| |
Dr. Arpad Pusztai
Andrew Paterson—10/2002 |
| |
Trashed by the pro-GM lobby for being a research
scientist with integrity, Pusztai's experience
indicates the depths to which the biotechnology
industry will sink to prevent public knowledge
of the dangers of GM foods. |
| |
 R. ARPAD
PUSZTAI is one of the world's leading experts in lectins,
which are a type of carbohydrate-binding protein. He
led a research team at the renowned Rowett Research
Institute in Aberdeen which researched genetically
modified foods — more specifically potatoes genetically
modified to produce the snowdrop lectin GNA which is
not only an effective insecticide, but is also non-toxic
to mammals. Pusztai found, much to his surprise, that
although the snowdrop lectin by itself is non-toxic,
when it is produced via a genetically modified second
crop, in this case potatoes, it shows worrying toxicity
(organ atrophy and depleted immune systems in test
animals). |
| |
| The immediate implication of this is that these genetically
modified potatoes were a danger to health and so should
never be put on the market or released into the environment.
And, from a broader perspective, it means that the
process of genetic engineering itself seems to be doing
something much more complex than just adding another
protein-producing gene in a precise location, and therefore
all GM foods should be assumed toxic until proven safe
by thorough and prolonged testing. Pusztai believes
that although the GNA lectin is non-toxic, the virus
(in this case Cauliflower Mosaic Virus which is used
to inject the snowdrop DNA into the potato) might be
to blame. Biotechnlogy companies would like us to think
that gene insertion is an exact science, but it is
well known that correct gene insertion is often a matter
of luck. As Pusztai comments, "if GM is such a
predictable, precise science, then you should be able
to produce the same thing again and again. But you
can't." |
 |
| In June 1998, during a television interview for World
in Action sanctioned by the Rowett Research Institute,
Pusztai made the mistake of truthfully answering the
interviewer's questions. When asked if he was concerned
by the lack of safety testing of GM foods, he affirmed
that he was. And when asked whether he would eat his
own genetically modified potatoes, he replied no, adding
that it is "very unfair to use our fellow citizens
as guinea pigs." Two days after the program aired
in August 1998, he was fired. |
| |
| He was dismissed for incompetence as part of a disinformation
campaign by the influential pro-GM lobby, which was
quick to trade the longstanding reputation of a top-level
scientist (with a brilliant 36-year career) for continued
public ignorance of the potential dangers of GM foods
and GM research. They did this by portraying Pusztai
as a doddery old fool who had made a mistake with his
research by using potatoes, not modified with the non-toxic
snowdrop lectin, but with the very toxic Concanavalin
A (Con A) lectin. Pusztai's results, therefore, would
imply nothing about the safety of genetic engineering,
only his own incompetance, which would justify him
being "retired". |
|
| This smear campaign, led not only by companies like
Monsanto but also the director of the Rowett Research
Institute himself, Professor Philip James, was effective.
Pusztai was discredited and ridiculed by government
scientists and newspapers alike, bringing an ignoble
end to an illustrious scientific career. And because
he was still under contract with the institute, he
was effectively gagged and thus prevented from defending
himself. The two-faced James would say publicly, "I
am desperate to protect him [Pusztai]" whilst privately
threatening him with court action if he spoke to the
press. |
| |
| In the end, a scientific audit committee vindicated
Pusztai's work — it confirmed that he had been
working with the snowdrop lectin and not the toxic
Con A lectin, although it stopped short at agreeing
with Pusztai's conclusions. (Quite what other conclusions
can be drawn from Pusztai's research is a complete
mystery! In fact, the committee didn't make a single
recommendation on how he could have improved his experimentation,
except to nebulously state that it could have been
better designed.) Finally, in February 1999, a 20-member
international panel of scientists publicly went on
record to support Pusztai's research. But by this time
it was too late. The disinformation campaign left enough
lingering doubts in the public's mind to dilute the
biting implications of Pusztai's ground-breaking research. |
|
| Although the deliberate and unjustified destruction
of a leading scientist's reputation is despicable enough,
what is a lot more concerning is the reaction of the
biotechnology industry to bona fide evidence that GM
foods can be unexpectedly harmful. If they were acting
in the public interest, they would have taken Pusztai's
research as a serious indication of the dangers of
GM foods and the need for thorough testing. But instead,
they chose a cover up; they chose to defend their profits
at the expense of public safety. And more so when one
considers that Professor James, who went along with
this charade, is a leading UK government advisor on
GM foods! |
| |
So the upshot of this sad episode is that the public
cannot trust the biotechnology industry when it tells
us that its products are safe: they may well not be,
but any research indicating toxicity (if indeed adequate
toxicity testing is performed at all) is deliberately
buried. In this climate of deception, the first we
are likely to know of the toxic effects of GM foods
is when they are field tested on you and me. |
| |
| |
|
|
| "This is an
imperfect technology with inherent dangers… … It
is the unpredictability of the outcomes that
is most worrying." |
Dr. Michael
Antoniou
Senior Lecturer in Molecular Biology - London |
| |
| |
| |
| Andrew Paterson is an independent writer currently living in London. He has no affiliation to any religious or political organisation. To contact him, please email . |
|
