Spilling the Beans newsletter - Rats die when mothers fed GM soy

[Guest guest]

Spilling the Beans, October

2005

 

 

Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate Genetically Engineered

Soy

 

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

 

The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if

eating genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What

she got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a

multi-billion dollar industry.

 

Dr. Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of

Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of

Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female

rats. Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The

experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and

continued through pregnancy and nursing.

 

Dr. Ermakova's first surprise came when her pregnant rats

started giving birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit

smaller. After 2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams

compared to about 6% from the other groups (see photo below).

 

 

 

Photo of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted

growth - the larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the

smaller rat, 20 days old, is from the " GM soy "

group.

 

But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three

weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared

to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from

the non-soy controls.

 

Dr. Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats

and offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created

plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of

research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a

year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a

symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic Security,

Dr. Ermakova wrote "PRELIMINARY STUDIES" on the top of her paper.

She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks

of GM food.

 

Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in

controversy.

 

GM Soy's Divisive Past

 

The soy she was testing was Monsanto's Roundup Ready variety.

Its DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive

applications of Monsanto's "Roundup" brand herbicide. About 85%

of the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives,

including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of

processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients derived

from Roundup Ready soy everyday.

 

The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified

foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods

safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for this

hands-off position is a sentence in the FDA's 1992 policy that

states, "The agency is not aware of any information showing that

foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any

meaningful or uniform way."[1] The statement, it turns out, was

deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed

that the FDA's own experts agreed that GM foods are different

and might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or

nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require

long-term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in charge of

FDA policy was, conveniently, Monsanto's former attorney (and later

their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food

policy as "just a political document" without scientific basis,

and warned that industry would "not do the tests that they would

normally do" since the FDA didn't require any.[2] He was correct.

 

There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal

feeding safety studies and no human clinical trials-in spite of the

fact that millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola

daily. There are no adequate tests on "biochemistry, immunology,

tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function,"[3] and animal feeding

studies are too short to adequately test for cancer, reproductive

problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes Dr.

Ermakova's research particularly significant. It's the first of its

kind.

 

Past Studies Show Significant Effects

 

Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions.

Research on the liver, the body's major de-toxifier, showed that

rats fed GM soy developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular

anomalies.[4] This

indicates increased metabolic activity, probably resulting from a

major insult to that organ. Rats also showed changes in the pancreas,

including a huge drop in the production of a major enzyme

(alpha-amylase),[5] which

could inhibit digestion. Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount

of soy lectin, which can also block nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that

GM soy has 12-14% less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer

fighting.[7]

 

An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent

problems with GM soy,[8]

but their research has been severely criticized as rigged to avoid

finding problems.[9]

Monsanto used mature animals instead of young, more sensitive ones,

diluted their GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much protein, never

weighed the organs, and had huge variations in starting weights. The

study's nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed

significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content,

lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto

researchers had actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional

differences, which were later discovered and made public. For example,

the published paper showed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin

inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold

increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy

allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was

introduced.

 

The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two

sections that are identical to known allergens. This might also

account for the increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human

feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that this inserted gene

transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the intestines. This means

that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your own gut

bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein

inside your digestive tract.

 

The migration of genes might influence offspring. German

scientists found fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the

brains of their newborn.[10] Fragments of genetically modified DNA

were also found in the blood, spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets

that were fed GM corn.[11]

It was not clear if the GM genes actually entered the DNA of the

animal, but scientists speculate that if it were to integrate into the

sex organ cells, it might impact offspring.

 

The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins,

allergens, or anti-nutrients in the mother's diet. These may be

created in GM crops, due to unpredictable alterations in their DNA.

The process of gene insertion can delete one or more of the DNA's

own natural genes, scramble them, turn them off, or permanently turn

them on. It can also change the expression levels of hundreds of

genes. And growing the transformed cell into a GM plant through a

process called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of

additional mutations throughout the DNA.

 

Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in

Roundup Ready soy. We don't know how many mutations or altered gene

expressions are found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed,

however, scientists did discover a section of natural soy DNA that was

scrambled[12] and two

additional fragments of the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto's

detection.

 

Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often

astounded by their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who

discovered incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about the

technology have been fired, threatened, stripped of responsibilities,

or censured.[13] And when

problems do arise, they are not followed up. For example, animals fed

GM crops developed potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller

brains, livers and testicles, damaged immune systems, bigger livers,

partial atrophy of the liver, lesions in the livers, stomachs, and

kidneys, inflammation of the kidneys, problems with their blood cells,

higher blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in the death

rate. (See Spilling the Beans, August

2004.) None have been adequately followed-up or accounted

for.

