Hagelin Stuns the EPA with Stirring "StarLink" Testimony

On Tuesday, November 28, Dr. John Hagelin presented a powerful statement about the hazards of genetically engineered foods to an open meeting of an Environmental Protection Agency panel in Washington, D.C.

The Scientific Advisory Panel for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) held the meeting to consider the possible allergenic effects of StarLink corn on human health. Starlink, a variety of genetically engineered corn that has not been approved by the EPA for human consumption, was recently discovered to have contaminated corn products being sold at supermarkets around the country.

Dr. Hagelin's testimony created an explosion of concern among the largely pro-genetic engineering audience at the open meeting and created a fresh wave of scientific scrutiny about the hazards of GE foods. His testimony is reprinted, along with an editorial from the Providence Journal about his leadership in the effort to protect our food supply.

Press Statement for the Fifra Scientific Advisory Panel
Open Meeting on Starlink Corn

Arlington, Virginia
November 28, 2000
JOHN HAGELIN, Ph.D.
Director, Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy

I speak to you as a scientist who is striving to ensure that our best scientific knowledge be applied for the solution—and prevention—of society’s problems. I am a nuclear physicist who has published extensively in superstring theory and, during the last three elections, I have been the Presidential candidate of the Natural Law Party.

I want to address an issue much deeper than whether the CRY9C protein in StarLink corn is likely to be allergenic. I want to address the assumptions that underlie the entire agricultural bioengineering enterprise. I am deeply concerned that life scientists are implementing bioengineering technologies without adequately understanding the lessons we have learned from the physical sciences. One of the key revelations of modern physics is that phenomena unfold in a far less linear and predictable fashion than eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers assumed. Today we know that there are inherent limitations on our ability to make precise predictions about the behavior of a system, especially for microscopic systems and nonlinear systems of great complexity.

Numerous eminent molecular biologists recognize that DNA is a complex nonlinear system and that splicing foreign genes into the DNA of a food-yielding organism can cause unpredictable side effects that could harm the health of the human consumer. Yet, the genetic engineering of our food—and the widespread presence of genetically altered foods in American supermarkets—is based on the premise that the effects of gene-splicing are so predictable that all bioengineered foods can be presumed safe unless proven otherwise. This refusal to recognize the risks of unintended and essentially unpredictable negative side effects is just plain bad science. It is astounding that so many biologists are attempting to impose a paradigm of precise, linear, billiard-ball predictably onto the behavior of DNA, when physics has long since dislodged such a paradigm from the microscopic realm and molecular biological research increasingly confirms its inapplicability to the dynamics of genomes.

Moreover, the premise of predictability is not just scientifically unsound; it is morally irresponsible. The safety of our food is being put at risk in a cavalier, if not callous, fashion, not only in disregard of scientific knowledge, but in disregard of recent technological history. Here, too, lessons should have been learned from the physical sciences. Time and again, the overhasty application of nuclear technologies led to numerous health and environmental disasters. For example, in the early days of nuclear technology, the rush to commercialize led to the sale of radium tipped wands designed to remove facial hair. Nine months later the cancers came. Similarly, the failure to comprehend the full range of risks and to proceed with prudence has led to many disasters in the nuclear power industry.

In the case of genetic engineering, even greater caution is called for: a nuclear disaster only lasts 10,000 years, whereas gene pollution is forever—self-perpetuating and irreversible.

The irresponsible behavior that permitted the marketing of bioengineered foods has not been limited to the scientific community, but includes the executive branch of the federal government. The FDA’s internal records reveal that its own experts clearly recognized the potential for gene-splicing to induce production of unpredicted toxins and carcinogens in the resultant food. These same records reveal that these warnings were covered up by FDA political appointees operating under a White House directive to promote the biotech industry. It is unconscionable that the FDA claimed itself unaware of any information showing that bioengineered foods differ from others, when its own files are filled with such information from its scientific staff. And it is unconscionable that it permits such novel foods to be marketed based on the claim they are recognized as safe by an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community, when it knows such a consensus does not exist.

The StarLink fiasco further demonstrates the shoddiness of the government’s regulation, since the system failed to keep even an unapproved bioengineered crop out of our food. Indeed, the contamination was discovered not by the government, but by public interest groups. The FDA had no clue and had taken no measures to monitor. This incident also demonstrates how difficult it will be to remove a bioengineered product from our food supply if it is eventually found to be harmful and, therefore, how important it is to prevent the introduction of new ones and to phase out those currently in use.

It is high time that science and the truth be respected, and that the false pretenses enabling the commercialization of bioengineered foods be acknowledged and abolished. I call upon the members of this panel to uphold sound science so that you can hold your own heads up as the facts about the hazards of bioengineered food become increasingly well known. I call upon you not only to resist the pressures to approve the pesticidal protein in StarLink Corn; I call upon you to honestly acknowledge the inherent risks of genetic engineering and to affirm that, due to these risks, neither StarLink nor any other bioengineered food can be presumed safe at the present stage of our knowledge.

[Nick.Shu]

Wisdom would suggest that allergenic properties from one species would be transferred into another. A spoken but not just yet proven effect is that the genes transfered from brazil nuts to soybeans (possibly round up ready soy) creates a secondary allergy to soy thru the xfer of genes from brazil nuts to soy.

So being that, where does that leave myself or my itchy brethren?

[cape chef]

Jesse, Thank you for sharing this powerful document with us. Although I am not a scientist,It reaffirms my commitment as a chef to prepare and serve foods that are fresh and wholesome. Does anyone no of a site that has a petition. Or of a way to collectively as a profession sound our feelings and concerns?
cc

[shroomgirl]

Buying food is a political act.
That is what a chef from Chez Panisse told me last weekend....
There is a revolving door between the USDA and Monsanto. Who do you think pays for research? And if the results don't match bottom line guess who buries those results.
How much is donated at State and National level and who is donating? Why do we insist other countries take our private enterprise
GM products or risk not being able to sell premium products to the USA? As a mother of a child with severe food allergies the implications are horrific. As a member of the community I live in I don't want to see the family/organic farmer become a thing of the past.....for those of you who havn't read past threads I started the school program, Farmer/chef night dinners and the farmer's market to keep farmers in business and build our organic base. 3 years ago 10 out of 30 farmers I contacted were not going to farm again these were 3rd generation farmers on land that had been farmed for over 100 years. Speaking about this at state conferences or to dietcian groups or to schools or to the dining public....I hope when the midwest wakes up it won't be too late.....this one may not be reversable.
* If you care say something and speak with your $. For the food industry that is a major overhaul. The general public looks to chefs for "professional information". Please be informed about what is happening in our food supply. Then mention it when you give a class or demonstration.
Thanks

shroomgirl: Thank you. We are all VERY concerned! You know - one day in the future, not to long from now, I have faith this will come true...

Lets read about that bright hope together..
Amos 9 :13. "Behold, the days are coming,'' says the Lord, "When the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him who sows seed; the mountains shall drip with sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it.
I will bring back the captives of My people Israel and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit...
A biblical prophecy which will be realized in the FUTURE.
Just think about it. Wonderful!!

[momoreg]

I hope that that prophecy comes true. It's so sad that we may be facing a permanent chance in human genetics, due to the greed and ignorance of those engineers.

[shroomgirl]

CC that is the basis of Chef's Collaborative.
That's why I formed the chapter here......check out Ann Cooper (Putney Inn and Ross School) new book "Bitter Harvest"
If a petition comes up I'll holler. meanwhile know that 5 chemical groups formed a coop and are spending 30M for the next 5 years on PR to offset the bad press. They have some scientist talking for them, they have paid writers flooding the written press....it's not a secret. I am getting a copy of the (video tape) conference I attended for Mo Dept of Ag where Monsanto was a major sponsor....and a preconference speaker on Mkt....

Another article from the Chicago Tribune...
Published on Sunday, September 3, 2000 in the Chicago Tribune. Martha R. Herbert

BOSTON - Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown.
As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.

In less than five years these companies have flooded the marketplace with thousands of untested and unlabeled products containing foreign genetic material. These genetically modified foods pose several very real dangers because they have been engineered to create novel proteins that retard spoilage, produce their own pesticides against insects, or allow plants to tolerate larger and larger doses of weed killers.

Despite claims that these food products are based on "sound science," in truth, neither manufacturers nor the government has studied the effects of these genetically altered organisms or their new proteins on people--especially babies, the elderly, and the sick.

Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant's developing nervous system? We need answers to these questions, and until then genetically altered ingredients should be removed from the food we eat.

As a pediatric neurologist, I especially worry about the safety of modified foods when it comes to children. We know that the human immune system, for example, is not fully developed in infants. Consequently, pediatricians have long been concerned about early introduction of new proteins into the immature gut and developing body of small children.

Infants with colic are often switched to soy formula. Yet we have no information on how they might be affected by drinking genetically engineered soy, even though this product may be their sole or major source of nutrition for months. Because these foods are unlabeled, most parents feed their babies genetically altered formula whether they want to or not……

Yet as more unlabeled and untested genetically engineered foods enter the market, there is no one monitoring how the millions of people with immune system vulnerability are reacting to them and the novel proteins and fragments of viruses they can contain. In fact, without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.

The biotech industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration say there is no reason to test genetically modified foods, because they are no different from the products of old-fashioned plant breeding. (Comment: And besides that elephants surely can fly!! We’ve just never been at the right place at the right time Ho Ho!!)

We have no idea what these effects may be, or what form the disruptions may take. We don't know because no one has studied these questions in depth, and biotech corporations are not required to conduct thorough health analyses as a precondition for putting genetically engineered products on the market.

Finally, there is the question of antibiotic-resistance genes……..

Scientists know that in nature antibiotic resistance genes can pass from one organism to another. If such genes take up residence in our bodies, many of the currently available drugs such as ampicillin, an often-used antibiotic, could become useless.

Before we produce and market untested genetically altered foods, we need to conduct a complete, thorough, long-term, and independent evaluation of all of these novel organisms. And we need to label foods containing altered genes. As pediatricians often advise parents, "better safe than sorry."

Copyright 2000 Chicago Tribune

Comment:
It's really sad the risks large companies will take for the sake of big profits.
Jesse

[Live_to_cook]

Lovely... and just when you thought getting your fat grams down was the biggest dietary bugaboo out there. Now we have gene spliced groceries, something you can't even detect without DNA testing your &#@*$& cornflakes.