Talk:Árpád Pusztai

NPOV

 * Have marked this as NPOV disputed, since there seems to be very little reference to disagreements with Pusztai's work that actually have some factual basis to them, and the article just reads in such as way as to seem a bit polemic.

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.121.141.78 (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. This article reads like a stump speech.

moved from article to here
I'm cutting and pasting the text below from out of the article since the second paragraph clearly has no place in the article itself as it is editorial discussion.


 * Initially Pusztai and his team observed a lack of correlation between levels of the lectin in the potato leaves and their toxicity to insects. Subsequently they experimented by feeding rats on raw and cooked genetically modified potatoes, using Desiree Red potatoes as controls. One of the controls was unmodified desiree red potatoes mixed with snowdrop lectin. The rats fed on the genetically modified potatoes showed lower intestine damage and harm to their immune systems. These effects were not observed in rats fed on unmodified potatoes, or unmodified potatoes mixed with snowdrop lectin. The team concluded that the effects observed were a result of the genetic modification, not the snowdrop lectin.


 * The preceeding paragraph appears to contradict itself, in that the "effects" were and were not observed in unmodified potatoes. I feel the paragraph is at fault in the inclusion of the word "lower" in the 6th line. It should not be there. I'm inserting this paragraph taken from an interview of Dr. Pusztai, on Nov 10, 2000 as read on the Canadian Health Coalition web site, in order to help clarify the preceeding paragraph. http://www.healthcoalition.ca/pusztai.html "We had two kinds of potatoes _ one GM and the other non_GM. I had expected that the GM potato, with 20 micrograms of a component against the several grams of other components, should not cause any problems. But we found problems. Our studies clearly show that the effects were not due to that little gene expression, but it depended on the way the gene had been inserted into the potato genome and what it did to the potato genome."

The results published in Lancet are quite surprising. Using only 6 rats in each group, and feeding them for only 10 days on the various diets, Pusztai claims to have observed significant effects on the stomach and caecum. For effects to be observed in so few rats in such a short period, the effect of the lectin would need to be massive. This is unprecedented and flies in the face of logic.

Even if Pusztai is correct, snowdrops are not a normal component of the diet of rats or people. Any time that a non-dietary substance is introduced into food, it would be normal and prudent to check for adverse effects. Pusztai's experiments therefore have no relevance to the general question of whether or not GM foods are safe. Ronzinho (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ronzinho, of course what you say is true. And that is why Pusztai, before feeding the rats with GM potatoes, fed the rats with a mixture of potatoes and snowdrop lectin (physically mixed in). They did this to make sure that the lectin they were going to use for modification did not have an adverse effect on the rats, since, as you said, it is not a normal part of the diet.  They did this with good results showing that there were no adverse effects.
 * That was why I thing Pusztai was surprised when he got the negative effects from the GM potatoes. I don't think he was expecting it based on his prior experiments with feeding GM potatoes and snowdrop lectins.  The only conclusion he could come to is that something in the genetic modification process was causing the problems he saw.
 * Here is an interview where he explains the process: Interview with Arpad Pusztai Remember, he was a world authority on lectin research before all this happened. He published what was the "bible" of lectin research in the past, Handbook of Plant Lectins: Properties and Biomedical Applications, has authored nearly 300 research papers and nine books.  So, he wasn't a rube scientist jumping off some potato truck.
 * --stmrlbs | talk 02:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

POV tag
A POV tag was added to this article more than two years ago. As I can see no evidence of any actualy POV dispute, I am removing it. If there are POV problems they must be fixed, not left in the article as justification for a badge of shame. Hans Adler 20:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The major problem I see with this article is that it is close to being a coatrack. The discussion of one event takes up more than three quarters of the article. It should definitely get a mention, but in my opinion the majority of the GM potato controversy section should go in its own article or be merged into Genetically modified food controversies (where it is already mentioned). AIR corn (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. It was a life-changing event and is his main claim to notability, but as a scientist he is only a borderline case of WP:BLP1E, and the event happened when he was 67 or 68. If we can find enough material for a genuine biography that covers most of his career, we can move some of the material about the controversy elsewhere and leave a summary here. Otherwise we should probably rename this article. Hans Adler 21:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My preferred action would be to keep this article as Arpad Puztai but merge all the GM potato controversy data to Genetically modified food controversies. Then to write maybe two paragraphs summarising the controversy here using a main template linking to the merged info. The potato, monarch butterfly, Starlink and maybe some other major controversies could then later be forked into there own article if necessary by some brave soul. AIR corn (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The effect of that will be to move a large chunk of text from a short article into a relatively long article. I am not sure that's the best approach. Hans Adler 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but there will be some replicated text we can remove and it may be possible to make it more concise in the process. Another option is to create a new article called Genetically modified potato controversy and link to it from both. Either way, I will start looking for some background info on Puztai to try and flesh out this bio. If I can't find anything we may as well just rename this article. AIR corn (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have just added what I could find about his life before the controversy. AIR corn (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is currently a coatrack and that it should be dealt with in the GMO controversy article, summarised and linked to from here. Smartse (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote a slightly more succinct summary of the case at Genetically_modified_food_controversies. I think it covers just about everything on this page... could direct people to that, perhaps, or copy that in here if it seems too long. II  | (t - c) 01:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Although the prefered option would be to move this to the Genetically modified food controversies article I think it's best to give the controversy it's own article and link from both. The current section in Genetically modified food controversies article is very pro GM and if this text is transfered there it would likewise be heavily edited to introduce weasel wording to soften the criticism.Wayne (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Judging by the differences between the text in this article and in the GMO article there certainly seems to be room for further expansion which could explain both sides of the story. I'm not sure whether a separate article would be best, or to make a genetically modified potato article, similar to the genetically modified tomato one where we could cover everything like amflora as well. Smartse (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Got bold and went ahead and moved the bulk of the GM controversy to Pusztai affair.AIR corn (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Pusztai Lancet Letter - Peer Reviews
In this article on Pusztai, the following text describes the process leading up to the publishing of Pusztai's letter in the Lancet: "...was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual number. Five gave it the green light to be published in The Lancet, the only reviewer arguing against publication was Prof John Pickett of the government funded Institute of Arable Crops Research. After consulting with the Royal Society, Pickett broke the protocols of peer review by publicly attacking the Lancet for agreeing to publish the paper.[12].."

There are no references quoted for any of the above text (Reference 12 is the Pusztai letter in the Lancet).

I found an article Scientists revolt at publication of 'flawed' GM study in the Independent newspaper at the time which says the referees (the article does not say how many but quotes from three) "..found the study to be defective in design, execution and interpretation." It claims the Lancet editor faced a revolt by the referees unless the editor made it clear that the study was "... deeply flawed and its conclusions highly speculative and unsubstantiated..." I suppose that is what the Lancet editor Richard Horton did in his covering note Genetically modified foods: “absurd” concern or welcome dialogue? when he wrote "Ewen and Pusztai's data are preliminary and non-generalisable." In my view, the Independent article paints a different viewpoint on the attitude of the referees to what is now in this Wikipedia Pusztai article. Does anybody have a disagreement with me re-writing this part of the Pusztai article along the lines of the article in the Independent and Horton's note in the Lancet? SylviaStanley (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * According to this in Science the paper was reveiwed by six, with one publically opposing the paper, another thought it was flawed, but wanted it published "to avoid suspicions of a conspiracy against Pusztai and to give colleagues a chance to see the data for themselves" while the other four raised questions that were addressed by the authors. AIR corn (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

World's leading expert
"He is a world expert on plant lectins" was changed to "He is the world's leading expert on plant lectins" with the summary this is how he is described by most sources. To label anyone as the leading expert in anything would require some pretty strong evidence from their peers and even then should only be used cautiously. As this calls him a world expert, I would suggest changing it back. AIR corn (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC) I should note that the previous wording before I changed it said "He is considered the world's foremost expert on plant lectins", which I thought was a little ambiguous.


 * I had a look at what he is called. A search finds 1870 hits for "world's leading expert", 540 for "world's foremost expert" and 400 for "world expert" which also includes "the world's expert". We are probably safe saying "world's leading expert" considering there are likely very few experts in the field.Wayne (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that anti-GM articles describe Pusztai as "the world's leading expert." Pro-GM articles have described him as "an obscure biochemist". Personally I agree with AIRcorn - I think "a world expert" is a better description.SylviaStanley (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is probably only that single mention of a perjoritive like "obscure biochemist". The most common descriptive used in pro-GM articles is "biologist" or just plain "scientist". Academic articles use "Prof" and occassionally "protein biochemist". Not all "green" websites are anti-GM and they still say worlds leading expert. Saying "a world expert" implies he is one expert no better than any other, I think we should go with what the great majority of sources use, either "world's leading expert" or "world's foremost expert." Wayne (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There are problems with using search engines to determine majority. Also popularity should not be used to decide reliability and reliable sources are needed to say that someone is the best in his field. I will have another look and see what I can find. AIR corn (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He has been called "an internationally renowned expert on lectins"  in a Science, Technology, and Human Values journal. AIR corn  (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Andrew Rowells book (Don't worry, its safe to eat: the true story of GM food, BSE, & Foot and Mouth), which was a major source of for this article, uses "worlds leading expert" (p79), but in the same book also says "one of the worlds leading experts" (p136). Also in this he claims Pusztai is "the worlds leading GM expert", which raises more questions about his reliability.


 * This section in Biotechnology and communication: the meta-technologies of information, which seems neutral, uses "an acknowledged expert on lectins" (p233).

From this I think it would be prudent to change it back to "world expert" or something similar in the lead. The biography could be fleshed out with different perspectives from different organisations/people as to how much of an expert they think he is. AIR corn (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WRONG TRANSLATION OF NAME The name"Federation of German Scientists" gives a COMPLETELY FALSE impression of this assn´s membership and activities. “Federation of German Scientists” is AN INCORRECT TRANSLATION of the German term "Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler”, although when it was founded in 1959 it WAS a group of scientists, famous nuclear physicists, no less. But it long ago became a group of ban-the-bomb-type academics working in political science, no less. Accordingly AT THIS TIME this group is NOT a legitimate group of scientists. See more details in my note on Talk page of Federation of German Scientists  article in English wiki

Protein scientist?
Are we sure he was a protein scientist? This from 2006 in The Independent calls him a nutritionist and that fits in with what his papers were about and what the aim of the Rowett Research Institute is. SmartSE (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Pusztai has a degree in Chemistry, a BS in Physiology and a PhD in Biochemistry. His specialty is the interaction of biologically active compounds, such as lectins, proteins, enzymes, enzyme inhibitors and probiotics with the gut. He worked in the Protein Research Department at the Rowett for 36 years. Wayne (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You could call him a biochemist I suppose (then we can wikilink it). Isn't that essentially what a protein scientist is? That could also cover nutritionist. It looks like he spent a lot of time isolating lectins early in his career and studied their nutritional effects on mammals later from the linked papers. AIR corn (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Pusztai calls himself a nutritionist. He argues in several web sites that many of the scientists who criticise his work are not qualified to do so becaue they are not nutritionists like himself.SylviaStanley (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed protein scientist to Biochemist and added nutritionist AIR corn (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks SmartSE (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Árpád Pusztai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100205040855/http://www.rowett.ac.uk:80/press/OVERVIEW.html to http://www.rowett.ac.uk/press/OVERVIEW.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Árpád Pusztai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050604001038/http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/ to http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Árpád Pusztai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120731163541/http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/A.Pusztai/RoyalSoc/ReportsAndReplies/RS_referee_reports.txt to http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/A.Pusztai/RoyalSoc/ReportsAndReplies/RS_referee_reports.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Life and career
There is a missing word, (or possibly words) at the start of the last line of this section, immediately after the word "their". I suspect the word is probably marriage, but would like confirmation. Editrite! (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)