MONDAY 8 MARCH 1999

DR ARPAD PUSZTAI and DR STANLEY EWEN

  160. Perhaps you could give us a note about your views of Dr Horgan because it was one that you sent to us as being independent?
  (Dr Pusztai) Yes, it was independent.

  161. In the World In Action programme, you refer to 110-day experiments, the effect of slight growth retardation. In your submission to the Committee, you say that on 110-day feeding actually no differences between parents and GM potatoes could be found; that is what you have told us?
  (Dr Pusztai) The reason for it is because there was 20 per cent less protein, so we had to put in more protein to compensate for it; there is no point in doing a stupid experiment; if you were putting in less protein you would get a retardation, so we wanted to—

  162. But can you confirm that there were no differences at 110 days?
  (Dr Pusztai) No, because the design of the experiment prevented it.

  163. Taking the quotation that Dr Jones just made to you, if, indeed, it is true that the experiment was not properly statistically designed, given the variability there is in so many factors, is it not the case that it is not possible to draw any scientifically-based conclusions from the results?
  (Dr Pusztai) You see, this whole programme was not about testing GM potatoes, it was to come up with testing procedures which might have relevance to other GM matter. So, therefore, because substantial equivalence has such an importance in the matter, if you find that there is no substantial equivalence, there is no point in doing an experiment.

  164. But the evidence that Dr Jones quoted is that the design was not adequate to draw conclusions, but you had been drawing conclusions, in the World In Action programme?
  (Dr Pusztai) No, I do not actually agree with that, I do not agree with that. We had done four totally different experiments, with two different lines of potatoes, and it came to an end at a time when it was really starting to become extremely interesting.

  165. Is it fair to say, Dr Pusztai, that the controversy surrounding yourself is a slightly phoney one, in the sense that you were never setting out to test a potentially commercially-viable product?
  (Dr Pusztai) Precisely.

  166. That you were, in fact, simply using it as a means to establish a technical basis for assessment of products?
  (Dr Pusztai) Precisely.

  167. So the fact that there may or may not be statistically-significant results has no bearing on whether, in principle, genetic modification is a risk?
  (Dr Pusztai) But there are; even in that statistical analysis, there are. And if you are comparing two different lines and you try to make a statistical point then it is wrong; but if you are comparing lines which were the same, for example, in those experiments, where the only difference was in the total protein content that how much you supplemented with, there are very significant differences and there are very consistent differences, and I would be very pleased to actually show them to you, if it—

  Chairman: Thank you. There is a promise.

  Dr Jones: Basically, the GM potatoes were knackered in terms of a food, were they not; they were not very good food value?

  Chairman: No, we must move on now. I am sure there is scope for a private meeting hereafter.

  168. Dr Ewen, to turn to you, if I may. In your submission to us, you talk about your work over a decade, ten years, with Dr Pusztai, and you have seen him as an exacting, fastidious scientist, and you record some of your work. But in the last line of your report you talk about a "relatively minor initial misdemeanour"; could you explain what you meant by that, in the original work?
  (Dr Ewen) Yes. I think the difficulty is a slight difference in meaning between Scottish parlance and English, Englishness.

  169. I do not know about it; tell me?
  (Dr Ewen) What I was actually meaning was that there was an infringement of convention, shall we say, and "misdemeanour", I think, in that respect, was too strong a term.

  170. And what was that, do you think, the infringement?
  (Dr Ewen) I think we have heard explained that on the programme perhaps the lack of published evidence is the main criticism.

