Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies

[Guest guest]

This Spilling the Beans issue is being released during Food Allergy Awareness

Week, and is part of our special series on Food Safety and Genetically

Engineered Foods.

 

 

Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies

 

Part 2: Genetically Engineered Corn

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=1264

By Jeffrey M. Smith

 

The biotech industry is fond of saying that they offer genetically modified

(GM) crops that resist pests. This might conjure up the image of insects

staying away from GM crop fields. But “resisting pests†is just a euphemism

for

contains its own built-in pesticide. When bugs take a bite of the GM plant, the

toxin splits open their stomach and kills them.

 

The idea that we consume that same toxic pesticide in every bite is hardly

appetizing. But the biotech companies and the Environmental Protection Agency—

which regulates plant produced pesticides—tell us not to worry. They contend

that the pesticide called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is produced naturally from

a soil bacterium and has a history of safe use. Organic farmers, for example,

have used solutions containing the natural bacteria for years as a method of

insect control. Genetic engineers simply remove the gene that produces the Bt

in bacteria and then insert it into the DNA of corn and cotton plants, so that

the plant does the work, not the farmer. Moreover, they say that Bt-toxin is

quickly destroyed in our stomach; and even if it survived, since humans and

other mammals have no receptors for the toxin, it would not interact with us in

any case.

 

These arguments, however, are just that—unsupported assumptions. Research

tells a different story.

 

Bt spray is dangerous to humans

 

When natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State

to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or

flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room for allergies or

asthma.[1],[2] Workers who applied Bt sprays reported eye, nose, throat, and

respiratory irritation,[3] and some showed an antibody immune response in linked

to Bt.[4] Farmers exposed to liquid Bt formulations had reactions including

infection, an ulcer on the cornea,[5] skin irritation, burning, swelling, and

redness.[6] One woman who was accidentally sprayed with Bt also developed

fever, altered consciousness, and seizures.[7]

 

In fact, authorities have long acknowledged that “People with compromised

immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the

effects of Bt.â€[8] The Oregon Health Division advises that “individuals with

..

.. . physician-diagnosed causes of severe immune disorders may consider leaving

the area during the actual spraying.â€[9] A spray manufacturer warns, “

Repeated exposure via inhalation can result in sensitization and allergic

response

in hypersensitive individuals.â€[10] So much for the contention that Bt does

not

interact with humans.

 

As for being thoroughly destroyed in the digestive system, mouse studies

disproved this as well. Mice fed Bt-toxin showed significant immune

responses—as

potent as cholera toxin. In addition, the Bt caused their immune system to

become sensitive to formerly harmless compounds This suggests that exposure

might

make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.[11],[12] The EPA’s own

expert advisors said that the mouse and farm worker studies above “suggest

that

Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources.â€[13]

 

The toxin in GM plants is more dangerous than natural sprays

 

The Bt-toxin produced in GM crops is “vastly different from the bacterial

[bt-toxins] used in organic and traditional farming and forestry.â€[14] First

of

all, GM plants produce about 3,000-5,000 times the amount of toxin as the

sprays. And the spray form is broken down within a few days to two weeks by

sunlight,[15] high temperatures, or substances on the leaves of plants; and it

can be

“washed from leaves into the soil by rainfall,â€[16] or rinsed by consumers.

A Bt producing GM plant, on the other hand, continuously produces the toxin in

every cell where it does not dissipate by weather and cannot be washed off.

 

The natural toxic produced in bacteria is inactive until it gets inside the

alkaline digestive tract of an insect. Once inside, a “safety catch†is

removed and the Bt becomes toxic. But scientists change the sequence the Bt gene

before inserting it into GM plants. The Bt toxin it produces usually comes

without the safety catch. The plant-produced Bt toxin is always active and more

likely to trigger an immune response than the natural variety.[17]

 

Bt-toxin fails safety studies but is used nonetheless

 

Tests cannot verify that a GM protein introduced into the food supply for the

first time will not cause allergies in some people. The World Health

Organization (WHO) and UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) offer criteria

designed to reduce the likelihood that allergenic GM crops are approved.[18]

They

suggest examining a protein for 1) similarity of its amino acid sequence to

known allergens, 2) digestive stability and 3) heat stability. These properties

aren’t predictive of allergenicity, but their presence, according to experts,

should be sufficient to reject the GM crop or at least require more testing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM corn fails all three criteria.

 

For example, the specific Bt-toxin found in Monsanto’s Yield Guard and

Syngenta’s Bt 11 corn varieties is called Cry1AB. In 1998, an FDA researcher

discovered that Cry1Ab shared a sequence of 9-12 amino acids with vitellogenin,

an

egg yolk allergen. The study concluded that “the similarity . . . might be

sufficient to warrant additional evaluation.â€[19] No additional evaluation

took

place.[20]

 

Cry1Ab is also very resistant to digestion and heat.[21] It is nearly as

stable as the type of Bt-toxin produced by StarLink corn. StarLink was a GM

variety not approved for human consumption because experts believed that its

highly

stable protein might trigger allergies.[22] Although it was grown for use in

animal feed, it contaminated the US food supply in 2000. Thousands of consumers

complained to food manufacturers about possible reactions and over 300 items

were subject to recall. After the StarLink incident, expert advisors to the

EPA had called for “surveillance and clinical assessment of exposed

individualsâ€

to “confirm the allergenicity of Bt products.â€[23] Again, no such

monitoring has taken place.

 

Bt cotton triggers allergic reactions

 

A 2005 report by medical investigators in India describes an ominous finding.

Hundreds of agricultural workers are developing moderate or severe allergic

reactions when exposed to Bt cotton. This includes those picking cotton,

loading it, cleaning it, or even leaning against it. Some at a ginning factory

must

take antihistamines daily, in order to go to work. Reactions are only

triggered with the Bt varieties.[24] Furthermore, the symptoms are virtually

identical

to those described by the 500 people in Vancouver and Washington who were

sprayed with Bt. Only “exacerbations of asthma†were in one list and not the

other (see table).

 

[i am unable to reproduce this 'table' - please go the url to see it]

 

Upper respiratory Eyes Skin

Overall

Bt Spray Sneezing,

runny nose,

exacerbations of asthma Watery, red Itching, burning,

Fever some in

 

inflammation, red, swelling hospital

Bt cotton Sneezing,

runny nose Watery,

red Itching, burning, eruptions,

red, swelling Fever,

some in hospital

 

 

(We are unaware of similar reports in the US, where 83% of the cotton is Bt.

But in the US, cotton is harvested by machine, not by hand.)

 

The experience of the Indian workers begs the question, “How long does the

Bt-toxin stay active in the cotton?†It there any risk using cotton diapers,

tampons, or bandages? In the latter case, if the Bt-toxin interfered with

healing

it could be a disaster. With diabetics, for example, unhealed wounds may be

cause for amputation.

 

Cottonseed is also used for cottonseed oil—used in many processed foods in

the US. The normal methods used to extract oil likely destroy the toxin,

although cold pressed oil may still retain some of it. Other parts of the cotton

plant, however, are routinely used as animal feed. The next part of this

series—

focused on toxicity—presents evidence of disease and deaths associated with

animals consuming Bt cotton plants.

 

Bt corn pollen may cause allergies

 

Bt-toxin is produced in GM corn and can be eaten intact. It is also in

pollen, which can be breathed in. In 2003, during the time when an adjacent Bt

cornfield was pollinating, virtually an entire Filipino village of about 100

people

were stricken by a disease. The symptoms included headaches, dizziness,

extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever and allergies, as well as

respiratory, intestinal, and skin reactions. The symptoms appeared first in

those

living closest to the field, and then progressed to others by proximity. Blood

samples from 39 individuals showed antibodies in response to Bt-toxin; this

supports, but does not prove a link to the symptoms. When the same corn was

planted in four other villages the following year, however, the symptoms

returned

in all four areas—only during the time of pollination.

 

The potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had been identified in a letter

to the US FDA in 1998 by the UK Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. They

had even warned that genes from inhaled pollen might transfer into the DNA of

bacteria in the respiratory system.[25] Although no studies were done to verify

this risk, years later UK scientists confirmed that after consuming GM

soybeans, the foreign inserted genes can transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria.

If

this also happens with Bt genes, than years after we decide to stop eating GM

corn chips, our own gut bacteria may continue to produce Bt-toxin within our

intestines.

 

Studies show immune responses to GM crops

 

Studies confirm that several GM crops engineered to produce built-in

pesticides provoke immune responses in animals. A Monsanto rat study on Bt corn

(Mon

863), that was made public due to a lawsuit, showed a significant increase in

three types of blood cells related to the immune system: basophils,

lymphocytes, and total white cell counts.[26]

 

Australian scientists took an insecticide producing gene (not Bt) from a

kidney bean and put it into a pea, in hopes of killing the pea weevil. The peas

had passed the tests normally used to approve GM crops and were on the way to

being commercialized. But the developers decided to employ a mouse study that

had never before been used on other GM food crops. When they tested the pes

ticide in its natural state, i.e. the version produced within kidney beans, the

protein was not harmful to mice. But that “same†protein, when produced by

the

kidney bean gene that was inserted into pea DNA, triggered inflammatory

responses in the mice, suggesting that it would cause allergies in humans.

Somehow,

the protein had been changed from harmless to potentially deadly, just by being

created in a different plant. Scientists believe that subtle, unpredicted

changes in the pattern of sugar molecules that were attached to the protein were

the cause of the problem. These types of subtle changes are not routinely

analyzed in GM crops on the market.

 

Experimental potatoes engineered with a third type of insecticide caused

immune damage to rats.[27] Blood tests showed that their immune responses were

more sluggish, and organs associated with immune function also appeared to be

damaged. As with the peas, the insecticide in its natural state was harmless to

the rats. The cause of the health problems was therefore due to some

unpredicted change brought about by the genetic engineering process. And like

the peas,

if the potatoes had been subjected to only the type of tests that are

typically used by biotech companies to get their foods on the market, the

potatoes

would have been approved.

 

Allergic reactions are a defensive, often harmful immune system response to

an external irritant. The body interprets something as foreign, different and

offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM foods, by definition, have something

foreign and different. According to GM food safety expert Arpad Pusztai, “A

consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished, . . .

indicates major problems with changes in the immune status of animals fed on

various GM crops/foods.â€Â [28]

 

In addition to immune responses, several studies and reports from the field

provide evidence that GM foods are toxic. In the next article in this series,

we look at thousands of sick, sterile and dead animals, linked to consumption

of GM crops.

 

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the new publication Genetic Roulette: The

Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65

risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is

the

top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive of the Institute for Responsible Technology, which is spearheading the

Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com to

learn more about how to avoid GM foods.

 

[1] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance

activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,†(Olympia, WA: Washington State

Dept. of Health, 1993).

 

[2] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide

Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,†Amer. J.

Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.

 

[3] M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, “Microbiological and

epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B

BTK sprayâ€

(Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30,

1992).

 

[4] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial

Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the

Queen,

Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,†(May 6, 1993); as reported in

Carrie Swadener, “Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),†Journal of Pesticide

Reform,

14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).

 

[5] J. R. Samples, and H. Buettner, “Ocular infection caused by a biological

insecticide,†J. Infectious Dis. 148, no. 3 (1983): 614; as reported in Carrie

Swadener, “Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)â€, Journal of Pesticide Reform 14,

no. 3 (Fall 1994)

 

[6] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide

Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,†Amer. J.

Public Health, 80, no. 7 (1990): 848–852.

 

[7] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial

Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the

Queen,

Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,†(May 6, 1993); as reported in

Carrie Swadener, “Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),†Journal of Pesticide

Reform,

14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).

 

[8] Carrie Swadener, “Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),†Journal of Pesticide

Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994).

 

[9] Health effects of B.t.: Report of surveillance in Oregon, 1985-87.

Precautions to minimize your exposure (Salem, OR: Oregon Departmentof Human

Resources, Health Division, April 18, 1991).

 

[10] Material Safety Data Sheet for Foray 48B Flowable Concentrate (Danbury,

CT: Novo Nordisk, February, 1991).

 

[11] Vazquez et al, " Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of

Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal

antibody

responses in mice, " Life Sciences, 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897–1912; Vazquez et

al,

“Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by

Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,†Brazilian Journal

of

Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147–155.

 

[12] Vazquez et al, “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent

systemic and mucosal adjuvant,†Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999):

578–

584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).

 

[13] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits

Assessments,†March 12, 2001: 76. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf

 

[14] Terje Traavik and Jack Heinemann, “Genetic Engineering and Omitted

Health Research: Still No Answers to Ageing Questions, 2006. Cited in their

quote

was: G. Stotzky, “Release, persistence, and biological activity in soil of

insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis,†found in Deborah K.

Letourneau

and Beth E. Burrows, Genetically Engineered Organisms. Assessing

Environmental and Human Health Effects (cBoca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC, 2002),

187–222.

 

[15] C. M. Ignoffo, and C. Garcial, “UV-photoinactivation of cells and spores

of Bacillus thuringiensis and effects of peroxidase on inactivation,â€

Environmental Entomology 7 (1978): 270–272.

 

[16] BT: An Alternative to Chemical Pesticides, Environmental Protection

Division, Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia, Canada,

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/ipmp/fact_sheets/BTfacts.htm

 

[17] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake

of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the

predator Chrysoperia carnea,†Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J.

Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has

no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens)

(Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),†Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004):

175–183.

 

[18] FAO-WHO, “Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods.

Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived

from Biotechnology,†Jan. 22–25, 2001;

http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf

 

[19] Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential

allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,†Advances in

Food

and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.

 

[20] US EPA, “Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD)—Bacillus

thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human

Health Assessment,†EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4,

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf

 

[21] US EPA, “Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD)—Bacillus

thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human

Health Assessment,†EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4,

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf

 

[22] “Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink

Corn,†FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Report No. 2001-09, July 2001.

 

[23] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits

Assessments,†March 12, 2001: 76. Available at: http://www.epa.

gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf

 

[24] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in

Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),†Investigation Report, Oct–Dec

2005.

 

[25] N. Tomlinson of UK MAFF's Joint Food Safety and Standards Group 4,

December 1998 letter to the U.S. FDA, commenting on its draft document,

“Guidance

for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants,â€

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp1998.pdf; (see pages 64–68).

 

[26] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863

Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination

with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,†December 17, 2002

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf,

see also Stéphane

Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,†Le Monde, 14 December 2004; and

Jeffrey

M. Smith, “Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and

Cover-up,â€

Spilling the Beans, June 2005,

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExpose\

d/index.cfm

 

[27] A. Pusztai, et al, “Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health

Effects,†in: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D’Mello)

(Wallingford Oxon, UK: CAB International), 347–372, also additional

communication with

Arpad Pusztai.

 

[28] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John

 

 

 

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at

www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

The website also offers eater-friendly tips for avoiding GMOs at home and in

restaurants.

 

Subscribe to e-newsletter Spilling the Beans

 

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/AbouttheInstitute/NewsletterSignup/index.\

cfm

 

 

Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce issues of

Spilling the Beans in whole or in part. Just email us at

column to let us know who you are and what your circulation

is, so we can keep

track.

 

The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to end the genetic

engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. We warmly

welcome your donations and support.

 

Go to www.responsibletechnology.org or click here if you'd like to make a tax

-deductible donation. Click here if you would like to become a member of the

Institute for Responsible Technology. Membership to the Institute for

Responsible Technology costs $25 per year. New members receive The GMO Trilogy,

a

three-disc set produced by Jeffrey Smith (see www.GMOTrilogy.com).

 

 

 

© copyright Jeffrey M. Smith 2007