1.WSJ: Feeding the Propaganda of Pro-Corporate Activists
2.Re: Feeding the Propaganda of Anti-Technology Activists
---
---
1.WSJ: Feeding the Propaganda of Pro-Corporate Activists
GMWatch, March 24 2010

A week ago the Wall Street Journal published a letter by Dr Henry I Miller in response to an article it had published about the degradation of the peer-review process. According to Dr Miller, "Some of the worst of these flawed papers have conveyed false alarms about the safety of gene-spliced (or 'genetically engineered') plants, which subsequently have been extensively reported in the popular press."

Miller pointed in particular to two highly flawed papers that had appeared in respectable journals and wrote, "These kinds of failures of peer review and editorial judgment corrupt the traditional process by which new scientific knowledge is obtained and reported, and they inflict irreparable harm on the reporting and archiving of scientific developments for policy makers, the media, the public, and the scientific community."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704416904575121942096732482.html#articleTabs=article

The only problem with this is that very little that Miller claimed about the two studies is actually true. As a result, Claire Robinson of GMWatch wrote to the Wall Street Journal to quote chapter and verse as to why Miller's account of the two papers was simply wrong. She received no reply from the WSJ and as far as we can tell the letter hasn't been published.

Why wouldn't the Wall Street Journal want to correct such misleading claims, particularly given that Miller had even labelled one of the published papers "a sham"? One possible answer is suggested by the following article on the site of the industry-backed lobby group the American Council for Science and Health: "ACSH Presents the First Henry I. Miller Award".
http://www.acsh.org/events/eventID.41/event_detail.asp

This recounts how the award was presented to Dr Miller to celebrate his accomplishments in "promoting sound science in public health. Melanie Kirkpatrick (from the Wall Street Journal's editorial board) and Ned Crabb (the Wall Street Journal's letters-to-the-editor editor for nearly twenty years) related their personal experiences on working with Dr Miller's op-eds and letters over the past two decades."

For a profile of Dr Miller and his promotion of "sound science", see: http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Henry_I._Miller
---
---
2.Re: Feeding the Propaganda of Anti-Technology Activists

Henry I. Miller's letter (Feeding the Propaganda of Anti-Technology Activists, WSJ, 17 March 2010) is at best disingenuous in its attempt to smear negative scientific findings about GM crops and foods.
 
David Quist and Ignacio Chapela's findings of GM contamination of Mexican maize, while politically inconvenient, were confirmed by research by the Mexican government[i] and by a study from Mexico City University[ii]. Does it matter? A number of published studies have found statistically significant effects of GM maize on the health of experimental animals.[iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii] As for human health effects we don't know, as the studies have not been done. That is the scientifically considered answer to Miller's question, "So what?"
 
Miller's claims about Arpad Pusztai's research also fail to stand up to scrutiny. The study's methodology, which Miller calls "fundamentally flawed," was peer reviewed and passed by Britain's major public funding body for the biological sciences.[viii] The study won a grant of GBP1.6 million[ix] of taxpayer money over 27 other submissions, in part based on Pusztai's extensive experience of testing foods for industry using similar methodologies.[x] [xi]
 
As for what Miller calls the Royal Society's "extensive review" and condemnation of Pusztai's paper, this was based not on the complete data but on what one newspaper called a "hotchpotch of lab reports and statistical analyses that were never intended for publication"[xii] an act that Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, termed "breathtaking impertinence".[xiii] [xiv] Contrary to Miller's claim that The Lancet published the paper despite "the strenuous objections of the paper's referees", only one out of six peer reviewers of Pusztai's paper opposed publication.[xv] Again contrary to Miller's claim, the editor of The Lancet said he published Pusztai's paper on grounds of "scientific merit" as well as public interest.[xvi]
 
Pusztai's findings - as inconvenient for the biotech industry as Quist and Chapela's can only be proved or disproved by repetition of his experiments. Over ten years since his work was published, this has not been done. Meanwhile, in spite of Pusztai's findings and others since[xvii] that cast doubt on the safety of GM foods, no independent testing of these foods is required to be carried out prior to their approval.
 
Sincerely
Claire Robinson
Co-editor, GM Watch

[i] Katie Mantell, Mexico confirms GM maize contamination, SciDev.net, 19 Apr 2002, http://www.scidev.net/en/news/mexico-confirms-gm-maize-contamination.html

[ii] Mexico: Traces of GM maize confirmed, GMO Safety website, March 11, 2009, http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/news/680.docu.html

[iii] New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Séralini, G.-E. et al. Arch. Environ Contam Toxicol., 52: 596-602, 2007.

[iv] A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Kilic A and Akay MT. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46: 1164-1170, 2008

[v] Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice. Finamore A et al. J. Agric. Food Chem., 56: 11533-11539, 2008

[vi] Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Velimirov A et al. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008, Austria, 2008. http://bmgfj.cms.apa.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/CH0810/ CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3-2008_letztfassung.pdf

[vii] A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep. Trabalza-Marinucci M. et al. Livestock Science, 113: 178-190, 2008

[viii] Memorandum submitted by Dr Arpad Janos Pusztai, UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology Minutes of Evidence, 1 March 1999, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmsctech/286/9030802.htm

[ix] James Randerson, Arpad Pusztai: Biological divide, The Guardian, 15 Jan 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/jan/15/academicexperts.highereducationprofile

[x] Memorandum submitted by Dr Arpad Janos Pusztai, UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology Minutes of Evidence, 1 March 1999, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmsctech/286/9030802.htm

[xi] Andrew Rowell, Don't Worry, It's Safe to Eat, Earthscan, 2003, p. 81

[xii] James Randerson, Arpad Pusztai: Biological divide, The Guardian, 15 Jan 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/jan/15/academicexperts.highereducationprofile

[xiii] Richard Horton, GM food debate, The Lancet, Volume 354, Issue 9191, Page 1729, 13 November 1999

[xiv] Laurie Flynn and Michael Sean Gillard, Pro-GM food scientist 'threatened editor,' The Guardian, November 1, 1999, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/01/gm.food

[xv] Laurie Flynn and Michael Sean Gillard, Pro-GM food scientist 'threatened editor,' The Guardian, November 1, 1999, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/01/gm.food

[xvi] Richard Horton, editor's reply, The Lancet, Vol 354, November 13, 1999, http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Horton-Lancet-1999-9191-1729.pdf

[xvii] See, for example, references iii-vii above on GM maize