europe because they have been examined by all of the
European GM regulatory authorities and committees. Leaks could not be
prevented, and GM Free Cymru obtained copies of the documents from the
United States, Brussels and Eastern Europe. Since they were already
published through the Email network, it was inevitable that they would
eventually find their way onto the internet. They are now accessible
via several different web sites (9).
Dr Brian John, speaking for GM Free Cymru, said: "We are delighted that
this material is now available for examination by the scientific
community, and we are grateful to Monsanto for confirming that it has
no objection to the publication of the three documents (1). But we are
appalled at the manner in which Dr Pusztai has been prevented from
discussing his concerns with fellow scientists, and we will not give up
on this issue until the German authorities remove his "gagging order."
It will be easier for them to do this now that Monsanto has said that
it has no objections to a free and open scientific debate. But we are
even more appalled at the behaviour of EFSA, which is supposed to
protect the European public from unwanted health hazards. Instead,
when the organization has hazards brought to its attention, it refuses
to see them. It is now widely perceived as having just one priority as
far as GM issues are concerned -- namely the facilitation of GM
approvals for the biotechnology corporations (10). The EC should get
rid of this complacent and secretive body before it does any more
harm."
ENDS
Contact: Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru
Tel: 01239-820470
NOTES
(1) Email letter from Mr Tony Combes of Monsanto to GM Free Cymru,
dated 28 May 2005
(2) http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?
story=640430
"Revealed: health fears over secret study into GM food. Rats fed GM
corn due for sale in Britain developed abnormalities in blood and
kidneys" By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
22 May 2005
"Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed
abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising
fears that human health could be affected by eating GM
food...."
(3) For the attempts by Crii-gen to obtain key scientific information
on MON863 since October 2003, see: http://www.crii-gen.org/m_fs_cx.htm
Also Le Monde, 23 April 2004 and 14 December 2004
(4) GM Free Cymru has now submitted a request under the EU Freedom of
Information legislation for sight of the certificate granting CBI
status to the Monsanto rat feeding study, and the "Declaratioin of
Secrecy" that Dr Pusztai was asked to sign.
(5) "Considerations regarding the scientific assessment of the safety
of food and feed from GM plants, exemplified with GM insect resistant
corn (MON863) as a case," Dr Ib Knudsen for the Swedish Board of
Agriculture, 13 November 2004. 7 pp (available as a PDF file)
(6) The EFSA Statement on MON863 is at the following site: http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/381_en.html
(7) http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=8845
MON 863 Maize 90-Day Rat Feeding Study Design and Conduct Fact Sheet
(8) The three documents in the "Pusztai Report" are as follows: (1)
"Interim Report and Preliminary Evaluation..."; (2) "Evaluation and
Final Report..."; (3) "Report on the newly provided data..."
(9) EU legislation states that research material on GM crops and foods
which has health and safety implications must be placed in the public
domain. The German authorities, and the EC, have been breaking their
own laws by seeking to restrict consideration of the findings of Prof
Seralini, Dr Pusztai and others to specialist committees which do not
necessarily act in the public interest. NGOs like GM Free Cymru are
determined to see full disclosure of all relevant documents relating to
MON863, and will continue to fight against the corruption of GM
science.
(10) Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 24 May 2005
GM MAIZE CONSPIRACY REVEALED
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5270
In spite of the reservations of their own scientists, delegates from
France, Germany and the UK all voted for the approval of MON863 maize
at an EU meeting on 19 May 2005: http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?
n=60119&m=1FNE520&c=ioycgujovowudvq
However, EU members failed to agree, and so the application was
rejected. The EC now has the power to approve MON863 on behalf of the
member states; but in present circumstances that would be a very
irresponsible thing to do.
