Genetically Modified Foods Adverse effects and unpredictable consequences.
This page presents selected videos, excerpts, notes, references, and clinical studies dealing with the unpredictable consequences and adverse effects of transgenic organisms
on human health, biodiversity, and socioeconomic well-being. While proponents of genetic modification may discount or otherwise interpret the evidence of such problems on the basis of peer-reviewed
science, the fact of the matter is that current applications of genetic engineering already exceed the science. Tests of genetically modified products are
usually conducted by the producers themselves, who have a vested economic interest in the outcome; neither third-party tests nor long-term studies have been conducted to evaluate the safety
of these products.
GMO Myths and Truths
Source:GMO Myths and Truths
Peter Brown, earthopensource.org. Accessed 23 January 2013.
Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops:
Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops
Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops
Are strictly regulated for safety
Increase crop yields
Reduce pesticide use
Benefit farmers and make their lives easier
Bring economic benefits
Benefit the environment
Can help solve problems caused by climate change
Reduce energy use
Will help feed the world.
However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:
Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops
Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
Do not increase yield potential
Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
Have mixed economic effects
Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.
Based on the evidence presented in this report, there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that
GM technology is claimed to address already exist. Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern technologies like gene mapping and marker assisted selection,
continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield, drought-tolerant, and pest- and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food needs.
And See:
Tell the FDA: Label My Food, at JustLabeIt.org. A legal petition (Docket # FDA-2011-P-0723-0001/CP) has been filed with the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) calling on the FDA to label genetically engineered (GE) foods. Now is our opportunity to be heard. Let’s flood the FDA with comments so they know that the public
wants labeling of GE foods! → Sign Petition
Genetically engineered foods are appearing on supermarket shelves with increasing frequency. While the scientific debate about the benefits and risks of genetically engineered crops is vigorous
and unlikely to reach a consensus anytime soon, you have a right to know what you are eating now.
Stand with EWG and the Just Label It campaign today and sign our petition to the FDA demanding that genetically engineered foods are labeled!
Visit EWG and use the form to add
your name and comments to their petition to the FDA.
As a supporter of Environmental Working Group and the Just Label It campaign, I want to know when I am eating genetically modified food. Most of the processed foods available in
American grocery stores likely contain some genetically engineered ingredients. While the scientific debate about the benefits and risks of genetically modified crops will continue
for a long time, I want to make informed choices for myself.
In September 2011, the Center for Food Safety submitted a legal petition to the federal Food and Drug Administration on behalf of Environmental Working Group and other organizations. It
called for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. We urge the FDA to grant this petition. → Sign Petition
Food Labelling
Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) share the responsibility for food labelling policies under the Food and Drugs Act. Health Canada's responsibilities for food
labelling fall within the Department's mandate to safeguard health and safety, while CFIA leads the federal program to develop general food labelling policies and regulations. In particular, the
CFIA is responsible for protecting consumers from misrepresentation and fraud with respect to food labelling, packaging and advertising, and for prescribing basic food labelling and advertising requirements.
Currently in Canada, labelling is mandatory if there is a health or safety issue with a food, which might be mitigated through labelling. For example, if the nutritional value or composition of the food has
been changed, or if there is an allergen present in the food, the food must be labelled as such. In this situation, special labelling is required to alert consumers or susceptible groups in the population. This
applies to all foods, including GM foods.
The Government of Canada recognizes that for many Canadians, labelling of foods derived from biotechnology is an important issue of consumer preference or choice. Under a standards committee established by
the Canadian General Standards Board, a Canadian standard for voluntary labelling of GE foods entitled Voluntary Labelling and Advertising of Foods that Are and Are Not Products of Genetic Engineering was
developed to address non-health and safety labelling (rather, labelling for method of production, for example, whether a food has or has not been produced through genetic engineering).
New Delhi - Fresh doubts have arisen about the safety of genetically modified crops, with a new study reporting presence of
Bt toxin, used widely in GM crops, in human blood for the first time.
Genetically modified crops include genes extracted from bacteria to make them resistant to pest attacks.
These genes make crops toxic to pests but are claimed to pose no danger to the environment and human health.
Genetically modified brinjal, whose commercial release was stopped a year ago, has a
toxin derived from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt).
Critique: FSANZ response to study linking Cry1Ab protein in blood to GM foods
Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The Cry1Ab protein, whether ingested via Btk-sprayed conventional or organic crops or GM corn products containing the protein, is safe for human consumption at the levels likely
to be found in these sources.
Accessed 13 December 2011.
Newly Released: The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes: A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs — False Promises, Failed Technologies: Synthesis Report.
Coordinated by Navdanya and Navdanya International, the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, with the participation of The Center for Food Safety (CFS).
Navdanya International (October 2011) p.18
Monsanto's false argument for safety was that the Bt toxin in Bt crops poses no danger to human
health because the protein breaks down in the human gut. However, the [Aris and Leblanc] study shows that the Bt
toxin survives in the blood of pregnant women and is also detected in fetal blood.
Till now, scientists and multinational corporations promoting GM crops have maintained that Bt toxin poses no danger to human health as the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of this toxin
in human blood shows that this does not happen.
Scientists from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, have detected the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women.
They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation. The research paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology. The
study covered 30 pregnant women and 39 women who had come for tubectomy at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS) in Quebec.
None of them had worked or lived with a spouse working in contact with pesticides.
They were all consuming typical Canadian diet that included GM foods such as soybeans, corn and potatoes. Blood samples were taken before delivery for pregnant women and at tubal ligation for non-pregnant women. Umbilical
cord blood sampling was done after birth.
Cry1Ab toxin was detected in 93 per cent and 80 per cent of maternal and fetal blood samples, respectively and in 69 per cent of tested blood samples from non-pregnant women. Earlier studies had found trace amounts of
the Cry1Ab toxin in gastrointestinal contents of livestock fed on GM corn. This gave rise to fears that the toxins may not be effectively eliminated in humans and there may be a high risk of exposure through consumption
of contaminated meat.
"Generated data will help regulatory agencies responsible for the protection of human health to make better decisions", noted researchers Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc.
Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the foetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach, they added Experts have warned of
serious implications for India. Cottonseed oil is made from seeds of genetically modified cotton and thus Bt toxin may have already entered the food chain in India.
"Indian regulators should be immediately called for detailed toxicological studies to know the extent of contamination of the human blood with Bt toxins coming from cottonseed oil, and also ascertain its long term
health impacts," said Devinder Sharma, an anti-GM activist.
Biotech giant Monsanto has been declared the Worst Company of 2011 by NaturalSociety for threatening both human health and the environment. The leader in
genetically modified seeds and crops, Monsanto is currently responsible for 90
percent of the genetically engineered seed on the United States market. Outside of GM seeds, Monsanto is also the creator of the best-selling herbicide Roundup, which
has spawned over 120 million hectacres of herbicide-resistant superweeds
while damaging much of the soil. Despite hard evidence warning against the amplified
usage of genetically modified crops, biopesticides, and herbicides, Monsanto continues to disregard all warning signs.
In a powerful review of 19 studies analyzing the dangers of GMO crops such as corn and soybeans, researchers
revealed some shocking information regarding the safety of these popular food staples. Researchers found that consumption of GMO corn or soybeans may lead to
significant organ disruptions in rats and mice – particularly
in the liver and kidneys. This is particularly concerning due to the fact that 93 percent of U.S. soybeans are known to be genetically modified. Ignoring this evidence, Monsanto
continues to expand their genetic manipulation.
Monsanto's Genetic Manipulation of Nature
Outside of genetically modifying crops, Monsanto has also created genetically modified crops containing Bt. Bt is a toxin incorporated in GMO crops that are intended to kill different
insects, however Bt usage has subsequently spawned insect populations which are resistant to the biopesticide. After being exposed to Bt, many insect populations actually
mutated to resist the biopesticide. So far at least 8 insect
populations have developed resistance, with 2 populations resistant to Bt sprays and at least 6 species resistant to Bt crops as a whole. Farmers are therefore forced to use even more pesticides to
combat the resistant bugs.
What is the answer to this problem, according to Monsanto? To further genetically modify the Bt crop to make it a super-pesticide, killing the resistant insects.
Tests, however, have concluded that further modified Bt toxin crop provided 'little or no advantage' in tackling the insects, despite extensive time and funding put into the research. It seems
that Monsanto's solution to everything is to further modify it into oblivion, even in the face of evidence proving this method to be highly inefficient. The
research shows [ISIS Report 31/10/11] that this will undoubtedly lead to insects that are
resistant to the most potent forms of Bt and other modified toxins, resulting in the use of even more excessive amounts of pesticides in order to combat pests. [...]
The World Says No to Monsanto
France, Hungary, and Peru are a few of the countries that have decided to
take a stand against Monsanto.
Hungary actually went as far as to destroy 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically
modified seeds, according to Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar. Peru has also taken a stand for health freedom, passing a monumental
10 year ban on genetically modified foods.
Amazingly, Peru's Plenary Session of the Congress made the decision despite previous governmental pushes for GM legalization. The known and unknown dangers of GMO crops seem to supersede even executive-level
governmental directives.
Anibal Huerta, President of Peru's Agrarian Commission, said the ban was needed to prevent the "danger that can arise from the use of biotechnology".
France is the latest nation to say no to Monsanto's GM corn maize, even in light of an overturned ban. It all began when France's State Council
overturned the ban on Monsanto's GMO maize stating that it was not sufficiently justified. The
organization then attempted to justify its decision by saying that the government did not give enough evidence to justify a ban. Under law, an EU country can only unilaterally ban a genetically modified strain if it can
scientifically prove it is a risk to the health of humans, animals, or the integrity of the environment. [...]
French President says government studying new GMO ban
(Reuters) - Genetically modified maize is unlikely to make it into French fields next year despite the lifting this week of a ban on a U.S. strain, as evidence rises that France will launch new restrictions, observers
said on Tuesday.
French president Nicolas Sarkozy said on Tuesday the government was preparing a "new safety clause" to forbid sowing of MON810 produced by U.S. giant Monsanto, after France's highest court on Monday overturned the
country's ban on the only GMO maize authorised for cultivation in the EU.
"The French government keeps and will keep its opposition against the cultivation of the Monsanto 810 maize on our soil," Sarkozy said during a visit in southwestern France.
France's State Council justified its decision on Monday to annul the ban saying that the government did not give enough evidence to justify it, knowing that an EU country can only unilaterally ban a GMO if
it can scientifically prove its risk for human or animal health or the environment.
Sarkozy, who will face re-election in April although he has not made his candidacy official, said Ecology Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet and Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire were working to implement
a new ban on Monsanto's MON810 that would be based on scientific elements.
While GMOs are widely used in major farm producing countries such as the United States or Brazil, they are unpopular in many European states, with France one of the most outspoken against what some have
termed "Frankenstein foods".
Even if maize growers are mostly in favour of GMOs which they say will protect their crops against pests and adverse weather and boost their yields, this political uncertainty should prompt them to hold off planting.
"Now that the government says it will put all its energy in putting a new ban, we can forget about sowings next spring," maize growers group AGPM chairman Christophe Terrain told Reuters on the sidelines of a conference
in Paris. [...]
[...] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently conducting a "Registration Review" of glyphosate, Monsanto's herbicide "RoundUp," which its "RoundUp Ready" crops are genetically
engineered to tolerate. The U.S. EPA will be gathering data through the summer of 2012 and making a final decision no earlier than 2015.
Watch this documentary from Argentina on the dangers of glyphosate. The two-part video is in Spanish with English subtitles. If the subtitles do not appear automatically, start the video first,
then click the arrow on the bottom right and select "Turn on captions."
The poison of the pampas, Part 1
El veneno de las pampas English Subtitles
The poison of the pampas, Part 2
El veneno de las pampas English Subtitles
[...] Resistant weeds so far cover over 4.5 million hectares in the US alone, while world-wide coverage is thought to have reached at least 120 million hectares by 2010. The US has the worst problem,
with 13 different species in 73 different locations. Palmer amaranth now infests over 1 million separate sites in North Carolina alone, while Horseweeds have infested 100,000 sites in Delaware. In
Argentina, 100,000 acres of soya crop lands is now infested with Johnson Grass.
The lack of glyphosate resistant weeds prior to the introduction of RR (Roundup Ready) crops genetically modified to tolerate
glyphosate, led GM proponents to argue that glyphosate resistance would not be a likely problem following the introduction of RR crop farming. However, since
their commercialisation in 1996, resistant weed species have been emerging at a rate of 1 per year. Most worryingly, the spread of resistant weeds seems to be
increasing dramatically. Up until 2003, 5 resistant populations had been documented. Since 2007, there has been a 5-fold increase in the spread of
resistant weeds.
Resistance to glyphosate has been studied in numerous laboratories, and research is beginning to enlighten us to the mechanism of
resistance, and has shown that different mechanisms have developed in separate populations of Palmar Amaranth. This suggests that resistance
is not due to the spread of resistant seeds from one population to another, but instead, can develop spontaneously wherever glyphosate is overused, as some
scientists have long predicted based on past experience (see [5] Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare, ISIS publication).
The cause of glyphosate resistance is primarily the farming of glyphosate tolerant RR crops, which increases the use of pesticides on
fields. This introduction of RR crops has destroyed previous farming practices that kept weeds at bay. Crop rotation, pesticide rotation as well as tillage of
soils are no longer practiced on GM farms, and with the emergence of glyphosate resistant weeds, Monsanto’s solution so far has been to douse plants in ever
increasing amounts of Roundup. These practices have resulted in what the director of Cotton Incorporated, Robert Nicols has described as “an exponential
spread of resistance” [6]. Ever increasing amounts of glyphosate serves only to increase the virulence of resistance in weed populations.
Monsanto want to increase herbicide use
As Einstein famously quoted, "no problem can be solved with the same consciousness that created it". That is precisely what Monsanto is doing: advocating more and
more herbicides to be used. New guidance published by the company to manage resistance includes:
The use of a cocktail of pesticides including 2,4-D, prior to sowing crop seeds
The production of GM seeds expressing tolerance to more than one pesticide. DuPont has already commercialised seeds tolerant to glyphosate and glufosinate.
Monsanto has recently announced an agreement with the German pesticide and biotechnology company BASF to develop crops stacked with glyphosate and
dicamba tolerant genes
The use of herbicides that remains active in the soil, killing any seedlings as they germinate, including sulfentrozone
Weed resistance leaves Monsanto in a tricky spot. Farmers are now seeking alternative seeds even though Monsanto have a large control
over the seed market, and prospective sales of glyphosate, the biggest selling herbicide in the world, are beginning to look uncertain. Rival companies have
already developed alternative GM-herbicide systems and others are in the pipeline. Monsanto has now started collaborating with companies to create seeds
that express tolerance to other herbicides. [...]
REVIEW: 19 studies of mammals fed with GMO soybean and maize
Abstract Purpose: We reviewed 19 studies of mammals fed with commercialized genetically modified soybean and maize
which represent, per trait and plant, more than 80% of all environmental genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
cultivated on a large scale, after they were modified to tolerate or produce a pesticide. We have also obtained the
raw data of 90-day-long rat tests following court actions or official requests. The data obtained include biochemical
blood and urine parameters of mammals eating GMOs with numerous organ weights and histopathology findings. Methods: We have thoroughly reviewed these tests from a statistical and a biological point of view. Some of
these tests used controversial protocols which are discussed and statistically significant results that were considered
as not being biologically meaningful by regulatory authorities, thus raising the question of their interpretations. Results: Several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects
in the above-mentioned experiments. This was confirmed by our meta-analysis of all the in vivo studies published,
which revealed that the kidneys were particularly affected, concentrating 43.5% of all disrupted parameters in
males, whereas the liver was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8% of all disrupted parameters). Conclusions: The 90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and the signs highlighted in the
kidneys and livers could be the onset of chronic diseases. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet
obligatory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer
health protection. We are suggesting that the studies should be improved and prolonged, as well as being made
compulsory, and that the sexual hormones should be assessed too, and moreover, reproductive and
multigenerational studies ought to be conducted too.
[...] The premium for non-genetically modified canola looks set to continue at least into next season.
Tom Puddy, from Western Australia's largest grain handler, CBH, says European demand for 'sustainable' canola means the non-GM price is likely to remain $30-$40 higher than that of GM canola.
"It really comes down to customer preference to have a non-GM product in the food chain," he said.
"There's consumers that will demand that, so they'll pay a premium at a supermarket shelf for particular items that are certified non-GM.
"The other driver is from the by-product. That's fed to animals and they don't want to have a GM by-product in their food chain that's fed to their animals."
But Mr Puddy said the price for all types of canola is expected to remain strong, due to adverse weather conditions around the globe.
"That's obviously increasing the demand for countries that are producing canola in a sustainable agricultural environment." [...]
Source:Genetically Modified Foods
American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Accessed 20.05.11. Emphasis and link added.
[...] Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic,
physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main
regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.* The
most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely
applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be
used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."*
Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: "When an activity raises threats to the
environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In
this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)."*
With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of
probable harm, the AAEM asks:
Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public
to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM
foods and health risks.
Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease
processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient
health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.
Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community
to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health
effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on
human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on
human health.
For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term
independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the
health and safety of consumers.
Back in September, U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that a genetically engineered fish grown in a
lab was "as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon," and will "not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment." Conclusions were based largely on data prepared by
AquaBounty Technologies, the company that manufactures the synthetic salmon. "There is a reasonable certainty of no harm
from consumption of food from this animal," the FDA wrote.
AquaBounty's AquaAdvantage salmon compared with a non-genetically engineered salmon. Both are the same age. (Courtesy of AquaBounty) [CBC News]
The furor over genetically engineered foods is back for another round with U.S. food authorities close to approving a new breed of salmon that has been designed to grow faster.
The Food and Drug Administration is pondering whether to give final approval to the AquaAdvantage fish, an Atlantic salmon that has had chinook salmon and ocean pout genes inserted into it. The approval
would clear the way for human consumption and likely open the door for other genetically modified animals to be used for food purposes.
AquaBounty Technologies has run a gamut of regulatory hurdles since the fish was created in 1989 by scientists at Memorial University in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Waltham, Mass.-based company
acquired the licence for the fish in 1994 and began the regulatory approval process in 1996.
The company, which operates a significant salmon farming operation in Prince Edward Island, hopes it will be able to start selling the fish in the next two years.
As with genetically engineered crops such as Golden Rice, which has been formulated to have a higher beta-carotene content, the fish has faced a barrage of questions. Critics have said
the salmon could damage the environment if they escaped into the wild, or they could be harmful to human health. The latest arguments against the fish say it could be more allergenic because of its varied genes.
John Buchanan, director of research and development for AquaBounty, discussed with CBC News the fish's long route through the regulatory process and what it could mean for the future of food. [...] → Read the interview
Since then, dozens of consumer and environmental organizations, commercial and recreational fishery associations, food-safety advocates, food retailers, and chefs have been
putting pressure on the FDA to continue researching the environmental and public health impacts of the fish before releasing it into the U.S. food supply.
Consumer advocates argue that the FDA's decision to approve this fish could open up a pandora's box of genetically engineered animals on the market without
labels and that the FDA is not taking these concerns seriously.
If the FDA approves the scientifically created salmon, a product called AquAdvantage, it will be the first
time a genetically engineered animal has been given the green light for human consumption.
The salmon is created by inserting the genetic material of two breeds of fishes, the chinook, a variety of Pacific salmon, and the ocean pout, an eel-like fish
that can survive in extremely cold temperatures, into the genome of Atlantic salmon. According to AquaBounty, the AquAdvantage fish grows twice as fast as
natural salmon because it can continue development in icy-cold waters. The resulting fish is purportedly a triploid,
with three sets of chromosomes instead of two, a genetic condition that makes the animal sterile.
AquaBounty plans to produce these salmon eggs in Canada, and then grow them in Panama, in controlled facilities, before shipping the salmon to the U.S. for
consumption.
Last week, a coalition of 12 organizations including Union of Concerned Scientists and Food and Water Watch sent a letter to President Obama and the FDA, urging the regulatory agency to
conduct a full environmental impact statement beyond the scope of what AquaBounty prepared in support of its application. [...] → Read More
A transgenic organism, commonly called a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) or Genetically Engineered Organism (GEO), is an organism that has been modified by human
intention, with the insertion of a foreign, homogeneous or synthesized sequence of DNA (Hartweek LM, 1997). Transgenic organisms are
[m]ade with techniques that alter the molecular or cell biology of an organism by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes. Genetic engineering includes
recombinant DNA, cell fusion, micro- and macro-encapsulation, gene deletion and doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes. [...]
Biotechnology Policy, National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), USDA (September 1996)
Adopted at Indianapolis, IN. Washington: USDA/AMS/NOP.
Links added; additional references follow.
Genetically modified organisms [GMOs] are organisms which have had foreign deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) inserted into their DNA. The resulting organisms are also referred
to as being genetically modified (GM), genetically engineered (GE) or transgenic. The foreign DNA enables the organisms to produce non-native proteins, which give the organisms new and desired
characteristics. An example of a GMO would be a strain of corn that produces a foreign protein which confers protection against a species of insect. Techniques developed in the field of molecular
biology have made it possible to genetically modify plants, animals and microorganisms, such as bacteria.
Scientists began creating GMOs in the 1970s, but the resulting organisms did not attract widespread attention because their use was limited to scientific research, and not consumer goods
[see Historical Events in Biotechnology; and see other biotech timelines]. The discovery of restriction enzymes in 1970 made genetic
engineering possible. These proteins recognize a sequence in DNA and make a staggered cut in the molecule, which leaves one strand longer than the other. The "sticky" longer strand becomes a site
where foreign DNA with a matching cut can be inserted. Common GMOs in the science laboratory are bacteria that have had foreign DNA, for example, mouse DNA, introduced into them for the purpose
of creating large amounts of the foreign DNA or protein for study.
GMOs began to gain public attention when they were applied to pharmacology and agriculture in the 1980s1,2 [...] By the early 1980s, GE bacteria were
being used to produce drugs for humans.3 The first GE drug approved by the U.S. Federal Drug and Food Administration for human use was Humulin, an insulin drug produced by Genentech. [...]
Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Food Crops -- Recent Experiences
Mellon M, Rissler J. Union of Concerned Scientists. Paper presented by Margaret Mellon PhD JD at Genetically Modified Foods — the American Experience, a conference sponsored by the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 12-13, 2003.
The results of genetic engineering are essentially unpredictable and, whether the intended result is achieved or not, unintended "nontarget" effects will also occur (Holdrege C., 2008). Introduction of a transgenic organism into
an agricultural environment can directly and indirectly impact all life within that environment, resulting in a cascade of interconnected events that manifest over time. For example, reliance on genetically modified cotton that produces a toxin from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to poison its main pest has led
to a boom in the numbers of other insects, according to a ten-year study in northern China (Jane Qiu, Nature News, 13.05.10).
Abstract
Long-term ecological effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops on non-target pests have received limited attention, more so in diverse smallholder-based cropping
systems of the developing world. Field trials conducted over 10 years in northern China show that mirid bugs (Heteroptera: Miridae) have progressively increased population levels and acquired pest
status in cotton and multiple other crops, in association with a regional increase in Bt cotton adoption. More specifically, our analyses show that Bt cotton has become a source of mirid
bugs and that their population increases are related to drops in insecticide use in this crop. Hence, alterations of pest management regimes in Bt cotton could be responsible for the
appearance and subsequent spread of non-target pests at an agro-landscape level.
The effects of genetic engineering are complex and unpredictable; confounding problems can, do, and will certainly continue to present. We have no way of predicting them.
Pigweed is now choking millions of acres of cotton and soybeans in the southern United States, and is proving
resistant to control.
Transgenic contamination of certified seed stocks by GM crops (soybeans, maize, canola and cotton) is inevitable and unavoidable (Cummins J, 10.06.03). Once herbicide-tolerant transgenes from genetically modified crops pollinate
these stocks, the damage is irreversible — it is reproduced in subsequent generations with loss of the original cultivar.
U.S. farmers have adopted genetically engineered (GE) crops widely since their introduction in 1996, notwithstanding uncertainty about consumer acceptance and
economic and environmental impacts. Soybeans and cotton genetically engineered with herbicide-tolerant traits have been the most widely and rapidly adopted GE
crops in the U.S., followed by insect-resistant cotton and corn. This data product summarizes the extent of adoption of herbicide-tolerant and insect–resistant
crops since their introduction in 1996. Three tables devoted to corn, cotton, and soybeans cover the 2000-09 period by State. See more on the extent of adoption...
Data for each crop category include varieties with both herbicide-tolerant HT and insect-resistant (Bacillus thuringiensis) Bt (stacked) traits. Sources: 1996-1999 data are from Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride (2002).
These tables will be updated with 2010 GE adoption figures in July 2010 once the survey data become available at the end of June 2010.
Sugar beet production. A recent development has been the introduction of genetically modified (GM) seed varieties. In the 2009/10 crop year, GM varieties accounted for about 95 percent of planted area,
up from about 60 percent in 2008/09. — Sugar and Sweeteners: Background, ERS/USDA.
There is evidence that GMOs are not suitable as feed for animals; some studies show lower productivity rates and higher death rates among GMO-fed stock; and innumerable anecdotal reports
show that animals will eschew GMO feeds in preference to non-GMO alternatives (Novotny E, 2002).
While there have been reports of adverse microscopic and molecular effects in different organs or tissues from some GM foods
(Magaña-Gómez JA, 2009), many environmentally caused diseases take decades of exposure to show symptoms.
Do transgenic plants have a negative effect on health? Ever since their commercializa- tion in 1996, the question has agitated circles of experts
and ecologists, without any indisputable proof allowing an affirmative response. Now, several recent studies effected by credible researchers
and published in scientific reviews tally with one another to throw doubt on GMOs' complete harmlessness. They don't assert that GMOs generate
health problems. But at the very least they suggest that GMOs provoke biological impacts that must be more widely studied [...]
(Hervé Kempf, Le Monde, 9.02.06).
Testing is not required for foods that fall under the GRAS
(Generally Recognized As Safe) designation of the FDA, and producers effectively decide if the GM product and plant that produces it are exempt from testing
(Schubert DR, 2008). "To date, the FDA has not disallowed a single favorable biotech industry safety determination in over
[112] completed applications"
(idem). Long-term animal study has not be done on virtually any GM product. Largely because there
are no labeling requirements, assay and epidemiological data cannot be collected to enable a conclusion of harm
(David Schubert, GM Watch, 27.01.10). The labeling of
genetically engineered foods in Canada is voluntary, so the
lack of assay and epidemiological data also applies.
Genetically engineered crops have raised a host of issues — ethical, ecological, medical, social, legal, and more — deeply dividing both the scientific community and the
general public. As you'll read below, GMOs have been linked to toxins, allergies, infertility, infant mortality, immune dysfunction, stunted growth, and death. Is
there reason for concern? We believe there is, and that it's important to know what might not be working in our best interests.
Getting the information you need...
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the #1 GMO bestseller,
Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating
(Yes! Books, 2003:304pp.), in which he presents the case against genetically modified foods and examines the unexpected, sometimes disastrous consequences of GM products.
In his second book,
Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (Chelsea Green, 2007:312pp.),
Smith identifies sixty-five health risks associated with genetically engineered foods that Americans eat every day. In the video presentation below, he provides an engaging overview of the
manner in which GMOs are insidiously pervading our lives. With documented evidence and graphic illustrations, Smith links GMOs to toxins, allergies, infertility, infant mortality, immune
dysfunction, stunted growth, and death. He describes the sordid history of warnings ignored by the FDA, the manner in which FDA and other scientists were gagged, threatened, discredited or fired,
and the struggle for change successfully waged in Europe.
If you've never heard of GMOs, watch this presentation. It may very well change the way you think about the safety of our food supply,
and help you identify actions you can take to protect yourself and your family. Smith is a recognized expert, and his arguments are compelling, but if his presentation seems biased or
overblown, consider the other excerpts and references collected on this page. The evidence clearly merits attention and action.
Academics Review shows evidence of bias and conflict of interest: AusBiotech and FDA.
At his Institute for Responsible Technology (IRS) site, Smith discusses this material in depth, enabling
the reader to review the research and study the evidence at leisure. The next article is adapted from one of the many available at the IRS.
"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his
colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction.
What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.
After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed
devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality
rate among the pups.
And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more
prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.
The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security,
is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)—so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an
email.
He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another
had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8
litters, totally 140 animals.
Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as
before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.
He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In
the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the
hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.
Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile."
The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team
can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.
Hair Growing in the Mouth
Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches
in the mouths of hamsters.
(a) The external appearance of the oral cavity. Gingival pouches (GP) with thick bundles of hair growing from their mucous lining are clearly seen.
(b) Perforated bone tissue of the teeth of an adult Ph. campbelli. Numerous hollows are seen. A, hair.
"Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the
teeth. Some- times, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew verti- cally and had sharp ends, often
covered with lumps of a mucous."
At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, "This pathology may
be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides,
mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.)." Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before.
Preliminary, But Ominous
Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, "It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself." Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed
components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how.
In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they're
called "Roundup Ready". Bacterial genes are forced
into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side
effects of genetic engineering.
Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed
Surov's hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with
the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This
was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.
In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months,
the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.
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.
When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! [Click image to enlarge.]
Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes, including damaged young sperm
cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.
An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more
GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had, and the smaller the babies were.
Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming
sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of
water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem
to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry's
problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock
sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.
Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior". Tests on the corn
material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound
also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the
amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor
was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.
In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions,
premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.
Source:Genetically Modified Foods
American Academy of Environmental Medicine (Accessed 24 May 2010) Link added, footnotes not shown.
There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association,
consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal
studies.
Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation
of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate
metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Changes in the kidney, pancreas
and spleen have also been documented. [...]
Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up
Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high
infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also
sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk,
and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova's simple, inexpensive
studies.
In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!
Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure.
Opting Out of the Massive GMO Feeding Experiment
Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice,
and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and
the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned
citizens don't think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry's massive uncontrolled experiment.
Alexey Surov says, "We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as
well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them.
Monsanto: The drive to control, run amok Transgenic contamination and more...
On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television - a documentary that Americans won't ever see. The gigantic bio-tech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the
agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years.
More Real-World Consequences of Bioengineering
Source:Killer Pig Weeds Threaten Crops in the South
Steve Osunsami, abcnews.com (6.10.09)
The original video has been removed from ABC News site, where links in original article are inactive or nontopical. In the excerpt below, the original ABC video has been added (hat tip to robsmucker, YouTube),
as has another very informative video from Georgia Farm Monitor; there are also several new links.
Palmer Amaranth (Pigweed) Threat To Georgia Crops Uploaded by Georgia Farm Monitor, 1 Jul 2010 (4:14)
Across the South, there's a weed that man can no longer kill. It's called the pig weed, and for decades
farmers controlled it by spraying their fields with herbicides.
"I've never seen anything that had this major an impact on our agriculture in a short period of time," said Ken Smith, a weed scientist at the
University of Arkansas.
This past summer, Pace Hindsely of Coffee Creek Farms and other farmers started noticing the chemicals they routinely used were no longer working.
"The last three years it's really just exploded. There is no rhyme or reason as to how we can control it," Hindsely said. "I am worried about the future or what these fields will look like next year and the year after
if we don't control this weed."
The weeds have adapted, and this year they're choking more than a million acres of cotton and soybeans.
In the last three months, Jim Hubbard of Double H Farms has spent more than $500,000 fighting the pig weeds, and they still won't die.
"Technology is great, but it can only go so far," said Hubbard. "As technology goes forward, so does mother-nature. As far as the weeds and everything, they adapt and overcome."
"Some of the causes related to the issue are the use of a single crop year after year. There are issues around using the herbicide without any other herbicides, and quite frankly, trying to control
weeds that were too big," said Rick Cole, technology development manager at chemical maker Monsanto.
Pig weed is one formidable weed. It grows up to three inches a day, and at its base it's as thick as a baseball bat. It kills crops and destroys heavy machinery, keeping farmers from bringing their
combines and cotton pickers into the fields.
"They get so big that sometimes you can't pull them up, so it's getting to be an extremely, extremely bad problem," Hubbard said. [...]
Source:GMO Health Risks Brochure
Institute for Responsible Technology (Accessed 22 May 2010) Adapted. And See:, v.2.15.10, IRT.
Genetically modified foods:
YES, you're eating them.
NO, they're not safe.
Did you know... since 1996 Americans have been eating
genetically modified (GM) ingredients in most processed foods.
Did you know... GM plants, such as soybean, corn,
cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. The
inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and viruses, which have never
been in the human food supply.
Did you know... The American Academy of Environmental Medicine states, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks
associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the
gastrointestinal system. They ask physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.1
Find out what the risks are and start protecting yourself and your family today!
Why isn't the FDA protecting us?
In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown
foods. Therefore they are safe to eat, and absolutely no safety studies were required. But internal memos made public by a lawsuit2 reveal
that their position was staged by political appointees who were under orders from the White House to promote GMOs. In addition, the FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor,
the former attorney for Monsanto, the largest biotech company, and later their vice president.
In reality, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new
diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.
Today, the same biotech companies who have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products are in charge of determining whether their GM
foods are safe. Industry-funded GMO safety studies are too superficial to find most of the potential dangers, and their voluntary consultations with the FDA
are widely criticized as a meaningless façade.3
Genetic modification is radically different from natural
breeding
Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers. It uses imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding,
and is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.4 Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a
"gene gun" into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant.
Widespread, unpredictable changes
The genetic engineering process creates massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout
the plant's DNA.5 Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their
behavior.6 Even the inserted gene can be damaged or rearranged,7 and
may create proteins that can trigger allergies or promote disease.
GM foods on the market
There are eight GM food crops. The five major varieties — soy, corn, canola, cotton, and sugar beets — have bacterial genes inserted, which allow the plants to
survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed killer. Farmers use considerably more herbicides on these GM crops and so the food has higher herbicide residues.
About 68% of GM crops are herbicide tolerant.
Source:Bacillus thuringiensis
W.S. Cranshaw, Fact Sheet no. 5.556, Colorado State University Extension (12.08)
Properties
Unlike typical nerve-poison insecticides, Bt acts by producing proteins (delta-endotoxin, the "toxic crystal") that reacts with the cells of the gut lining of susceptible insects.
These Bt proteins paralyze the digestive system, and the infected insect stops feeding within hours. Bt-affected insects generally die from starvation, which can take several days.
Occasionally, the bacteria enter the insect's blood and reproduce within the insect. However, in most insects it is the reaction of the protein crystal that is lethal to the insect.
Even dead bacteria containing the proteins are effective insecticides. [...]
The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide, found in GM corn and cotton. A gene from the soil bacterium called Bt (for Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted
into the plant's DNA, where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. About 19% of GM crops produce their own pesticide. Another 13% produce a
pesticide and are herbicide tolerant.
There is also Hawaiian papaya and a small amount of zucchini and yellow crookneck squash, which are engineered to resist a plant virus.
Growing evidence of harm from GMOs
GM soy and allergic reactions
Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was
introduced.8
A skin prick allergy test shows that some people react to GM soy, but not to
wild natural soy.9
Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen.10
GM soy also contains a new unexpected allergen, not found in wild natural soy.11
Bt corn and cotton linked to allergies
The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals
because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for
years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to Bt spray had allergic-type
symptoms,12 and mice fed Bt had
powerful immune responses13 and damaged
intestines.14 Moreover, the Bt in
GM crops is designed to be more toxic than the natural spray and is thousands of
times more concentrated.
Farm workers throughout India are getting the same allergic reactions from
handling Bt cotton15 as those who
reacted to Bt spray.16 Mice17 and rats18 fed Bt corn also showed immune responses.
GMOs fail allergy tests
No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the
World Health Organization recommends a screening protocol,19 the GM soy, corn, and papaya in our food supply fail
those tests—because their GM proteins have properties of known allergens.20
GMOs may make you allergic to non-GM foods
GM soy drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice.21 If it also impairs your digestion, you may become
sensitive and allergic to a variety of foods.
Mice fed Bt-toxin started having immune reactions to formerly harmless
foods.22
Mice fed experimental GM peas also started reacting to a range of other
foods.23 (The peas had already passed
all the allergy tests normally done before a GMO gets on the market. Only this
advanced test, which is never used on the GMOs we eat, revealed that the peas
could actually be deadly.)
GMOs and liver problems
Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers.24
The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier.25
GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult.26 The changes reversed after they
switched to non-GM soy.27
GMOs, reproductive problems, and infant mortality
More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.28
Male rats29 and mice30 fed GM soy had changed testicles,
including altered young sperm cells in the mice.
The DNA of mouse embryos functioned differently when their parents ate GM
soy31
The longer mice were fed GM corn, the less babies they
had, and the smaller their babies were.32
Babies of female rats fed GM soy were considerably smaller, and more than
half died within three weeks (compared to 10% of the non-GM soy
controls).33
Bt crops linked to sterility, disease, and death
Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants after harvest. Others suffered poor health and reproductive
problems.34
Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.35
About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.36
Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.37
The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer. Rats also had
damaged organs and immune systems.38
Functioning GM genes remain inside you
Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic
material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.39 This
means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us.
If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics.
If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.
Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into the fetus.40
GM food supplement caused deadly epidemic
In the 1980s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another
5,000-10,000 people. The source of contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production. The disease took
years to find and was almost overlooked. It was only identified because the symptoms were unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were
not in place, the deadly GM supplement might never have been identified or removed.
If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source
of the problem for decades, if at all. There is no monitoring of GMO-related illnesses and no long-term animal studies. Heavily invested biotech corporations
are gambling with the health of our nation for their profit.
Help end the genetic engineering of our food supply
When the tipping point of consumer concern about GMOs was achieved in Europe in 1999, within a single week virtually all major food manufacturers committed
to remove GM ingredients. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to reach a similar tipping point in the US soon.
Our growing network of manufacturers, retailers, healthcare practitioners, organizations, and the media, is informing consumers of the health risks of GMOs
and helping them select healthier non-GMO alternatives with our Non-GMO Shopping Guides.
See Part 2, Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
See for example 233-236, chart of disproved assumptions, in Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health
Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
J. R. Latham, et al.
The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation.
The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376:1-7.
See also Allison Wilson, et. al.
Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications.
Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews – Vol. 23, December 2006.
Srivastava, et al.
Pharmacogenomics of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and the cystic fibrosis drug CPX using genome microarray analysis.
Mol Med. 5, no.11(Nov 1999):753–67.
Latham, et al.
The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation.
Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006:1-7,
article ID 25376, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/JBB/index.html.
E. Levine, et al.
Molecular Characterization of Insect Protected Corn Line MON 810. Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by Monsanto, EPA MRID No. 436655-01C (1995).
Allison Wilson PhD, Jonathan Latham PhD, and Ricarda Steinbrecher PhD.
Genome Scrambling — Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants Technical Report — October 2004. http://www.econexus.info
C. Collonier, G. Berthier, F. Boyer, M. N. Duplan, S. Fernandez, N. Kebdani, A. Kobilinsky, M. Romanuk, Y. Bertheau.
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, http://www.crii-gen.org.
Mark Townsend, "Why soya is a hidden destroyer,"
Daily Express, March 12, 1999.
Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim.
Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison.
Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no.3 (May–June 2005):210-216(7).
A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz.
GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks.
Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier,
October 2005.
Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim.
Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison.
Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no.3 (May–June 2005):210-216(7).
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.
M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook.
Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray.
(Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbia, Sep. 30, 1992)
Vazquez, et al.
Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. 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
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).
Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed.
Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes.
Natural Toxins 6, no. 6(1998):219–233.
Ashish Gupta, et. al.
Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers' Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh).
Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
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
M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook.
Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray.
(Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
Alberto Finamore, et al.
Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice.
J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56(23):11533–11539, November 14, 2008.
Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier and Gilles-Eric Séralini.
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health.
International Journal of Biological Sciences 2009; 5(7):706-726
Seralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux de Vendomois J.
New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.
Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;52:596-602.
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
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.
G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg.
Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens.
BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002):8–19
H. P. J. M. Noteborn.
Assessment of the Stability to Digestion and Bioavailability of the LYS Mutant Cry9C Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis serovar tolworthi.
Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05 (1998).
H. P. J. M. Noteborn, et al.
Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes.
In: K.H. Engel, et al., Eds.
Genetically modified foods: safety issues.
American Chemical Society Symposium Series 605 (Washington, DC, 1995:134–47).
M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli.
Fine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean.
Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385–388.
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).
V. E. Prescott, et al.
Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity.
Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005):53.
Arpad Pusztai.
Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food.
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84.
Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363 from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of
the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, "Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73," http://www.iher.org.au/
M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli.
Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean.
Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002):173–180.
M. Malatesta, C. Tiberi, B. Baldelli, S. Battistelli, E. Manuali, M. Biggiogera.
Reversibility of Hepatocyte Nuclear Modifications in Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean.
Eur J Histochem, 49 (2005):237-242.
I.V. Ermakova.
Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats.
14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006.
Irina Ermakova.
Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies.
Ecosinform 1 (2006):4–9.
Irina Ermakova.
Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards.
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007.
L. Vecchio, et al,
Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean.
European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
Oliveri, et al.
Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean.
48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter.
Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice.
Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008.
I.V. Ermakova.
Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats.
14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006
Irina Ermakova.
Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies/
Ecosinform 1(2006):4–9.
Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh.
Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494
Mae-Wan Ho.
GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines.
ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006
Personal communication with Jerry Rosman and other farmers, 2006; also reported widely in the farm press.
See for example Mae-Wan Ho.
GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines.
ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006.
Study Result Not Final, Proof Bt Corn Harmful to Farmers.
BusinessWorld, 02 Mar 2004.
Genetically Modified Crops and Illness Linked.
Manila Bulletin, 04 Mar 2004
Arpad Pusztai.
Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food.
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16:73-84
Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai.
Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.
Lancet 1999 Oct 16; 354(9187):1353-4.
Arpad Pusztai.
Facts Behind the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment.
Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany: Literaturhaus, 2005).
Netherwood, et al.
Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract.
Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
Ricarda A. Steinbrecher and Jonathan R. Latham.
Horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to unrelated organisms.
GM Science Review Meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on "GM Gene Flow: Scale and
Consequences for Agriculture and the Environment," January 27, 2003
Traavik and Heinemann.
Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research. Citing Schubbert, et al.
Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice.
Mol Gen Genet. 242, no. 5 (1994): 495–504
Schubbert, et al.
Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral leukocytes, spleen, and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa and can be covalently linked to mouse DNA.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94, no. 3(1997):961–6
Schubbert, et al.
On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus/
Mol Gen Genet. 259, no. 6(1998):569–76
Hohlweg and Doerfler.
On the fate of plants or other foreign genes upon the uptake in food or after intramuscular injection in mice.
Mol Genet Genomics 265(2001):225–233
Palka-Santani, et al.
The gastrointestinal tract as the portal of entry for foreign macromolecules: fate of DNA and proteins.
Mol Gen Genomics 270(2003):201–215
Einspanier, et al.
The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals; a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material.
Eur Food Res Technol 212(2001):129–134
Klotz, et al.
Degradation and possible carry over of feed DNA monitored in pigs and poultry.
Eur Food Res Technol 214(2002):271–275
Forsman, et al.
Uptake of amplifiable fragments of retrotransposon DNA from the human alimentary tract.
Mol Gen Genomics 270(2003):362–368
Chen, et al.
Transfection of mEpo gene to intestinal epithelium in vivo mediated by oral delivery of chitosan-DNA nanoparticles.
World Journal of Gastroenterology 10, no. 1(2004):112–116
Phipps, et al.
Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows.
J Dairy Sci 86, no. 12(2003):4070–8.
Warning: require(nav_mainX.php) [function.require]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/intra10/public_html/avoid-GMO-products.php on line 1346
Warning: require(nav_mainX.php) [function.require]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/intra10/public_html/avoid-GMO-products.php on line 1346
Fatal error: require() [function.require]: Failed opening required 'nav_mainX.php' (include_path='.;home/user/lib/') in /home/intra10/public_html/avoid-GMO-products.php on line 1346
IN CANADA, see:
(11 May 2010), and director of the film,
(16 Dec 2008), presents a harsh indictment of Monsanto and their GMO initiatives, detailing processes, players, political manipulation,
bad science, data manipulation, duplicity and unethical strategies designed to dominate and control the food supply. The documentary below is avaliable on YouTube and 
