Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Health
In reply to the discussion: Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned. [View all]proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)37. Too much reading? Here, I'll it abbreviate for you.
PART 2
Chesson played a leading role in discrediting the research of his former colleague Dr Arpad Pusztai. It was Chesson who chaired the audit committee which found fault with Pusztai, and which later rejected Pusztai's detailed response to its audit. He is identified as the person in charge of the audit here:
http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmo/gmaudit7.htm
By rejecting Dr Pusztai's conclusions, Chesson's audit report not only rubbished the research but effectively justified Pusztai having been forced to retire after expressing concerns about GM.
*****However*****, when an independent panel of scientists from 13 different countries, led by Prof E. Van Driessche of the Laboratory of Protein Chemistry, Vrije University, Brussels, subsequently reviewed Chesson's audit report, they found serious fault with it, even suggesting its selection of data had been made with a view to disproving Dr Pusztai's conclusions.
http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover8.html
And part of Pusztai's research showing harm from GM potatoes, i.e. the same research which Chesson's Audit Committee claimed hadn't provided a basis for Pusztai's expressions of concern about GM, was subsequently successfully peer reviewed (with double the number of normal peer reviewers) and published in The Lancet.
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai
So, could anyone have been less suited to overseeing the review of Seralini's study than Andrew Chesson judge, jury, and a known executioner?
LINK CITED ABOVE:
http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover8.html
Peer review vindicates scientist let go for "improper" warning about genetically modified food
March 11, 1999
<...>
Now, an independent panel of 23 scientists from 13 countries led by Professor E. Van Driessche of the Laboratory of Protein Chemistry, Vrije University, Brussels has reviewed the Audit Report and a report prepared independently by Dr. Pusztai. In its review (PULLED http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/404/ ), the panel states that although the results included in the report appeared to be arbitrarily selected with a view to disproving Dr. Pusztai's conclusions, they nevertheless "showed very clearly that the transgenic GNA-potato had significant effects on immune function and this alone is sufficient to vindicate entirely Dr. Pusztai's statements." The review panel further concluded that the data contained in the Audit Report and a report prepared independently by Dr. Pusztai would be suitable for publication, i.e., in a peer-reviewed journal. Specifically, the review panel stated that "although some of the results are preliminary, they are sufficient to exonerate Dr. Pusztai by showing that the consumption of GNA-GM-potatoes by rats let to significant differences in organ weight and depression of lymphocyte responsiveness compared to controls."
Recognizing, presumably, a legitimate concern about the safety of genetically modified food, a European directive is now in preparation that will require food suppliers to label genetically modified products. Nick Brown, Britain's Agriculture Secretary, defends the consumer's right not to consume genetically modified food and is working to incorporate the European directive into British law (The Scotsman, Feb 1, 1999). Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, rules out a moratorium on genetically-modified foods, insisting that there is no scientific justification for one (The Independent, Feb 4, 1999).
<...>
Peer review vindicates scientist let go for "improper" warning about genetically modified food
March 11, 1999
<...>
Now, an independent panel of 23 scientists from 13 countries led by Professor E. Van Driessche of the Laboratory of Protein Chemistry, Vrije University, Brussels has reviewed the Audit Report and a report prepared independently by Dr. Pusztai. In its review (PULLED http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/404/ ), the panel states that although the results included in the report appeared to be arbitrarily selected with a view to disproving Dr. Pusztai's conclusions, they nevertheless "showed very clearly that the transgenic GNA-potato had significant effects on immune function and this alone is sufficient to vindicate entirely Dr. Pusztai's statements." The review panel further concluded that the data contained in the Audit Report and a report prepared independently by Dr. Pusztai would be suitable for publication, i.e., in a peer-reviewed journal. Specifically, the review panel stated that "although some of the results are preliminary, they are sufficient to exonerate Dr. Pusztai by showing that the consumption of GNA-GM-potatoes by rats let to significant differences in organ weight and depression of lymphocyte responsiveness compared to controls."
Recognizing, presumably, a legitimate concern about the safety of genetically modified food, a European directive is now in preparation that will require food suppliers to label genetically modified products. Nick Brown, Britain's Agriculture Secretary, defends the consumer's right not to consume genetically modified food and is working to incorporate the European directive into British law (The Scotsman, Feb 1, 1999). Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, rules out a moratorium on genetically-modified foods, insisting that there is no scientific justification for one (The Independent, Feb 4, 1999).
<...>
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A fine piece that covers a wider swath of the issue from the science standpoint.
HuckleB
Sep 2012
#2
My opinion? It's scientist vs. scientist / industry's fading efforts to censor independent research.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2012
#10
Which, in your rigid world view, is any post without an authoritarian stamp of approval
Chemisse
Nov 2012
#62
The saga of 'Scientist' vs Scientist with and without the benefit of the internet. Oh, snap.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2012
#34
The Slate source brought up Mother Jones writer, Tom Philpott, and so does ThinkProgress.org below.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2012
#44