Memorandum submitted by
Dr Stanley William Barclay Ewen, Department of Pathology, University
of Aberdeen
1. INTRODUCTION
In 1998 I was invited by Dr Pusztai to assist
with the microscopic investigation of changes in gut structure
following the oral ingestion of sugar binding plant proteins called
lectins. The Department of Patholgy, University of Aberdeen has
since processed in excess of 6,000 microscopic slides of gut tissue
(usually from rat) supplied to me by Dr Pusztai for our collaborative
projects. We established that gut weight increases following feeding
of raw kidney bean, or jack bean, due to thickening of the lining
of the gut whereas snowdrop lectin (GNA) has no effect (sometimes
reduced thickness has been recorded microscopically). These studies
were published in scientific journals after due process of peer
review (1-3). My present involvement in the genetically modified
potato project was simply a continuation of our extended collaboration
and the microscopical techniques were identical to those developed
for earlier experiments.
2. THE ADEQUACY
AND QUALITY
OF SCIENTIFIC
ADVICE AT
PRESENT
Genetically modified food suffers from a lack
of peer reviewed information in the public domain. Only one paper
has been published and that describes the feeding value of GM
soybeans in rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle (4). This
single paper refers to microscopy of rat pancreas but gut microscopy
is not mentioned if performed. Scientific advice is not available
for informed consideration and our studies were designed to establish
the normality of the target organ after feeding GM potatoes. Present
scientific advice can only be based on industrial information
that has not been divulged in the public domain.
3. THE ROLE
AND FRAMEWORK
OF ADVISORY
COMMITTEES
As a hospital pathologist, the role and framework
of the present advisory committees seems satisfactory and are
apparently able to respond to scientific developments. The perceived
orientation of the various committees seems distinctly producer
based paying little attention to the needs of consumers with the
result that intelligent choice of food is precluded. In addition,
special needs exist within the community, for example gluten sensitivity
(coeliac disease), for whom the safety of genetically modified
food cannot be presumed.
4. THE ABILITY
OF THE
CURRENT SYSTEM
TO RESPOND
TO RAPID
SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS
The current system seemed to be very responsive
to the present situation once the problem had been highlighted.
The time from publicising our memorandum of the Rowett Audit Report
on 12 February 1999 was very short. Dr Pusztai had been unmuzzled
and his report was made public on 16 February 1999. I am impressed
at the rapidity of initiating this Select Committee.
5. OVERARCHING
BODY TO
ADVISE ON
AND OVERSEE
GENETICALLY MODIFIED
FOOD
I believe this proposal does have merit. Consumers
will expect accurate information about all genetically modified
food and expect complete testing to ensure substantial equivalence
is, not only analytical equivalence, but also nutritional and
metabolic equivalence. Many human food related problems are idiosyncratic
and testing methods presently in use would not detect such a problem.
Our results indicate that animal testing may have to be relied
upon as young animals laying down muscle tissue are a sensitive
model. Measurements on carefully oriented microscopic sections
will be important in the evaluation of crop genetically modified
food. I believe that these sources of information would best be
evaluated by an overarching body dedicated to this special branch
of food safety so that genetically modified food is risk free
for all normal consumers.
6. THE CAPACITY
OF GOVERNMENT
TO BE
AN "INTELLIGENT
CUSTOMER" FOR
THE ADVICE
IT RECEIVES
My perception of Government activity leads me
to believe that advice will be acted upon expeditiously. Clearly
Government must be responsive to public concern about genetically
modified food and a sensitive "intelligent customer"
would react by insisting on careful, understandable product labelling.
Short term public anxiety would be minimised by explicit labelling
so that avoiding action could, if desired, be taken.
7. THE RESULTS
OF DR
PUSZTAI'S
RESEARCH ON
GENETICALLY MODIFIED
FOOD
I have worked closely with Dr Pusztai for more
than a decade and have found him to be an exacting, fastidious
scientist. He always paid great attention to experimental design
and the genetically modified potato experiments were no exception.
The recent experiments involved feeding raw or cooked genetically
modified potatoes to young rats and very adequate control groups
were fed synchronously. Despite the complexity of the experiments
I always felt that Dr Pusztai was in complete control and there
was no evidence of muddle when I visited to take samples for microscopy.
His experimental results were available soon after the experiment
had been performed whereas, due to pressure of patient commitments,
my results were not available until October and were then prepared
for oral presentation at a meeting in Lund, Sweden on 27.11.98.
I was never uneasy about the quality of the experiments designed
and overseen by him and I admired the team approach that ensured
maximum collection of data from several physiological systems
from any one rat. The experiments were limited to six rats per
goup but the complete experiment with various countrols would
involve 50-55 rats. The small size of each group means that the
experimental results can only be regarded as an initial step and
hence we recommend further similar experiments.
