Movies | October 14, 2010 | 30 comments

Scientists under attack: Genetic engineering in the magnetic field of money: film review

source: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12567-scientists-under-attack-film-review

Image
JanforGore
Billed as "a political thriller on GMOs and freedom of speech", this film by the German film-maker Bertram Verhaag tells the stories of two scientists, Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Ignacio Chapela, whose research showed negative findings on GM foods and crops. Both suffered the fate of those who challenge the powerful vested interests that dominate agribusiness and scientific research. They were vilified and intimidated, attempts were made to suppress and discredit their research, and their careers were derailed.

Pusztai found that the internal organs of rats fed GM insecticidal potatoes either increased in size or did not develop properly compared with controls. His experiments turned up no less than 36 significant differences between GM-fed and non-GM-fed animals. Pusztai, encouraged by his research institute, gave a 150-second interview on British TV in which he summarised his findings and said it was unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs for GM foods.

For two days, Pusztai was treated as a hero by his institute. But following a phone call from UK prime minister Tony Blair to the institute's head, Pusztai was fired and gagged under threat of a lawsuit. His research team was disbanded and his data were confiscated. Lies were circulated about his research that he could not counter due to the gagging order, lifted only later when he was due to appear before a Parliamentary Committee. For Pusztai’s co-researchers, the gagging order remains in place for life.

Pusztai's results threatened the GM industry because they showed that it wasn't the insecticide engineered into the potatoes that damaged the rats, but the genetic engineering process itself. So the problem wasn't just with these GM potatoes but potentially with all GM foods on the market. The only solution for the industry and its friends in government was to shoot the messenger.

Traumatic though this was for Pusztai, it wasn't the biggest shock he had to face regarding GM foods. That came when he was asked to review safety submissions from the GM industry for crops we were already eating – and found that they were scientifically flimsy. "That was a turning point in my life," said Pusztai. "I was doing safety studies; they were doing as little as possible [in terms of safety testing] to get their foods on the market as quickly as they could."

Another scientist whose run-in with the GM industry is featured in the film is Ignacio Chapela, a molecular geneticist at UC Berkeley. His research, co-authored with David Quist and published in the journal Nature, revealed that Mexican maize had been contaminated with GM genes. The finding was explosive because Mexico is the centre of origin for maize and the planting of GM maize there was illegal.

Chapela found himself the target of a vicious internet campaign condemning him as more of an activist than a scientist and claiming that his paper was false. Nature's editor published a partial retraction of the paper. As Chapela points out in the film, the editor's action flew in the face of scientific method. In the normal way of things, a journal editor publishes a study that he and peer reviewers judge to be sound. It is for subsequent published studies to confirm or correct the findings. It is not for the editor to state that he would not have published a study had he known then what he knows now – without the benefit of further peer reviewed scientific input. The editor's move showed how the GM industry is rewriting the rules of science for its own ends.

To add insult to injury, the internet campaign against Chapela turned out not to have been initiated and fuelled not by his scientific peers but by fake citizens, "sockpuppets" invented by the Bivings Group, a public relations firm contracted by Monsanto.

Scientists Under Attack goes on to show how the GM industry has blocked the evolution of scientific knowledge. When Russian scientist Irina Ermakova's study found high mortality rates and low body weight in rats fed GM soy, and when Austrian government research found that decreased fertility in mice fed GM maize, the industry carried out its usual campaign of vilification. If the industry were interested in scientific truth, it would push for studies to be repeated with the alleged "flaws" corrected. But this never happens. Instead, GM companies use their patent-based ownership of GM crops to deny scientists access to research materials – the GM crop and the non-GM parent line control. So the original research showing problems with GM crops is buried under a deluge of smears and follow up studies are not done. For the public, the difficulty and expense involved in accessing full research papers makes it hard to find where the truth lies.

