More on genetic engineering and the dangers it presents.

[Guest guest]

" Zeus " <info

More on genetic engineering and the dangers it presents.

Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:43:54 +0100

 

 

 

 

Jeffrey Goodman

 

 

More on genetic engineering and the dangers it presents.

 

" 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'. "

 

 

newsletter

September 10, 2005

research

Spilling the Beans newsletter - Rammed down our throats

 

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.

 

Click here for a PDF version of the formatted article.

 

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.

 

forwarded by

Zeus Information Service

Alternative Views on Health

www.zeusinfoservice.com