8. MICROSCOPICAL
RESULTS, ASSESSED
BY DR
S EWEN, ON
YOUNG RATS
FED GENETICALLY
MODIFIED POTATOES
FOR 10 DAYS
The mircroscopical features, derived from approximately
300 microscope slides, measured and assessed by myself are exactly
analogous to the work I perform as a Hospital Pathologist. My
results are objective and less judgmental than usual in human
pathology and my observations are supported by the attached photomicrographs.
The typical procedure for any hospital pathologist is to receive
tissue samples that are processed into sections. The sections
are examined by microscopy and an opinion formed followed by the
issue of a report. In the present case I was given samples from
young rats fed genetically modified potatoes for 10 days. These
samples from gastrointestinal tract were carefully oriented to
facilitate objective measurements. (I must stress that the changes
identified will not be apparent unless photographs of test and
control are compared side by side or a series of measurements
made and statistically analysed). The lining of the small bowel
has two major components consisting of finger like villi that
are supplied with immature cells from the subjacent crypt. It
is the crypt region that I have measured in my observations and
significant elongation of the crypt in the rats fed raw genetically
modified food is the main finding. In addition I have counted
the chronic inflammatory cells within the lining cells and found
increased numbers of these cells in the rats fed raw genetically
modified potatoes. The results of these observations are found
in appendix 1[6]
and the photomicrographs are to be found in appendix 2[7].
My report would be: after comparison of sections from rats fed
genetically modified potatoes with sections from control rats,
there are significant differences in crypt length that cannot
be explained by the insertion of the Galanthus nivalis gene.
This work has been submitted for publication in a peer reviewed
journal.
9. HANDLING OF
DR PUSZTAI'S
RESULTS BY
THE ROWETT
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
With the benefit of hindsight, I believe that
every major institute should have a policy concerning the type
of programme in which the staff of that institute may participate.
A purely documentary approach may be permissible and even laudable
but a potentially politically oriented presentation placing science
against pressure groups could have been predictably assessed as
unacceptable by any percipient institute. It was into such an
apparent policy vacuum that Dr Pusztai fell. The World in Action
programme was made with the support and co-operation of Rowett
staff, I believe, in the presence of the press officer. The actual
broadcast of the final programme occurred approximately five weeks
after the initial "take" but no attempt was made to
check the programme content or Dr Pusztai's final wording although
such a check would have been acceptable to Granada. The initial
response was moderate praise for those concerned but plaudits
were soon to be replaced by a complete "U turn". The
broadcast view was that "an old man had muddled the results".
The results seemed to be treated as fraudulent enabling the Audit
mechanism to be commenced under Biotechnology and Biology Science
Research Council rules. Four eminent persons were selected without
recourse to Dr Pusztai and he was left defenceless. He was immediately
gagged and his great reputation nullified at a stroke. The Audit
report was put into the public domain several months later but
that report demonstrated that the Audit Committee did not believe
a significant difference existed between genetically modified
potatoes and the parent potato. Unfortunately, the Audit Report
did not contain any statement regarding the lack of "muddle"
and Dr Pusztai was not demonstrably exonerated and he remained
gagged. Dr Pusztai was urged to write up his experimental results
despite the fact that four other scientists, comprising the Audit
Report Committee, had placed his work in the public domain in
minute detail. His friends and colleagues felt a real sense of
outrage that Dr Pusztai, a Hungarian refugee from KGB dominated
Hungary in 1956, had been treated in this heavy handed manner.
The response of his European and International friends was to
indicate apparent shortcomings in the Audit Report and to publish
a memorandum that was made public on 12.02.99. The outcome of
this memorandum was to "unmuzzle" Dr Pusztai, and enable
his response to the Audit report to be made public, within three
days. The scientists who signed the memorandum continue to believe
that the mechanism employed was excessive considering the relatively
minor initial misdemeanour and that justice has not been seen
to be done.
10. REFERENCES
1. Pusztai A, Ewen SWB, Grant G, Peumans
WJ, VanDamme EJM, Coates ME, Bardocz S. (1995) Lectins and also
bacteria modify the glycosylation of gut surface receptors in
the rat. Glycoconjugate J. 12:22-35.
2. Bardocz S, Grant G, Ewen SWB, Duguid
TJ, Brown DS, Englyst K, Pusztai A. (1995) Reversible effect of
phytohaemagglutinin on the growth and metabolism of rat gastrointestinal
tract. Gut 37:353-360.
3. Pusztai A, Grant G, Gelencser E, Ewen
SWB, Pfuller U, Eifler R, Bardocz S. (1998) Effects of an orally
administered mistletoe (type-2 RIP) lectin on growth, body composition,
small intestinal structure, and insulin levels in young rats.
J. Nutr. Biochem. 9:31-36.
4. Hammond BG, Vicini JL, Hartnell GF, Naylor
MW, Knight CD, Robinson EH, Fuchs RL and Padgette SR. (1996) The
feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy
cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance.
J.Nutr. 126:717-727.
26 February 1999
6 Not printed. Back
7 Not printed. Back
| 
