| Furphy: "GM rejection is based on unscientific and unfounded fears." Many scientists disagree with this statement.
Genetically Modified Foods are Inherently Unsafe, by Jeffrey M. Smith (Author)
| Assumption |
Actual Status |
Quote |
| Inserted genes will produce a single protein. |
Inserted foreign genes might create multiple proteins, with unpredictable consequences. |
“The fact that one gene can give rise to multiple proteins . . . destroys the theoretical foundation of a multibillion-dollar industry, the genetic engineering of food crops.” Dr. Barry Commoner, senior scientist at the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College |
| The proteins created by inserted genes will act exactly the same way in a new organism. |
Foreign proteins may be folded improperly or become attached to other molecules, which could change their properties. Likewise, gene expression may be affected by the genetic disposition of a host organism, or even the environment. |
Dr. Peter Wills of Auckland University warns, “an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances . . . [duplicate itself] and give rise to infectious neurological disease.” Professor David Schubert of The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, says the effect that a particular protein has on a plant or animal “can be modified by the addition of molecules such as phosphate, sulfate, sugars, or lipids.” |
| Inserting foreign genes is precise and non-disruptive. |
The process of inserting foreign genes can damage the structure and function of the host’s DNA, switch genes on or off, create never-before-seen genetic sequences, and render the genome unstable. |
The BBC’s Tomorrow’s World Magazine says: “Genetic engineering is generally a hit and miss affair. The genes may be inserted the wrong way round or multiple copies may be scattered throughout a plant’s genome. They may be inserted inside other genes—destroying their activity or massively increasing it. More worryingly, a plant’s genetic make-up may become unstable. . . . Rogue toxins may be produced or existing ones amplified massively. Such problems may only arise hundreds of generations after the crops are originally modified.” |
| Foreing genes will not transfer to bacteria in the digestive system. Use of antibiotic resistant genes are therefore safe. |
Foreign genes jumped to human gut bacteria in just one meal of a GM soy burger and soy milkshake. |
"British scientific researchers have demonstrated for the first time that genetically modified DNA material from crops is finding its way into human gut bacteria, raising potentially serious health questions." The Guardian In 1992, Murray Lumpkin, M.D., then director the FDA’s Division of Anti-infective Drug Products, warned: “IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.” |
| The promoter that keeps foreign genes switched on, only influences that one gene. |
The promoter may turn on native genes “over long distances” up and down the strand of DNA—even genes on a different chromosome. This can create a flood of proteins with unpredictable consequences. Some scientists theorize that the promoter might even switch on dormant viruses that are deposited along the DNA. |
“When inserted into another organism as part of a 'genetic construct,' it [the promoter] may also change the gene expression patterns in the recipient chromosome(s) over long distances up- and downstream from the insertion site.” Dr. Michael Hansen, Consumers Union, publishers of Consumer Reports And in their paper, “Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter—A Recipe for Disaster,” Drs. Ho, Ryan, and Cummins warn, “Horizontal transfer of the CaMV promoter . . . has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or [create] new viruses in all species to which it is transferred.” |
| The promoter is stable. |
Studies indicate that the promoter may create a “hotspot” in the DNA, whereby the whole DNA section, or chromosome, can become unstable. This can cause breaks in the strand or exchanges of genes with other chromosomes. |
According to Geneticist Dr. Joe Cummins, a promoter can have “the same impact as a heavy dose of gamma radiation.” |
| The promoter only works with plant organisms. |
Research indicates that the promoter can influence animal genes. Some scientists believe it can transfer to internal organs and accelerate cell growth, possibly leading to cancer. |
Dr. Stanley Ewen, one of Scotland’s leading experts in tissue diseases, says, "It is possible GM DNA could affect stomach and colonic lining by causing a growth factor effect with the unproven possibility of hastening cancer formation in those organs." |
| Nutritional properties are unaffected by genetic modification. |
Significant differences in nutritional content between GM crops and their natural counterparts have been observed. |
“Roundup Ready beans were significantly lower in protein and the amino acid phenylalanine. More disturbing were [increased] levels of the allergen trypsin inhibitor in toasted Roundup Ready meal. . . . Lectins in Roundup Ready beans almost doubled the levels in controls. What might be the result of consuming foods with high levels of trypsin inhibitor and lectin? Well, maybe slower and lower growth, say scientists.” Medical writer Barbara Keeler, on data that hasd been omitted from Monsanto’s published study. |
| Genes and their expression will act in isolation, not impacting other metabolic processes. |
Insertion of foreign genes and their new proteins may create complex, unpredictable interactions, not well understood. Similarly, inserting two or more foreign genes into the same plant may also cause interactions that have not been studied. |
University of Georgia’s Dr. Sharad Phatak says, “When you insert a foreign gene, you are changing the whole metabolic process. . . Each change is going to have an effect on other pathways. Will any one gene kick off a whole slew of changes? We don’t know for sure.” Stanford’s Dr. Charles Yanofsky says, “Genetic engineering results in the formation of higher than normal concentrations of certain enzymes and products; these could provide the basis for the synthesis of higher levels of toxic substances.” Commenting on the genetically modified supplement L-tryptophan produced by Showa Denko, which killed about 100 people and caused 5-10,000 to fall sick, Yanofsky, one of the world's leading authorities on tryptophan biosynthesis, says, “If Showa Denko engineered the bacterium to overproduce tryptophan [which they did], then there are many unknowns that would be associated with its overproduction.” |
| There is no risk from breathing pollen from GM crops |
If GM genes can transfer to gut bacteria or internal organs, then inhalation of pollen may cause unpredicted health problems. |
“Experts on the Government's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes have issued a warning about plants being grown in the U.S. and parts of Europe which contain a gene resistant to antibiotics. They are concerned that, if workers breathe in dust as the crops are processed, the resistance could be transferred to bacteria in their throats. Around one in five people are carriers of the meningitis bacteria, even though they are not affected by the disease. Microbiologist Dr. John Heritage, a member of the committee, has written to American authorities to express his worries. 'It's a huge concern to me,' he said. 'While the risk is small, the consequences of an untreatable, life-threatening infection spreading within the population are enormous.'” Daily Mail (UK) |
| The chances of GM crops being allergenic are minimal. |
After GM soy was introduced into the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed 50%. Current GM corn would not pass tests recommended by international Codex standards for potential allergenicity. It took the FDA 9 months to develop an allergy test for StarLink corn; It was so poorly designed, however, that the EPA's Scientific Advisory Panel rejected its results. |
The FDA’s 1992 policy states, “At this time, FDA is unaware of any practical method to predict or assess the potential for new proteins in food to induce allergenicity and requests comments on this issue.” FDA scientist Dr. Carl Johnson wrote, “Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task.” According to FDA microbiologist Dr. Louis Pribyl, “the only definitive test for allergies is human consumption by affected peoples, which can have ethical considerations.” According to a 1999 Washington Post article, there is still “no widely accepted way to predict a new food’s potential to cause an allergy. The FDA is now five years behind in its promise to develop guidelines for doing so.” The same remains true today. |
Yes! Books, P.O. Box 469, Fairfield, Iowa 52556
Tel: 888-717-7000, 641-472-2536 Fax: 888-FAX-7000 (888-329-7000)
info@seedsofdeception.com info@seedsofdeception.com info@seedsofdeception.com Source: "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey Smith (here)
-----------
Practical risk found and practical solutions to hide it:
Details on Arnold Puztai's research (leading UK scientist): Extract from "Seeds of deception" Jeffrey M. Smith
"What Pusztai and his team found was quite a shock. First, the nutritional content of some GM potatoes were considerably different from their non-GM parent lines, even though they were grown in identical conditions. One GM potato line, for example, contained 20 % less protein that its own parent line. Second, even the nutritional content of sibling GM potatoes, offspring of the same parent grown in identical conditions, was significantly different.
If Pusztai’s results were limited to just these facts, they alone might have undermined the entire regulatory process of GM foods. FDA policy was based on the assumption that genetically modified foods were stable. Nutrient levels were not supposed to vary.
But these findings were completely eclipsed by Pusztai’s other, more disturbing discoveries. He found that rats which were fed GM potatoes suffered damaged immune systems. Their white blood cells responded much more sluggishly than those fed a non-GM diet, leaving them more vulnerable to infection and disease. Organs related to the immune system, the thymus and spleen, showed some damage as well.
Compared to rats fed a non-GM control diet, some of the GM fed rats had smaller, less developed brains, livers, and testicles. Other rats had enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines. Some showed partial atrophy of the liver. What’s more, significant structural changes and a proliferation of cells in the stomach and intestines of GM-fed rats may have signaled an increased potential for cancer.
The rats developed these serious health effects after only ten days. Some of these changes persisted after 110 days, a time period corresponding to about 10 years of human life.
In preparing the diet, Pusztai had been characteristically thorough. Comparisons had been made between rats fed GM pototates, natural potatoes, and natural potatoes spiked with the same amount of pure lectin as found in the GM potato. The researchers varied the potato preparation, using raw, boiled and baked potatoes, and varied the amounts in the diet. They also varied the total protein content of the diets and tested all these variations over both 10 day and 110-day periods. These testing protocols had all been thoroughly scrutinized and approved in advance by the government’s funding office and were consistent with several published studies.
In the end only the rats that ate the GM potatoes suffered the serious negative effects. From the evidence, it was clear that the lectins were not the major cause of the health damage. Rather, there was some effect from the process of genetic engineering itself that caused the damaged organs and immune dysfunction of the adolescent rats. "We used exactly the same methods of genetic engineering as used by the food companies," says Pusztai.
Pusztai knew that his results strongly suggested that the GM foods already approved and being eaten by hundreds of millions of people every day might be creating similar health problems in people, especially in children. (pg 12)
"… I find it is very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs. We have to find the guinea pigs in the laboratory." (pg 15)
"The next day the Pusztais came to work encouraged that the truth would finally get out. When they were called to a meeting, Arpad Pusztai expected to be handed the corrected release for review. But when he entered the room, the whole top management was assembled. Professor James spoke in a manner that was quite different from that of the previous day. In fact, the Pusztais had never heard him speak that way before.
He said I was to be suspended, and they will have an audit of the whole business, and then I shall be made to retire, recounts Pusztai. And my retiring wasn’t dependent on what the audit found." pg 18
"James did not act alone. He handpicked a panel of scientists to conduct an audit of Pusztai’s work. It was quite telling that the scientists he selected were not working nutritionists. "That a nutritional institute should select non-nutritionists to do this audit is quite unbelievable," says Pusztai. Moreover, the panel was not given the complete data, did their entire review in less than a day, and didn’t consult with Pusztai at all.
A summary of their audit report was released on October 28. It claimed that there were important deficiencies in Pusztai’s study. The full audit report, however, was never publicly released. To prevent leaks, only ten copies were printed. Even the chairman of the panel that produced the report was not given a copy." pg 22
"A report published two days later exposed the fact that Monsanto had given the Rowett Institute 140,000pounds before the blow-up, adding even more fuel to the media’s fire." pg 23
"A lot of energy was being spent attacking and defending viewpints. Very little energy was spent on safety testing.
It would have been fairly straightforward to conduct a follow-up study on Pusztai’s research to find out, for example, if any of the GM products we were eating create similar organ or immune system problems. But, having seen what happened to Pusztai, no one was willing to go there.
The British government clearly wasn‘t. According to one observer from the UK‘s Natural Law Party, the reason the government had commissioned the research team from the Rowett Institute " in the first place was that it was convinced that it would come up with a favorable result in relation to the safety of the GM potatoes… In fact, after Pusztai‘s unexpected discovery, the British government ended all funding in safety testing." pg 33
"According to a March 2001 article in the New York Times, "The CDC (Centre for Disease Control) now says that food is responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the United States as scientists thought just seven years ago... At least 80% of food-related illnesses are caused by viruses or other pathogens that scientists cannot even identify." The reported cases include 5,000 deaths, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 76 million illnesses per year. This increase roughly corresponds to the period when Americans have been eating GM food. In addition, obesity has skyrocketed. In 1990, no state had 15% or more of its population in the obese category. By 2001, only one state didn't. Diabetes rose by 33% from 1990 to 1998, lyphatic cancers are up, and many other illnesses are on the rise. Is there a connection to GM foods? We have no way of knowing because no one has looked for one.
------------
Other references can be found: http://www.biotech-info.net/new.html
*Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health? by Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D., An actionbioscience.org original article
*Science as Culture (draft) The Pusztai Controversy: editorial introduction, October 7, 2001
*Submission by Stanley Ewen (M.B.Ch.B., Ph.D., F.R.C.Path) to the Health Committee of the Scottish Parliment in response to their investigation into the health impact of GM crops.
*Submission of evidence to the Clerk to the Health and Community Care Committee of The Scottish Parliament from Dr. Árpád Pusztai's Submission to the Scottish Parliment
*Can Science Give Use the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks From GM Foods? by Dr. Arpad Pusztai, in Nutrition and Health, 2002, Volume 16, pp. 73-84
*Dr. Pusztai's PowerPoint Presentation: GM FOOD/FEED: GAPS IN RISK-ASSOCIATED RESEARCH THAT NEED TO BE FILLED, presented at the Denver Conference
------------
|
25 February 2004 |
New health dangers of GM food discovered |
|
- 1. Bt-maize (Dekalb 818 YG), during pollination, may have triggered disease in people living near the maize field in the Philippines.
2. The cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) promoter, used in most GM foods, was found intact in rat tissues two hours, six hours, and three days after it was mixed into a single meal, and was also confirmed to be active in human cells.
3. Genetically engineered pox viruses in cell cultures recombined with natural viruses to create new hybrid viruses with unpredictable and potentially dangerous characteristics.
| More (here)
|
