Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive Failures.

[Guest guest]

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=1418#_edn7Spilling the Beans, July 2007Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive FailuresBy Jeffrey M. SmithRhetoric from Washington since the early 1990s proclaims that geneticallymodified (GM) foods are no different from their natural counterparts that haveexisted for centuries. But this is a political, not a scientific assertion.Numerous scientists at the FDA consistently described these newly introducedgene-spliced foods as cause for concern. In addition to their potential toproduce hard-to-detect allergies and nutritional problems, the scientists saidthat 1CThe possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in geneticallyengineered plants 1D might produce 1Cunexpected high concentrations of planttoxicants. 1D[1] GM

crops, they said, might have 1CIncreased levels of knownnaturally occurring toxins, . . . appearance of new, not previously identified1D toxins, and an increased tendency to gather 1Ctoxic substances from theenvironment 1D such as 1Cpesticides or heavy metals. 1D They recommendedtesting every GM food 1Cbefore it enters the marketplace. 1D[2] But the FDA wasunder orders from the first Bush White House to promote the biotechnologyindustry, and the political appointee in charge of agency policy was Monsanto19s former attorney 14later their vice president. The FDA policy ignored thescientists 19 warnings and allowed GM food crops onto the market without anyrequired safety studies.From the few safety tests that have been conducted, the results are disturbing14lab animals fed GM diets show damage to virtually every system studied.Reports from farmers are even less encouraging 14thousands of sick, sterile anddead animals are

traced to GM feed.[3]GM diet shows toxic reactions in digestive tractThe very first crop submitted to the FDA 19s voluntary consultation process, theFlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female rats fed the GMtomato, 7 developed stomach lesions.[4] The director of FDA 19s Office ofSpecial Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes did not demonstrate a 1Creasonable certainty of no harm, 1D[5] which is their normal standard ofsafety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that 1Cunresolved questionsstill remain. 1D[6] The political appointees, however, did not require that thetomato be withdrawn.[*]According to Arpad Pusztai, PhD, one of the world 19s leading experts in GM foodsafety assessments, the type of stomach lesions linked to the tomatoes 1Ccouldlead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirinto prevent [blood clots]. 1D[7] Pusztai believes that the

digestive tract shouldbe the first target of GM food risk assessment, because the gut is the first(and largest) point of contact with the foods; it can reveal various reactionsto toxins. He was upset, however, that the research on the FlavrSavr neverlooked passed the stomach to the intestines. Other studies that did look foundproblems.Mice were fed potatoes with an added bacterial gene, which produced aninsecticide called Bt-toxin. Scientists analyzed the lower part of their smallintestines (ileum) and found abnormal and damaged cells, as well asproliferative cell growth.[8] Rats fed potatoes engineered to produce adifferent type of insecticide (GNA lectin from the snowdrop plant) also showedproliferative cell growth in both the stomach and intestinal walls (seephoto).[9] Although the guts of rats fed GM peas were not examined for cellgrowth, the intestines were mysteriously heavier; possibly resulting from

suchgrowth.[10] Cell proliferation can be a precursor to cancer and is of specialconcern.GM diets cause liver damageThe state of the liver 14a main detoxifier for the body 14is another indicatorof toxins.Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes described above had smaller and partiallyatrophied livers.[11]Rats fed Monsanto 19s Mon 863 corn, engineered to produce Bt-toxin, had liverlesions and other indications of toxicity.[12]Rabbits fed GM soy showed altered enzyme production in their livers as well ashigher metabolic activity.[13]The livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12% 1316% heavier, possibly dueto liver disease or inflammation.[14]And microscopic analysis of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeansrevealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes.[15] Manyof these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM soy,indicating that GM soy was the

