Every single report and (peer reviewed) publication cited by Jay in fact
relates to food safety testing - and as I assume, you may be fully aware
of this. I do not notice any positive hint as to your idea, what kind of
safety testing you are striving for...
Thus, again, what is the objective of your asking? - or is it simply the
kind of Pusztai-experiments you cite as having demonstrated harmful
effects of *GM potatoes*???
Raw potatoes and lectins can be harmful as a rat diet, which has no
meaning with respect to the food safety of any commercialized GM plant.
With these, the "experiment" most convincing to lay people, presumably, is
going on in real life. And this does not seem to support your belief that
GM food is wrong.
May I categorize your question to be structured by this fixed position
within the battlefield? (in reminiscence of my previous questions) Then,
your allegation that companies have abstained from trials of safety
testing in view of Pusztais results, looks to be an unfair choice of
Not one of these reports relates to *safety* testing on humans or animals
of these foods, does it? This is what I've been asking for and which
no-one can provide.
Since Arpad Pusztai did his testing and determined the harmful effect of
GM potatoes on rats, it seems that no company has been willing to try
safety testing on any of their GM products.
Why is this?
Subj: Re: Punlished Literature on Science and testing in GMO risk/safety
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 3:11:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: email@example.com (Piero Morandini)
Now we all understand that human beings have fewer value than nature,
since Marcus Williamson is asking for safety testing on humans. In other
words we can make experiments with humans but, please, do not touch
Nature. Feed them with one kilo a day of raw soya and wonder why they
die of Diarrhea (the soybean trypsin inhibitor have this effect, to my
limited knowledge, this is why you need to cook it)
Then of course you can claim that GM food is poisonous...
Do you realise that you are asking for tests that have to be invented for
revealing undefined dangers? The actual tests on food (which I understand
are being done on any GM product before it reaches the market, correct me
please if I am wrong) are the results of tens of years of experience and
trial and are therefore the best tests produced so far of science and food
tecnology in this field. Asking for something different (which you are not
able to specify in detail) means that you are rejecting all the science
and technology, which you might do, but, please, don't forget to reject
also all the welfare that came out of it.
Biology Department "L. Gorini"
Section for Plant Physiology and Biochemistry
University of Milan
Via Celoria 26, Torre 4C,
Milan 20133 Italy
Date: Jul 27 2000 15:37:17 EDT
From: "Redenbaugh, Keith"
Subject: RE: Punlished Literature on Science and testing in GMO
Calgene conducted rat feeding studies on Flavr Savr tomatoes. The studies
and analyses (including conclusions by FDA CFSAN) are available through
at the FDA Dockets Management Branch in Rockville, MD (301 443-1751). The
animal studies showed that there were no differences between the transgenic
and traditional tomatoes. After its 4 1/2 year review, the FDA concluded
that the Flavr Savr tomato was as safe as other tomatoes.
Date: Jul 27 2000 16:45:48 EDT
From: Marcus Williamson
Subject: Re: Published Literature on Science and testing in GMO
Can you point to *any* available *safety* test reports which prove that GM
foods are safe for use by animals or humans? As far as I can see, explicit
safety testing has never been done on any GM foods.
Look forward to hearing from you.
>I can assure you that biotech products are given to
>animals and humans for general safety testing prior to public sale.