Channel 4 Equinox programme: “The Rise and Fall of GM”

 

On behalf of the Equinox programme Ms Angela Neenan and I exchanged a number of e-mail messages. Essentially, Ms Neenan has made a number of overtures to me, first on 16 December 1999, whether I would be willing to participate in the programme they were making for Channel 4 in which they were to take a critical look of those who oppose this new GM-technology. Although I found the label dismissing me as anti-GM too simplistic I eventually agreed to take part in the programme.

The next message came on 20 January 2000 in which Ms Neenan announced that filming will be in London on 25 or 26 January, apologizing for the short notice. Unfortunately, as I had other engagements on these two dates I suggested 24 January or 4 February as alternatives. I also indicated, although I would be willing to come to London on these two dates, I would in fact prefer if the filming was in Aberdeen. The next contact was by phone early in March in which Ms Neenan announced to me that the programme was in fact finished with all their conclusion arrived at but if I had something really important to say they would see what could be done. The final contact was by e-mail just before the broadcast of the programme. The text of Ms Neenan’s e-mail message is given below together with my detailed replies.

It was obvious to anyone watching the Equinox programme on 20 March that I was severely and, in my opinion, grossly unfairly criticised in their programme, particularly by Dr John Gatehouse who carried out some of the GM-potato work under my coordinatorship. Moreover, this was done without the programme makers giving me a fair chance to address and reply to these criticisms in the broadcast programme even though they had in their possession my detailed replies. It is therefore obvious to me that the Kugelblitz company who made the programme did only play lipservice to their clear duty to be fair and evenhanded. Because of the great importance of these issues in a proper and scientific debate on the potential harmful health effects of GM-foodstuffs I decided to place the last exchange of e-mails between Ms Neenan and myself on my homepage for everyone to see.

Any fair-minded person, I am sure, will draw his/her conclusion that the Equinox programme was not only unfair to me but also that they rendered great disservice to science generally and to the scientific debate on GM-food particularly. What I find particularly disturbing that the undisputed fact that the health effects of GM-foods have never been tested on human volunteers was not declared in the Equinox programme or in the following debate, 23 March. Despite such a major omission, some of the GM-food enthusiasts participating in the programme were allowed by the programme makers to state that as no harmful effects have been found, GM-food is safe. This is a totally unwarranted and unscientific conclusion which can only confuse the public even further and make them more suspicious. The programme makers have certainly not adhered to the OECD principles of “openness, transparency and inclusiveness” .

 

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:45:52 +0000

From: Arpad Pusztai <[email protected]>

To: Katharine Ainger <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Documentary checking

Katharine Ainger wrote:

> Dear Dr Pusztai As you know, we are making a documentary for Channel

> 4's Equinox on the subject of genetic engineering. I wanted to send

> you an e-mail to check the following: 1) The Royal Society critique of

> your experiment included: i) an objection that the GM potatoes used

> contained almost 20% less protein than unmodified potatoes; ii)an

> objection that the GM and control diets differed in their detailed

> composition;and iii) such results as were statistically significant did

> not fall into a readily discernible pattern. 2) You did not accept the

> above criticisms. 3) Following the Royal Society report on the

> possible toxicity of GM potatoes, you stated that ' we have NEVER

> inferred from the results of the work with GM potatoes that GM foods

> were harmful to human beings'. Sorry to bother you - this must be very

> boring, but we just want to be accurate. Many thanks Angela Neenan

Dear Ms Neenan,

I have just returned from Japan which explains the delay in my replyting

to your e-mail questions. Here are my answers:

1. i. Two of our experiments (D227 and D249) were done with line 71

GNA-GM-potatoes. The protein content of these potatoes was exactly the

same as of the parent line. The other two experiments (D237 and D242)

were done with line 74 GNA-GM-potatoes which did contain 20% less

protein than the parent line. However, in the feeding experiments

iso-proteinic and iso-energetic diets were formulated in which this

protein deficiency was made up with lactalbumin protein, a standard

high-quality protein. No nutritionist would ever do such a stupid

experiment in which the protein (and energy) content of the diets are

not equalized. Incidentally, the rats were also strictly pair-fed, so

the only difference between the groups was the presence of the transgene

expressed product(s) in the GM-group, GNA in the transgene product

supplemented control diet and the absence of GNA in the parent control

group. I am afraid, the Royal Society's "experts" were not competent to

judge what is important in a nutritional experiment and what is not.

ii. See above. All other differences in the diets were due to the

transgene technology. For the main variables: protein and energy the

diets were the same. If the Royal Society had accepted my offer of

cooperation they would not have made such a blatant error in their

deliberations.

iii. I am afraid, the Royal Society "experts" had the independent

multivariate statistical analysis results and had they taken the trouble

to look at and compare the results of D227 and D249 or had they asked me

to do for them, they would have found plenty of consistency even though

the diet in D249 was supplemented with over 10% lactalbumin. The

experiments of D237 and D242 were done with the line 74 which was NOT

substantially equivalent to line 71 and therefore these results could

not be compared with those obtained in D227 or D249. In addition, the

experimental conditions were different; D237 was 110 days and D242 was

10 days and the protein contents of these diets were also different.

In fact, everything was different because in these four experiments we

tried out different variables. However, within each experiment the GM

and control diets were always comparable, i.e. iso-proteinic and

iso-energetic.

2. You bet that I did not accept their ill-judged and biased criticisms

which have come from mainly their incompetence in nutritional studies.

This incidentally also apply to most of the "experts" such as Dr

Gatehouse in your programme. Dr Gatehouse is, I am sure, a reasonable

molecular biologist but as he has never done a single nutritional study

in his life or even less published one, I think I am justified to

reserve my judgment on his competence on our nutritional studies. To

show how highly I regarded his expertise in molecular biology I only

have to tell you that I brought him into our programme despite

opposition from other partners because he did not qualify on one

important point, i.e. Durham is in England and not in Scotland and the

SOAEFD programme was a Scottish project.

3. You are right. I have always conspicuously avoided any

extrapolations from our GM-potato work to GM-food generally. However, I

can tell you on good authority, such as that of Sir Bob May, that the

opposite, i.e. that GM-food is NOT harmful to human beings cannot be

stated either. Nevertheless, the lack of ANY human (and very few

animal) study with GM-foodstuffs has never stopped the GM-lobby to state

forcefully that GM-food is safe. I am not sure who is science-based and

who is not. However, I am sure as you have already drawn all your

conclusions as you stated it in your phone call to me before the OECD

Conference, this will not stop anyone on your programme to go on

declaring that GM-food is absolutely safe and that it has been most

rigorously tested.

I hope you will find these comments "useful".

Regards

Arpad Pusztai