Difference between revisions of "Tom Sanders"
(→Criticism of study on GM potatoes) |
(→Criticism of study on GM potatoes) |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
In fact, in the research study, harmful effects were found from feeding cooked GM potatoes, too, but these harmful effects were not found in the rats fed the non-GM control potatoes, even when raw.<ref>Ewen, S. W. and A. Pusztai (1999). "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine." Lancet 354(9187): 1353-1354.</ref> In other words, Sanders's argument was completely spurious, though it went unchallenged in the media. | In fact, in the research study, harmful effects were found from feeding cooked GM potatoes, too, but these harmful effects were not found in the rats fed the non-GM control potatoes, even when raw.<ref>Ewen, S. W. and A. Pusztai (1999). "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine." Lancet 354(9187): 1353-1354.</ref> In other words, Sanders's argument was completely spurious, though it went unchallenged in the media. | ||
− | Sanders seemingly did not disclose when he gave his 'spoiler' | + | Sanders gave a second 'spoiler' quote to The Independent, in which he questioned the validity of Pusztai's findings on the basis that in the GM-fed rats, "differences in brain weight were reported, as brain weight is generally not influenced by diet in adult rats."<ref>Steve Connor, [http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/science-pusztai-the-verdict-1071729.html Science: Pusztai: The verdict], The Independent, 19 Feb 1999, acc 22 Sep 2012</ref> |
+ | |||
+ | By Sanders's logic, only scientific findings that have already been discovered by someone else and that Sanders knows about, could be considered acceptable. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sanders seemingly did not disclose when he gave his 'spoiler' quotes to Scientific American and The Independent that at the same time he was a consultant to Nutrasweet, a Monsanto-owned company (see Affiliations and consultancies). | ||
==Criticism of study on GM maize== | ==Criticism of study on GM maize== |
Revision as of 13:10, 23 September 2012
Prof Tom Sanders is Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King's College London.[1]
Contents
Views
Sanders has made a name for himself defending the safety of the controversial artifical sweetener aspartame (sold as Nutrasweet) in the media. He said:
- The key point is that we can help people to live healthier lives if they can reduce their calorie intake. Sweeteners (aspartame) have a valuable role to play in the fight against obesity.[2]
In response to the view of the American Association of Neuropathologists that there was a link between aspartame and brain cancer, Sanders said:
- There is simply no evidence to show aspartame causes cancer. It is probably the most stiffly tested substance we consume.[3]
Sanders was the chief "top scientist" quoted in a press release from Nutrasweet dismissing a research paper by Dr John Olney of the Department of Psychiatry, Washington University Medical School, that suggested a link between brain tumours and aspartame.[4] Sanders said Olney's paper was "preposterous", "seriously flawed" and "without merit".[5] However, Sanders did not provide any arguments to back up his claims. Olney, in contrast, did back up his arguments, in his peer-reviewed research paper.
Though Sanders believes aspartame can help people live healthier lives (above), he is not so impressed by the health benefits of fresh fruit. In an article titled "The myths of fruit", Sanders was quoted as saying that drinking liquidised fresh fruit compared unfavourably to drinking Coke:
- If you liquidise it into goo it's just like drinking ordinary Coke. Or worse, actually. It's still a sugary drink. A lot of people on diets don't realise that if they're drinking loads of apple juice or orange juice, it's got a lot of calories in. If you drink a litre of apple juice a day, it'll be 400 calories.[6]
However, this claim only takes into consideration the one factor of calories - not vitamins and minerals, which are arguably a more important factor in choosing a drink. People on a diet still need their nutrients - one could say, more than those eating an unrestricted diet.
Affiliations and consultancies
An article in The Independent in 1996 described Sanders as "Nutrasweet's professional consultant".[7] At this time, Nutrasweet was owned by Monsanto, which acquired G. D. Searle & Company, the company that owned the patent on aspartame, in 1985. [8] Investment firm J.W. Childs Associates purchased Nutrasweet from Monsanto in 2000.[9]
Food writer Felicity Lawrence, in a 2010 article that scathingly commented on the nutritional value of manufactured breakfast cereals, reported that the cereals manufacturing industry had
- recruited Professor Tom Sanders, head of the nutrition department at King's College London, to defend 'breakfast cereals served with semi-skimmed milk' as 'low energy meals that provide about one fifth of the micronutrients of children'.[10]
Criticism of study on GM potatoes
In 1998 researcher Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Institute in Scotland went public with his team's research showing that GM potatoes had harmful effects on rats (the research was later published in The Lancet[11]).
In the subsequent media furore, a rapid rebuttal campaign swung into action. Sanders was quoted in a Scientific American article as asserting that all that Pusztai's experiments "definitively proved was that eating raw potatoes, which are indigestible, is harmful to mammals -- something that has been known for many years."[12]
In fact, in the research study, harmful effects were found from feeding cooked GM potatoes, too, but these harmful effects were not found in the rats fed the non-GM control potatoes, even when raw.[13] In other words, Sanders's argument was completely spurious, though it went unchallenged in the media.
Sanders gave a second 'spoiler' quote to The Independent, in which he questioned the validity of Pusztai's findings on the basis that in the GM-fed rats, "differences in brain weight were reported, as brain weight is generally not influenced by diet in adult rats."[14]
By Sanders's logic, only scientific findings that have already been discovered by someone else and that Sanders knows about, could be considered acceptable.
Sanders seemingly did not disclose when he gave his 'spoiler' quotes to Scientific American and The Independent that at the same time he was a consultant to Nutrasweet, a Monsanto-owned company (see Affiliations and consultancies).
Criticism of study on GM maize
In September 2012 a study was published showing that the commercialised GM maize NK603 caused massive tumours, organ damage, and premature death in rats fed the maize over a lifetime. Similar effects were seen in rats fed tiny amounts of the herbicide Roundup, which NK603 is engineered to tolerate, below levels permitted in food, feed and drinking water.[15]
On the same day the study was released, the Science Media Centre in the UK rushed out a collection of spoiler quotes from "experts" refuting the study.[16]
Sanders provided one quote, which was cited in a Reuters report on the study.[17]
Sanders said:
- Most toxicology studies are terminated at normal lifespan i.e. 2 years. Immortality is not an alternative. No food intake data is provided or growth data. This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumours particularly when food intake is not restricted.
- There is a lack of information on the composition of the diet. One concern is whether there were mycotoxins in the maize meal because of improper storage. Zearalanone is a well know phytoestrogen produced by filamentous fungi that grow on maize.
- The statistical methods are unconventional, there is no clearly defined data analysis plan and probabilities are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.[18]
Contact
- Address:
- ...
- ...
- ...
- ...
- Phone:
- ...
- Email:
- ...
- Website:
- ...
Resources
Notes
- ↑ Science Media Centre, Expert reaction to GM maize causing tumours in rats, 19 Sept 2012, acc 22 Sept 2012
- ↑ Thea Jourdan, Aspartame - Sweet or sour? Daily Mail, Oct 12, 2004
- ↑ Rita Carter, The truth about sugar substitutes, The Independent, 19 Nov 1996
- ↑ Olney, J. W., N. B. Farber, et al. (1996). "Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame?" J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 55(11): 1115-1123.
- ↑ Nutrasweet, Experts dismiss aspartame allegations, PR Newswire, undated, acc 23 Sep 2012
- ↑ Aida Edemariam, The myths of fruit, The Guardian, 23 Jan 2008, acc 22 Sep 2012
- ↑ Rita Carter, The truth about sugar substitutes, The Independent, 19 Nov 1996
- ↑ Nutrasweet Company, Company profile, 2003, acc 22 Sept 2012
- ↑ D L Dewey, $350 Million Plus Lawsuit Filed Against Nutrasweet - Monsanto Aspartame Sweetener, Sept 15 2004, acc Sept 22 2012
- ↑ Felicity Lawrence, Drop that spoon! The truth about breakfast cereals, The Guardian, 23 Nov 2010, acc 22 Sept 2012
- ↑ Ewen, S. W. and A. Pusztai (1999). "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine." Lancet 354(9187): 1353-1354.
- ↑ Peta Firth, Humans Used As Guinea Pigs For Genetically-Modified Food Testing Says Scientist, Scientific American, 5 Feb 1999, acc 22 Sep 2012
- ↑ Ewen, S. W. and A. Pusztai (1999). "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine." Lancet 354(9187): 1353-1354.
- ↑ Steve Connor, Science: Pusztai: The verdict, The Independent, 19 Feb 1999, acc 22 Sep 2012
- ↑ Séralini, G. E., E. Clair, et al. (2012). "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize." Food and Chemical Toxicology.
- ↑ Science Media Centre, Expert reaction to GM maize causing tumours in rats, 19 Sept 2012, acc 22 Sept 2012
- ↑ Reuters, UPDATE 3-Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws scepticism, Sep 19 2012, acc 22 Sep 2012
- ↑ Science Media Centre, Expert reaction to GM maize causing tumours in rats, 19 Sept 2012, acc 22 Sept 2012