Jaan Suurkula wrote:

"Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and
Technology" (PSRAST)

ARGUMENTS FOR GE FOOD WITHDRAWAL

Now 127 scientists (predominantly) and physicians have signed our Open
Letter demanding a withdrawal of GE foods
(http://www.psrast.org/psrlet.htm"). Thank you all who have contributed to
this success! Please help us to convince more to sign! Here are some brief
arguments you can show those who hesitate.

Best regards,

Jaan Suurkula

============================================================================
===
TO YOU WHO HESITATE TO SIGN

Below a number of objections and brief counterarguments with links to more.

OBJECTION 1:
        I am not a specialist on this field. I don't feel competent to sign.

        ANSWER:
        1. The issue is very simple and does not require any specialist competence
to understand. It takes only a few minutes of study of the facts to realize
why withdrawal is necessary.
        a) It is very obvious that "substantial equivalence" is an invalid
unscientific safety criterion (actually being a judical invention to
facilitate rapid GE food approval), see http://www.psrast.org/subeqow.htm
("Substantial equivalence versus scientific food safety assessment").
        b) It is a scientifically established fact that artificial insertion of
genes may cause completely unexpected metabolic disturbances that may
result in harmful substances, see http://www.psrast.org/defknfood.htm ("Is
there enough knowledge about effects of GE foods to make it possible to
estimate their safety?"). Recently unearthed secret documents show that
this has been recognized even by FDA and EU experts, see
http://www.psrast.org/ctsafety.htm#inadfunct"
        c) It is a fact, recognized by all experts, that it is much more difficult
to assess the safety of food than to assess drug safety. Over 10% of drugs
that "pass" billion dollar safety assessment programs still turn out to
have serious side-effects, see http://www.psrast.org/molbreli.htm ("No
safety assessment methods are fully reliable"). Only very careful long term
studies can detect harmful substances in GE foods. - The very superficial
testing, accepted in the case of substantial equivalence is completely
unreliable. Yet, all GE foods on the market have been approved on the basis
of such testing.

        "Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful
substances in Genetically Modified Foods." (Dr Andrew Chesson, vice
chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition
and formerly an ardent advocate of food biotechnology. Daily Mail, UK, 13
Sept 1999).

        2. This open letter is meant to be a demonstration by qualified
professionals with academic background. Biotech advocates and PR firms have
worked hard to make governements believe that GMO resistance is only an
expression of consumer ignorance and irrational fears for new technologies.
Our letter disqualifies this key argument and points to scientific reasons
for withdrawal.

        3. Very few specialists dare to sign because a large part of the research
related to the issue is sponsored by the biotech industry. To backup them,
we need the participation of a large number of qualified professionals with
academic background.

OBJECTION 2.
        I am confused. - Some leading scientists say that it has not been proven
that GE foods are harmful.

        ANSWER:
        This is a dishonest, seriously misleading and irrelevant argument. What is
relevant is that it has not been proven that GE foods are harmless. For
example DDT caused extensive damage worldwide because it was released
although is was not proven that it was harmless. Leading scientists are the
prime cooperation targets for biotech companies, and cannot be trusted
uncritically in this issue. Go by the facts, not by "authorities", see also
http://www.psrast.org/crisisofsci.htm ("Dysfunctional science - Towards a
"pseudoscientific world order?").

OBJECTION 3:
        But these foods may contribute to save millions of people from hunger.

        ANSWER:
        This is not true. Even biotech advocates now admit that none of the
present GE foods are of any significant value to mankind. The biotech
propaganda has created confusion in using potential usefulness of *future*
GE foods as arguments for approving *present* useless foods, see
http://www.psrast.org/geprodct.htm ("The GE-foods developed so far are of
no significant value for mankind). It is an unproven hypothesis that future
GE foods may reduce world hunger.

OBJECTION 4:
        But the advocates say GE crops are more friendly to the environment,
requiring less use of herbicides and pesticides.

        ANSWER:
        This has been a major selling argument, which in practice has not turned
out to be true according to recent studies. See for example
a) the recent report of World Wildlife Fund,
http://www.wwfcanada.org/news-room/GE%20&%20Pesticides.PDF">("WWF Report:
GE & Pesticides").
b) http://www.psrast.org/rrsoyfailure.htm ("Genetically Engineered Roundup
Ready Soy crops less profitable than conventionally bred varieties"). -
Over 8000 university-based field studies finds lower yields and increased
use of herbicide compared to conventionally bred soy.
        BUT MOST IMPORTANT: Even if the GE crops were more friendly to the
environment, this would not justify the exposition of millions of people to
unknown health hazards from eating them.

OBJECTION 5:
        "I agree with all this but I think withdrawal is not realistic."

        ANSWER:
        Our role is to inform governments what is the only logical and responsible
decision to make on the basis of scientific facts. The  feasibility of
withdrawal is completely irrelevant in this context. It would give the
governments completely misleading signals if we demanded anything less. Our
letter provides important support to increasing worldwide consumer demands
for withdrawal. Already, the GE-advocating governments have been forced to
change their policy considerably.

Jaan Suurkula M.D.