Genetically Modified Foods Unsafe.

[Guest guest]

*Evidence that Links GM Foods to Allergic Responses Mounts****Genetically Modified Foods Unsafe*Evidence that Links GM Foods to Allergic Responses MountsJeffrey M. SmithGenetic Engineering News, Nov 1 2007 (Vol. 27, No. 19)http://www.genengnews.com/articles/chitem.aspx?aid=2252Genetically modified (GM) foods are inherently unsafe, and current safetyassessments are not competent to protect us from or even identify mostdangers. Overwhelming evidence to support this conclusion is now compiled inthe book Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of geneticallyengineered foods, which presents an abundance of adverse findings

andtheoretical risks associated with GM foods.1The book documents lab animals with damage to virtually every systemstudied; thousands of sick, sterile, or dead livestock; and people aroundthe world who have traced toxic or allergic reactions to eating GM products,breathing GM pollen, or touching GM crops at harvest. It also exposes manyincorrect assumptions that were used to support GM approvals. This article,excerpted from my book, summarizes some of the findings related to allergicand immune responses.*GM Soy and Allergies*Soy allergies jumped 50% in the U.K. just after GM soy was introduced.2 IfGM soy was the cause, it may be due to several things. The GM protein thatmakes Roundup Ready Soy resistant to the herbicide does not have a historyof safe use in humans and may be an allergen.. In fact, sections of its aminoacid sequence are identical to

known allergens.3A portion of the transgene from ingested GM soybeans, along with thepromoter that switches it on, transfers into human gut bacteria duringingestion.4 The fact that the transformed bacteria survives applications ofRoundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, suggests that the transgenecontinues to produce the Roundup Ready protein. If true, then long afterpeople stop eating GM soy they may be constantly exposed to its potentiallyallergenic protein, which is being created within their gut. (This proteinmay be made more allergenic due to misfolding, attached molecular chains, orrearrangement of unstable transgenes, but there is insufficient data tosupport or rule out these possibilities..1)Studies suggest that the GM transformation process may have increasednatural allergens in soybeans. The level of one known allergen, trypsininhibitor, was 27% higher in raw GM soy varieties. More

worrisome, it was asmuch as sevenfold higher in cooked GM soy compared to cooked non-GM soy.5Not only is this higher amount potentially harmful, the finding alsosuggests that the trypsin inhibitor in GM soy might be more heat stable and,therefore, even more allergenic than the natural variety.6It is also possible that changes in GM soy DNA may produce new allergens.Although there has never been an exhaustive analysis of the proteins ornatural products in GM soy, unpredicted changes in the DNA were discovered.A mutated section of soy DNA was found near the transgene, which maycontribute to some unpredicted effects. Moreover, between this scrambled DNAand the transgene is an extra transgene fragment, not discovered until yearsafter soy was on the market.7 The RNA produced is completely unexpected. Itcombines material from all three sections: the full-length transgene, thetransgene fragment, and the

mutated DNA sequence. This RNA is then furtherprocessed into four different variations,8 which might lead to theproduction of some unknown allergen.Another study verified that GM soybeans contain an IgE-binding allergenicprotein not found in nonGM soy controls, and that one of eight subjects whoshowed a skin-prick allergic reaction to GM soy had no reaction to nonGMsoy.9 Although the sample size is small, the implication that certain peoplereact only to GM soy is huge.The increased residue of Roundup herbicide in GM soy might contribute toincreased allergies.10 In fact, the symptoms identified in the U.K. soyallergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. The allergystudy identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronicfatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints including acne andeczema.2Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches,

lethargy, skinrashes, and burning or itchy skin.11 It is also possible that glyphosate'sbreakdown product, AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans,12,13 mightcontribute to allergies.Finally, mice fed GM soy had reduced levels of pancreatic enzymes.14,15 Whenprotein-digesting enzymes are suppressed, proteins may last longer in thegut, allowing more time for an allergic reaction to take place. Anyreduction in protein digestion could therefore promote allergic reactions toa wide range of proteins, not just to the GM soy.*Bt Toxin Triggers Immune Response*Bt toxin is consistently associated with immune and allergic-type responses.Although the unpredicted consequences of the GM transformation process mightalso contribute to allergic reactions from Bt crops, evidence suggests thatthe Bt toxin itself is a major factor. The Bt proteins

found in mostcurrently registered Bt-corn varieties would not pass the allergy testprotocol described in the 2001 FAO/WHO report,16 because they have aminoacid sections identical with known allergens17 and are too stable insimulated digestive solutions.18,19Furthermore, immune responses are triggered by both the natural Bt toxin inspray form and Bt crops. The concentration of Bt toxin in crops, however,can be thousands of times higher than in sprays;20 and changes in itsprotein structure make the crop version more likely to provoke reactions inhumans.21,22*Additional evidence: ** When populations were exposed to Bt spray, hundreds complained of allergicreactions; exposed farm workers also exhibited antibody responses..23-27* Indian farm workers exposed to Bt cotton developed moderate or severeallergic reactions.28* Bt toxin fed to mice induced a

significant immune response and anincreased reactivity to other substances.29-31* Male rats fed MON 863 Bt corn had a significant increase in three types ofblood cells related to the immune system: basophils, lymphocytes, and totalwhite cell counts.32* Thousands of consumers complained to food manufacturers about possiblereactions to StarLink corn,33 and an expert panel determined that its Btprotein had a "medium likelihood" of being a human allergen.34The consistency between the reactions related to Bt sprays and thosereported by Bt-cotton workers is astounding. The Bt spray was associatedwith sneezing, runny nose, watery eyes, skin inflammation and irritation,rashes, itching and burning, swelling, red skin and eyes, exacerbations ofasthma, facial swelling, and fever. Some people requiredhospitalization.23,24 Bt-cotton workers in India reported sneezing, runnynose, watery eyes, skin eruptions,

itching and burning, red skin and eyes,facial swelling, and fever. Some people required hospitalization.28 The twolists are nearly identical--only "exacerbations of asthma" was on the spraylist and not the other.Asthma and breathing difficulties were reported by Filipinos who inhaledBt-corn pollen.35 They also described swollen faces, flu-like symptoms,fever, and sneezing. Some individuals in both India and the Philippines alsoreported long-term effects after exposure. The list of symptoms in thePhilippines, however, did contain items not reported by the other twogroups. These included coughs, headache, stomachache, dizziness, diarrhea,vomiting, weakness, and numbness.36*Toxicity and Reproductive Problems*In addition, there is substantial evidence of toxicity and reproductiveeffects associated with GM foods. Sheep that grazed on Bt-cotton plants

inIndia, for example, exhibited nasal discharge, reddish and erosive mouthlesions, cough, bloat, diarrhea, and occasional red-colored urine. Shepherdsreport that 25% of their herds died within 5-7 days. Post mortems on some ofthe estimated 10,000 dead sheep in the region indicated toxic reactions.37Rats fed Bt corn showed toxicity in their livers and kidneys.38 And farmerslink Bt corn with deaths among cows,39 water buffalo, horses, andchickens,36 as well as sterility in thousands of pigs or cows.1 Animalfeeding studies with Roundup Ready soy indicated toxic livers,40 alteredsperm cells,41 significant changes in embryo development,42 and a fivefoldincrease in infant mortality, among others.43Our understanding of DNA has progressed rapidly since genetic engineeringwas applied to food crops, and many key safety assumptions have been provenwrong. Perhaps some day scientists will be able to safely and

predictablyalter food crops for the benefit of mankind and the environment.Until then, it is not responsible to risk the health of the entirepopulation with this infant science or to release these crops into theecosystem where they may self-propagate for generations. An immediate ban ofGM foods and crops is more than justified.1. Smith, J.M. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of GeneticallyEngineered Foods (Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA, 2007).2. Townsend, M. Why soya is a hidden destroyer. Daily Express, Mar 12, 1999.3. Kleter, G.A. & Peijnenburg, A.A.C.M. Screening of transgenic proteinsexpressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acidsequences identical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens.BMC Struct. Biol. 2 (2002): 8-19.4. Netherwood et al. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in thehuman gastrointestinal tract. Nature

