Back to Index
Thanks to Allsorts The Observer- Sun 12 April 1998
Hundreds of acres of genetically modified crops have been found by
government inspectors to breach tight rules intended to keep artificial
genes out of the food chain.
The crops - cultivated in plots of up to a hundred football pitches in size
- are being grown in Britain as part of a huge experiment, even though the
Government is still deciding whether to ban them.
Despite overwhelming evidence that three quarters of British consumers
oppose such crops, their development is expanding on a dramatic scale, with
scant regard for safety.
Inspectors have found genetically engineered potatoes growing in fields of
beans and ordered entire crops of modified oilseed rape to be destroyed
after plants were sited less than three metres from conventional plants,
sparking fears of that cross pollination could occur.
MP's have condemned the scale of the 'so called' testing as dangerous. They
want experimental use of genetically modified crops in Britain cur-tailed
until more work has been done on the enviromental effects of cultivation.
'A hidden revolution is taking place which no one has voted on' said Norman
Baker, Liberal Democrat consumer affairs and enviroment spokesman.
Thanks to MichaelP
papadop@peak.org
for posting the following article:
© By The Associated Press
April 15, 1998
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The European Union plans to approve the sale of
four new types of genetically-modified grain this week, a spokesman for the
EU's executive agency said Wednesday.
Peter Jorgensen said the European Commission plans to approve Friday
requests to sell gene-modified corn developed by U.S.-based Monsanto,
Novartis of Switzerland and AgrEvo of Germany.
It also intends to approve the sale of gene-modified grapeseed oil by AgrEvo.
The move had been expected since a panel of EU scientists approved such a
move in February, followed in March by environment officials from the 15 EU
nations.
Environmental groups, including Greenpeace, have expressed concern about
introducing biofoods on the market as have several EU governments,
including France, Austria and Luxembourg.
The following text was taken from an article in the University of Michigan
faculty and staff newspaper, The University Record, April 8, 1998, on page
18.
It refers to an article that appears in the Journal of Bone and Mineral
Research 1998; 13:706-715 (published by the American Society for Bone and
Mineral Research)
by Sally Pobojewski, Health Systems Public Relations
Laboratory mice that have been genetically altered to produce human
growth hormone grow to be 25-30 percent larger than normal mice - with much
of that size difference coming from bigger bones, according to U-M
researchers. The trade-off for bigger bones in adolescence appears to be
poorer bone quality, increased brittleness and less resistance to fractures
as mice age.
by John Vidal,
The Guardian Weekly for week ending 1998.4.19
MONSANTO, the huge United States chemical company that is facing mounting
opposition in Europe as it spearheads the rush to hi-tech foods, has called
for genetically modified (GM) crops to be separated at source from
traditional foods and has admitted that it has misjudged consumers'
concerns. ...
As Monsanto prepared to mount a multi-million dollar public relations
campaign to convince European shoppers of the ecological and global
benefits of GM foods, it admitted that it had underestimated ethical and
scientific concerns and had pushed its products on to the market without
explanation.
"We made mistakes which we regret. We should have listened more carefully,"
said Philip Angell, Monsanto's US director of corporate communications. The
scale and speed of the GM food revolution has astonished observers and
worried critics, who see a further global intensification of farming and no
choice for consumers.
Call for Independent Enquiry
A review appearing in the scientific Journal, Microbial Ecology in Health
and Disease* suggests links between commercial gene technology and the
recent accelerated resurgence of drug and antibiotic resistant infectious
diseases.
At the heart of the issue is horizontal gene transfer - the transfer of
genes by vectors such as viruses and other infectious agents - which is
exploited by genetic engineers to make transgenic organisms. While natural
vectors respect species barriers, the barrage of artificial vectors made by
genetic engineers are designed to cross species barriers, thus greatly
enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, and
spreading drug and antibiotic resistance. Totally unrelated pathogens are
now showing up with identical virulence and antibiotic resistance genes.
Recent statistics are frightening. Infectious diseases were
responsible for 1/3 of the 52 million deaths from all causes in 1995.
Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis is now estimated to affect 10 million
each year with 3 million deaths. At least 50 new viruses attacking humans
emerged between 1988 and 1996. Between 1986 and 1996, E. coli 0157:H7
infections increased by 10-fold in England and Wales and 100-fold in
Scotland. Vancomycin resistance rose from 3% to 95% in San Francisco
hospitals in the four years between 1993 and 1997. And Staphyloccocus
(toxic shock syndrome) is now invulnerable to all known antibiotics.
