The protein scientist Árpád Pusztai went public with the initial results of unpublished research he was conducting at the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, investigating the possible effects of genetically modified potatoes upon rats.
Pusztai claimed that the genetically modified potatoes had stunted growth and repressed the rats' immune systems while thickening their gut mucosa.
Before 1995, no peer-reviewed studies had been published investigating the safety of genetically modified food using human or animal feeding trials.
[2] In 1995 the Scottish Agriculture Environment and Fisheries Department commissioned a £1.6 million three-year research study to assess the safety of genetically engineered Desiree Red potatoes.
[3] In earlier ten-day feeding trials on GNA-fed rats, Pusztai concluded that they did not significantly affect growth, despite some hypertrophy of the small intestine and a slight decrease of gut enzyme activity.
[15] On June 22, 1998 Pusztai revealed his research findings during an interview on Granada Television's current affairs programme World in Action[16] titled "Eat up your genes".
[18] Pusztai later said that at the time of the interview he was not sure if he should reveal results from experiments that had not been completed and did not think the programme would be hostile toward genetically modified food.
[20] World in Action issued a press release the day before the broadcast,[21] stimulating numerous phone calls to Pusztai and the Institute from government, industrial, non-governmental and media organisations.
[18] He eventually suspended Pusztai, used misconduct procedures to seize his data, banned him from speaking publicly and did not renew his annual contract.
The Rowett institute mistakenly assumed the media was talking about a second line transformed with concanavalin A (ConA), a Jack Bean lectin that is toxic to mammals.
[18] Two press releases issued by the Rowett Institute on the 10th and 11th praised Pusztai's research[22] and supported increased safety tests on genetically modified food.
World in Action reporters Laurie Flynn and Michael Sean Gillard claimed that this was an unusual step, as the Royal Society did not normally conduct peer reviews.
A fifth 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".
[33] In an interview, Pickett later said that Lancet editor Richard Horton must have had a political motive for publishing the paper because the referees had rejected it.
According to Pusztai this claim was repeated by academic critics who assumed that Pickett's use of the plural suggested that the study had failed peer review.
[27] Peter Lachmann, the former vice-president and biological secretary of the Royal Society and president of the Academy of Medical Sciences, acknowledged making the call but denies that he threatened Horton and says the call was to "discuss his error of judgment" in publishing the letter and to discuss the "moral difficulties about publishing bad science".
[21] A survey by the European Food Safety Authority GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials concluded: "Results obtained from testing GM food and feed in rodents indicate that large (at least 100-fold) 'safety' margins exist between animal exposure levels without observed adverse effects and estimated human daily intake.