Biotech. 22 (2004): 2.5. Padgette, S.R. et al. The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybeanseeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J. of Nutrition 126,no. 4 (1996).6. Pusztai, A. & Bardocz, S. GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits andrisks. Ch. 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals (Elsevier, 2005).7. Windels, P. et al. Characterisation of the roundup ready soybean insert.Eur. Food Res. Technol. 213 (2001): 107-112.8. Rang, A. et al. Detection of RNA variants transcribed from the transgenein roundup ready soybean. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 220 (2005): 438-443.9. Yum, H. et al. Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologiccomparison. Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May-Jun 2005):210-216.10. Benbrook, C. Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in the UnitedStates: The First Nine Years. October 2004.11. Cox, C. Herbicide fact sheet:

glyphosate. J. of Pest. Reform 24, no. 4(Winter 2004).12. Duke, S.O. et al. Isoflavone, Glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acidlevels in seeds of glyphosate-treated, glyphosateresistant soybean. J.Agric. Food Chem. 51 (2003): 340-344.13. Sandermann, H. Plant biotechnology: ecological case studies on herbicideresistance. Trends in Plant Sci. 11, no. 7 (Jul 2006): 324-328.14. Malatesta, M. et al. Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cellsfrom mice fed on genetically modified soybean. J. of Anat. 201, no. 5 (Nov2002): 409.15. Malatesta, M. et al.. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cellnuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Eur. J. Histochem. 47 (2003): 385-388.16. FAO/WHO. "Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods."(FAO/WHO, Jan 22-25, 2001).17. Gendel. The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potentialallergenicity of proteins used in genetically

modified foods. Advan. in Foodand Nutrition Research 42 (1998): 45-62.18. Noteborn, H.P.J.M. Assessment of the stability to digestion andbioavailability of the LYS mutant Cry9C protein from Bacillus thuringiensisserovar tolworthi. Unpublished study to EPA (AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05,1998).19. Engel, K. et al. Genetically modified foods: safety issues. AmericanChemical Society Symposium Series 605 (Washington DC, 1995): 134-47.20. Mendelsohn, M. et al. Are Bt crops safe? Nature Biotech. 21, no. 9(2003): 1003-1009.21. Dutton, A. et al. Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenicmaize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea. Ecol. Entomology27 (2002): 441-7.22. Romeis, J., Dutton, A., & Bigler, F. Bacillus thuringiensis toxin(Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperlacarnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J. of Insect Phys. 50,

no. 2-3(2004): 175-183.23. Washington State Dept. of Health. "Report of health surveillanceactivities: asian gypsy moth control program (Washington State Dept. ofHealth, Olympia, WA, 1993).24. Green, M. et al. Public health implications of the microbial pesticideBacillus thuringiensis: an epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86. Amer. J.Public Health 80, no. 7 (1990): 848-852.25. Noble, M.A., Riben, P.D., & Cook, G.J. Microbiological andepidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray48B BTK spray (Ministry of Forests, Vancouver, B.C., Sept 30, 1992).26. Swadener, C. Bacillus thuringiensis. J. of Pest. Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall1994).27. Samples, J.R. & Buettner, H. Ocular infection caused by a biologicalinsecticide. J. Infectious Dis. 148, no. 3 (1983): 614.28. Gupta, A. et al. "Impact of Bt cotton on farmers' health (in Barwani andDhar district of Madhya

Pradesh)" (Investigation Report, Oct-Dec 2005).29. Vazquez et al. Intragastric and Intraperitoneal Administration of Cry1Acprotoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibodyresponses in mice. Life Sci. 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897-1912.30. Vazquez et al. Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immuneresponse induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 inmice. Brazilian J. of Med. and Biol. Research 33 (2000): 147-155.31. Vazquez et al. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potentsystemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scandanavian J. of Immunology 49 (1999):578-584.32. Burns, J.M. 13-week dietary subchronic comparison study with MON 863corn in rats preceded by a 1-week baseline food consumption determinationwith PMI certified rodent diet #5002. (Monsanto Co. report, Dec 17, 2002).33. Freese, B. The StarLink affair. Submission by Friends of the Earth tothe FIFRA

