GMW: Jeffrey Smith interview. ( Seeds of Deception )

[Guest guest]

GMW: Jeffrey Smith interview

" GM WATCH " <info

Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:26:26 +0100

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

Spilling the Beans, September 2005

 

Jeffrey Smith travels this month to South Africa. Here is a reprint of

a hard hitting interview with him by noseweek, an influential South

African investigative magazine. noseweek has generously given permission

for you to reprint this in whole or in part, by acknowledging them as

the source. For commercial use in South Africa, please check with us

first.

 

Rammed down our throats

 

Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, the best-selling book on

genetic engineering, spills the beans to noseweek about the hidden

dangers in the foods we eat and the way massive seed and agrichemical

corporations such as Monsanto are manipulating governments and science to

foist their questionable products on us. South Africa (along with Brazil

and India) is one of Monsanto's key targets

 

noseweek: What motivated you to write `Seeds of Deception'?

Jeffrey Smith: In addition to having the inside scoop on many of the

dangers of GM foods, I was also aware of several scandalous stories about

the biotech industry that would make good reading. Scientists were

offered bribes or threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or

distorted. Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of

responsibilities, or fired. Laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed

stomach lesions and seven of the 40 died within two weeks. The crop was

approved. When a top scientist tried to alert the public about other

alarming discoveries, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a

lawsuit. The warnings of US government scientists were ignored and denied

by the Food and Drug Administration, whose policy chief was a former

attorney, and later vice president, for Monsanto. A University of

California professor claimed he was threatened by a senior Mexican

government

official who allegedly implied, " We know where your children go to

school, " trying to get him to withdraw an incriminating paper from

publication. And news reports about GMOs were cancelled due to threats

from

Monsanto's attorneys.

 

I figured that these stories alone would be fascinating to readers. So

I weaved the science and facts about the technology into the stories,

and the book became the international bestseller on the topic.

 

What is your interest in Africa?

Many senior African officials I have met at various international

conferences have confided that they have been pressurised by the US

government and biotech companies, and have little access to the type of

information that I have documented. I hope to pierce the biotech myths

that

advocates propagate, so that the public and Africa's leaders can make

decisions based on facts, not spin.

 

Scientists representing the biotech industry claim that GM foods have

been extensively tested and are safe. They say that anti-GM campaigners

like you are unscientific and base their arguments on emotion. Can you

comment?A recently published linguistic analysis of biotech advocates

concludes what many of us have observed for years. Using unscientific,

emotional, and even irrational arguments, GM proponents attack critics

as unscientific, emotional and irrational. In reality, critics demand

more science, not less. We demand facts, not PR hype.

 

There are many ways in which a GM food could create toxins, allergens,

carcinogens, or nutritional problems. The process of inserting a gene

into a DNA can dramatically disrupt the normal genes. One study showed

that as many as 5% of the natural genes changed their levels of

expression when a single gene was inserted. Genes can get turned off or

deleted, switched on permanently, scrambled, duplicated, or relocated.

Gene

insertion coupled with growing cells from tissue culture, creates

hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the genome. On top of

all this,

the inserted gene can get mutated, truncated, or blended with the

crop's natural gene code. And it appears that the inserted genes get

rearranged over time as well. Any of these changes can create serous

problems

in themselves, or set in motion a chain of reactions that can lead to

problems.

 

Tragically, the studies conducted on GM crops are not designed to

identify the vast majority of possible problems. When scientists

understand

the dangers involved with GM technology and then discover what studies

are actually conducted, they're shocked. They realize the extent to

which consumers are being used as guinea pigs, just so the biotech

industry doesn't have to spend the money doing the proper research.

There are

fewer than 20 peer-reviewed animal-feeding safety studies. And many of

these are industry-funded and clearly rigged to avoid finding problems.

No, GM crops are not adequately tested for safety. Part of my work is

to bring that to the public's attention.

 

In `Seeds of Deception' you cite a study by a leading expert on genetic

modification, Dr Arpad Pusztai, which showed that a strain of GM

potatoes retarded the growth of rats and damaged their immune systems.

But is

there any evidence of GM foods harming humans?

 

First of all, let's summarize the evidence collected from animals.

