CSI: HEALTH CRIMES
Genetically Modified Food
ϖ What Is Genetically Modified Food?
ϖ How Much Do You Know About It?
ϖ Which Foods Are Likely To Be GM?
ϖ What If You Don’t Want To Eat Them?
ϖ Why Does Secrecy Surround GM Foods?
Find Out If Your Health Is At Risk.
Look Inside….
TOPIC: GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
Here’s one of the many accounts of domestic and wild animals preferring non-GM food …a herd of about 40 deer ate from the field of organic soybeans, but not the Roundup Ready variety across the road.
Likewise, raccoons devoured organic corn but didn’t touch an ear of Bt corn growing nearby. [The reporter said]
“Even mice will move on down the line if given an alternative to these ‘crops’.”
Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Trust Us We’re Experts, 2001
We’re Eating Genetically Modified Food. Is It Safe?
NO!!! There has not been a single animal or human study demonstrating that these foods are safe.
Yet today in the US, they are present in 60-70 percent of processed foods. (This is bound to increase since GM potatoes are now in the supermarkets.)
Today, most non-organic US corn, soy, cotton, and sugar beets are GMO.1
Combined, these provide a vast portion of the sweeteners, fats, and additives used by food manufacturers. Plus, they comprise nearly all of the feed used by the meat industry.
GM “foods” have been creeping into our food supply since the mid-1990s. Unless you buy only certified organic (or a reasonable facsimile) and eat only foods made from scratch, you are eating GM foods and so is your family.
In Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Gene-tically Engineered Foods, Jeffrey M. Smith, author and director of the Institute of Responsible Technology, summarizes the many abnormal physical reactions shown by animals tested with GM foods.
These include (but are not limited to)…stunted growth – impaired immune systems – reduced digestive enzymes, bleeding stomachs – abnormal and potentially precancerous cell growth in the intestines – impaired blood cell development – misshapen cell structures in the liver, pancreas, and testicles – altered gene expression and cell metabolism – partially atrophied livers – enlarged livers, pancreases, and intestines – inflamed kidneys – liver and kidney lesions – less developed brains and testicles – higher blood sugar – problems with insulin regulation – inflamed lung tissue, – accelerated aging – increased death rates – fertility problems – and higher offspring mortality.2
And, what about the connection between GM food and the rise in obesity, diabetes, and lymphatic cancers?
In 1990 (before GM foods), not one state population had over 19% obesity. Now, 20% or more citizens are obese in every state.
Twelve states have 30% obesity!!! Meanwhile, the Congressional Diabetes Caucus reports that the incidence of diabetes doubled in the 15 years between 1990 and 2005.
Over 8 percent of us have diabetes, and among those over 65, the number soars to 27 percent!
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine takes the stand that GM Foods actually cause adverse health effects.
They ask that physicians advise patients to avoid GM food. In fact, the GM foods most of us eat every day were mutated with the same process used to create the unsafe food that produced the desultory results in animals recounted above.
We’re Eating Genetically Modified Food. Is It Safe?
Footnotes
1 Cotton seed oil is widely used for commercial frying and the seed, an ingredient in animal feed.
2 Material in this newsletter provided by the work of Jeffrey M. Smith (www.responsibletechnology.org) except where stated otherwise.
The Fix Is In
In the early 1990s, the scientific consensus at the FDA was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. Those scientists recommended rigorous long term testing of these new foods!
How did this happen to us?
The FDA was ordered to promote biotechnology. In cahoots with Mon$anto, the Office of the President pressured the agency to override the strong objections of their own scientists.3
Our government and the corporations were focused on The Prize. What prize? Worldwide control over food production (using genetic manipulation and then patenting the life forms).
To manage the structuring of their new GM policy, the FDA recruited Michael Taylor, Mon$anto’s former attorney.
Following is the FDA’s official policy: Big Lie #1: “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.”
Under the Freedom of Information Act, 44,000 pages from the FDA’s files were released. These revealed that references to negative research effects were systematically deleted.
Over protests of agency scientists, the policy was kerned and these so-called “foods” brought to market. (Taylor later returned to Mon$anto as a vice president.)
Above you read the #1 Biggest Lie. We follow with Big Lies #2 – #7.
Lie #2, improved taste. Complaints from people drinking milk from cows fed GM feed. (Animals only eat GM feed if no real food is available.)
Lie #3, improved nutrition. Patently untrue, nutrition may vary from fruit to fruit off the same plant.
Lie #4, improve the environment by limiting herbicide and pesticide use. Exactly the opposite has happened.
Lie #5, end world hunger. Rather than end world hunger, more and more farmers in the developing world are starving.
The properties of GM seed make it impossible to use seed collection to sow annual crops and the farmers are unable to afford to purchase new GM seeds each year. (In India, over 250,000 farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years.)
The Fix Is In
Footnote
3 These egregious and pernicious decisions were backed by both the Clinton and the Bush presidencies.
Biology Trumps Technology
[When] you hear a scientist asserting that gene splicing is safe, remind yourself that there is no scientific evidence for that statement.
We are profoundly ignorant about what we are doing to the code that generates life. And unfortunately some scientists, including those entrusted with public safety, are willing to lie.
Donella H. Meadows, biophysicist and environmentalist, Dartmouth College
Lie #6, genetic modification is an extension of traditional breeding techniques.
There is nothing traditional about it. Creating mutant species is not hybridizing. It is far more technical, far more expensive, and delivers far less exact results.
Because the results are dumped on the market without proper testing, genetic engineering is also far less safe.
Lie #7: Gene splicing is a precise procedure. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The public perception of this technology is that genes are like Lego blocks, independent pieces that snap into place. If only….
Gene physiology has developed during millions of years. It is so complex that we may never be able to intercept it in a functional way.
Even though the human genome has been mapped, the way the DNA in each cell transmits information remains largely a mystery.
Genetic engineering involves blasting DNA arbitrarily into an established gene sequence.
This crude insertion process interrupts the genome’s programming in unpredictable ways. It can
1) mutate or permanently turn genes on or off,
2) alter RNA or proteins in plants,
3) produce allergies or toxicities, and
4) trigger further impacts which continue to occur through time. After the insertion takes place, the changes are not stable. In other words, as the genome continues to adapt, changes are idiosyncratic and continue to happen.
This is how two ears of corn from the same stalk may vary in nutritional content, or even appearance.
In his website video, Smith recounts results from two different European labs where gene sequences were tested.
Out of six commonly used varieties of GM corn, researchers found that the sequence in one variety was different from that registered by the company. (It wasn’t even the same food.)
In another case, different sequences were found within the same variety. Like we said, unstable results.
In Food Safety, author Victoria Sherrow explains the difficulty of forcing the genome to accept the new gene.
Five different entities are used, and in most cases, this includes a virus which attacks the host’s cells in order to deliver the new DNA. The entities may be other viruses or come from bacteria.
Five Dangers Of Genetic Engineering:
This leads us to a list of five dangers of genetic engineering:
1.Collateral damage results from unpredictable side effects.
2.The genetic engineering process is toxic in itself.
3.The protein produced can differ from the one intended.
4.There can be gene transfer to gut bacteria or transfer into our own DNA.
5.In the long run, more herbicide residues are occurring.
Farmageddon 4
If the kind of detrimental effects seen in animals fed GM food were observed in a clinical setting, the use of the product would have been halted and further research instigated to determine the cause and find possible solutions.
Michael Antoniou, molecular geneticist, Kings College London
In this section, we consider the results of testing and/or feeding GM soy and GM corn.
Two primary traits were sought in mutating these crops: GM soy is mutated to resist herbicides while GM corn carries the pesticide inside the kernels.5
Mon$anto inserts a gene that makes GM soy resistant to Roundup, the famous weed killer, while Liberty Link, made by Bayer Cropscience, carries a gene for their patented herbicide. This makes it possible to spray for weeds without killing the crops.
GM corn is mutated with a bacteria called Bacillus thurengiensis (Bt), automatically killing the pests that eat it. Bt is a well-known natural pesticide that is safe enough when sprayed to be allowed on organic crops.
The desired benefit of Bt corn is to eliminate the use of pesticide spray, thus no pesticide residues. It was assumed that Bt would remain benign to humans and animals when used to modify corn.6 (See back page.)
Unfortunately, both pests and weeds become resistant over time.
Roundup Ready soy is particularly vulnerable. More and stronger sprays have to be used.
In a single year (05-06), the use of herbicide spray on soy crops increased by 38 percent, defeating the purpose of genetically modifying soy.
Farmageddon
Footnotes
4 Section title from Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology by Kneen Brewster. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers, 1999.
5 Unlike the safety evaluations on new drugs conducted by the FDA, no human clinical feeding trials of GM foods have ever been conducted.
6 It isn’t benign to everybody. In India, thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats died after grazing on Bt cotton plants.
In the US, India and the Philippines, allergic reactions to both BT spray and corn have been recorded.
3 Cases Against GM Soy
Case 1. Female rats were fed GM soy before, during, and after pregnancy.
Within three weeks of birth, 55.6% of the pups had died compared to only 9% of controls.
Some pups were significantly smaller while both mothers and pups were unusually aggressive. When GM fed offspring were mated, they were unable to conceive.7
Case 2. Here, we look at the one human feeding experiment in publication. (Nature Biotechnology 22, 2004) This study, which involved seven colostomy patients, overturned the previous assumption that GM-DNA does not survive the human digestive system.
Not only was intact GM-DNA found from the test meal, three of the patients had DNA from former GM soy meals still living in their guts.
In a related study, Jack Heinemann, PhD, a professor of genetics and molecular biology at Canterbury University in Christchurch, NZ, investigated whether or not a chicken farm could make the claim that their chickens contained “no GM ingredients” when the animals had been exposed to GM feed.8
His conclusion: “GM plant material can transfer to animals exposed to GM feed in their diets or environment” and that “there can be a residual difference in the animals or animal products as a result….”
Case 3. The final case involves the results of an unintentional GM soy experiment on an entire population.
In 1999, scientists at Europe’s leading food sensitivity lab found that soy allergy in Great Britain had jumped 50 percent in a year!
People showed a range of chronic illnesses, including irritable bowel, digestion problems, and skin complaints. Neurological conditions included chronic fatigue syndrome, headaches, and lethargy.
The GM soy link was detected using blood tests. At that time, most of the UK’s soy was imported from the US and contained a significant amount of Roundup Ready soy.9
3 Cases Against GM Soy
Footnotes
7 This was a Russian study. The researcher was forced to discontinue her work and stay mum about her findings.
When a decision was made to feed GM soy to lab animals infant mortality reached 55.3%.
8 Dr. Heinemann was hired by the New Zealand “FDA” to conduct this investigation.
9 Scientific documentation for these studies and more can be found in Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey M. Smith, Fairfield, Iowa:Yes! Books, 2007.
If GM Corn Is So Good, Why Are The Ruskis Saying, “Nyet!”???
According to the Wall Street Journal, in September 2012, Russia’s consumer-rights watchdog suspended the import and use of a genetically engineered corn made by Monsanto. (Maybe they read the French study referred to below.)
As of October 2010, 85% of all US corn is GM, including half of all sweet corn. (Considering the 91% GM soy crops, it is important to know that the foods you eat are organic or marked “Non-GMO”).
US farmers produce over 40 percent of the world’s corn. Altogether, the annual corn crop gobbles up a land mass equal to the state of Texas. You could think of this as 85% of Texas planted in GM corn.
Further, corn is a subsidized crop. Between 1996 and 2006, corn subsidies amounted to $56 billion. In essence, we’re paying top dollar to raise poison. Keep in mind that it’s not the farmers but the food processors who make the bucks. The biggies are Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill.
The Mother Jones website asks, “Does GMO Corn Really Cause Tumors in Rats?”
Reported by Tom Philpott, a French research team whose paper was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, a peer-reviewed US journal, showed that rats exposed to low doses of both genetically modified corn and the herbicide Roundup had negative health effects. (September 17, 2012)
Philpott states,
“The results…are not as clear-cut as they seem at first glance. But they do shine a harsh light on the ag-biotech industry’s mantra that GMOs have indisputably proven safe to eat – and establish an urgent need for more long-term research.” [Italics, ed.]
Rats fed a lifetime diet of Mon$anto’s genetically engineered corn or exposed to the company’s popular Roundup herbicide, in amounts considered “safe” in drinking water and GM crops in the US, developed tumors and suffered severe kidney and liver damage.
Consumers Rule!
Power concedes nothing without a demand.
–Frederick Douglas
In the 1990s, many US Parent-Teacher Associations rallied against rBST (rbGH) milk.
More than 100 school districts banned milk from cows treated with this unhealthy hormone. Many big companies, including Starbucks and Wal-Mart, now refuse to carry rBST milk.
Rather than cry over spilled milk, Mon$anto sold their hormone business.We’ve refused tampered milk. We can refuse GM food too.
87 million US consumers think that genetically modified foods aren’t safe.
Sadly, our children face the greatest risk from these foods. Schools in the UK and parts of Europe banned GM food years ago.
The “healthy school lunch” movement in the US is a way to get the word out to parents seeking to change their children’s diets. (See Nutrition News, “Kids In Crisis”.)
“Healthy Eating Starts With No GMOs”, says Jeffrey Smith who decided to stop whining and start doing.
He established the Institute of Responsible Technology. Their mission is to stop the genetic engineering of food.
Other non-profit groups against GMOs include the Center for Food Safety • Environmental Working Group • Natural Resources Defense Council • Defenders of Wildlife • the Humane Society of the United States • Oxfam America • the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union • Green Peace • Christian Aid • Friends of the Earth • the American Academy of Environmental Medicine • The Institute for Food and Development Policy.
As Sherrow wrote in Food Safety:
“GM foods have not delivered the nutritional and other benefits their proponents promised, nor have they alleviated world hunger and malnutrition. On the contrary, research and development of these products appears to be largely focused on profits, like other commercial enterprises.”
Pass this newsletter around. Order copies for your friends. Read Jeffrey Smith’s work.
Read Your Right To Know, a DIY book by Andrew Kimbrell.
Contemplate the theory of F. William Engdahl in Seeds of Destruction (2007).
www.responsibletechnology.org and www.organicconsumers.org where the recommendation is
“Raise Hell Not FrankenFoods!”
.
GM Soy, Shrimp, Dust Mite Share Gene Sequences
FYI: These GM soy crops share gene sequences identical to those found in both a shrimp allergen and a dust mite allergen.
Soy and soy derivatives are ingredients in more than 60 percent of processed foods. GM soy is mixed with natural soy and products are not labeled.
Furthermore, as of 2010, 91% of all US soy is GM. (To learn about non-GMO foods, simply do a computer search.)
Your Right To Know
California is the kick-off state in the effort to label GMO foods.
CA Right To Know is the non-profit group which initiated Proposition 37. Arguably the most controversial vote on the November ballot, Prop 37 would require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in California.
We all eat, right? As the groundswell of consumer demand for transparency reaches fever pitch, the opposition coffers are also swelling.
As we go to press, “Vote No” money exceeds $34 million – with 94% of this from outside California. Meanwhile the “Yes” vote has raised $4.1 million.
Who’s so interested in seeing the proposition defeated? MapLight, a nonpartisan guide to ballot measures reports the following “Vote No” contributors:
Mon$anto Company ($7.1 million), Dupont ($4.9 million), Basf Plant Science, Dow Agrosciences, Bayer Cropscience, Pepsico, Inc., Nestle Usa, Inc., Coca-cola Company, Conagra Foods, and Syngenta Corporation. (The companies after Dupont gave $1-$2 million.)
Prop 37 is a big deal. As California goes, so the nation may go. (You remember “No Smoking” in restaurants.) This is a big food fight, one that can shape our food landscape for years to come.
Californians! Vote Yes on Prop 37!
Know What You’re Eating!
.
California is the kick-off state in the effort to label GMO foods. CA Right To Know is the non-profit group which initiated Proposition 37. Arguably the most controversial vote on the November ballot, Prop 37 would require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in California.
We all eat, right? As the groundswell of consumer demand for transparency reaches fever pitch, the opposition coffers are also swelling. As we go to press, “Vote No” money exceeds $34 million – with 94% of this from outside California. Meanwhile the “Yes” vote has raised $4.1 million.
Who’s so interested in seeing the proposition defeated? MapLight, a nonpartisan guide to ballot measures reports the following “Vote No” contributors: Mon$anto Company ($7.1 million), Dupont ($4.9 million), Basf Plant Science, Dow Agrosciences, Bayer Cropscience, Pepsico, Inc., Nestle Usa, Inc., Coca-cola Company, Conagra Foods, and Syngenta Corporation. (The companies after Dupont gave $1-$2 million.)
Prop 37 is a big deal. As California goes, so the nation may go. (You remember “No Smoking” in restaurants.) This is a big food fight, one that can shape our food landscape for years to come.
Californians! Vote Yes on Prop 37!
Know What You’re Eating!
.