scientific advisory panel considering assessment of additionalscientific information concerning StarLink corn (Jul 17-19, 2001).34. Assessment of additional scientific information concerning StarLink corn(FIFRA scientific advisory panel report, No. 2001-09, Jul 2001).35. Smith, J.M. Bt-maize (corn) during pollination, may trigger disease inpeople living near the cornfield (Press release, Feb 2004).36. Ho, M. GM ban long overdue, dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines(ISIS press release, Jun 2, 2006).37. Mortality in sheep flocks after grazing on Bt cottonfields--Warangaldistrict (Andhra Pradesh report of the preliminaryassessment, Apr 2006).38. Seralini, G., Cellier, D., & Spiroux de Vendomois, J. New analysis of arat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs ofhepatorenal toxicity. J. archives of Env. Contam. and Toxicology (Springer, NewYork).39. Strodthoff,

H. & Then, C. Is GM maize responsible for deaths of cows inHesse? Greenpeace e.V. 22745 (Greenpeace, Hamburg, Germany, Dec 2003).40. Malatesta, M. et al. Ultrastructural morphometrical andimmunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed ongenetically modified soybean. Cell Struct. Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180.41. Vecchio, L. et al. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed ongenetically modified soybean. Eur. J. of Histochem. 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec2004):449-454.42. Oliveri et al. Temporary depression of transcription in mousepre-implantion embryos from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. (48thSymposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore, Italy, Sept7-10, 2006).43. Ermakova, I. Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weightand high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies.Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9.*Jeffrey M. Smith is

the executive director of the Institute for ResponsibleTechnology. His first book was Seeds of Deception. His newest book, GeneticRoulette, was recently released by Yes! Books (www.geneticroulette.com).Smith is the producer of the video Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals and writesan internationally syndicated column Spilling the Beans. E-mail: **info**Jeffrey Smith interview: ''Truth Triumphs'' (**1/11/2007**)**Jeffrey Smith ''Truth Triumphs''*By: Chris Attwoodhttp://www.healthywealthynwise.com/article.asp?Article=5326Jeffrey Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception, the world's bestsellingbook on the dangers of

genetically modified foods and the recently releasedGenetic Roulette.CHRIS ATTWOOD: Now you had a pretty clear idea when you wrote Seeds ofDeception that there were some serious things that needed to be addressed,but were you surprised as you did your research, as you went deeper, byanything that you discovered? Can you tell us any stories of the things thatyou found as you wrote these two books?JEFFREY SMITH: There are two things. There's the most shocking evidence ofhealth dangers, but just so people are clear about what geneticallyengineered foods are... CHRIS ATTWOOD: Yes, please.JEFFREY SMITH: GM foods, genetically modified foods, are foods in whichgenes from one species are transferred into the DNA of another species. Someof the more bizarre combinations are that they've taken genes from spidersand put them into goats in the hopes that they can milk the goats to getspider web

protein to make bulletproof vests. That's true. CHRIS ATTWOOD: Wow..JEFFREY SMITH: They've put genes from jellyfish into pigs so that theirnoses glow in the dark. They've put human genes into rice, which is nowgrowing in Kansas, to produce pharmaceutical medicines for children. For thecrops that they're growing around the world-principally soy, corn, cottonand canola-they take genes from bacteria and viruses so that the crops donot die when sprayed with the company's herbicide, or they produce their ownpesticide.By the way, your question is excellent because that's the question I alwaysask to scientists-What is their most shocking moment?-because I want towrite a book of shocking moments. Let''s start with that. I asked ascientist who had been fired from his job after 35 years, silenced withthreats of a lawsuit, when he discovered that genetically engineered foodscaused significant damage to

laboratory animals.What I asked him was what was the most shocking moment? It wasn't beingfired from his job, it wasn''t discovering the problems. It turned out itwas months earlier when he was still a pro-GM scientist in good standing,and was asked to review the scientific papers that got GM crops approved inthe UK. He said reading those studies was one of the most shocking momentsin his life, a turning point in his life, because he realized how bad theresearch was.He said what they're trying to do is as little as possible to get theirfoods on the market as quickly as possible. That was his most shockingmoment. Then I asked another person what his most shocking moment was. Thiswas a professor at UC Berkeley. He said he was threatened by a seniorMexican government official who implied, ''We know where your children go toschool,'' trying to get him not to publish evidence that geneticallyengineered