The first genetic engineers called for a moratorium in the Asilomar
Declaration of 1975, precisely because they were afraid of inadvertently
creating new viral and bacterial pathogens. The worst case scenario they
envisaged may be taking shape. Commercial pressures led to regulatory
guidelines based largely on untested assumptions, all of which have been
invalidated by recent scientific findings.
For example, biologically
"crippled" laboratory strains of bacteria can often survive in the
environment to exchange genes with other organisms. Genetic material (DNA)
released from dead and living cells, far from being rapidly broken down,
actually persists in the environment and transfer to other organisms.
Naked viral DNA may be more infectious, and have a wider host range than
the virus. Viral DNA resists digestion in the gut of mice, enter the blood
stream to infect white blood cells, spleen and liver cells, and may even
integrate into the mouse cell genome.
"We may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg," the scientists
state, "There is an urgent need to tighten existing regulations." Instead,
the EU is relaxing the guidelines on both deliberate release and contained
use of GMOs. "That is an irresponsible move in the light of existing
scientific knowledge." The Editor of the Journal is inviting other
scientists to contribute to the debate.
Contact: Dr. Mae-Wan Ho Biology Department, Open University, Walton Hall,
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, tel. 01908-653113, fax. 01908-654167, e-mail:
m.w.ho@open.ac.uk
Thanks to jim mcnulty
jim@niall7.demon.co.uk
for posting this:
April 14, 1998
© 1998, Associated Press
ASHLAND, ORE. - The Associated Press via NewsEdge Corporation : Irradiated
potatoes, genetically engineered tomatoes, grain grown on sewage sludge and
factory-farmed livestock fed antibiotics.
Many organic farmers and retailers are betting consumers will not like the
sound of that. But, they assert, that is what can be expected to carry the
"organic" label if proposed Agriculture Department standards backed by
agribusiness take effect.
"It's a war over the word `organic'," said Mark Bassik of Windy River
Farms in Grants Pass, Ore., as he sold his organic produce recently at the
Ashland Grower's Market. "It's opening up organic to big business. It's
opened up to the point where you can do almost anything."
The Agriculture Department has received more than 27,000 comments in the
four months since the proposed rules were released and is urging opponents
to hold their fire. The proposal is just that, USDA says.
"This is not the final rule and should not be read to reflect how USDA
will finally resolve the many difficult issues involved," Agriculture
Secretary Dan Glickman said earlier this year.
Bassik and many other organic farmers and retailers say the proposed
federal standards significantly water down organic certification as it now
is defined by 17 states and 33 private organizations.
They are fighting back with an organized letter-writing campaign called
Save Organic Standards, hoping to persuade USDA to maintain tough and
meaningful rules. The public comment period on the proposed standards
closes April 30.
Opponents say two things are at stake _ a $3.5 billion industry comprising
mostly small farmers, and the future health of Americans who prefer natural
foods.
Organic certification standards vary, but generally no pesticides,
herbicides or preservatives are sprayed on organically grown fruits and
vegetables. No drugs can be used to produce "organic" meats. Plants and
animals must be raised in fields and pastures that have been free of
chemicals for at least three years.
Organic farmers and retailers say natural foods are hard to replicate on a
large scale by the agribusinesses now trying to rewrite the rules.
"The concept of feed the soil is sustainable and life-giving," said
Bassik. "Large industry can do it, but you can't get the same quality.
Large-scale plants don't get touched _ it's all machines."
"They're not talking about lifestyle or health of the planet. They're just
talking about how can they use that label without changing their
methodology," said Sara Hammond of Elk Creek Gardens in Trail, Ore.
"It's also a way we can keep our waters clean and the air and the
environment," said Suzanne Fry of Fry Family Farms in Talent, Ore. "The
standards will be so low people won't know what they're getting."
_____________________________________________
Richard Wolfson, PhD Our website,
http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html
contains more information on genetic engineering as well as
previous genetic engineering news items
Subscription fee to genetic engineering news is $35 for 12 months
See website for details.
Date: 14 Apr 1998 04:32:00 -0500 April 14, 1998
NEW YORK, April 13 /PRNewswire/ via NewsEdge Corporation --
The genomics revolution and the new technologies and exciting
market opportunities it has spawned in recent years will be
addressed by leaders in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry,
academia and consultants at Frost & Sullivan's second annual
pharmaceutical industry conference, Business Opportunities in the
Pharmaceutical Industry, May 13-14, 1998, and at the market
engineering workshop, May 15, 1998.
A unique opportunity for pharmaceutical and biotechnology
executives to gather a vast compendium of knowledge from leading
experts, this valuable conference and the following workshop will
offer solutions to the challenges and opportunities presented to the
pharmaceutical industry by the incredible advances made in the field
of genomics.
This conference will combine formal presentations, panel
discussions, roundtable discussion and consulting sessions with an
impressive roster of industry leaders:
In this competitive environment, only those players with the most
effective strategies will survive. Therefore, Frost & Sullivan's
conference seeks to provide strategic direction to the various
participants in the biopharmaceutical industry. Participants in Frost &
Sullivan's pharmaceutical conference include pharmaceutical firms,
fully-integrated drug discovery companies, high-throughput
screening companies, genomics players, combinatorial chemistry
companies, consulting firms, information vendors, instrumentation
and tool companies and CROs. Frost & Sullivan's consultants will
interact with other industry leaders to strategize and discuss which
method is best for your particular company.
The conference will be followed by an intense, full-day Market
Engineering Management Seminar, May 15, 1998. Led by David
Frigstad, chairman of Frost & Sullivan, and Chris Wright, Frost &
Sullivan's director of healthcare consulting, this seminar will cover the
Market Engineering system to identify growth opportunities. This
system integrates market challenges, company goals, market
research, marketing strategy, implementation and monitoring into a
practical and useful methodology that can benefit every department
in a company.
Both the conference and the workshop will be held at the
Doubletree Hotel in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As an added bonus,
all conference attendees will receive a complementary copy of Frost
& Sullivan's best-selling training manual, "Healthcare Market
Engineering," a $95 value. This practical guide on how to improve
your company's market position in the pharmaceutical and biotech
industries will show you how to utilize a measurement-based
marketing and sales system to address challenges, drive strategy,
and monitor results toward your strategic goals.
Sales Inquiries: Jason Brandi jbrandi@frost.com Or, visit Frost & Sullivan's Web site: http://www.frost.com/conferences
Conference: 2960-06 Date: May 13-14, 1998 Price: $1250 SOURCE Frost & Sullivan
Date: 14 Apr 1998 08:01:01 -0500 Recently I have been pointing out that the patented process to put the
herbicide resistance genes onto chloroplast chromosomes to prevent the
resistance genes from being transmitted through pollen and spreading
resistance to weeds is based on scientific "facts" that are false.
Numerous publications show that chloroplast genes are transmitted
through pollen in very many crop plant species and such genes are
transmitted through pollen in plants that normally do not under
environmental stress such as herbicide exposure or ionizing radiation.
Recently I was given a publication in which the head of the US National
Agricultural Biotechnology Council claimed that a genetic engineering
process was valid because it was patented and licensed.Many bodies
including the council of presidential advisors on science may share this
peculiar view. The chloroplast gene patent shows that patents are
granted to genetic processes that have little or not validity or in the
case of the chloroplast genes are based on science that has been proven
wrong.
Indeed, the opinions of patent judges and the high priced lawyers
from multinational chemical companies may be dragging the practice of
american justice, or at least patent justice into disrepute.
Prof. Joe Cummins e-mail: jcummins@julian.uwo.ca
Reply to Professor Cummins on patenting by Bob Klauber.
Although I am not a patent attorney, I have done quite a fair amount of
patenting in the past 10-11 years.
Getting a patent accepted is similar in some ways to getting a paper
accepted in a scientific journal. Getting it accepted doesn't mean it is
right, it just means the person who reviewed it (the patent examiner in this
case) thought it was. By "right" I mean in accord with scientific laws of
nature.
However, I have seen a number of patents which could be proven, by those
knowledgable, to be in violation of those laws. Unfortunately, the law
considers issued patents as valid unless proven in a court of law to be
otherwise. This, of course, is a very expensive procedure, and is usually
only carried out by large corporations who wish to invalidate the patent of
a competitor.
Dear Bob,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with you very much,however, that don't stop
the PR guys in the chemical industry from validating science by striking a
patent.
Cheers, Joe
Date: 14 Apr 1998 16:54:35 -0500 Previously I provided information on the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy
(CBS) Review for which comments were due by April 15,1998 on the
Agriculture and Agri-Food proposal. the documentation provided by the
Canadian Government included an e-mail address for the submission. My
submission met the following message on several tries over several days
"message still undelivered after 4 hours Will keep trying until message
is five days old". I finally sent in the proposal by FAX but suspect
that submission may be "lost".
The strategy is set by the National Biotechnology Advisory Committee.
The Committee advises under "The Social-Ethical Context of
Biotechnology" that the committee "advisory body should start a national
conversation on biotechnology to systematically incorporate public
input."
The committee is made up as follows:
The committee chairman is Strachan of Allelix Biopharmaceuticals, the
Prime Minister's brother , Dr. Chretien of Ottawa University, is "French
Contact" for the committee.Prof. Einsiedel of Calgary is listed as an
expert in biotechnology journalism in the University of Calgary
directory.There is little or no expertise in genetics in the committee
and no clearly visible consumer advocates as claimed in government
literature. In fact, the committee seems to be an industry lobby group,
and acts like one by advocating tax breaks and "treble" government
grants for the industry.
I have had contacts with the committee and several committee members
since 1989. I found that these individuals did not appear to be willing
to hear or act on safety oversight.For example, in 1989 I raised several
issues related to safety of genetic engineering at a meeting on safety
in Montreal.
Several biotechnology firms were hired by the Canadian
Government to answer the question they acknowledge I raised However,
their reports were delayed several years and these reports were
concealed from me by government bureaucratsWhen I finally obtained the
reports under the Access to Information Law I found that the reports
provided assurances of safety but were in direct conflict with well
published facts
In Canada the news media tend to be uncritical of government committees
that claim to represent the public interest.The public may be made to
believe a lobby group is a committee dealing with"The Social-Ethical
Context of Biotechnology".
Date: 14 Apr 1998 16:55:27 -0500 Some food facts from
http://www.worldwatch.org/index.html
Date: 14 Apr 1998 23:41:30 -0500 Monsanto sez: This isn't too different from hybrid crops which don't
reproduce.
The Guardian Wednesday April 15, 1998
A potential end to an age-old farming practice may be in sight with a
hi-tech development from the US government that can genetically switch
off plants' ability to reproduce. US patent 5,723,765, awarded jointly
last month to the world's largest cotton-seed company and the US
Department of Agriculture will allow companies to stop farmers
collecting seeds to plant again in following years.
What is being dubbed the 'Terminator Gene' by the genetic engineering
industry would, when licensed to seed and chemical companies, pass
more control of global crops to US companies and force farmers to buy
new seeds each year.
While this is not such a great problem in developed countries where
few farmers collect seed, it could have far-reaching economic and
cultural effects in poor countries where the technology is aimed, say
critics of the technology.
"The goal is to increase the value of proprietary seed owned by US
seed companies and to open new markets in second and third world
countries," said US dept of Agriculture (USDA) spokesman Willard
Phelps.
"Our mission is to protect American technology and to make us
competitive in the face of foreign competition," said USDA molecular
biologist and primary inventor of the technology Melvin J Oliver.
"We expect the new technology to have global implications," said
Murray Robinson, president of Delta and Pine Land, the company that
developed the technology with the US government and dominates global
sales of cotton seeds.
"It has the prospect of opening significant worldwide seed markets to
the sale of transgenic technology for crops in which seed is currently
saved and used in subsequent plantings." While proponents of
terminator technology, which is being tested first on cotton and
tobacco, claim that small farmers will be unaffected, concerned
agronomists say the reality is different.
"It's terribly dangerous," said Hope Shand, research director of the
Canadian RAFI group. "Half the world's farmers are poor. They provide
food for more than 1 billion people but they can't afford to buy seeds
every growing season. Seed collection is vital for them." News of the
technology has created a furore in developing countries. "The better
off farmers will be forced to pay, but their poor neighbours will no
longer be able to exchange breeding material with them. No one will
breed for their needs. It could force millions of small farmers out of
plant breeding altogether," said Neth Dano of the Filipino group
SEARICE which works with small farmers.
There are further fears that pollen from the crops carrying the
Terminator gene will blow into and 'infect' the fields of farmers who
either reject or cannot afford the technology, says Chilean agronomist
Camila Montecinos of the Centre for Education and Training.
"Farmers could find that their seeds are infertile when it is too
late. It could lead to a decline in food security for the poorest
communities. This may be the neutron bomb of agriculture," she said.
The Terminator gene would be immediately attractive for agro-chemical
companies now developing genetically engineered seeds. Because these
seeds are patented, and licensed to farmers for one growing season
only, the companies are having to employ private security guards to
ensure that farmers do not reuse their seeds.
Philip Angell, US director of corporate communications of
agro-chemical corporation Monsanto told the Guardian last week: "This
technology might prove attractive." He added that it was "not very
different from 'hybrid' crops", which do not reproduce.
Monsanto is spearheading the global genetically-modified food
revolution with technology being used on 50 million acres of crops
this year and it has a minor shareholding in Delta and Pine Land. The
two companies have a joint cotton-seed venture in China. The
$10-billion-a-year giant has spent more than $2 billion in the past
two years buying up seed companies and developing genetically-modified
crops.
"This is outrageous," says Shand. "The technology was developed with
taxpayers' money. It is designed to give the multinational seed
industry the capacity to control the world's food supply and weaken
the role of public breeders." Further information: http://www.rafi.ca.
PO Box 640 Pittsboro, NC 27312 USA. US department of Agriculture,
Washington DC.
_______________________________________________________
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. **
Date: 15 Apr 1998 01:29:18 -0500 An example of what to expect from GE food and medicine
cornerhouse@gn.apc.org wrote:
Many people who are concerned about patents on genes or some potential
applications of genetic engineering or the trends of the technology feel
that, nevertheless, they should mute their objections because of the
promise of medical benefits. Because it is still uncertain whether these
benefits are real or illusory, it can be hard to voice one's objections,
knowing that to do so may contribute to hindering research and potential
benefits.
The potential benefits, however, are not merely a scientific or medical
matter. The context in which the technologies are being developed and
applied is also important. The experiences of Jenny Hirst, Co-Chair of the
Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust, are illustrative. For several years, Ms
Hirst's daughter used genetically engineered insulin, often described as
one of the tangible benefits of genetic research and application in
medicine. Following is a shortened extract of a presentation she gave in
October 1997 at a conference entitled "A Voice for the Guinea Pig?",
organised by Consumers for Ethics Research (CERES, PO Box 1365, London N16
0BW)
extracted from CERES
newsletter, Winter 97/98 No. 23. [. . .] indicates cuts
[. . .]
"My involvement in diabetes is because my daughter, now 27, has had insulin
dependent diabetes since she was 5 years old and had insulin injections for
22 years. People with diabetes do not produce insulin and so it has to be
injected and because it is injected in boluses, it has to balance with food
and exercise. Sometimes the blood sugar can go too high or too low. It is
these low blood sugars, hypoglycaemia or 'hypos', that are of constant
concern to those living with diabetes, because if the lows remain untreated
by an intake of sugary food, then there are physical changes, behavioural
changes and eventual seizure or coma. Usually there are warning signs of
hypos: pallor, hunger, sweating, trembling. Sometimes these symptoms are
reduced or not present at all.
From the discovery of insulin in the 1920s until the early 1980s, natural
animal-derived insulins had been used, but in 1982, genetically produced
so-called 'human' insulin became available and by the late 1980s, 84% of
the diabetic community [in Britain] had been transferred to 'human' insulin
and nearly all the newly diagnosed were put straight on it.
However, in 1985/96, patients started to complain of problems, mainly of
low blood sugar without the necessary safeguard of warning signs. This
meant they could not handle the hypos themselves, required outside
assistance from family or friends, or went rapidly into seizure or coma.
Additional complaints appeared from family carers - extreme lethargy,
behavioural changes (aggression and violence), memory loss, confusion,
depression, joint pains, weight increase and changes in the menstrual
cycle.
All this happened to my daughter over a period of 4 years of the 10 years
she was taking so-called 'human' insulin. She had tests for all sorts of
possible causes, but was told by her doctor there was nothing wrong. By
this time, her weight had increased from 9 1/2 stones [133lbs/60kg] to 13
stones [182lbs/83kg] in spite of eating very little; she spent all her
time, when not at work, asleep, and could hardly walk to the nearest bus
stop. In sheer desperation, she insisted on changing back to animal insulin
and within three days showed an unbelievable improvement: her hypo warnings
returned, she was no longer confused, the pains disappeared, and over a
longer period, her memory largely returned, she went back to 9 stones and
for the first time had regular periods.
One could say this is an isolated adverse reaction. But I was a trustee of
the British Diabetic Association, and I knew that between 1986 and 1989
they received up to 3,000 letters from people with diabetes or their
carers. These were desperate letters, angry letters, but all describing
similar problems to those of my daughter after changing to 'human' insulin.
But there is more - the changeover took place often without the patient
knowing or without discussion, a letter in the post or the pharmacist just
gave them different insulin with no warnings [. . . ]
Our doctors assumed that 'human' insulin would be cheaper and better -
assumptions with no evidence except drug company sales patter [. . . ]
The anger that grew was because, when reporting problems to their
consultants, patients were not believed, nor were they believed by the BDA
[British Diabetic Association]. People were sent to psychiatrists and
psychologists, including my daughter, and for some life was unbearable [. .
.] People were told they could not change back to animal insulin.
[I resigned from the BDA] and a few months later formed the IDDT [Insuling
Dependent Diabetes Trust] with Dr Matt Kiln, a GP with diabetes who had
experienced very real problems himself. [. . .]
We gather information with which to do battle. We gathered information from
people with diabetes and we looked at insulin manufacturers, the research
and the systems which are in place for our protection. [. . . ]
We made contact with patients in Switzerland who already had formed an
organisation for the preservation of natural animal insulins. The drug
companies and BDA said the problems only existed in the UK and Switzerland,
but our investigation showed that in many countries 'human' insulin was
introduced gradually, unlike the UK and Switzerland where over a relatively
short time, huge numbers of people were transferred and hecne the problems
all started to appear at the same time. In the States, for instance,
transfer was gradual and is still going on with 300,000 people still using
animal insulins, but patients are now starting to complain. In other
countries, such as Australia, animal insulins were simply withdrawn,
leaving patients with no alternative but to use 'human'. [. . . ]
So what did we discover about the insulin manufacturers? We wrote to them
but always received the same reply - no scientific evidence of problems and
guarantees of animal insulin supplies to the year 2000. [. . . ]
But let us look at the real situation, always bearing in mind that 'human'
insulin in cheaper and easier to produce than animal but in the UK sells
for 50% more than animal. In real terms, the NHS [publically-funded
National Health Service] has been spending 19 million pounds per year more
on 'human' than if everyone had remained on purified pork insulin which was
causing no problems.
Basically, the world is supplied with insulin by two major companies, Lilly
and Novo Nordisk. In the UK, 'human' insulin is supplied by Lilly and Novo,
and pork insulin is supplied by one company only - Novo only. We are at the
whim of commercial decisions, so that insulin producers are able to dictate
to consumers and prescribing doctors, which again makes us ask why the
doctors have not supported patients on this issue. But the reality is that
the insulin manufacturers:
We looked at the research and what did we find? In 1980, the first study
was published, carried out under Professor Harry Keen wtih 17 non-diabetic
men. By 1982, 'human' insulin was licensed and on the market. Remarkably
short time considering it was the first genetically produced drug ever to
be used on mankind. Was two years really long enough to carry out studies
in the whole spectrum of people with diabetes: the young, the old, the
pregnant, those with complications? Were these trials carried out and
within two years? Neither was there any formal post marketing surveillance.
No large-scale trials have ever been carried out and bearing in mind that
there are 350,000 people with diabetes who are insulin dependent in the UK
alone, problems are not going to be detected in small studies with 20, 30
or 50 participants. Very few studies of any size have been carried out
looking at people in their normal living situation. [. . . ]
We know that there is scientific evidence to show differences between
'human' and animal insulins, but this evidence is ignored. There is no
evidence to show that 'human' insulin has any clinical advantages for
patients. We also know that there is very little effective protection for
us, the patients or consumers, and that our voice and experiences count for
very little. We know that the pharmaceutical industry has power beyond most
people's dreams and that the medical profession and researchers are being
sucked into this power game. They have lost or are losing control and it is
not in the consumers' interests that this should happen.