culprit. The findings, according to moleculargeneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, 1Care not random and must reflect some 18insult 19 on the liver by the GM soy. 1D Antoniou, who does human gene therapyresearch in King 19s College London, said that although the long-termconsequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it 1Ccould lead to liver damageand consequently general toxemia. 1D[16]Higher death rates and organ damageSome studies showed higher death rates in GM-fed animals. In the FlavrSavrtomato study, for example, a note in the appendix indicated that 7 of 40 ratsdied within two weeks and were replaced.[17] In another study, chickens fed theherbicide tolerant 1CLiberty Link 1D corn died at twice the rate of those fednatural corn.[18] But in these two industry-funded studies, the deaths weredismissed without adequate explanation or follow-up.In addition, the cells in the pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy

hadprofound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes;[19] in ratsfed a GM potato, the pancreas was enlarged.[20] In various analyses of kidneys,GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production orinflammation. Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by GM soy.[21]And GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brain of rats.[22]Reproductive failures and infant mortalityIn both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans, their testicles showeddramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink (seephoto).[23] In mice, young sperm cells were altered.[24] Embryos of GM soy-fedmice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared to thosewhose parents were fed non-GM soy.[25]More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the RussianNational Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting two weeksbefore they were

mated.Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring from theGM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10 percent from thenon-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.1CHigh pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from mothers fed the GMsoy flour. 1D[26]The average size and weight of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller.[27]In a preliminary study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.[28]After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russianlaboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats housed atthe facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls were available forsubsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were canceled. After two monthson the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality rate of rats throughout thefacility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99 of 179).[29]Farmers

report livestock sterility and deathsAbout two dozen farmers reported that thousands of their pigs had reproductiveproblems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had falsepregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some cows and bulls also becamesterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths of cows, horses,water buffaloes, and chickens. [30]When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants,within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated 10,000 sheepdeaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post mortems on thesheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver(as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence 1Cstrongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . mostprobably Bt-toxin. 1D[31]Dangerous denialThe warnings of the FDA scientists

appear to have come true. But we were notsupposed to know about their concerns. The agency 19s internal memos were onlymade public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed to believe the officialFDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware of information showing that GMfoods are meaningfully different. This statement, crafted by politicalappointees, directly contradicts the scientific consensus at the FDA.Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows adverseor unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about these problemseither 14the biotech industry works overtime to try to hide them. Industrystudies described above, for example, are neither peer-reviewed nor published.It took lawsuits to make two of them available. And adverse findings byindependent scientists are often suppressed, ignored, or denied. Moreover,researchers that discover problems from GM foods have been fired,

stripped ofresponsibilities, deprived of tenure, and even threatened. The myth that GMcrops are the same safe food we have always eaten continues to circulate.With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction in 1996,however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration ofhealth in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-marketingsurveillance, we can 19t tell which worsening health statistic may be due tothese foods. But we also can 19t afford to wait until we find out. GM foods mustbe removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately, more and more people aremaking healthy non-GM choices for themselves and their family. To learn whichfoods are genetically modified and how to protect yourself, visitwww.GeneticRoulette.com.--[*] Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM

tomatoes, both using the sameinserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety that was notassociated with the lesions. This was not required by the FDA, which did notblock approvals on the lesion-associated variety. The FlavrSavr tomato has sincebeen taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr, no other biotech company hassubmitted such detailed data to the FDA. And the superficial summaries they dopresent to the agency are dismissed by critics as woefully inadequate to judgesafety.--[1] Edwin J. Mathews, Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of theBiotechnology Working Group. Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants.Dated October 28, 1991[2] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of ContaminantsChemistry, 1CPoints to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically ModifiedFoods:

Supplemental Information, 1D November 1, 1991, www.biointegrity.org[3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks ofGenetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007[4] Department of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. Asquoted in Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. 1CFlavr Savr Tomato: . . .Pathology Branch 19s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From ThreeFour-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel 19s Report,1D Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html[5] Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and others, 1CResponse to Calgene Amended Petition, 1D Alliance for Bio-Integrity (October27, 1993) www.biointegrity.org[6] Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others,

