23 October 2002

NATURE REJECTS NEW MEXICAN MAIZE PAPER

This is, of course, the same journal that recently managed to publish 3 articles promoting GM crops and damning organic agriculture - none based on original research - by Prof Anthony Trewavas in a special supplement on the future of food sponsored by... yes, Syngenta. The supplement was tied in to a promotional drive for the journal by Nature's publishers.
http://ngin.tripod.com/110802a.htm

Shame the mexican researchers couldn't cut a similar deal.

For the background on the Mexican maize scandal:
Exchange of letters with the editor of Nature
http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit6.html
SCIENCE JOURNAL ACCUSED OVER GM ARTICLE
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,729655,00.html
SCIENTIST TELLS NEWSNIGHT HE WAS THREATENED
http://ngin.tripod.com/080602d.htm
New Scientist : THE GREAT MEXICAN MAIZE SCANDAL
http://ngin.tripod.com/130602a.htm

items:
1. NATURE rejects paper confirming the results of Quist and Chapela
2. Article from the Mexican press - Spanish
3. Open Letter to the Editors of Nature

***

1. From Dr. Peter Rosset

Dear All:

This is QUITE unbelievable. According to today's press in Mexico City (see below), NATURE has rejected the scientific paper by Mexican scientists hired by the Mexican government, which confirms the results of Quist and Chapela on the GMO contamination of maize in Mexico.

According to Dr. Exequiel Ezcurra, director of the Mexican governmental  Institute for Ecological Research (INE), Nature sent the paper to two  external peer reviewers. Both recommended that the paper be rejected, but for opposite reasons! One said that the results were so "obvious" that they  do not merit publication in a high level scientific journal (that is like  saying "of course there is GMO contamination of maize, so what else is  new?"!!!), while the other said the results were "so unexpected as to not  be believable."

It is quite shocking that Nature would reject this paper, as their erratic  and controversy-fueling behavior on the Quist and Chapela paper almost  gives them a "duty" to open their pages to follow-up studies.

I strongly suggest that people email Nature editorial
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
and media offices
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
to express this opinion.

best,
Peter Rosset

***

2. Nature se niega a publicar estudio sobre transgénicos

ANGELICA ENCISO L. Y ANDRES T. MORALES REPORTERA Y CORRESPONSAL
La Jornada
22 de octubre del 2002
El INE critica argumento

Aunque los investigadores mexicanos comprobaron la presencia de maíz transgénico en los cultivos tradicionales de Oaxaca, la revista científica Nature no publicará los estudios del Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE) porque los especialistas que los analizaron tienen posiciones contrarias, explicó el presidente del INE, Exequiel Ezcurra. A casi un año de que el investigador mexicano Ignacio Chapela dio a conocer por primera vez en esa revista que en las siembras de los campesinos de la  sierra norte de Oaxaca se había encontrado maíz modificado genéticamente, no hay avances al respecto.

El INE pretendía que los resultados que concluyeron el Centro de Ecología de la UNAM y el Cinvestav de Irapuato se publicaran en Nature, porque ahí se dio el debate sobre el tema, ya que también se divulgaron análisis en  contra del descubrimiento de Chapela.

Ezcurra detalló que Nature mandó el documento a dos especialistas para que lo analizaran, y lo rechazaron. Por un lado se planteó que el resultado era "tan obvio" que no merecía ser publicado en una revista de alto nivel y, por el otro, la conclusión fue que era "tan inesperado y poco creíble" que se recomendó tener más información antes de ser divulgado. Frente a esta situación, se resolverán los aspectos técnicos cuestionados, se buscará publicar los resultados en otra revista o simplemente darlos a conocer por medio de la página de Internet del INE, puntualizó.

Los argumentos que los analistas de Nature esgrimieron, agregó el  funcionario, son ideológicos, no científicos. "Como el tema es tan debatido y encendido, las revistas científicas lo miran con lupa. Nuestros datos sugieren que los transgénicos ahí están."

Mencionó que la propuesta de algunos sectores de impedir la exportación de maíz transgénico a México tiene muchos puntos en contra. "Nuestra  dependencia alimentaria es tan alta que cortar la importación de maíz nos puede meter en un problema serio de abasto alimentario."

Alternativa alimentaria para el sureste

A partir del próximo año el Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones  Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) colocará en el mercado cuatro  nuevas variedades de maíz y dos de frijol con alto nivel proteínico y de  resistencia a plagas. Esos granos serán distribuidos en los estados del  sureste, como una alternativa para paliar los niveles de desnutrición en  regiones rurales e indígenas, además de contar con alternativas agrícolas frente a fenómenos climatológicos.

Jesús Uresti Gil, director del Campo Experimental Cotaxtla, donde se  elaboraron las nuevas variedades de esos granos, sostuvo que algunas de las semillas mejoradas se están cultivando en programas especiales  desarrollados en diversos municipios de Veracruz.

El investigador indicó que el próximo 25 de octubre serán presentadas de  manera oficial las nuevas variedades de maíz y frijol. No obstante, será  partir de 2003 cuando las nuevas semillas de frijol y maíz sean liberadas formalmente.

***

3. From: Peter Rosset <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it....
 
OPEN LETTER

Dear Editors of Nature: I am writing to express my shock and outrage that you would reject the recent scientific paper by Mexican scientists hired by the Mexican government, which confirms the results of Quist and Chapela on the GMO contamination of maize in Mexico (according to today's newspapers in Mexico City, see article below). After Nature, by it's erratic behavior, generated controversy on this important issue, you have a duty to the world's scientific community to open your pages to follow-up studies.  To do otherwise is to give the impression of a cover-up, perhaps motivated by biotech industry advertising pages. It is interesting that, according to press stories,  your external peer reviewers recommended that the paper be rejected for opposite reasons.  One said that the results were so "obvious" that they do not merit publication in a  high level scientific journal (that is like saying "of course there is GMO contamination of maize, so what else is new?"!!! -- but you, at nature, are the ones who have cast doubt on that, and who have the obligation to clear it up), while the other said the results were "so unexpected as to not be believable."  How can they be unexpected and unbelievable if the confirm earlier results? Surely this merits a public publication in your pages, where we can all draw our own conclusions! I urge you to reconsider this irresponsible decision. Sincerely, Dr. Peter M. Rosset Biologist