Why Schools Should Remove GE-Tainted Foods from Their Cafeterias

[Guest guest]

http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/appleton090304.cfm

 

Why Schools Should Remove GE-Tainted Foods from Their Cafeterias

 

Why Schools Should Remove GE-Tainted Foods from Their Cafeterias

Institute for Responsible Technology

Spilling the Beans, Sept. 1, 2004

Newsletter on GM Foods, September issue Spilling the Beans

Another Reason for Schools to Ban

Genetically Engineered Foods

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

 

Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria's

processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was described as

out-of-control. There were weapons violations, student disruptions, and a

cop on duty full-time. After the change in school meals, the students were

calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more weapons violations, and no

suicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug violations. The new diet and

improved behavior has lasted for seven years, and now other schools are

changing their meal programs with similar results.

 

Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet by

conducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed them the

junk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The mice freaked

out. Their behavior was totally different than the three mice in the

neighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good karma; they were fed

nutritious whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept during the day

inside their cardboard tube, played with each other, and acted very

mouse-like. The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboard

tube, were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, fought

often, and two mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the three

month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk food

mice with a diet of whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice came

around.

 

Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second grade

class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days. Even on the

first day of junk food, the mice's behavior " changes drastically. " They

become lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still takes the mice about two

to three weeks on unprocessed foods to return to normal. One year, the

second graders tried to do the experiment again a few months later with the

same mice, but this time the animals refused to eat the junk food.

 

Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice genetically

modified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM

mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts of

the cage. When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their well-behaved

neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear and tried to climb

the walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead at the end of the

experiment.

 

It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the Wisconsin

experiments also contained genetically modified ingredients. And although

the Appleton school lunch program did not specifically attempt to remove GM

foods, it happened anyway. That's because GM foods such as soy and corn and

their derivatives are largely found in processed foods. So when the school

switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GM

crops were taken out automatically.

 

Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the behavior of humans or

animals? It would certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis of a

single student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. On the other

hand, it is equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.

 

We are just beginning to understand the influence of food on behavior. A

study in Science in December 2002 concluded that " food molecules act like

hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering cell division. The

molecules can cause mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit and

hyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness. " The problem is we do not

know which food molecules have what effect. The bigger problem is that the

composition of GM foods can change radically without our knowledge.

Genetically modified foods have genes inserted into their DNA. But genes are

not Legos; they don't just snap into place. Gene insertion creates

unpredicted, irreversible changes. In one study, for example, a gene chip

monitored the DNA before and after a single foreign gene was inserted. As

much as 5 percent of the DNA's genes changed the amount of protein they were

producing. Not only is that huge in itself, but these changes can multiply

through complex interactions down the line.

 

In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in the composition of GM

foods, they are typically measured for only a small number of known nutrient

levels. But even if we could identify all the changed compounds, at this

point we wouldn¹t know which might be responsible for the antisocial nature

of mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning to identify the medicinal

compounds in food. We now know, for example, that the pigment in blueberries

may revive the brain¹s neural communication system, and the antioxidant

found in grape skins may fight cancer and reduce heart disease. But what

about other valuable compounds we don¹t know about that might change or

disappear in GM varieties?

 

Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on the market, independent

researchers published a study showing that it contains 12-14 percent less

cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has changed that we don¹t know

about? [Monsanto responded with its own study, which concluded that soy¹s

phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis.

They failed to disclose, however, that the laboratory that conducted

Monsanto¹s experiment had been instructed to use an obsolete method to

detect phytoestrogens results.]

 

In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal of Nutrition that

concluded in the title, " The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean

seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. " The study only

compared a small number of nutrients and a close look at their charts

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

In addition, GM soy meal contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor, a

well-known soy allergen. The study also used questionable methods. Nutrient

comparisons are routinely conducted on plants grown in identical conditions

so that variables such as weather and soil can be ruled out. Otherwise,

differences in plant composition could be easily missed. In Monsanto's

study, soybeans were planted in widely varying climates and geography.

 

Although one of their trials was a side-by-side comparison between GM and

non-GM soy, for some reason the results were left out of the paper

altogether. Years later, a medical writer found the missing data in the

archives of the Journal of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the

scientists left them out. The GM soy showed significantly lower levels of

protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also,

toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin that may

block the body¹s ability to assimilate other nutrients. Furthermore, the

toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the amount of trypsin

inhibitor, indicating that the allergen may survive cooking more in the GM

variety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump in soy allergies in the UK,

just after GM soy was introduced.)

 

We don't know all the changes that occur with genetic engineering, but

certainly GM crops are not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports

from all over North America describe how several types of animals, when

given a choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk,

deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, the Dutch student

mentioned above first determined that his mice had a two-to-one preference

for non-GM before forcing half of them to eat only the engineered variety.

Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on children.

They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they

convert more of the food into body-building material. Altered nutrients or

added toxins can result in developmental problems. For this reason, animal

nutrition studies are typically conducted on young, developing animals.

After the feeding trial, organs are weighed and often studied under

magnification. If scientists used mature animals instead of young ones, even

severe nutritional problems might not be detected. The Monsanto study used

mature animals instead of young ones.

 

They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein 10- or 12­fold before

feeding the animals. And they never weighed the organs or examined them

under a microscope. The study, which is the only major animal feeding study

on GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid finding

problems.

 

Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment going on one which we are

all a part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the impact of

these foods on our health, our behavior, or our

children. Thousands of schools around the world, particularly in Europe,

have decided not to let their kids be used as guinea pigs. They have banned

GM foods.

 

The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods is only one of several

reasons why these foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse

(see http://www.seedsofdeception.com <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/> ).

 

With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in Appleton,

parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that diet plays. When

making changes in what kids eat, removing GM foods should be a priority.

 

A videotape on changing school meals, including footage from Appleton, will

be available in the fall, 2004 at www.seedsofdeception.com

<http://www.seedsofdeception.com/> . The website also describes how to avoid

eating GM foods.

The above article may be used as a stand-alone opinion piece, or as part of

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 <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/> .

 

****************************************************************************

*****************************

This GMO news service is underwritten by a generous grant from the Newman's

Own Foundation and is a production of the Ecological Farming Association

www.eco-farm.org <http://www.eco-farm.org/>

****************************************************************************