GM_Foods_may_Pose_National_Health_Risk

[Guest guest]

> Subject:

> GM_Foods_may_Pose_National_Health_Risk

> " GM_WATCH " <info

> Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:51:39 +0100

 

>

> GM WATCH daily

> http://www.gmwatch.org

> ---

> You may circulate or publish the following article,

> which may be used as a stand-alone opinion piece or

> as the first in a monthly series about genetically

> modified foods by Jeffrey Smith. Publishers and

> webmasters may offer the series to your readers at

> no charge, by emailing a request to

> column. Individuals may read

> the column each month, by subscribing to a free

> newsletter at www.seedsofdeception.com.

>

> Genetically Engineered Foods may Pose National

> Health Risk

> By Jeffrey M. Smith

>

> In a study in the early 1990’s rats were fed

> genetically modified (GM) tomatoes. Well actually,

> the rats refused to eat them. They were force-fed.

> Several of the rats developed stomach lesions and

> seven out of forty died within two weeks. Scientists

> at the FDA who reviewed the study agreed that it did

> not provide a “demonstration of reasonable certainty

> of no harm.” In fact, agency scientists warned that

> GM foods in general might create unpredicted

> allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases,

> and nutritional problems. Internal FDA memos made

> public from a lawsuit reveal that the scientists

> urged their superiors to require long-term safety

> testing to catch these hard-to-detect side effects.

> But FDA political appointees, including a former

> attorney for Monsanto in charge of policy, ignored

> the scientists’ warnings. The FDA does not require

> safety studies. Instead, if the makers of the GM

> foods claim that they are safe, the agency has no

> further questions. The GM tomato was approved in

> 1994.

>

> According to a July 27th report from the US National

> Academy of Sciences (NAS), the current system of

> blanket approval of GM foods by the FDA might not

> detect “unintended changes in the composition of the

> food.” The process of gene insertion, according to

> the NAS, could damage the host’s DNA with

> unpredicted consequences. The Indian Council of

> Medical Research (ICMR), which released its findings

> a few days earlier, identified a long list of

> potentially dangerous side effects from GM foods

> that are not being evaluated. The ICMR called for a

> complete overhaul of existing regulations.

>

> The safety studies conducted by the biotech industry

> are often dismissed by critics as superficial and

> designed to avoid finding problems. Tragically,

> scientists who voice their criticism, and those who

> have discovered incriminating evidence, have been

> threatened, stripped of responsibilities, denied

> funding or tenure, or fired. For example, a UK

> government-funded study demonstrated that rats fed a

> GM potato developed potentially pre-cancerous cell

> growth, damaged immune systems, partial atrophy of

> the liver, and inhibited development of their

> brains, livers and testicles. When the lead

> scientist went public with his concerns, he was

> promptly fired from his job after 35 years and

> silenced with threats of a lawsuit.

>

> Americans eat genetically modified foods everyday.

> Although the GM tomato has been taken off the

> market, millions of acres of soy, corn, canola, and

> cotton have had foreign genes inserted into their

> DNA. The new genes allow the crops to survive

> applications of herbicide, create their own

> pesticide, or both. While there are only a handful

> of published animal safety studies, mounting

> evidence, which needs to be followed up, suggests

> that these foods are not safe.

>

> Rats fed GM corn had problems with blood cell

> formation. Those fed GM soy had problems with liver

> cell formation, and the livers of rats fed GM canola

> were heavier. Pigs fed GM corn on several Midwest

> farms developed false pregnancies or sterility. Cows

> fed GM corn in Germany died mysteriously. And twice

> the number of chickens died when fed GM corn

> compared to those fed natural corn.

>

> Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy

> allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent. Without

> follow-up tests, we can’t be sure if genetic

> engineering was the cause, but there are plenty of

> ways in which genetic manipulation can boost

> allergies.

>

> A gene from a Brazil nut inserted into soybeans made

> the soy allergenic to those who normally react to

> Brazil nuts.

>

> GM soy currently consumed in the US contains a gene

> from bacteria. The inserted gene creates a protein

> that was never before part of the human food supply,

> and might be allergenic.

>

> Sections of that protein are identical to those

> found in shrimp and dust mite allergens. According

> to criteria recommended by the World Health

> Organization (WHO), this fact should have

> disqualified GM soy from approval.

>

> The sequence of the gene that was inserted into soy

> has inexplicably rearranged over time. The protein

> it creates is likely to be different than the one

> intended, and was never subject to any safety

> studies. It may be allergenic or toxic.

>

> The process of inserting the foreign gene damaged a

> section of the soy's own DNA, scrambling its genetic

> code. This mutation might interfere with DNA

> expression or create a new, potentially dangerous

> protein. The most common allergen in soy is called

> trypsin inhibitor. GM soy contains significantly

> more of this compared with natural soy.

>

> The only human feeding study ever conducted showed

> that the gene inserted into soybeans spontaneously

> transferred out of food and into the DNA of gut

> bacteria. This has several serious implications.

> First, it means that the bacteria inside our

> intestines, newly equipped with this foreign gene,

> may create the novel protein inside of us. If it is

> allergenic or toxic, it may affect us for the long

> term, even if we give up eating GM soy.

>

> The same study verified that the promoter, which

> scientists attach to the inserted gene to

> permanently switch it on, also transferred to gut

> bacteria. Research on this promoter suggests that it

> might unintentionally switch on other genes in the

> DNA—permanently. This could create an overproduction

> of allergens, toxins, carcinogens, or antinutrients.

> Scientists also theorize that the promoter might

> switch on dormant viruses embedded in the DNA or

> generate mutations.

>

> Unfortunately, gene transfer from GM food might not

> be limited to our gut bacteria. Preliminary results

> show that the promoter also transferred into rat

> organs, after they were fed only a single GM meal.

>

> This is only a partial list of what may go wrong

> with a single GM food crop. The list for others may

> be longer. Take for example, the corn inserted with

> a gene that creates its own pesticide. We eat that

> pesticide, and plenty of evidence suggests that it

> is not as benign as the biotech proponents would

> have us believe. Preliminary evidence, for example,

> shows that thirty-nine Philippinos living next to a

> pesticide-producing cornfield developed skin,

> intestinal, and respiratory reactions while the corn

> was pollinating. Tests of their blood also showed an

> immune response to the pesticide. Consider what

> might happen if the gene that produces the pesticide

> were to transfer from the corn we eat into our gut

> bacteria. It could theoretically transform our

> intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.

>

> GM corn and most GM crops are also inserted with

> antibiotic resistant genes. The ICMR, along with the

> American Medical Association, the WHO, and

> organizations worldwide, have expressed concern

> about the possibility that these might transfer to

> pathogenic bacteria inside our gut. They are afraid

> that it might create new, antibiotic resistant

> super-diseases. The defense that the biotech

> industry used to counter these fears was that the

> DNA was fully destroyed during digestion and

> therefore no such transfer of genes was possible.

> The human feeding study described above, published

> in February 2004, overturned this baseless

> assumption.

>

> No one monitors human health impacts of GM foods. If

> the foods were creating health problems in the US

> population, it might take years or decades before we

> identified the cause. One epidemic in the1980’s

> provides a chilling example. A new disease was

> caused by a brand of the food supplement

> L-tryptophan, which had been created through genetic

> modification and contained tiny traces of

> contaminants. The disease killed about 100 Americans

> and caused sickness or disability in about 5-10,000

> others. The only reason that doctors were able to

> identify that an epidemic was occurring, was because

> the disease had three simultaneous characteristics:

> it was rare, acute, and fast acting. Even then it

> was nearly missed entirely.

>

> Studies show that the more people learn about GM

> foods, the less they trust them. In Europe, Japan,

> and other regions, the press has been far more open

> about the potential dangers of genetic manipulation.

> Consequently, consumers there demand that their food

> supply be GM-free and manufacturers comply. But in

> the US, most people believe they have never eaten a

> GM food in their lives (even though they consume

> them daily). Lacking awareness, complacent consumers

> have been the key asset for the biotech industry in

> the US. As a result, millions of Americans are

> exposed to the potential dangers, and children are

> most at risk. Perhaps the revelations in the reports

> released on opposite sides of the planet will awaken

> consumers as well as regulators, and GM foods on the

> market will be withdrawn.

>

> To become more informed of the dangers of GM foods,

> to download a letter to food manufacturers, and to

> learn how to avoid buying and eating GM foods, see

> www.seedsofdeception.com.

>

> This is the first in a regular column about

> genetically modified foods by Jeffrey M. Smith. He

> is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing

> Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the

> Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating, and the

> Director of the Institute for Responsible

> Technology.

>

> © Copyright Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted

> to reproduce this article in whole or in part. A

> service of the Institute for Responsible Technology.

>