Pusztai's 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. Rats fed a GM tomato developed stomach

lesions,

and seven of 40 died within two weeks. Mice fed GM maize had problems

with blood cell formation as well as kidney and liver lesions. Those fed

GM soy had problems with liver cell formation, and the livers of rats

fed GM canola were heavier. Pigs fed GM maize on several Midwest farms

developed false pregnancies, sterility, or gave birth to bags of water.

Twelve cows fed GM maize in Germany died mysteriously. And twice the

number of chickens died when fed GM maize compared to those fed natural

maize.

 

Remarkably, there have been no human clinical feeding trials, and no

post market surveillance of possible health effects in humans. The UK's

Food Standards Agency had asked supermarket executives for the

purchasing data from the 20 million consumers using loyalty cards, so

they could

see if those eating GM had higher rates of cancer, birth defects, or

childhood allergies. When the study was made public, the embarrassed

government cancelled their plans.

 

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed

by 50%. 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. For example, the most common

allergen in soy is

called trypsin inhibitor. GM soy contains significantly more of this

compared with natural soy.

 

I have also documented how one epidemic in the 1980s was caused by a

brand of the food supplement L-tryptophan, which had been created through

genetic modification. The disease killed about 100 Americans and caused

sickness or disability in about 5,000–10,000 others. The Food and Drug

Administration withheld information from Congress and the public, in an

apparent attempt to protect the biotech industry.

 

If GM foods do affect the human immune system, what are their potential

risks in South Africa where we have a high incidence of HIV/AIDS?

If the foods were creating health problems in the population, it might

take years or decades before we identified the cause. The L-tryptophan

epidemic provides a chilling example. The only reason that doctors were

able to identify that an epidemic was occurring, was because the new

disease had three simultaneous characteristics: it was rare, acute, and

fast acting. Even then it took years to discover and was nearly missed

entirely.

 

If GM foods affect the immune system, which has been shown in animal

models, there are numerous ways that could manifest in humans, from mild

symptoms to serious diseases. Certainly it could worsen existing

diseases or create complications. Since no human studies are conducted,

however, we don't know. It's best just to avoid eating GM products.

 

Critics of Monsanto demonise the company, but it has publicly pledged

itself to the principles of 'dialogue, transparency, sharing, sharing in

benefits, and respect'. Doesn't this indicate that their heart is in

the right place?

 

Actions speak louder than words. Consider just a few of the facts about

this company:

 

In 2005, Monsanto paid a $1.5 million fine to the US justice department

for giving bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 Indonesian

officials, trying to get their cotton approved without an environmental

impact study.

 

Six government scientists testified before the Canadian Senate that a

Monsanto official offered them a bribe of $1-2 million, if they approved

the company's GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH) without further study.

 

Legal threats from Monsanto resulted in the cancellation of a TV news

series about rbGH, the cancellation of a book critical of Monsanto, and

the shredding of 14,000 issues of a magazine dedicated to exposing

Monsanto.

 

Monsanto's PR firm created the so-called " Dairy Coalition " in order to

pressure major US newspapers to withdraw stories critical of rbGH.

 

Documents that were stolen from the FDA showed that when Monsanto

researchers wanted to show that rbGH didn't interfere with fertility,

they

allegedly added cows to the study that were pregnant, prior to

injection.

 

Other researchers supporting rbGH had pasteurized milk 120 times longer

than normal and even spiked the milk with huge amounts of powdered

hormone, to try to claim that pasteurization destroyed the hormone.

 

Monsanto omitted incriminating data altogether from their 1996

published study on GM soybeans. When it was later recovered by an

investigator,

it showed that GM soy contained significantly lower levels of protein

and other nutrients, and toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the

amount of a lectin that may block the body's ability to assimilate

other nutrients. Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as

seven

times the amount of trypsin inhibitor, a major soy allergen. Monsanto

named their study, " The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds

is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. "

 

In the feeding portion of the same study, they fed mature animals

instead of the more sensitive young ones, diluted their GM soy with

non-GM

protein 10- or 12–fold, used too much protein, and never weighed the

organs or examined them under a microscope. These and other flaws have

made it the subject of peer-reviewed critiques, which exposed how GM food

studies are designed in such a way as to overlook detection of even

significant problems.

 

In July 1999, independent researchers published a study showing that GM

soy contains 12-14% less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. Monsanto

responded with its own study, concluding that soy's phytoestrogen levels

vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. Researchers

failed

to disclose, however, that they had instructed the laboratory to use an

obsolete method of detection – one that had been prone to highly

variable results.

 

Documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that FDA policy on GM

foods was deceitful. The policy claimed that the agency was not aware of

any meaningful or uniform differences between GM and non-GM foods, and

therefore did not require any safety studies. The disclosed memos

showed, however, that the overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own

scientists was that GM crops were significantly different, and that

they urged

their superiors to require long term safety testing due to the possible

presence of unpredictable toxins, allergens and new diseases. The

person in charge of policy at the FDA who apparently ignored the

scientists

was Monsanto's former attorney. He later became Monsanto's vice

president.

 

One FDA scientist arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of

antibiotics in milk 100-fold, in order to facilitate the approval of

Monsanto's rbGH. She had just arrived at the FDA from Monsanto.

 

Monsanto consistently reported increased yields on GM soy, canola and

cotton, whereas independent studies show decreases. For example,

scientists published a study demonstrating a nearly 80% increase in

Indian

cotton yields based only on test plot data supplied to them by Monsanto.

In May, 2005, however, a study by the government of Andrah Pradesh found

a decrease of about 18%. When they told Monsanto to pay about US$10

million compensation to the farmers, the corporation refused and was

kicked out of the state altogether.

 

Monsanto has a long history of wrongdoings. They had claimed PCBs were

safe, DDT was safe, Agent Orange was safe. They were wrong. In fact,

court documents revealed that the company withheld evidence about the

safety of their PCBs to the residents of the town that was being poisoned

by their factory. On February 22, 2002, a court found Monsanto guilty

of negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass,

and outrage. Outrage, according to Alabama law, usually requires

conduct " so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go

beyond all

possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and

utterly intolerable in civilized society. "

 

Monsanto's detractors criticize the fact that the company has patented

seeds and other genetic material. Surely they are entitled to protect

their intellectual property, just like any other inventor?

There is enormous controversy about patents on life. Further, many

believe that patenting genes is more about discovery than invention,

and is

therefore privatizing what should remain in the public commons. It's

also interesting how Monsanto chooses to enforce its patents. They have

sued 150 farmers in North America and received more than $15 million in

judgments. In one case, they sued a farmer who had the company's seeds

blow onto his land from a nearby farm and by passing trucks.

 

Have Monsanto ever tried to silence you?

Because my book is now influencing policy in many regions, I

occasionally hear criticism from biotech advocates who try to dismiss

the book as

a whole. They don't challenge specific details, however, since the book

is carefully documented and has been through a thorough review by many

senior scientists.

 

The website www.health24.com says that `there are exhaustive tests to

ensure that any genetic change in a foodstuff does not increase the

allergenicity of the food.' If GM food is as questionable as you say, why

have US regulatory authorities allowed products that contain GM material

onto supermarket shelves?

The FDA's own scientist Carl Johnson wrote in a memo, " Are we asking

the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic?

This seems like an impossible task. " It is impossible to guarantee that a

GM crop isn't an allergen. People tend to develop allergies after being

exposed to a substance over time. But the proteins newly introduced

into GM crops typically come from bacteria and have never before existed

in the human diet.

 

The World Health Organization developed a list of criteria designed to

minimize the likelihood that a foreign protein from a GM crop will be

allergenic. Unfortunately, the GM soy, maize, and papaya already on the

market fail those criteria.

 

In addition, the process of gene insertion can disrupt the DNA and

increase a known allergen or create a new unknown allergen.

 

Not only is there no comprehensive allergy testing before GM foods are

released, remarkably there is no post market surveillance. When it was

revealed that soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% after GM soy was

introduced into the UK, it's simply amazing that no follow up studies

were

conducted to see if GM soy was more allergenic.

 

You are clearly concerned about the way GM foods are being developed

and marketed, but do you think the technology has any potential benefits?

The current technology used in GM crops on the market is based on

science that is 40 years old. Many of the key assumptions used as the

basis

for safety claims have been overturned. We know very little about how

the DNA functions, and our paradigms are being shifted every few months

with new discoveries. I am not against DNA research. And perhaps in the

future we can safely manipulate genes for crops or food. But at this

stage, it is irresponsible to feed the products of this infant science to

millions of people or release them into the environment where they can

never be recalled.

 

My focus, by the way, is not on medical uses of biotechnology, which

has an entirely different equation of risk versus benefit.

 

South Africa has authorized the growing of GM maize for human

consumption. Do you know the nature of this modification? What is its

intended

outcome? The primary trait added to GM corn is the insertion of a gene

that creates the Bt-toxin, which is a pesticide. The industry claims

that Bt is safe, since it has been used in an organic pesticide for

years.

This is utter nonsense.

 

The GM Bt-toxin is engineered to be far more toxic than the natural

spray

 

We are the only country in the world where a GM staple food has been

authorized. How will this affect people where 80-90% of their diet

consists of maize meal and fresh maize on the cob?

The GM Bt-toxin in maize is hundreds or even a thousand times more

concentrated than the spray

 

The spray degrades in the sunlight in a few days, but the GM variety is

produced by every cell of the maize, around the clock, and eaten by the

consumer.

 

Mice exposed to Bt-toxin developed an immune response equal to that of

cholera toxin, developed a greater susceptibility to allergies, and

developed abnormal and excessive cell growth in their small intestines.

Farm workers exposed to even the low dose Bt spray showed evidence of

allergic sensitivity, and blood tests showed an immune response.

Preliminary evidence found that thirty-nine Philippinos living next to

a Bt

maize field developed skin, intestinal, and respiratory reactions

while the

maize was pollinating. Tests of their blood also showed an immune

response to the Bt. The only human feeding study ever conducted showed

that

genes inserted into GM soy actually transferred into gut bacteria.

Imagine if the gene that produces the Bt-toxin were to transfer from the

maize we eat into our gut bacteria. It could theoretically transform our

intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.

 

In the US, we eat only 3-5% of our caloric intake as maize. I dread to

think what might happen to those eating GM maize as the majority of

their diet. Some farmers who fed 100% GM corn to their livestock had

catastrophes. Twelve cows died on a German farm. And about 25 farmers in

North America say their pigs became sterile or had false pregnancies, or

gave birth to bags of water.

 

In the US, GM potatoes were withdrawn from the market due to consumer

pressure, but in South Africathe Agricultural Research Council with

additional funding from USAID are fast-tracking GM potatoes,

ostensibly to

benefit resource-poor small farmers. Will GM crops benefit Africa's

poor and starving?

The US decided to fast track GM food in 1992, because the Council on

Competitiveness identified it as a promising area for increasing US

exports and gaining control over the lucrative food supply. USAID has

been

trying to implement the US agenda in Africa, and many believe that they

consciously use contamination as a means to promote acceptance of GM.

In fact, University of Washington professor Phil Bereano reported in the

Seattle Times in 2002 that Emmy Simmons, assistant administrator of

USAID, " said to me after the cameras stopped rolling on a vigorous debate

we had on South African TV, `In four years, enough GE [genetically

engineered] crops will have been planted in South Africa that the pollen

will have contaminated the entire continent.' "

 

There are many safe, sustainable, and life-supporting technologies that

can benefit Africa's poor and starving. Perhaps genetic engineering

technology will progress to the point someday that it can also be a

worthy

candidate. But in its current version, I say, " Run away. "

 

There is an interesting feature about GM potatoes that makes them

potentially more dangerous than most other GM crops. We know that the

process of gene insertion combined with tissue culture typically

results in

hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the genome. Many of these

mutations can be corrected through the process of outcrossing – mating

the GM crop with non-GM crops. Potatoes are not propagated through

outcrossing, and the massive number of mutations created from the

transformation process may theoretically remain intact in the GM

potatoes on the

market. Scientists typically don't identify the genome-wide mutations

before putting GM crops onto the market. It's a form of gambling with

every bite.

 

South Africa, along with the US, is one of the very few countries in

the world that allow the use of genetically engineered recombinant bovine

growth hormone (rBGH) on its dairy cows. Is drinking milk from cows

injected with rBGH safe?

There are a few known differences between milk from cows injected with

rbGH and natural milk. Typically, rbGH milk has more pus, due to

increased infections, more antibiotics, used to treat the infections, and

more bovine growth hormone.

 

The hormone level that most critics are concerned about, however, is

insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Natural milk contains IGF-1. Milk

drinkers increase their levels of IGF-1. Studies suggest that

pre-menopausal women under 50 with high levels of IGF-1 are seven

times more

likely to develop breast cancer. Men are four times more likely to

develop

prostate cancer. IGF-1 is also implicated in lung and colon cancer.

Milk from cows treated with rbGH has significantly higher levels of

IGF-1.

(No comprehensive study has yet evaluated a direct link between rbGH

and human cancer.)

 

Up to 30% of the soya grown in SA is GM. Soya is used as a protein

source by many poor people and in infant formulas. It is also

routinely fed

to prisoners and mineworkers. What are the implications?

In addition to all that was said above, we know that:

 

GM soy has sections of its DNA that were scrambled during the gene

insertion process. These might result in the creation of toxins,

allergens,

anti-nutrients, etc.

 

We know that the inserted gene appears to be unstable and can rearrange

over time. This means that it will create a protein that was never

intended or tested, and may be a toxin, etc.

 

The protein it was designed to create has two sections that are

identical to known allergens, and therefore might cause dangerous

allergic

reactions.

 

Since the inserted gene transfers to gut bacteria, even if you stop

eating GM soy for the rest of your life, you still might have this

foreign

protein being created inside of your intestines.

 

The promoter, which is inserted into soy to activate the foreign gene,

also transfers to gut bacteria, and may switch on one of the

bacterium's genes at random. And this could create a problem.

 

These are only a few of the reasons why people should just say no to GM

soy.

 

Science is supposedly objective, yet many university academics defend

the use of GM crops while others condemn their introduction vigorously.

Why?

What may come as a shock to people is the extent to which science is no

longer independent and objective. Studies show that the source of funds

has a lot to do with the research outcome. Industry-funded studies

favour industry's products. Many scientists admit to making changes in

their findings to suit funders. In the field of plant biotech,

practically

all jobs are funded directly or indirectly by industry. We know of many

examples of scientist who lost their jobs, or were threatened or

penalized, after expressing concerns about GM products. Attacks on

scientists

can get quite vicious. As a result, those scientists who still dare to

challenge biotechnology are often of retirement age and feel less

vulnerable.

 

So-called independent panels and committees are often stacked with

industry representatives. This is part of the industry's plan, as

revealed

in leaked documents. They have been remarkably successful at this.

 

As the technology flounders, revealing how unsafe and unpredictable it

is, the industry promotes their biotech myths more vigorously. It

appears that they are trying to prop up the image of the technology so

they

can recoup their investment before the public and the regulators figure

out what's really going on.

 

Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the

Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey Smith is published by

Yes! Books. His website is at www.seedsofdeception.com

 

BIOG

 

Jeffrey Smith has studied the issues around genetic modification for

nearly 10 years. He has lectured on the subject, consulted with a

nonprofit group trying to get GM foods labelled, run for US Congress

to raise

the public awareness about the issues, worked as the vice president for

marketing communications at a genetically modified organism (GMO)

detection laboratory, and has extensively interviewed scientists and

experts

worldwide. Over the past two years, he has toured more than 150 cities

on five continents, debated with scientists, testified before various

government committees, and interviewed activists, scientists,

politicians, and farmers. He collaborates with numerous scientists on

a monthly

syndicated column and is preparing material for two more books on GMOs.

 

SIDEBAR

 

On May 23, 2003, President Bush proposed an Initiative to End Hunger in

Africa using genetically modified (GM) foods. He also blamed Europe's

" unfounded, unscientific fears " of these foods for hindering efforts to

end hunger. Bush was convinced that GM foods held the key to greater

yields, expanded US exports, and a better world. His rhetoric was not

new. It had been passed on from president to president, and delivered to

the American people through regular news reports and industry

advertisement.

 

The message was part of a master plan that had been crafted by

corporations determined to control the world's food supply. This was

made clear

at a biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a

representative from Arthur Anderson Consulting Group explained how his

company had

helped Monsanto create that plan. First, they asked Monsanto what their

ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. Monsanto executives

described a world with 100% of all commercial seeds genetically

modified and

patented. Anderson Consulting then worked backward from that goal, and

developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented

Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of

industry

dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.

 

Integral to the plan was Monsanto's influence in government, whose role

was to promote the technology worldwide and to help get the foods into

the marketplace quickly, before resistance could get in the way. A

biotech consultant later said, `The hope of the industry is that over

time,

the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it. You

just sort of surrender'.

 

Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith

 

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.

 

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

reproduce this in whole or in part.

 

 

 

---------------------------