corn had contaminated crops in Mexico.There are a lot of shocking moments like that, a lot of real X-File typeconspiracy things that turn out to be true. As far as the more shockingmoments in terms of what can go wrong with genetically engineered crops,I'll give you a couple. In the only human feeding study every conducted itshowed that genes that are inserted into genetically engineered cropstransfer into the DNA of the gut bacteria inside our intestines.This means that long after you stop eating genetically engineered foods,your own gut bacteria might be producing these foreign proteins, which mightbe allergenic or toxic or carcinogenic. In fact, I mentioned earlier thatthere are some crops--corn, for example--engineered to produce its ownpesticide with a gene inserted into the DNA from bacteria.If that pesticide-producing gene transferred from some corn chip that youate into your gut bacteria, it

might turn it into living pesticidefactories, possibly for the rest of your life. These are really shockingdiscoveries on the health side, and what's also shocking is that these typesof problems have never been adequately tested to see how it's affectinghuman beings. CHRIS ATTWOOD: Jeffrey, are genetically modified foods all bad? I mean, thestory that we've been told is that genetic engineering is the next greatrevolution and it's going to make food abundantly available to peoplethroughout the earth. Is that all not true?JEFFREY SMITH: The current generation of genetically engineered crops is avery primitive technology based on obsolete science that causes massivecollateral damage in the DNA that can change proteins and natural compoundsin ways that we could never predict. It's an unstable technology and it wasrushed to the market before the science was ready. Now this does not meanthat

sometime in the future we will not be able to safely and predictablymanipulate genes in food and crops for the benefit of mankind andenvironment.We are nowhere near that space now. We can link these crops to thousands ofsick, sterile and dead animals, thousands of toxic and allergic reactions inhumans, and damage to virtually every system and organ studied in laboratoryanimals. Also, I take no position on human gene therapy where the risk ratiois very different. You're just making a change in one person's gene and thatperson is risking their life, but we're not risking the lives of ageneration.We're not risking the lives of future generations. This is self-propagatinggenetic pollution. Once you put a GM crop into the environment it cantransfer to non-GM crops, it can transfer to wild relatives and persist inthe environment, generation after generation, outliving the effects ofglobal warming and

nuclear waste. We're not saying that genetic technologyper se is bad, but the current application into foods and crops is simplydriven by profits and is risking the health and environment. CHRIS ATTWOOD: Now the FDA is set up to supposedly protect us from thesethings. How did these foods manage to get approved and get into our foodsupply and past all of these protections that we're supposed to have?JEFFREY SMITH: Excellent question. It turns out that the FDA's policywritten in 1992 claimed that the agency was "Not aware of any informationshowing that the foods created from these methods differ in any meaningfulor uniform way." That's the quote in their policy upon which they made thestatement that they don't need to test anything, "If the biotech companiestell us that these foods are safe, there are no further questions by theFDA."It's simply a hands-off policy. Now this concept that the agency was

notaware of any information showing that the foods were different turned out tobe a lie. We didn't know it at the time, but 44,000 documents from the FDA'sfiles were made public due to a lawsuit. It turns out that the overwhelmingconsensus among the FDA's own scientists were that the foods could createallergies, toxins, new diseases, nutritional problems. They had urged theirsuperiors to require long-term studies, but were ignored.The reason was that the FDA was under orders from the first BushAdministration to promote the biotechnology industry, and so the FDA put theperson in charge of policy at the FDA, they took Monsanto's former outsideattorney--Monsanto's the large biotech company--and put him in charge of FDApolicy during the time that the GMO policy was being created.Afterwards, this man, Michael Taylor, then took a position as Monsanto'svice-president, so really it was industry regulating, or

