Nice example of the power of the "New (corporate) World Order" and another
reason to eliminate corporate funding of Universities. Another example of
that pesky 11th Commandment from the FDA - "Thou Shall Not Use Critical
Keep on keeping on, Ann. To quote Monty Python's Flying Circus: "NOBODY
EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISTION" but it's back.
What do they do for an encore, The Salem Witch Trials II? Mike Miller
>Subject: GMO's and academic freedom
>I pass on for your information this very regretable piece of
>news. I heard about it last week and just managed to put my
>hands on it.
>John Henning, McGill University.
>UNIVERSITY DISMISSES MODIFIED FOOD STUDY
>The Toronto Star January 19, 2000, Wednesday, Edition 1 SECTION:
>BUSINESS LENGTH: 617 words
>HEADLINE: UNIVERSITY DISMISSES MODIFIED FOOD STUDY BYLINE: Stuart
>A University of Guelph scientist challenging the safety of genetically
>modified foods is being criticized as ''unethical'' by her boss and
>''silly'' by a colleague.
>The comments drew accusations the school is trying to ''muzzle'' an
>outspoken professor and threatening her academic freedom.
>The scientist, Ann Clark, published a report reviewing the safety
>research about genetically modified food that is posted on the Health
>Canada Web site.
>''In a democratic society, one of the purposes of universities is to
>be a place where things can be discussed openly and criticized,'' said
>James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of
>Rob McLaughlin, dean of the agriculture college at the University of
>Guelph, said Clark is a specialist on pasture management for livestock
>and she should not comment on genetically modified foods.
>''The University of Guelph hires her and pays her to do research in
>pasture management and she's very good at it, but at the end of the
>day we do not hire her, and she is not considered by us to be an
>expert in this area,'' McLaughlin said. ''I think her behaviour is
>Turk said it is ''ludicrous'' for the university to suggest that Clark
>should only comment on a narrow area of expertise.
>''One of the ways in which there have been attempts to deny people
>freedom of expression and to cut back on academic freedom is to say,
>'Well, academics should only be able to comment on the area in which
>they're experts,' '' he said.
>''If one took that seriously, it would muzzle most academics speaking
>about most subjects in this country if you define their areas of
>expertise narrowly enough.''
>Clark has written numerous studies and given speeches challenging
>claims by seed companies that genetically modified crops cut pesticide
>use, increase crop yield and are safe to eat.
>Yesterday, she released a study saying that research posted on the
>Health Canada Web site into the safety of genetically engineered crops
>grown in Canada is based on unfounded assumptions and inadequate
>Another professor at her school immediately challenged the report.
>''If she actually had a report of any substantive nature, she would
>have submitted it to a journal,'' said Doug Powell, food safety expert
>at the University of Guelph.
>''This is silly,'' Powell said.
>''It's just a superficial examination worthy of high school.''
>Powell said he has seen studies conducted by seed companies that are
>much more in depth than those posted on the Health Canada Web site.
>He would like to see companies making their studies more widely
>''That's a communication problem, not a scientific problem,'' he said.
>Clark said she volunteered to research and write the report on her own
>time, and did not receive any funding from the Council of Canadians,
>which set up a Web site to post the report.
>Her study, Food Safety of GM crops in Canada, says that because the
>proteins found in 17 genetically modified crops do not share
>characteristics with proteins known to be toxic, those crops are
>assumed by Health Canada not to be toxic.
>The same assumptions are made for allergens.
>The report calls into question the substantial equivalence test used
>by governments around the world to approve genetically modified foods.
>Under that test, if a genetically modified food is deemed more or less
>similar to that of unmodified food, it is assumed to be safe and is
>approved for sale without further testing.
>Clark said she is not saying the food is unsafe, just that further
>study is needed.
>LANGUAGE: English LOAD-DATE: January 19, 2000 İEntered January 19,
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 06 2000 - 12:00:29 EST