Bad
science only comes at the behest of
CORPORATE
GREED
HAGELIN
STUNS THE EPA WITH
STIRRING "STARLINK" TESTIMONY
On Tuesday, November 28, Dr. John Hagelin presented a powerful
statement about the hazards of genetically engineered foods
to an open meeting of an Environmental Protection Agency panel
in Arlington, Virginia.
The Scientific Advisory Panel for the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) held the meeting to
consider the possible allergenic effects of StarLink corn on
human health. Starlink, a variety of genetically engineered
corn that has not been approved by the EPA for human
consumption, was recently discovered to have contaminated
corn products being sold at supermarkets around the country.
Dr. Hagelin's testimony created an explosion of concern among
the largely pro-genetic engineering audience at the open
meeting and created a fresh wave of scientific scrutiny about
the hazards of GE foods. His testimony is reprinted below,
along with an editorial from the Providence Journal about
his leadership in the effort to protect our food supply.
STATEMENT FOR THE FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL
OPEN MEETING ON STARLINK CORN
Arlington, Virginia
November 28, 2000
JOHN HAGELIN, Ph.D.
Director, Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy
I speak to you as a scientist who is striving to ensure that
our best scientific knowledge be applied for the solution--
and prevention--of society's problems. I am a nuclear physicist
who has published extensively in superstring theory and,
during the last three elections, I have been the Presidential
candidate of the Natural Law Party.
I want to address an issue much deeper than whether the CRY9C
protein in StarLink corn is likely to be allergenic. I want
to address the assumptions that underlie the entire agricultural
bioengineering enterprise. I am deeply concerned that life
scientists are implementing bioengineering technologies without
adequately understanding the lessons we have learned from the
physical sciences. One of the key revelations of modern physics
is that phenomena unfold in a far less linear and predictable
fashion than eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers assumed.
Today we know that there are inherent limitations on our ability
to make precise predictions about the behavior of a system,
especially for microscopic systems and nonlinear systems of
great complexity.
Numerous eminent molecular biologists recognize that DNA is a
complex nonlinear system and that splicing foreign genes into
the DNA of a food-yielding organism can cause unpredictable
side effects that could harm the health of the human consumer.
Yet, the genetic engineering of our food--and the widespread
presence of genetically altered foods in American supermarkets
--is based on the premise that the effects of gene-splicing are
so predictable that all bioengineered foods can be presumed
safe unless proven otherwise. This refusal to recognize the
risks of unintended and essentially unpredictable negative
side effects is just plain bad science. It is astounding that
so many biologists are attempting to impose a paradigm of
precise, linear, billiard-ball predictably onto the behavior
of DNA, when physics has long since dislodged such a paradigm
from the microscopic realm and molecular biological research
increasingly confirms its inapplicability to the dynamics of
genomes.
Moreover, the premise of predictability is not just
scientifically unsound; it is morally irresponsible. The
safety of our food is being put at risk in a cavalier, if
not callous, fashion, not only in disregard of scientific
knowledge, but in disregard of recent technological history.
Here, too, lessons should have been learned from the physical
sciences. Time and again, the overhasty application of nuclear
technologies led to numerous health and environmental disasters.
For example, in the early days of nuclear technology, the rush
to commercialize led to the sale of radium tipped wands designed
to remove facial hair. Nine months later the cancers came.
Similarly, the failure to comprehend the full range of risks
and to proceed with prudence has led to many disasters in the
nuclear power industry.
In the case of genetic engineering, even greater caution is
called for: a nuclear disaster only lasts 10,000 years, whereas
gene pollution is forever--self-perpetuating and irreversible.
The irresponsible behavior that permitted the marketing of
bioengineered foods has not been limited to the scientific
community, but includes the executive branch of the federal
government. The FDA's internal records reveal that its own
experts clearly recognized the potential for gene-splicing
to induce production of unpredicted toxins and carcinogens
in the resultant food. These same records reveal that these
warnings were covered up by FDA political appointees operating
under a White House directive to promote the biotech industry.
It is unconscionable that the FDA claimed itself unaware of
any information showing that bioengineered foods differ from
others, when its own files are filled with such information
from its scientific staff. And it is unconscionable that it
permits such novel foods to be marketed based on the claim
they are recognized as safe by an overwhelming consensus
within the scientific community, when it knows such a
consensus does not exist.
The StarLink fiasco further demonstrates the shoddiness of
the government's regulation, since the system failed to keep
even an unapproved bioengineered crop out of our food. Indeed,
the contamination was discovered not by the government, but
by public interest groups. The FDA had no clue and had taken
no measures to monitor. This incident also demonstrates how
difficult it will be to remove a bioengineered product from
our food supply if it is eventually found to be harmful and,
therefore, how important it is to prevent the introduction
of new ones and to phase out those currently in use.
It is high time that science and the truth be respected, and
that the false pretenses enabling the commercialization of
bioengineered foods be acknowledged and abolished. I call
upon the members of this panel to uphold sound science so
that you can hold your own heads up as the facts about the
hazards of bioengineered food become increasingly well known.
I call upon you not only to resist the pressures to approve
the pesticidal protein in StarLink Corn; I call upon you to
honestly acknowledge the inherent risks of genetic engineering
and to affirm that, due to these risks, neither StarLink nor
any other bioengineered food can be presumed safe at the
present stage of our knowledge.
THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL
Editorial
November 9, 2000
ONLY HAGELIN SAW GENETIC PERIL
One of the key issues that never got discussed in the
presidential debates this campaign season was the most
serious one facing us today. The fact is that our democracy
has been stolen by the powerful lobbies of the special
interests. The most conclusive and blatant example of this
has been the dangerous experiment being conducted by the
biotech industry on the American people. They have genetically
manipulated our food supply so that 60 percent of the food
on our supermarket shelves has been genetically engineered.
The most outrageous thing is that they did it without the
knowledge or consent of the American people.
Forty years ago, most scientists thought DDT a safe and
promising addition to agriculture. Thalidomide was given
to pregnant women by their doctors. Nuclear power was touted
as the cleanest energy source on Earth. Marketed prematurely,
each of these technological innovations brought unforeseen,
unwanted and tragic consequences that could have been easily
avoided through proper long-term safety testing. Haven't
we learned anything from our mistakes?
>From soil to superviruses: In 1994, a genetically engineered
bacterium developed to aid in the production of ethanol
produced residues that rendered the land infertile. New crops
planted on this soil grew three inches tall and fell over dead.
The food chain: In 1996, scientists discovered that ladybugs
that had eaten the aphids that had eaten genetically engineered
potatoes died.
The immune system: In 1998, research by Dr. Arpad Pusztai
uncovered the potential for genetically altered DNA to weaken
the immune system and stunt the growth of baby rats.
Monarch butterflies: In May 1999, researchers at Cornell
University discovered that monarch butterflies died unexpectedly
from eating milkweed plants that had been dusted with the pollen
of genetically engineered Bt corn.
Pregnant mice: A 1998 study showed that DNA from the food fed
to pregnant mice ended up in their intestinal lining, white
blood cells, brain cells,and their fetuses. This suggests that
the genetically engineered DNA in the food we eat can end up
in our own cells.
Honeybees: Last May, a leading European zoologist found the
genes from genetically engineered canola jumped the species
barrier and were picked up by the bacteria in the digestive
tracts of bees. This indicates that antibiotic-resistant genes
in genetically engineered foods can cause the bacteria in our
own intestines to mutate into superbugs that cannot be killed
by antibiotics.
Superviruses: Viral promoters are invasive agents used by
genetic engineers to trick a cell into accepting and integrating
an alien gene into the cell's own DNA. Some scientists predict
that releasing viral promoters into the gene pool could lead
to the creation of superviruses and novel infectious diseases
for organisms at every level of life--from bacteria to humans.
These are just some of the dangers that are discernible in the
premature marketing of genetically engineered products. The
biotech industry is eager to point to their so-called successes
while keeping their failures under raps.
Next is the story of rBGH, recombinant bovine growth hormone
(or the story of genetically engineered milk). A Monsanto
lawyer drafted a letter to the FDA to get rBGH approved. He
then stepped down from Monsanto and took an appointment as
FDA deputy commissioner for policy. He then opened his own
letter and helped draft the FDA's 1992 policy on genetically
engineered food and rBGH. The law that followed, in true
violation of First Amendment rights, states that it's illegal
to say rBGH is in milk and it's illegal to state that it's not
in milk. The lawyer returned to corporate life and became
Monsanto's vice president for public policy.
Incidentally, rBGH is banned in Canada, Europe, Australia,
and New Zealand--all major dairy producers. It is also banned
in other countries. I quote Neal D. Barnard, M.D., president
of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, from a
magazine entitled Safe Food News (to get this magazine and to
sign the national Genetically Engineered Food Alert petition,
call 1-800-REAL-FOOD).
"Monsanto's rBGH increases milk production. It also
increases
udder infections (mastitis) and reproductive problems in cows
and shortens their life span. To treat the mastitis, farmers
have to give their cows antibiotics. Studies have shown that
milk from rBGH cows often contains residues from those
antibiotics.
And because rBGH-induced mastitis leads to increased amounts of
white blood cells--or pus--this is also secreted into rBGH milk.
But the risks of rBGH go far beyond even this. More troublesome
is the fact that rBGH has been linked to increased risk of
breast, prostate and colon cancers."
>From pizza to chips, soda to infant formula, ice cream to
cookies, vitamins to candies, genetically engineered organisms
are in the foods we feed our kids every day. Virtually every
food you can think of is in the genetically engineered pipeline.
And coming soon . . . rat genes in your lettuce, cows that make
human milk, and bananas with vaccines.
The only presidential candidate who brought this issue to the
forefront of his campaign and informed the American people of
the hazards of genetically engineered foods has been the quantum
physicist John Hagelin of the Natural Law/Independent Party.
As he traveled the country during the campaign speaking in
public forums, he talked frankly about the long-term consequences
of such experimentation, asking the question:
"Who gave the biotech companies the right to threaten our
food and environment? The Clinton-Gore administration and our
'Republicrat' Congress, awash in biotech money. We need mandatory
labeling and safety testing of genetically engineered foods,
plus a moratorium on the release of these experimental lifeforms
into the environment until proven safe."
John Hagelin's message is urgent and of utmost importance. It is
essential that the American people act without delay to preserve
their own health and that of future generations.
Don Lovejoy, who has a doctorate in health and human services,
is an educator based in Cranston.
***
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *