Rats die when mothers fed GM soy

[Guest guest]

" Neil Carman " <Neil_Carman

Sun, 6 Nov 2005 22:10:55 -0600

Spilling the Beans newsletter - Rats die

when mothers fed GM soy

 

 

Spilling the Beans, October 2005

 

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.

 

Dr. 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.

Dr. 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.

 

Dr. 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,

Dr. 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

 

Dr. 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.

T

he 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.

 

References:

[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.