JRSM >
E-Letter
Quick Comment on:
|
|
Posted Comments:
![[Read Quick Comment]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
Serious Concerns
Errors in Text
|
|
|||
|
Ian E Panton, Layman GMFree Cymru
Send letter to journal:
ianpanton{at}aol.com Ian E Panton
|
The Open Correspondence mentioned, which contains detailed comments by Dr Arpad Pusztai, can be viewed at: http://www.gmfreecymru.org/open_letters/gibsoncorres.pdf Dear Doctor Drake, I was interested to recently read a copy of your Opinion Paper: Genetically modified plants and human health which had been published in the Journal, Volume 101 Number 6, 1 June 2008, of the Royal Society of Medicine. I noted two points in particular: 1. "Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health)". As there is no labelling at all of GMO content in the USA, and hence no way of determining cause/effect, how robust is this argument? 2. "A notorious study claiming that rats fed with GM potatoes expressing the gene for the lectin Galanthus nivalis agglutinin suffered damage to gut mucosa was published in 1999. Unusually, the paper was only published after one of the authors, Arpad Pusztai, announced this apparent finding on television. The Royal Society has since stated that the study �is flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis� and that �no conclusions should be drawn from it�: for example the authors used too few rats per test group to derive meaningful, statistically significant data." I attach my Open Correspondence with Dr Ian Gibson on this particular subject for your edification. In particular you will note: "Why was Dr Pusztai simply not asked to do further experiments in order to clarify the issues questioned? That he was prevented from doing further work, his studies not repeated, and that similar studies were not carried out in independent labs, is a matter of grave concern. Do you really believe that truly independent research is not required when dealing with the commercial imperative of successfully launching new products?" Yours Sincerely Ian Panton |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David Schubert, medical research The Salk Institute for Biological Studies
Send letter to journal:
schubert{at}salk.edu David Schubert
|
It is curious that a respected medical journal would publish this discussion GM food and other GM products without at least some oversight related to the validity of the content. I view the promotion of GM food as directly analogous to the pomotion of a new pharmaceutical product without any testing for safety. The only difference is that GM food could alter the health of a much larger population, and without any element of product choice. I will address 3 specific errors of fact and logic-there are many more. 1)"GM plants undergo extensive safety testing". This is absolutely false. In the US, while the GM food plants must go through the FDA for approval, there is NO REQUIRED safety testing-it is up to the producer, and if anything is done it is minimal. These has been essentially no long term animal toxicology on any GM product, something the medical community should be concerned about. (Domingo,JL Crit. Rev Food Sci Nutr 47,721, 2007)(Freese and Schubert, Biotech,Gen Engineering Rev 21, 299,2004) 2)"GM crops consumed..with no reported ill effects" therefore they are safe. This statement is illogical and the conclusion is not valid. There is no assay and there is no epidemiology. If any GM food product did cause harm it would be impossible to pick up within the constant background of disease, particularly since in the US, the biggest consumers, there are no labeling requirements, (for an example of the necessary data to make a conclusion of harm, see Schubert, Nat Biotech 25, 282, 2007) 3)"Increase yields" there have been none with the current GM crops ( see recent material from the Union of Concerned Scientists) ETC |
|||
Quick Comments: