Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered Foods from Their Cafeterias

[Guest guest]

Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered Foods from Their Cafeterias

_http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14507.cfm_

(http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14507.cfm)

By Jeffrey M. Smith

Comanche County Chronicle, Elgin, OK, September, 2008

Straight to the Source

 

 

from Institute for Responsible Technology, Spilling the Beans newsletter on

GM Foods by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

 

 

Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria's

processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was described as

out-of-control. There were weapons violations, student disruptions, and a cop

on

duty full-time. After the change in school meals, the students were calm,

focused, and orderly. There were no more weapons violations, and no suicides,

expulsions, dropouts, or drug violations. The new diet and improved behavior

has

lasted for seven years, and now other schools are changing their meal programs

with similar results.

 

Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet by

conducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed them the

junk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The mice freaked out.

Their behavior was totally different than the three mice in the neighboring

cage. The neighboring mice had good karma; they were fed nutritious whole

foods and behaved like mice. They slept during the day inside their cardboard

tube, played with each other, and acted very mouse-like.

 

The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboard tube, were

no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, fought often, and two

mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the three month experiment,

the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk food mice with a diet of

whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice came around.

 

Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second grade

class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days. Even on the

first day of junk food, the mice's behavior " changes drastically. " They become

lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still takes the mice about two to three

weeks on unprocessed foods to return to normal. One year, the second graders

tried to do the experiment again a few months later with the same mice, but

this time the animals refused to eat the junk food.

 

Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice genetically

modified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM mice

stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts of the cage.

When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their well-behaved neighbors,

the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear and tried to climb the walls.

One mouse in the GM group was found dead at the end of the experiment.

 

It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the Wisconsin

experiments also contained genetically modified ingredients. And although

the Appleton school lunch program did not specifically attempt to remove GM

foods, it happened anyway. That's because GM foods such as soy and corn and

their derivatives are largely found in processed foods. So when the school

switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GM

crops

were taken out automatically.

 

Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the behavior of humans or

animals? It would certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis of a single

student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. On the other hand, it is

equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.

 

We are just beginning to understand the influence of food on behavior. A

study in Science in December 2002 concluded that " food molecules act like

hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering cell division. The

molecules

can cause mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit and hyperactivity

disorder to serious mental illness. " The problem is we do not know which food

molecules have what effect.

 

The bigger problem is that the composition of GM foods can change radically

without our knowledge. Genetically modified foods have genes inserted into

their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they don't just snap into place. Gene

insertion creates unpredicted, irreversible changes. In one study, for example,

a

gene chip monitored the DNA before and after a single foreign gene was

inserted. As much as 5 percent of the DNA's genes changed the amount of protein

they were producing. Not only is that huge in itself, but these changes can

multiply through complex interactions down the line.

 

In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in the composition of GM

foods, they are typically measured for only a small number of known nutrient

levels. But even if we could identify all the changed compounds, at this point

we

wouldn't know which might be responsible for the antisocial nature of mice

or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning to identify the medicinal compounds

in food. We now know, for example, that the pigment in blueberries may

revive the brain's neural communication system, and the antioxidant found in

grape

skins may fight cancer and reduce heart disease. But what about other

valuable compounds we don't know about that might change or disappear in GM

varieties?

 

Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on the market, independent

researchers published a study showing that it contains 12-14 percent less

cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has changed that we don't know about?

[Monsanto responded with its own study, which concluded that soy's

phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis.

They

failed to disclose, however, that the laboratory that conducted Monsanto's

experiment had been instructed to use an obsolete method to detect

phytoestrogens

results.]

 

In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal of Nutrition that

concluded in the title, " The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds

is

equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. " The study only compared a small

number of nutrients and a close look at their charts revealed significant

differences in the fat, ash, and carbohydrate content. In addition, GM soy meal

contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor, a well-known soy allergen. The

study also used questionable methods. Nutrient comparisons are routinely

conducted on plants grown in identical conditions so that variables such as

weather

and soil can be ruled out. Otherwise, differences in plant composition could

be easily missed. In Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely varying

climates and geography.

 

Although one of their trials was a side-by-side comparison between GM and

non-GM soy, for some reason the results were left out of the paper altogether.

Years later, a medical writer found the missing data in the archives of the

Journal of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the scientists left them

out. The GM soy showed significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid,

and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, 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, indicating that the allergen

may survive cooking more in the GM variety. (This might explain the 50 percent

jump in soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was introduced.)

 

We don't know all the changes that occur with genetic engineering, but

certainly GM crops are not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports from

all

over North America describe how several types of animals, when given a

choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk, deer, raccoons,

squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, the Dutch student mentioned above first

determined that his mice had a two-to-one preference for non-GM before forcing

half of them to eat only the engineered variety.

 

Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on children.

They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they convert

more of the food into body-building material. Altered nutrients or added

toxins can result in developmental problems. For this reason, animal nutrition

studies are typically conducted on young, developing animals. After the feeding

trial, organs are weighed and often studied under magnification. If

scientists used mature animals instead of young ones, even severe nutritional

problems might not be detected. The Monsanto study used mature animals instead

of

young ones.

 

They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein 10- or 12 & shy;fold before

feeding the animals. And they never weighed the organs or examined them

under a microscope. The study, which is the only major animal feeding study on

GM

soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid finding

problems.

 

Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment going on one which we are

all a part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the impact of

these foods on our health, our behavior, or our children. Thousands of schools

around the world, particularly in Europe, have decided not to let their kids

be used as guinea pigs. They have banned GM foods.

 

The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods is only one of several

reasons why these foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse (see

_http://www.seedsofdeception.com_ (http://www.seedsofdeception.com) ).

 

With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in Appleton,

parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that diet plays. When

making changes in what kids eat, removing GM foods should be a priority.

 

 

 

 

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from

_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_

(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm)