Last Updated: 02.11.2012
Written by Tore B. Krudtaa
Harry Kuiper has been the leader of EFSA GMO panel since 2003. How could it be so that EU has gone from zero GMOs to 2 approved GMOs for cultivation, and 38 approved GMOs for human consumption? How?
concept of comparative assessment as now used by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) was developed by industry and ILSI between 2001 and 2003. During this period, Harry Kuiper and Gijes Kleter (both members of the EFSA GMO Panel) were active within the ILSI Task Force as experts and as authors of the relevant scientific publications. It is a scandal that Kuiper has remained as Chair of EFSA's GMO Panel since 2003, and that he is still Chair in spite of the massive criticism directed at the Panel from NGOs and even from the Commission and EU member states."
More of this here:
More GM trickery from EFSA: Environmental risk assessment guidelines are deeply flawed
European Food Safety Authority: A Playing Field for Biotech Industry
It is also very interesting to watch this talk by Harry Kuiper at Cornell university in 2009. There Harry Kuiper came up with the following statement:
"And to tell you the truth... I think that if Europe could take a more relaxed attitude in terms of cultivation, then we could save the import and export of products"
See the video here (fast forward untill 59:30):
Harry Kuiper Genetically modified crops in Europe
I thought that Harry Kuiper was in the risk assessment business. What Harry Kuiper says here might imply that he would like to see that EU should give priority to import and export issues instead of proper risk assessments of the GMOs. And if we look at what has happened in relation to approved GMOs in Europe since 1998, it definitely looks like the import and export issues got most of the priority.
Now lets look at some disturbing facts about GM crops:
a) In most cultivated GM crops today, nobody can prevent the patented genes in GM plants from spreading to conventional and organic crops. When the GMO-industry and the the PRO GMO scientists speak of buffer zones between GM crop fields and conventional and organic fields, as if such buffer zones would ever prevent these patented genes from spreading.... well... many of us know that such allegations is just not working in the real life. Perhaps in the computer of Harry Kuiper, but not where the food crops grows.
b) One of the approved GM crops in EU is the MON810 corn. This is genetically modified so it produces an insecticide. Now... the BIG surprice: The toxic protein this GM plant produces is Cry1Ab. The GMO-industry says no problem and that such Cry-proteins would be broken down in the gastrointestinals of humans and animals.... Okay, really? Not so many months ago, a feeding study on rats, performed by Mahyco, the producer of the Bt brinjal (GM eggplant), indicated strongly that the rats got poisoned when fed the GM eggplant. But it was not untill independent scientists reviewed the data from the Mahyco feeding study, that these severe health issues where revealed. Here is the main findings from that study:
"current results from these rat feeding studies indicate that rats eating Bt brinjal experienced organ and system damage: ovaries at half their normal weight, enlarged spleens with white blood cell counts at 35 to 40 percent higher than normal with elevated eosinophils, indicating immune function changes; toxic effects to the liver: as demonstrated by elevated bilirubin and elevated plasma acetylcholinesterase"
Bt brinjal confirmed to be toxic
Here is more information related to the toxic GM Bt eggplant:
Corrupt science revealed in Bt Brinjal dossier
Now what is interesting is that this GMO-eggplant has two genes from the earth bacteria Bacillus Thuringiensis, namely Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac. When the GM eggplant grow those genes produce the toxic proteins Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac.
24 out of the 38 approved GM plants for human consumption in EU contain identical or similar toxic proteins as where used in the GMO-eggplant, which by the way the indian authorities had to BAN in order to protect the indian population from being... poisoned.
Now if EFSA get information that such toxic proteins can have a negative effect on rats, then it should not be difficult to assume that the very same toxic proteins can have a negative effects on human health as well. So why not require that all approved GM plants in EU, which contain such toxic proteins, is withdrawn from the market immediately? Is it a clever move to allow millions of europeans to eat food with these toxic proteins? What about all the livestock which is fed these toxic proteins?
Why is this happening?
The most obvious reason is probably because Harry Kuiper and other people sitting in the EFSA GMO panel is in bed with the GMO-industry and/or is totally ignorant of all the independent reviews and studies which are done in relation to genetic contamination of conventional and organic crops, damage on soil organisms, and the simple fact that probably none of the packages of patented genes are stable over multiple generations. Note that the studies which the EFSA GMO panel are using as basis for for their risk assessments are studies from the GMO-industry. Now, according to latest news, the guidelines for the risk assessments is based on Codex Alimentarius. And guess what, there is no requirement for independent and long term feeding studies in Codex Alimentarius. Is this a step forward or backward in relation to risk assessments? Well, if we take one step back and look at the history of previously approved toxic chemicals for use in e.g. agriculture and other areas, and how the risk assessments for many of those products totally failed (PCB, Dioxin, DDT, Atrazin, Neonicotinoids and many, many more) , then one should think that our regulatory bodies should have learned from those mistakes. In short: There should be no reason whatsoever to blindly believe industry funded feeding studies, or studies related to possible negative effects on the environment and human and animal health. It is time now, more than ever before, to get requirement for mandatory long term independent feeding studies for all genetically modified organisms.
It looks to me that the EFSA GMO panel is living inside a cave, without any connections with the outside world. And it appear to me that the only information they get access to, or want to have access to is the industry funded feeding studies and reviews. The Internet is full of links to independent studies and reviews which shows the danger of using the various GM crops. Now important lawsuites against the GMO-industry are starting to emerge. Here is a link to one such important lawsuit: Lawsuit seeks to invalidate GMO patents
The current situation in Europe should not come as a big surprice, and especially not after WikiLeaks cables has revealed that american diplomats has done everything in their power to put pressure on Europe so they gradually accept more and more GMO.
- It's time to get rid of the sick GMO regime in Europe which says that every one of the GMO-lines has to be risk assessed one by one. There is more than enough evidence for the European Commission to ban GMO on a general basis.
In other words: Time to put a ban on all the allowed GMOs in Europe.
- It's time to release all the EFSA GMO panel members from their duty. So far, their work has only resulted in more approvals of GMOs. No more need for an EFSA GMO panel if living GMOs are banned on a general basis.
But as it appears to be now, EFSA is infested with PRO GMO scientists with a close tie to the GMO-industry and/or scientists which only work for their own interests (that is: their own wallet), and we have an EU commission which only goal seem to be to honor the EU mantra: "Free trade at all cost".
blog comments powered by Disqus