The film also highlights an extreme example of the corporate takeover of science – at University of California, Berkeley (UCB), where Chapela is a professor. In 1998, UCB entered into a $25 million research partnership with biotech company Novartis (now Syngenta). The deal provoked angry debate on campus and was criticized by a number of faculty members, including Chapela. Then in 2007, UCB entered into a $500 million research deal with oil giant BP. The partnership was negotiated in secret, without consultation even within the university. In return for its money, BP gained access to UCB’s researchers, control over the research agenda, and co-ownership of commercial rights over inventions. Chapela says of BP, "They decide what is called science."
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Green,   Movies,   15 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Science,  Media,  Ethics,  14 more
  3.     
    |

30 comments // Scientists under attack: Genetic engineering in the magnetic field of money: film review

  • JanforGore
    • -1
      JanforGore  

    • This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDNA_Does_Jump_Species.php

      ISIS Report 14/06/10

      GM DNA Does Jump Species
      #######################
      Antibiotic Resistance not the Only Risk

      Dr. Mae Wan Ho corrects some misconceptions about the risks of horizontal gene
      transfer from GMOs and calls for an urgent review

      Antibiotic resistance genes from GM plants “unlikely” to transfer to bacteria
      Horizontal gene transfer – DNA being taken up and integrating into the genome of
      cells – came under scrutiny by the European food Safety Authority (EFSA) in
      relation the safety of antibiotic resistance marker genes in genetically
      modified (GM) crops grown commercially or entering the market. EFSA failed to
      reach a unanimous opinion. The published Statement [1] acknowledged scientific
      uncertainties, but claims it is “unlikely” that antibiotic resistance genes in
      GM crops pose health and environment risks.

      However, two senior scientists on EFSA’s biohazard panel, which carried out the
      assessment jointly with the GMO panel, did not agree with the conclusion and
      issued a minority opinion included in an annex to the Statement. The key issue
      is the probability that the antibiotic resistance genes could transfer from
      plant to bacteria. The two scientists stated that the adverse effects cannot be
      assessed, and that the probability of gene transfer from plants to bacteria
      ranges widely “from unlikely to high.”

      EFSA had already given a positive opinion to Germany chemical company BASF’s GM potato that has an antibiotic resistance marker gene, but was asked by the
      European Commission to re-examine the risks of antibiotic resistance, after
      failing to address persisting legal and health concerns [2]. An EU law from 2001
      requires antibiotic resistance genes that may have adverse effects on human
      health and the environment to be phased out by the end of 2004, while the World
      Health Organisation considers the antibiotics inactivated by the resistance gene
      in the GM potato vital for treating serious infections such as tuberculosis.

      Despite the scientific uncertainties, the European Commission granted approval
      to the GM potato, Amflora in March 2010, in time for the planting season [3],
      more than 13 years after BASF first applied for commercial approval in the EU.

      The importance of kanamycin/neomycin The gene nptII contained in the BASF GM
      potato codes for resistance against the antibiotics kanamycin and neomycin. The
      WHO considers kanamycin and neomycin vital in the treatment of serious diseases
      caused by multiple drug resistant pathogens, such as tuberculosis, which are not
      yet resistant to these antibiotics. If the nptII gene spreads widely, the
      important “second line” defence provided by kanamycin and neomycin against life-
      threatening infections will be lost.

      One major justification for the continued use of certain antibiotic resistance
      marker genes in GMOs is that the genes are already common in the environment.
      For example, the beta-lactamase gene bla, present in a large number of GMOs
      commercially grown, appears to be widely distributed; occurring to varying
      degrees in fields growing GM and non-GM crops, even in prairies that were not
      disturbed by agricultural practices [1]. However, the same is not true of the
      nptII gene. While the gene was found to be quite abundant and functional in
      manure, sewage and water samples, both in and outside hospitals, it was scarce
      in the soil, where the potential for horizontal transfer from GM plants is
      greatest.

      In addition, animals and humans eating GM plant material containing the nptII
      gene could also acquire the gene through microorganisms resident in the
      gastrointestinal tract, known to be a hotspot for horizontal gene transfer. This
      would severely compromise their chances of surviving a multidrug resistant
      infection.

      Read the rest of this report at the ISIS website:
      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDNA_Does_Jump_Species.php

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • -1
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://current.com/news/91623861_austrian-scientist-confirms-gmo-maize-unsafe.ht...