  171. Right; let me turn to you then, Dr Pusztai, about results. Do you think it is justified for scientists to go public, as it were, with preliminary results or unfinished results? You are not the first to have done it, incidentally; Richard Gallo did it with the Aids virus, I seem to remember, he had a presidential conference; so it happens. What do you think about doing that though?
  (Dr Pusztai) I think that what we have to put over, and I think that I probably did it too well, looking at it now, is that, based on our experience, there ought to be a concern. Now when you are saying that there is concern they will probe into it, that what is this concern. I am not sufficiently famous to say that I feel concerned and then everybody will take notice of it; what they will say is: "Okay, you feel concerned, so what gives you a basis for that concern?"; then I said that because we had done some experiments. Now I still regard that, if I say that on the basis of our studies, I am not giving any details away, what I am saying is that on the basis of those experiments, when we did see some effects on growth, maybe not directly but indirectly, but we did see some effect, and we also see some effects on immune responsiveness, or organ weights, or organ metabolism, then you have to somehow say something, otherwise the whole thing will be totally useless, nobody will believe you, so that concern had to be expressed.

  172. Do you want to add to that?
  (Dr Pusztai) I said, right at the beginning, that, because I do happen to know all that has been submitted to the Novel Foods Committee, all the arguments and all the science which has been submitted, and also taking into consideration there is only one peer reviewed paper on record, this technology has been introduced on the back of a single paper in Journal of Nutrition, in 1996, when it all comes together then your results and your concerns are becoming a bit stronger, and you feel frustrated, you have to do something about it.

  173. So why did you not just publish a short note and get it peer reviewed, which is a conventional way for scientists to do this; what was your thinking at that point? You have obviously done something since, I see your thinking of doing it, but why not at the time?
  (Dr Pusztai) Even that will take some time, as we found out, quite some time, particularly if it is hostile, if it can be construed to be hostile to a very important technology; then even papers which were, in a sense, good, from the point of view of GM, had very rough treatment, people just did not want to get involved.

  174. Looking back down the track, would you do it all again; would you go through the same procedure again?
  (Dr Pusztai) Yes; yes, definitely.

  175. You would not change a thing?
  (Dr Pusztai) I have never changed my mind about it. I do realise that, some of the data, I actually would contest anyone, any scientist, I would sit down and contest it, that what I found and what could be the restrictions or the limitations on it; but, essentially, it certainly gave me a concern, and, in fact, it was very much shared by the Institute, this concern.

  176. Just so that we are absolutely clear, when Dr Gibson says, with hindsight and looking back, would you do the same again, I do not think we are talking about would you do your scientific work again; I am sure the answer to that is an emphatic "yes", but would you, with hindsight, handle the situation again; would you expose yourself to media coverage, World In Action, a hostile programme and sceptical scientists; would you do that again?
  (Dr Pusztai) It is a very difficult question to answer, because sometimes you do not get these opportunities, sometimes you do get them, sometimes they come along and sometimes they do not come along, you cannot really say that it would be—but I do not really try to get out of it.

  177. No, but you do not have strong regret; from your answer you are giving, you do not have strong regret about it?
  (Dr Pusztai) No, because, in one sense, what I achieved is that we are all sitting here and talking about it.

  Chairman: We have got three or four questions now on genetically modified food, and we are running out of time, because we have another set of witnesses. So could I please ask the Committee members to put their questions as briefly as possible, and, Dr Pusztai, we would be very grateful if you could respond as quickly as possible, consistent with the truth and fairness.

  178. Could I just go back to your answer, when Dr Jones was quoting the statistical question-marks over the design of the experiment, and your answer was that you were not really looking for results, you were looking for a methodology for testing genetically modified plants, and that, therefore, the fact that there was no statistically significant difference in the result did not really matter; is that what your response was?
  (Dr Pusztai) No, I would not agree with that. There were statistically significant differences. And if you look through the whole business you will see that if you make predictions on the basis of random error you would expect something like six statistically significant differences, you got 50; now there is a huge difference between 50 and six, and, therefore, I would say that they are statistically significant. So I do not accept that.

  179. Could we go to the World In Action broadcast, Dr Pusztai? In it, you said that you "find that it's very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea-pigs"; that is taken from the World In Action programme transcript. What evidence had you got for saying that?
  (Dr Pusztai) The only evidence is that there is only one paper published; that is good enough evidence for me, that it has been given out a new technology has been introduced and it is based on a single paper.