1CFlavr Savr!22 Tomato:Significance of Pending DHEE Question, 1D Alliance for Bio-Integrity (December7, 1993) www.biointegrity.org[7] Arpad Pusztai, 1CGenetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk toHuman/Animal Health? 1D June 2001 Action Biosciencewww.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html[8] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, 1CFine Structural Changes in the Ileum ofMice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes, 1D NaturalToxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219 13233.[9] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, 1CEffect of diets containinggenetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat smallintestine, 1D Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4.[10] Arpad Pusztai, 1CFacts Behind the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics,Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment, 1D Proceedings of the Conference, December1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany: Literaturhaus, 2005).[11] Arpad

Pusztai, 1CCan science give us the tools for recognizing possiblehealth risks of GM food, 1D Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84.[12] John M. Burns, 1C13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination withPMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002, 1D December 17, 2002www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf[13] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d 19Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V.Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, 1CGenetically Modified SoyaBean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of MetabolicEffects by Enzymatic Analysis, 1D Animal Science 82 (2006): 193 13199.[14] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363 from the FoodLegislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the Public HealthAssociation of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, 1CFood

produced fromglyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73, 1D www.iher.org.au/[15] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C.Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, 1CUltrastructural Morphometrical and ImmunocytochemicalAnalyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean, 1DCell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173 13180[16] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks ofGenetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007[17] Arpad Pusztai, 1CCan Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing PossibleHealth Risks for GM Food? 1D Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73 1384.[18] S. Leeson, 1CThe Effect of Glufosinate Resistant Corn on Growth of MaleBroiler Chickens, 1D Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, University ofGuelph, Report No. A56379, July 12, 1996.[19] Malatesta, et al, 1CUltrastructural Analysis of Pancreatic Acinar Cellsfrom Mice Fed on

Genetically modified Soybean, 1D J Anat. 2002 November; 201(5):409 13415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B.Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, 1CFine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar CellNuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean, 1D Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385 13388.[20] Arpad Pusztai, 1CCan science give us the tools for recognizing possiblehealth risks of GM food, 1D Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84[21] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d 19Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V.Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, 1CGenetically Modified SoyaBean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of MetabolicEffects by Enzymatic Analysis, 1D Animal Science 82 (2006): 193 13199.[22] Arpad Pusztai, 1CCan science give us the tools for recognizing possiblehealth risks of GM food, 1D Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84[23] Irina Ermakova,

1CExperimental Evidence of GMO Hazards, 1D Presentation atScientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007[24] L. Vecchio et al, 1CUltrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed onGenetically Modified Soybean, 1D European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4(Oct 13Dec 2004):449 13454.[25] Oliveri et al., 1CTemporary Depression of Transcription in MousePre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean, 1D 48thSymposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 71310, 2006.[26] I.V.Ermakova, 1CGenetically Modified Organisms and Biological Risks, 1DProceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC) Davos,Switzerland August 27th 13 September 1st, 2006: 168 13172.[27] Irina Ermakova, 1CGenetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weightand high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies, 1DEcosinform

1 (2006): 4 139.[28] Irina Ermakova, 1CExperimental Evidence of GMO Hazards, 1D Presentation atScientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007[29] I.V.Ermakova 1CGMO: Life itself intervened into the experiments, 1DLetter, EcosInform N2 (2006): 3 134.[30] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks ofGenetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007[31] 1CMortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields 14WarangalDistrict, Andhra Pradesh 1D Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp--What if a “dirty bomb” exploded over a large segment of U.S.population that simultaneously exposed citizens to Hepatitis

B,Hepatitis A, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, three strains of polio viruses, three strains of influenza, measles, mumps, and rubella viruses, two types of meningitis, four strains of herpes viruses, the chickenpox virus, 7 strains of Streptococcus bacteria, and four strainsof rotavirus. • We would declare a national emergency.• It would be an “extreme act of BIOTERRORISM• The public outcry would be immense and our government would react accordingly.And yet, those are the very organisms we inject into our babies and our small children in multiple doses, with immature, underdeveloped immunesystems, many at the same time with vaccines. But instead of bioterrorism, we call it

“protection.” Reflect on that irony.- Dr Sheri Tenpenny, MD

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with FareChase.