      Excerpt:

      NOTE: Many thanks to Akiko Frid for making available these comments on the safety of Monsanto's GMO-maize by the Austrian scientist Dr Alberta Velimirov
      Available: http://hejdagmo.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/dr-velimirov-comments-on-austrian-st....

      EXTRACT: "But whatever statistical analyses might or might not be used, the data are always the same and open for everybody to see. This study gives the first indication that the stacked event MON810xNK603 led to a reduced reproductive performance as compared to the non-GM line. This result should not be dismissed as 'bad science' but discussed on a scientific level and taken up as incentive to continue investigations in this direction with other GM crops." - Dr Alberta Velimirov

      BACKGROUND: In November 2008 the Austrian Ministry of Health publicly released the results of a study it had commissioned to investigate long term reproductive effects in mice following dietary exposure to a genetically modified (GM) stacked maize NK603xMON810.

      The study: summary of findings

      Mice fed GM insecticide-producing maize over four generations showed a buildup of abnormal structural changes in various organs (liver, spleen, pancreas), major changes in the pattern of gene function in the gut, reflecting disturbances in the chemistry of this organ system (e.g. in cholesterol production, protein production and breakdown), and, most significantly, reduced fertility.

      Ref: Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Velimirov A et al. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008, Austria, 2008. http://bmgfj.cms.apa.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/ CH0810/CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3-2008_letztfassung.pdf

      Subsequently two hostile criticisms of the study by ‘regulators’ - EFSA GMO Panel and FSANZ - have been published. Here we present criticisms from each and then Dr. Velimirov's response.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1TOss9Mslw

      If there is such a food shortage in the world that "needs" GMOs explain why obesity is rampant in America. GMOs are nothing more than a scam for profit. And that is the truth these scientists know and why these companies are buying off universities and governments, using false advertising, intimidating and suing farmers, and have PR minions out on the Internet spreading their propaganda.

      Oh, and for those who see nothing wrong with this, that's your dinner up there in the picture in the petrie dish. Bon appetit. I'll stick with the fields.

    • 1 year ago
  • Debra_
    • +1
      Debra_  

    • Science be damned apparently. We need more population control but until measures are put in place we need GMOs.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • -1
      JanforGore  
    • Debra_:

      No, we don't need GMOS and monoculture GMOS will not feed the world. We need equitable access to food and for the Monsantos of this world to stop lying to us and telling us they are so altruistic in wanting people to have food with a billion people still starving while corporations do landgrabs to grow animal feed and deforest countries to grow GM soy and BT corn for biofuel. There is also more than enough food on this planet. How much do you throw out in a year? Once again this misrepresentation finds its way into the conversation. Read Stuffed anbd Starved by Raj Patel. And by all means offer no refutation to the intimidation and gagging of scientists who know the truth about GMOs. They are toxic and need to be taken out of the food supply. They will cause only poverty for poor farmers who will not be allowed to save seeds, and cause illness from the herbicides and pesticides that are sprayed on them and implanted in them. That isn't science, that is profit at the expense of biodiversity and health. And what do you mean by "population control?"

    • 1 year ago
  • mindcruzer
  • Debra_
    • +1
      Debra_  
    • JanforGore:

      There is not nearly enough food and resources on planet, and you need to factor in shipping costs. Mass GMO's production in areas of food shortage is only a temporary solution until we can get responsible population policies in place. The earth is running out of resources and space, and society is already at a population to large to be directed toward productive aims.

      Unless drastic measures are taken, the planet is in deep trouble. Most people don;'t acknowledge the carbon foot print of a child. One child policies are effective, and full focusing of parenting on one child has proven to produce better citizens.

      Also there is the problem of inadvertent pregnancy. Unfortunately abortion services are not readily available in poor countries are places with Christians, To be honest those who get pregnant accidentally are usually the most unsavory characters of society who should not be reproducing (but thats a different topic.) The government could temporary sterilize females until 25, when studies have shown young female develop parenting skills.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Debra_:

      Do you work for them? You also sound like a Eugenist, or someone who works for the Gates Foundation. GMOS are not part of solving the food crisis in relation to population. Sustainable agriculture is and has been proven as such not only for sustainability of soil and yield, but health of humans and biodiversity. Sorry, you sound like a dupe. Also once again dismiss the topic of intimidation of scientists proving the risks of these organisms.

    • 1 year ago
  • Debra_
  • JanforGore
  • Debra_
    • 0
      Debra_  
    • JanforGore:

      What an unnecessary swipe at the Gates foundation. The Gates foundation is doing more to develop sustainable population policy and eliminate the percentage of poor in the world than all other governments combined.

      Any real I(or more likely irrational fear) regarding risk of GMO's is overruled by chaos from mass starvation.

      And how is monoculture population control ? That doesn't make sense.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • mindcruzer
  • congoboy
  • XasthurNortt
  • mindcruzer
    • +1
      mindcruzer  

    • "Pusztai's results threatened the GM industry because they showed that it wasn't the insecticide engineered into the potatoes that damaged the rats, but the genetic engineering process itself."

      Interesting. I wish they would have elaborated on this. This is what I want. I want some actual evidence; not people going crazy telling me that if I eat GM food (I don't) I'll die, with no actual evidence to back up their case. Could the results have been due to the pesticides? Were the potatoes even grown with pesticides (ie. aside from the lectins)? He gave the rats GM potatoes that contained the lectin, and gave another set of rats free lectins. The free lectins didn't end up being as harmful, why? These questions are not addressed (to my knowledge). It would be nice to read his study.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • mindcruzer:

      Who here is going crazy telling you that you are going to die? A bit dramatic aren't you?

      edit: And is it only about you? Other species may well already be dying and that does affect the food chain and web of life. Isn't that worth caring about? Also, how do you know people have not contracted diabetes, cancer, allergic reaction or some other already known illness from eating these organisms? That's right, you don't know... which is the point.

      Oh BTW, did you know Monsanto has a friend in Eli Lilly that now manufactures genetically modified insulin? They're hitting us from both sides.

    • 1 year ago
  • mindcruzer
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • mindcruzer:

      Name them. And BT is toxic. BT corn is a registered pesticide with the EPA.

      http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/butterfly.cfm

      http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

      BT cotton is toxic as well.

      http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-3049910,prtpage-1.cms
      The point is that we do not know in the longterm how eating too much of this (which cannot now be helped since BT corn comprises over 80% of the processed foods on our shelves and high fructose corn syrup more than likely made from it is in EVERYTHING) can or will manifest itself in humans as it goes up the food chain from our soil. Tests also show infertility in other mammals by the third generation. This is a warning we need to heed for our own species as ingestion of these organisms increases, and not by choice. And since there are no tests done to confirm this one way or the other it was immoral and irresponsible to release these organisms into our food and environment, and the plight of the monarch butterfly is but one example with tests on bees also showing effects from BT crops. We may also be seeing manifestation in higher levels of obesity due to increased amounts of pesticides being sprayed (and if you watch Monsanto's ads for RoundUp you will see how they are falsely making people believe they can spray it liberally even on their own sidewalks which eventually runs into sewers and waterways) the pesticide already inserted in BT corn and other BT crops ( which makes the crop the pesticide) and other manifestations regarding breakdown of gut bacteria in humans afer eating high levels of it ( tests also showing it being found in animal guts which humans eat. Know anyone NOT taking Nexium now?) However, since Monsanto owns the patent for the seeds ( and you cannot save them) and other companies are following suit being covered by this FDA, we may never know which is why labels are very important in relaying to consumers this very information.

    • 1 year ago
  • mindcruzer
    • 0
      mindcruzer  
    • JanforGore:

      Sorry Jan, I keep getting monsantos BT and Roundup ready products confused. I am not a fan of making plants that produce pesticides unless we know with certainty that they are not toxic to humans.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  

    • If GMOS were "equivalent" and there was nothing to hide, they wouldn't be trying so hard to stop scientists from researching them on their own... And they wouldn't be patenting it. But then, the patenting along with their biopiracy scams are all part of the plan to one day OWN IT ALL. Remember these patents cover the seeds and ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS of the plant. They aim to own nature itself, and it is not only immoral but criminal.

    • 1 year ago
more from Movies:
from the community

top videos