|
|
De:
Maria Cristina Amaro Carneiro <cristinacarneiro@uol.com.br>
Data: Sáb Nov 20, 1999 5:25
am
Assunto: [gen-ocidio] OPEN LETTER OF PSRAST
|
We are now launching an open letter to governments worldwide. We invite
you who are a physician or scientist to sign it.
OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT
We, the undersigned scientists and physicans, demand that all
genetically engineered (GE) foods be withdrawn from the market unless
they have undergone rigorous safety assesment including long term
testing on animals and humans. This includes all GE foods that have been
approved on the basis of the principle of "substantial equivalence".
In practice, all GE foods on the market have been insufficiently tested
andshould thus be withdrawn.
The reasons are as follows: The principle of "Substantial equivalence"
is based on the assumption that if a GE food and its natural counterpart
are
compared for a limited number of chosen traits, and are found to be
similar, then
there is no reason to submit the GE food to careful testing.
This assumption has no basis in science. It does not take into account
the
possibility that in each separate case, insertion of
genes into DNA may cause metabolic disturbances, or unpredictably
generate
potentially harmful substances. This has been predicted on molecular
biological
grounds [1] and also demonstrated in experimental cases [2]. Such
substances
(toxins, allergenes) may be very difficult to detect. Thus there is a
considerable risk they will be overlooked if the superficial tests used
for
"establishing subtantial equivalence" are applied.
The insufficiency of the principle of substantial equivalence is briefly
summarized in a web document [3] and is explained in more detail in a
recent
article in the science journal "Nature" [4]. Only by applying rigorous
food
safety testing, including long term testing on animals (preferably
lifetime)
and humans (at least 3-5 years), is it possible to minimize the risk of
missing
unpredicted harmful substances [5].
CONCLUSION
The principle of substantial equivalence has no scientific basis. Since
this is
the standard which has been used for approving GE
foods, it follows that none of the GE foods on the market today can be
considered safe. In the worst case exposure of the population may have
disastrous consequences. Therefore, GE foods at present on sale should
be
withdrawn from the market immediately. No new GE foods should be
introduced
until proper methods of assessment have been applied.
References:
1. Fagan J, "Assessing the safety and nutritional quality of genetically
engineered foods" at http://www.psrast.org/jfassess.htm
For an introduction, see for example the web document: "Is there enough
knowledge about effects of GE foods to make it possible to estimate
their
safety?" at http://www.psrast.org/defknfood.htm
2. a) Violand BN et al. Protein Science. 3:1089-97, 1994.
b) Reddy SA, Thomas TL.Nature Biotechnology, vol 14, sid 639-642, May
1996.
c) Inose, T. Murata, K. Int. J. Food Science Tech 30: 141-146, 1995.
d) Nordlee, J.A. et al. The New England Journal of Medicine 14: 688-728;
1996.
3. "Substantial equivalence versus scientific food safetyassessment" at
http://www.psrast.org/subeqow.htm
4. Millstone E, Brunner E and Mayer S, "Beyond Substantial Equivalence",
Nature
401: 525-526, 7 Oct 1999.
5. Fagan, John, "Testing the safety of genetically engineered foods" at
http://www.psrast.org/jfreqtst.htm
Go to the signature registration form at:
http://www.flashbase.com/forms/letrsign
Best regards,
Jaan Suurkula, MD
Chairman of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of
Science
and Technology (PSRAST)
|
|
= Proprietário
= Moderador
= Online