Vast sums of money are spent on research, only a fraction of which is
published and certainly, in diabetes, much of it is funded by industry, so
we are receiving a biased picture. [. . .]
I, and many people like me, have a daugher, only 27, who future health and
life is no longer in the hands of the medical profesion but in the hands of
the powerful pharmaceutical industry. Government cannot force them to
produce an insulin which they consider to be not commercially viable, but
surely the consumers, the medical profession and government could, if they
united, insist on obtaining the answer to one very simple question: where
is the evidence to show that genetically produced 'human' insulin has any
benefits for patients to justify the actions that have taken place and the
use of 'human' insulin as first line treatment? [. . . ]
THE CORNER HOUSE Tel: +44 (0)1258 473795
Fax: +44 (0)1258 473748
Email:
cornerhouse@gn.apc.org
Nicholas Hildyard/Sarah Sexton/Tracey Clunies Ross/Larry Lohmann
Back to IndexUK: Hundreds of GE crops found
EU To Approve Sale of Bio-Grains
Scientists Find Link Between Human Growth Hormone And Bone Quality In Mice
Thanks to Nickerson at
sustain@web.net
for forwarding the following
article:
US chemical firm admits to PR errors
From: "M.W.Ho (Maewan Ho)"
M.W.Ho@open.ac.uk
Press Release 6.4.98
Scientists Link Gene Technology to Resurgence of Infectious Diseases
Organic Farmers Fight USDA Plan
Consumer Right to Know Campaign,
for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term
Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods,
500 Wilbrod Street,
Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2
tel. 613-565-8517 fax. 613-565-1596
email:
rwolfson@concentric.net
From: jim mcnulty
jim@niall7.demon.co.uk
Subject: Leading GE Experts Discuss The Genomics Revolution
Leading GE Experts Discuss The Genomics Revolution
Leading Experts Discuss The Genomics Revolution and Other
Leading Pharmaceutical Issues at Frost & Sullivan`s Annual
Pharmaceutical Industry Conference
Press Inquiries: Claire Keerl ckeerl@frost.com
Sponsorship and Exhibit Inquiries: Gary Robbins grobbins@frost.com
Frost & Sullivan
90 West Street
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 964-7000
Fax: (212) 619-0831
Workshop: 2962-06 Date: May 15, 1998 Price: $750
Conference & Workshop Package: Price: $1850
From: Prof. Joe Cummins
jcummins@julian.uwo.ca
Subject: Re: Does having a patent make genetics valid?
Does having a patent make genetics valid?
From: Prof. Joe Cummins
jcummins@julian.uwo.ca
Subject:
Problems with the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy (CBS) review
NATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NBAC)
Institut Rosell Inc. (Montreal)
New Business Development
Bayer Inc. (Etobicoke)
Veterinary Infectious Disease
Organization (Saskatoon)
Lallamand Inc. (Quebec)
LOEB Institute
Ottawa Civic Hospital (Ottawa)
Philom Bios (Saskatoon)
Diagnostic Chemicals Limited (Charlottetown)
University of Calgary (Calgary)
Banting and Best Institute
University of Toronto (Toronto)
StressGen Biotechnologies Corp.
(Victoria)
Blake, Cassels & Graydon (Toronto)
IBEX Technologies Inc. (Montreal)
National Institute of Nutrition (Ottawa)
Vice-President
University of Saskatchewan (Saskatoon)
Acadia University (Wolfville)
Groupe Serrener Inc. (Sherbrooke)
Knowledged-based Industries
Royal Bank (Toronto)
Allelix Biopharmaceuticals Inc. (Mississauga)
BC Research Inc. (Vancouver)
From:
jtoth@lisco.com
(Joe Toth)
Subject: Some Food Facts from Worldwatch Institute
Food Facts from Worldwatch Institute
From: MichaelP
papadop@peak.org
Subject: Guardian spin on terminator tech and global dominance
US Patent Stops Farmers From Collecting Seeds
From: JHKew
JHKew@aol.com
Subject: GE - Adverse effects of "human" insulin: The context of genetic
technologies
Adverse effects of "human" insulin: The context of genetic technologies
Consumer Involvement: A Dream or a Reality?
PO Box 3137,
Station Road,
Sturminster Newton,
DORSET DT10 1YJ
Britain