genetic proofs









Presenting the  proposition that chemical agriculture practice may be readily shown to be catastrophic and non-sustainable by noting  the findings of Rachel Carson, the Institute of
Science in Society, and the Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology.

 Evidence shows that synthetic  chemicals  perform as radiative substances.

Any continued  use actively degrades the environment.

This conclusion which Nobel Prize winners declare irrefutable then makes any system proposing synthetic chemical agriculture as  (i) essential for food production (ii) environmentally sustaining and (iii)  health promoting --simply preposterous.

This site will demonstrate  how inconsistent results are deemed fully tested and approved and how false conclusions are purposively employed to bring about purely commercial ends.

ie products we cant do without.

Hopefully by establishing this comprehension the reader can discover that this state of play involves suppression of the normal organs of dissemination.

Such is the morality of crooked science.

The simplistic overview that world science can be bartered as a tradable commodity beggars the question of  "for what purpose”? 

The concerted attack on the integrity of R. Carson's expertise and the hysterical counter-proposals illustrate the mechanism that agricultural and chemical economics will indulge upon.

In all new recent fields this blustering continues.

" There is no such thing as safe-radiation"--Professor John Goffman (co-discoverer of Uranium 234 and 235).

These sciences that develop entirely by industry consensus  are over-viewed through the present claims being made in Australia by Dr. Jim Peacock.

The conflicts of interests that Peacock shambolically presents as scientific  have led to the total distortion regards the benefits of genetically-engineered and/or modified outcomes.

Even when testing has never occurred the Chief Scientist finds it necessary to claim they have.

A few of the URL's provided are no longer cached; the majority though are still accessible.

Details may be received by email to

(Apologies for any inconvenience).














THE UNDERSIGNED(a total of 663 scientists) INCLUDING:


Prof. Liebe Cavalieri, Mathematical Ecologist, Univ. Minnesota, USA
Dr. Thomas S. Cox, Geneticist, US Dept. of Agriculture (retired), India
Dr. Tewolde Egziabher, Spokesperson for African Region, Ethiopia
Dr. David Ehrenfeld, Biologist/Ecologist, Rutgers University, USA
Dr. Vladimir Zajac, Oncovirologist, Geneticist, Cancer Reseach Inst, Czech Republic
Dr. Brian Hursey, ex FAO Senior Officer for Vector Borne Diseases, UK
Prof. Ruth Hubbard, Geneticist, Harvard University, USA
Prof. Jonathan King, Molecular Biologist, MIT, Cambridge, USA
Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Laboratoire de Biochimie & Moleculaire, Univ. Caen, France)

Dr. David Bellamy, Biologist and Broadcaster, London, UK

called for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; and for patents on organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned [1].


Patents on life-forms are allowing corporations to plagiarise indigenous knowledge and plunder genetic resources from Third World communities, and at the same time, increasing corporate monopoly on food which is destroying livelihoods of family farmers all over the world.


It is becoming increasingly clear that the current GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous diversion from the real task of providing food and health around the world.


The promises to genetic engineer crops to fix nitrogen, resist drought, improve yield and to 'feed the world' have been around for at least 30 years. Such promises have built up a multibillion-dollar industry now controlled by a mere handful of corporate giants.


The miracle crops have not materialised.

Instead, two simple characteristics account for all the GM crops in the world [2]. 

More than 70% are tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides, with companies engineering plants to be tolerant to their own brand of herbicide, while the rest are engineered with bt-toxins to kill insect pests.

A total of 65 million acres were planted in 1998 within the US, Argentina and Canada.

The latest surveys on GM crops in the US, the largest grower by far, showed no significant benefit. 

On the contrary, the most widely grown GM crops -herbicide-tolerant soya beans-yielded on average 6.7% less and required two to five times more herbicides than non-GM varieties [3].



According to the UN food program, there is enough food to feed the world one and a half times over. 

World cereal yields have consistently outstripped population growth since 1980, but one billion are hungry [4].

It is on account of corporate monopoly operating under the globalised economy that the poor are getting poorer and hungrier.

Family farmers all over the world have been driven to destitution and suicide, and for the same reasons.

Between 1993 and 1997 the number of mid-sized farms in the US dropped by 74,440 [5], and farmers are now receiving below the average cost of production for their produce [6].

Four corporations currently control 85% of the world trade in cereals [7].


The new patents on seeds will intensify corporate monopoly by preventing farmers from saving and replanting seeds, which is what most farmers still do in the Third World.

Christian Aid, a major charity working with the Third World, concludes that GM crops will cause unemployment, exacerbate Third World debt, threaten sustainable farming systems and damage the environment.

It predicts famine for the poorest countries [8].

The picture is just as grim for the developed world.

A coalition of family farming groups in the US have declared their opposition to GM crops and corporate ownership of life-forms through patenting.

They are demanding a moratorium on all corporate mergers and acquisitions, a moratorium on farm closures, and an end to policies that serve big agribusiness interests at the expense of family farmers, taxpayers and the environment [9].


The hazards of GM crops are now becoming apparent, and some of them are acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments.

For example, the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has admitted that the transfer of GM crops and pollen beyond the planted fields is unavoidable [10], and this has already resulted in herbicide-tolerant weeds [11].

Bt-resistant insect pests have evolved in response to the continuous presence of the toxins in transgenic plants throughout the growing season, and the US Environment Protection Agency is recommending farmers to plant up to 40% non-GM crops in order to create refugia for non-resistant insect pests [12].

The broad-spectrum herbicides used with herbicide-tolerant GM crops not only decimate wild species indiscriminately, but are toxic to animals.

One of them, glufosinate, causes birth defects in mammals [13], A Swedish study now links the top-selling herbicide, glyphosate, to non-Hodgkin lymphoma [14].

GM crops with bt-toxins kill beneficial insects such as bees [15] and lacewings [16], and pollen from bt-maize is lethal to monarch butterflies [17].


The possibility for naked or free DNA to be taken up by mammalian cells is explicitly mentioned in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance to industry on antibiotic resistance marker genes [20].

In commenting on the FDA's document, the UK MAFF pointed out that transgenic DNA may be transferred not just by ingestion, but by contact with plant dust and air-borne pollen during farm work and food processing [21], and cited several significant new findings bearing on the issue.


Thus, plant DNA is not readily degraded during most commercial food processing [22].

Procedures such as grinding and milling left grain DNA largely intact, as did heat-treatment at 90°C.

The DNA of plants placed in silage showed little degradation of DNA, and the special MAFF report advises against using ensilaged transgenic plants in animal feed. 



The letter from UK MAFF to US FDA also mentions new findings that the human mouth contains bacteria capable of taking up and expressing naked DNA containing antibiotic resistance marker genes and similar transformable bacteria are also present in the respiratory tracts [23].


That both regulatory authorities have failed to consider is that transgenic pollens, which may have increased allergenicity and toxicity besides, will almost certainly spread far afield to the general public.

Similarly, the current unregulated practice of feeding farm animals transgenic grain and plant remains, and transgenic wastes, both ensilaged and otherwise, is endangering the health of farm animals and of human beings in spreading antibiotic resistance marker genes and other transgenic DNA.


Serious health concerns are also raised by the cauliflower mosaic viral (CaMV) promoter in transgenic DNA.

The CaMV promoter, widely used in expression cassettes of transgenes, is known to contain a 'recombination hotspot'.

One usual mechanism of recombination involves the double-stranded DNA breaking and joining with other double-stranded DNA.

This has been identified as the mechanism generating many different lines of transgenic rice during a routine transformation experiment.

Extensive recombination at the hotspot has taken place in the absence of the viral recombinase, indicating that the host plant cell can catalyse such recombinations [24].

Thus, the CaMV promoter has an enhanced capability to transfer horizontally, with potentially dangerous consequences.


CaMV is closely related to human hepatitis B virus, and also has a reverse transcriptase gene related to that in retroviruses such as the AIDS-associated HIV [25].

Thus, the CaMV promoter not only enhances horizontal gene transfer, but has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses (which are in all genomes) and to generate new viruses by recombination.

[The British Medical Association, in their interim report (published May, 1999), called for an indefinite moratorium on the releases of GMOs pending further research on new allergies, the spread of antibiotic resistance genes and the effects of transgenic DNA.

This position is fully in accord with the precautionary principle].


Contrary to the claims of the UK Government, no useful results can be obtained in the current massive 'farm scale' trials of transgenic herbicide-tolerant oil-seed rape and maize where the spread of transgenic pollens cannot be controlled, and which make no attempts to monitor for horizontal gene transfer or for impacts on health [26].


Research into sustainable, non-corporate agricultural systems which do not involve GM crops should be widely supported.

Many of these systems have already resulted in increased yield and income for family farmers, diminished environmental impacts, and improvements in nutrition and health for all [27]. 


9. See Griffin, D. (1999). Agricultural globalization. A threat to food security? Third World Resurgence 100/101, 38-40; 10. MAFF Fact Sheet: Genetic modification of crops and food, June, 1999. 13. Garcia,A.,Benavides,F.,Fletcher,T. and Orts,E. (1998). Paternal exposure to pesticides and congenital malformations. Scand J Work Environ Health 24, 473-80. . See World Scientists Statement; 2. James, C. (1998). Global Status of Transgenic Crops in 1998, ISAAA Briefs, New York; 3. Benbrook, C. (1999). Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper No. 1, Idaho; 4. See Watkins, K. (1999). Free trade and farm fallacies. Third World Resurgence 100/101, 33-37; 5. Farm and Land in Farms, Final Estimates 1993-1997, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service; 7. Farm Aid fact sheet: The Farm Crisis Deepens, Cambridge, Mass, 1999; 8. Simms, A. (1999). Selling Suicide, farming, false promises and genetic engineering in developing countries, Christian Aid, London;9. Farmer's rally on Capitol Hill, September 12, 1999. 11. See Ho, M.W. and Tappeser, B. (1997). Potential contributions of horizontal gene transfer to the transboundary movement of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. Proceedings of Workshop on Transboundary Movement of Living Modified Organisms resulting from Modern biotechnology : Issues and Opportunities for Policy-makers (K.J. Mulongoy, ed.), pp. 171-193, International Academy of the Environment, Geneva. 12. Mellon, M. and Rissler, J. (1998). Now or Never. Serious New Plans to Save a Natural Pest Control, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Mass. 14. Hardell, H. & Eriksson, M. (1999). A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides. Cancer85, 1353-1360. 15. "Cotton used in medicine poses threat: genetically-altered cotton may not be safe" Bangkok Post, November 17, 1997. 16. Hilbeck, A., Baumgartner, M., Fried, P.M. and Bigler, F. (1998). Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis-corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology 27, 480-96. 17.Losey, J.E., Rayor, L.D. and Carter, M.E. (1999). Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399, 214. 18. Reviewed in Ho, M.W. (1998,1999). Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, Gateway Books, Bath; Ho, M.W., Traavik, T., Olsvik, R., Tappeser, B., Howard, V., von Weizsacker, C. and McGavin, G. (1998b). Gene Technology and Gene Ecology of Infectious Diseases. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 10, 33-59; Traavik, T. (1999a). Too early may be too late, Ecological risks associated with the use of naked DNA as a biological tool for research, production and therapy, Research report for Directorate for Nature Management, Norway. 19. Reviewed by Doerfler, W., Schubbert, R., Heller, H., Kämmer, C., Hilger-Eversheim, D., Knoblauch, M. and Remus, R. (1997). Integration of foreign DNA and its consequences in mammalian systems. Tibtech 15, 297-301; see also note 18. 20. Draft Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants, US FDA, September 4, 1998. 21. See Letter from N. Tomlinson, Joint Food Safety and Standards Group, MAFF, to US FDA, 4 December, 1998. 22. Forbes, J.M., Blair, D.E., Chiter, A., and Perks, S. (1998). Effect of Feed Processing Conditions on DNA Fragmentation Section 5 - Scientific Report, MAFF. 23.Mercer, D.K., Scott, K.P., Bruce-Johnson, W.A. Glover, L.A. and Flint, H.J. (1999). Fate of free DNA and transformation of the oral bacterium Streptococcus gordonii DL1 by plasmid DNA in human saliva. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65, 6-10. 24. Kohli, A., Griffiths, S., Palacios, N., Twyman, R.M., Vain, P., Laurie, D.A. and Christou, P. (1999). Molecular characterization of transforming plasmid rearrangements in transgenic rice reveals a recombination hotspot in the CaMV 35S promoter and confirms the predominance of microhomology mediated recombination. The Plant Journal 17, 591-601. 25. Xiong, Y. and Eickbush, T.H. (1990). Origin and evolution of retroelements based upon their reverse transcriptase sequences. EMBO J. 9, 3353-3362. 26. Firbank, L.G. Dewar, A.M., Hill, M.O., May, M.J., Perry, J.N., Rothery, O.P., Squire, G.R. and Woiwod, I.P. (1999). Farm-scale evaluation of GM crops explained. Nature 399, 727-8. 27. See Pretty, J. (1995). Sustainable Agriculture, Earthscan, London; also Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land - Agriculture, Food and Community Regeneration in Rural Europe, Earthscan, London.
Institute of Science in Society