GMW: Jeffrey Smith article on Russian rat study

[Guest guest]

GMW: Jeffrey Smith article on Russian rat study

" GM WATCH " <info

Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:27:09 GMT

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

 

 

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=297

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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, 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 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.

 

 

--

 

 

 

[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.

 

 

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