 

Ermakova's research, however, will likely change that. That's

because her study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A

55.6% mortality rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the

study is the only reasonable option.

 

American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow

Up Study

 

I presented Dr. Ermakova's findings, with her permission, at

the annual conference of the American Academy of Environmental

Medicine (AAEM) in Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM

board passed a resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health

(NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up of the study. Dr.

Jim Willoughby, the Academy's president, said, "Genetically

modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed

daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous,

independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the

population at risk."

 

Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even

follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the

inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.[14] In each case, the

genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by

the biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a

mistake? That's unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably

rearranged over time. A Brussels lab confirmed that the genetic

sequences were different than what was originally listed. But the

sequences discovered in Brussels didn't all match those found by the

French.[15] This suggests

that the inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways.

It also means that they are creating new proteins-ones that were

never intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the

Russian test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready

soybeans used in follow-up studies.

 

Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also

may explain some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For

example, nearly 25 farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM

corn varieties caused their pigs to become sterile, have false

pregnancies, or give birth to bags of water. A farmer in Germany

claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his cows and

caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM

cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and

fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms

returned the following year, also during pollination, and blood tests

on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt

toxin-created by the GM corn.

 

These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may

result from a GM crop that has "gone bad" due to genetic

rearrangements. Even GM plants with identical gene sequences, however,

might act differently. The amount of Bt toxin in the Philippine

corn study described above, for example, varied considerably from

kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16]

 

With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding

has yet been sufficient to reverse the industry's growth in the US.

It may take some dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening

discovery. That is why Ermakova's findings are so important. If the

study holds up, it may topple the GM food industry.

 

I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM's request, and fund an

immediate, independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not

forthcoming, our Institute for Responsible Technology will try to

raise the money. This is not the time to wait. There is too much at

stake.

 

Click here for press release on Russian rat

study.

 

Click here for the resolution by the American Academy of

Environmental Medicine.

 

Click here for downloadable photos of the rats.

 

Jeffrey M. Smith is working with a team of

international scientists to catalog all known health risks of GM

foods. He is the author of Seeds of Deception , the world's

bestselling book on GM food, and the producer of the video, Hidden

Dangers in Kids' Meals.

 

 

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org. Publishers

and webmasters may offer this article or monthly series to your

readers at no charge, by emailing column.

Individuals may read the column each month by subscribing to a free

newsletter at www.responsibletechnology.org.

 

 

References:

[1] "Statement

of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," Federal Register

vol. 57, no. 104 at 22991, May 29, 1992

[2] Louis J. Pribyl,

"Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92," March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org

[3] Epidemiologist

Judy Carman's testimony before New Zealand's Royal Commission of

Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001.

[4] Malatesta M,

Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli

G. (2002a) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical

analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified

soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 27: 173-180.

[5] Manuela

Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells

from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal

of Anatomy, Volume 201 Issue 5 Page 409

- November 2002

[6] Stephen R.

Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean

Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans," The

Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (The data was

taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the

published study.)

[7] Lappe, M.A.,

Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R. (1999) Alterations in

clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified,

herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medical Food 1,

241-245.

[8] Stephen R.

Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean

Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans," The

Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996

[9] For example, Ian

F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, "In Vivo Studies on Possible Health

Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed-with Particular

Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant

Materials," Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003

[10] Doerfler W;

Schubbert R, "Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment: the

gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry,"

Journal of molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-504, 1994

[11] Raffaele Mazza1,

et al, "Assessing the Transfer of Genetically Modified DNA from Feed

to Animal Tissues," Transgenic Research, October 2005, Volume 14,

Number 5, pp 775 - 784

[12] P. Windels, I.

Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M. DeLoose,

"Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert," European

Food Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112

[13] Jeffrey M.

Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, 2003

[14] Collonier C, Berthier

G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk

M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of

useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster presented at ICPMB:

International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII),

Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric

Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN,

www.crii-gen.org; also " Transgenic lines proven unstable " by

Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003 www.i-sis.org.uk

[15] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php

[16] http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=36

 

© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted to

reproduce this in whole or in part.

 

 

 

Send this Email to a Friend

 

See Comments on This Email or Write Your Own

 

 

This

email was sent to neil_carman, by Inspiration, Inc, located

at PO Box 469 - - Fairfield, IA 52556 - United States of America. To

~from~this~publication or

remove~your~email~address~from~all~lists maintained by Inspiration,

Inc, please visit:

Un | Privacy Policy