in this casenon-regulating, themselves and so the FDA really has no required studies andsafety testing whatsoever. CHRIS ATTWOOD: Is the impact of genetically modified foods limited? Youmentioned cotton, soybeans, corn, a few other things. Is it limited to thoseor is it broader?JEFFREY SMITH: There are four major crops--soy, corn, cotton and canola--andthere are three minor food crops--Hawaiian papaya, a little bit of zucchiniand little bit of crookneck squash. Now the tomatoes that were on the marketyears ago were taken off the market, the potatoes were taken off the market.There's an industry that wants to introduce genetically modified sugar beetsnext year.There have been more than 170 different species of crops that have beentested in field trials, and many more developed in the laboratory. Thestated goal of Monsanto's executives, years ago, to their consultant, fortheir ideal future

was to genetically engineer 100% of all commercial seedsin the world and patent them. That was how they developed their plans.Another biotech company also, in 1999, projected that within five years theywould see a takeover of 95% of all commercial seeds in the world within fiveyears..Fortunately, there was an eruption in Europe a few weeks later, and theconcern by consumers there forced the food industry to promise, "We're notgoing to be selling genetically engineered ingredients in our foods inEurope." That has stopped it to these four major crops grown in sixcountries with two major traits instead of the entire food supply. There'salso milk from cows treated with genetically engineered Bovine GrowthHormone, which is put out by Monsanto to increase milk supply of cows.It also has very grave health risks associated with it, for example, anincrease of a hormone that's linked to cancer, breast cancer,

prostatecancer, et cetera. Fortunately, we're seeing the same kind of consumerrejection that they saw in Europe against this Bovine Growth Hormone rightnow. Major companies like Publix, Starbucks, Kroger and others are rejectingall milk from cows treated with this dangerous genetically engineered drug. CHRIS ATTWOOD: Now you mentioned Europe, and as we said earlier, you'vetraveled around the world. Why do you think that consumers in Europe havebeen so much stronger about rejecting genetically modified foods versusconsumers in America?JEFFREY SMITH: Because they know about it. It's interesting that in 1999,this scientist, the one I had interviewed earlier who gave me his shockingmoment, was silenced with threats of a lawsuit from his former employer. Hewas working on a UK government grant to develop a testing protocol for GMcrops that was rigorous. When he discovered it was actually is dangerous,

hewas muzzled and his protocol was never implemented.Just after the biotech industry had claimed that they were going to betaking over the food supply in five years, his gag order was lifted by anact of Parliament. Within the week, 159 column feet of material was writtenabout it in the press and within the month, 750 articles. One editor saidthat it divided the society into two warring camps on the GM issue.With the controversy stirred in the press, people hearing about the healthrisks, and hearing about the way it hasn't been tested for food safety, itwas too much for the consumers and so they were resisting it. In April of1999, Unilever, Britain's largest food manufacturer, committed to remove GMingredients from the European brands and within a week, so did virtuallyevery other major food company.Now by comparison, these same companies do not remove GM ingredientsin the UnitedStates, where

only one in four are even aware that they've ever eaten agenetically engineered food in their lives. If you ask people, "Have youever eaten a GM food?" 60% say no, 15% say, "I don't know." The foodscontinue to be sold and the biotech industry prospers on the basis ofconsumer ignorance.If some event or issue would raise this topic onto the national radarscreen, or if even just a small percentage of shoppers started making theirchoices for non-GM products and actually started knowing which products weregenetically engineered and avoiding them, that would be enough to cause thetipping point, that landslide that we saw in Europe and the tipping pointthat we saw with Bovine Growth Hormone.The real issue is, not only that the United States consumers don't know muchabout it because they haven't been told by the press, but if they did knowabout it, we could get rid of this stuff very quickly. CHRIS

ATTWOOD: Now why aren't genetically modified foods labeled? We havesome of the strictest labeling requirements in the world in America. Whydon't we know which foods are genetically modified just by looking at thelabeling on our packages?JEFFREY SMITH: According to several lawyers, it's actually this concept thatit should be labeled violates those strict laws and the FDA is doing itbecause they have been told by the White House to promote the biotechnologyindustry. It is a stated official goal of the FDA. They know that nine outof 10 Americans want GM foods labeled, and they also know that more thanhalf would choose to avoid GM foods if they were labeled, which would killthe biotech industry in terms of food.They have decided to ignore the desires of nine out of 10 Americans tosupport the financial interests of six agricultural biotechnology companies.It's a real shame, but unfortunately that's the

equation and how it'sworking. CHRIS ATTWOOD: Who are those major players? Who are the major biotech firmsbehind genetically modified foods?JEFFREY SMITH: Monsanto has the patents to about 90% of all the acreageplanted. There's also Syngenta, Bayer CropScience, Dow, DuPont and BASF.Those are the only six that have commercialized food crops in the UnitedStates and Europe, etcetera. CHRIS ATTWOOD: Earlier, you talked about that there are risks associated,or that we don't know the impact of certain genetic modifications. Are thereactual cases where harmful effects have been seen or studied or results havebeen observed as a result of genetic engineering?JEFFREY SMITH: Absolutely. The earliest one happened in the 1980s. About5,000 to 10,000 people got sick with a horrible, debilitating disease. About100 people died. It was traced to a food supplement called L-tryptophan, butonly one brand of

the tryptophan and that was the brand that was geneticallyengineered by a company in Japan. We also know that, because there's nopost-marketing surveillance of genetically engineered foods in the UnitedStates, no clinical trials, we have to look at correlations in otherevidence.We know that soon after genetically modified soy was introduced to the UK,soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. We know many ways in which geneticallymodified soy might increase allergies. In fact, there's a least one studythat shows people who have a skin-prick reaction test only to the GM soy,but not to the non-GM soy. We know that the cotton that produces its ownpesticide, when farm workers harvest this cotton, load it, even lean againstit, they describe really bad allergic reactions, hundreds of them.They're the same type of allergic reactions that we would predict for peoplebeing exposed to this pesticide. When they let sheep

graze after harvest onthese cotton plants, one in four sheep died within a week, about 10,000sheep in total. We know that about two dozen farmers say that their pigs orcows became sterile as a result of genetically engineered corn. We knowother farmers who say their animals died as a result of eating the corn.We have laboratory studies showing higher death rates, stomach lesions,problems like that. One of the most shocking studies came out of Russia,where they fed genetically modified soybeans, the same that are approved inthe United States and that we eat every day, to Russian rats--these weremother rats--and after giving birth, 56% of the offspring died within threeweeks, compared to only about 9% of the offspring when the mothers were fednatural soy.There was also a very lower birthrate and poor health, and the offspringcouldn't get pregnant from the offspring of the mothers who were fed the

GMsoy. In mice that were fed GM soy, they showed changes in their young spermcells and also changes in embryo DNA expression, so we see changes that canresult in the next generation very clearly in the research, but this has notbeen studied in human beings, so it's much safer just to avoid these foods. CHRIS ATTWOOD: It's so interesting that with all these sorts of things thatthere aren't clinical trials or clinical laboratory testing going on ofthese foods in the US. Do you attribute this solely to the impact or theleverage that these six large companies have?JEFFREY SMITH: Absolutely. According to US law, it's a food additive thatshould have been tested thoroughly and labeled, but it's because of theinfluence of the biotechnology companies. One person at the FDA said that inthis regard, the regulatory agencies have done everything that Big Agbusiness has asked them to do and told them to do. Yes,

it is also theirinfluence in other regulation schemes like in Europe and in Brazil.I've been to many of these places and I've talked to these regulators, andit turns out that we're seeing the same kind of influence there that we sawhere. It's really the biotech industry that's dictating terms. They're eventelling the regulators, "We can't afford it. If you have us test our foodslike a pharmaceutical, we couldn't afford them because there's not enoughprofit, and you wouldn't be able to have them in your society so you wouldlose out.The only way that you can win and become profitable and competitive inbiotechnology is to let us do our own testing and you review it. It can't beextensive and it can't be long-term. It has to be under these conditions."Now in part of my book, Genetic Roulette, I describe the state of theirtesting and how they have very carefully and masterfully rigged research toavoid

finding problems, how they have gotten bad science down to a science. Think Simply. Think Wisely. Curb Semantics. Speak the Truth.

Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Join them now.