[pf] Dr. John Hagelin's testimony to EPA's Scientific Advisory Panel

· Remember this when things begin to go wrong so badly that you see about
it in major US newspapers. I'm guessing that'll be within 12 months.   D.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:10:33 +1300 
To: David MacClement 
From: Robert Mann (via B. MacClement)
Subject: [GE]: Hagelin's EPA Testimony 
Just in case anyone is in any doubt, in fwding this material I do not
endorse the Natural Law Party. But I do think the facts & arguments set
forth here are good. 

R 
-

Subject: Hagelin's EPA Testimony 


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 Arlington, Virginia. 

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 below, along with an editorial from the Providence Journal about
his leadership in the effort to protect our food supply. 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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. 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL
Editorial
November 9, 2000 

ONLY HAGELIN SAW GENETIC PERIL 

One of the key issues that never got discussed in the presidential debates
this campaign season was the most serious one facing us today. The fact is
that our democracy has been stolen by the powerful lobbies of the special
interests. The most conclusive and blatant example of this has been the
dangerous experiment being conducted by the biotech industry on the
American people. They have genetically manipulated our food supply so that
60 percent of the food on our supermarket shelves has been genetically
engineered. The most outrageous thing is that they did it without the
knowledge or consent of the American people. 

Forty years ago, most scientists thought DDT a safe and promising addition
to agriculture. Thalidomide was given to pregnant women by their doctors.
Nuclear power was touted as the cleanest energy source on Earth. Marketed
prematurely, each of these technological innovations brought unforeseen,
unwanted and tragic consequences that could have been easily avoided
through proper long-term safety testing. Haven't we learned anything from
our mistakes? 

>From soil to superviruses: In 1994, a genetically engineered bacterium
developed to aid in the production of ethanol produced residues that
rendered the land infertile. New crops planted on this soil grew three
inches tall and fell over dead. 

The food chain: In 1996, scientists discovered that ladybugs that had eaten
the aphids that had eaten genetically engineered potatoes died. 

The immune system: In 1998, research by Dr. Arpad Pusztai uncovered the
potential for genetically altered DNA to weaken the immune system and stunt
the growth of baby rats. 

Monarch butterflies: In May 1999, researchers at Cornell University
discovered that monarch butterflies died unexpectedly from eating milkweed
plants that had been dusted with the pollen of genetically engineered Bt
corn. 

Pregnant mice: A 1998 study showed that DNA from the food fed to pregnant
mice ended up in their intestinal lining, white blood cells, brain
cells,and their fetuses. This suggests that the genetically engineered DNA
in the food we eat can end up in our own cells. 

Honeybees: Last May, a leading European zoologist found the genes from
genetically engineered canola jumped the species barrier and were picked up
by the bacteria in the digestive tracts of bees. This indicates that
antibiotic-resistant genes in genetically engineered foods can cause the
bacteria in our own intestines to mutate into superbugs that cannot be
killed by antibiotics. 

Superviruses: Viral promoters are invasive agents used by genetic engineers
to trick a cell into accepting and integrating an alien gene into the
cell's own DNA. Some scientists predict that releasing viral promoters into
the gene pool could lead to the creation of superviruses and novel
infectious diseases for organisms at every level of life--from bacteria to
humans. 

These are just some of the dangers that are discernible in the premature
marketing of genetically engineered products. The biotech industry is eager
to point to their so-called successes while keeping their failures under
raps. 

Next is the story of rBGH, recombinant bovine growth hormone (or the story
of genetically engineered milk). A Monsanto lawyer drafted a letter to the
FDA to get rBGH approved. He then stepped down from Monsanto and took an
appointment as FDA deputy commissioner for policy. He then opened his own
letter and helped draft the FDA's 1992 policy on genetically engineered
food and rBGH. The law that followed, in true violation of First Amendment
rights, states that it's illegal to say rBGH is in milk and it's illegal to
state that it's not in milk. The lawyer returned to corporate life and
became Monsanto's vice president for public policy. 

Incidentally, rBGH is banned in Canada, Europe, Australia, and New
Zealand--all major dairy producers. It is also banned in other countries. I
quote Neal D. Barnard, M.D., president of the Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine, from a magazine entitled Safe Food News (to get this
magazine and to sign the national Genetically Engineered Food Alert
petition, call 1-800-REAL-FOOD). 

"Monsanto's rBGH increases milk production. It also increases udder
infections (mastitis) and reproductive problems in cows and shortens their
life span. To treat the mastitis, farmers have to give their cows
antibiotics. Studies have shown that milk from rBGH cows often contains
residues from those antibiotics. And because rBGH-induced mastitis leads to
increased amounts of white blood cells--or pus--this is also secreted into
rBGH milk. But the risks of rBGH go far beyond even this. More troublesome
is the fact that rBGH has been linked to increased risk of breast, prostate
and colon cancers." 

>From pizza to chips, soda to infant formula, ice cream to cookies, vitamins
to candies, genetically engineered organisms are in the foods we feed our
kids every day. Virtually every food you can think of is in the genetically
engineered pipeline. And coming soon . . . rat genes in your lettuce, cows
that make human milk, and bananas with vaccines. 

The only presidential candidate who brought this issue to the forefront of
his campaign and informed the American people of the hazards of genetically
engineered foods has been the quantum physicist John Hagelin of the Natural
Law/Independent Party. As he traveled the country during the campaign
speaking in public forums, he talked frankly about the long-term
consequences of such experimentation, asking the question: 

"Who gave the biotech companies the right to threaten our food and
environment? The Clinton-Gore administration and our 'Republicrat'
Congress, awash in biotech money. We need mandatory labeling and safety
testing of genetically engineered foods, plus a moratorium on the release
of these experimental lifeforms into the environment until proven safe." 

John Hagelin's message is urgent and of utmost importance. It is essential
that the American people act without delay to preserve their own health and
that of future generations. 


Don Lovejoy, who has a doctorate in health and human services, is an
educator based in Cranston. 

*** 

-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
+649 524 2949 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sent on to the Positive Futures list by David.

___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics