Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive Failures By Jeffrey M. Sm

[Guest guest]

Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive Failures

 

By Jeffrey M. Smith

 

Rhetoric from Washington since the early 1990s proclaims that

genetically

modified (GM) foods are no different from their natural counterparts

that have

existed for centuries. But this is a political, not a scientific

assertion.

Numerous scientists at the FDA consistently described these newly

introduced

gene-spliced foods as cause for concern. In addition to their

potential to

produce hard-to-detect allergies and nutritional problems, the

scientists said

that 1CThe possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in

genetically

engineered plants 1D might produce 1Cunexpected high concentrations

of plant

toxicants. 1D[1] GM crops, they said, might have 1CIncreased levels

of known

naturally occurring toxins, . . . appearance of new, not previously

identified

1D toxins, and an increased tendency to gather 1Ctoxic substances

from the

environment 1D such as 1Cpesticides or heavy metals. 1D They

recommended

testing every GM food 1Cbefore it enters the marketplace. 1D[2] But

the FDA was

under orders from the first Bush White House to promote the

biotechnology

industry, and the political appointee in charge of agency policy was

Monsanto

19s former attorney 14later their vice president. The FDA policy

ignored the

scientists 19 warnings and allowed GM food crops onto the market

without any

required safety studies.

 

From the few safety tests that have been conducted, the results are

disturbing

14lab animals fed GM diets show damage to virtually every system

studied.

Reports from farmers are even less encouraging 14thousands of sick,

sterile and

dead animals are traced to GM feed.[3]

 

GM diet shows toxic reactions in digestive tract

 

The very first crop submitted to the FDA 19s voluntary consultation

process, the

FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female rats

fed the GM

tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions.[4] The director of FDA 19s

Office of

Special Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes did not demonstrate a

1Creasonable certainty of no harm, 1D[5] which is their normal

standard of

safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that 1Cunresolved

questions

still remain. 1D[6] The political appointees, however, did not

require that the

tomato be withdrawn.[* ]

 

According to Arpad Pusztai, PhD, one of the world 19s leading experts

in GM food

safety assessments, the type of stomach lesions linked to the

tomatoes 1Ccould

lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who

use aspirin

to prevent [blood clots]. 1D[7] Pusztai believes that the digestive

tract should

be the first target of GM food risk assessment, because the gut is

the first

(and largest) point of contact with the foods; it can reveal various

reactions

to toxins. He was upset, however, that the research on the FlavrSavr

never

looked passed the stomach to the intestines. Other studies that did

look found

problems.

 

Mice were fed potatoes with an added bacterial gene, which produced an

insecticide called Bt-toxin. Scientists analyzed the lower part of

their small

intestines (ileum) and found abnormal and damaged cells, as well as

proliferative cell growth.[8] Rats fed potatoes engineered to produce

a

different type of insecticide (GNA lectin from the snowdrop plant)

also showed

proliferative cell growth in both the stomach and intestinal walls

(see

photo).[9] Although the guts of rats fed GM peas were not examined

for cell

growth, the intestines were mysteriously heavier; possibly resulting

from such

growth.[10] Cell proliferation can be a precursor to cancer and is of

special

concern.

 

GM diets cause liver damage

 

The state of the liver 14a main detoxifier for the body 14is another

indicator

of toxins.

 

Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes described above had smaller and

partially

atrophied livers.[11]

Rats fed Monsanto 19s Mon 863 corn, engineered to produce Bt-toxin,

had liver

lesions and other indications of toxicity.[12]

Rabbits fed GM soy showed altered enzyme production in their livers

as well as

higher metabolic activity.[13]

The livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12% 1316% heavier,

possibly due

to liver disease or inflammation. [14]

And microscopic analysis of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready

soybeans

revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional

changes.[15] Many

of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM

soy,

indicating that GM soy was the culprit. The findings, according to

molecular

geneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, 1Care not random and must reflect

some

18insult 19 on the liver by the GM soy. 1D Antoniou, who does human

gene therapy

research in King 19s College London, said that although the long-term

consequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it 1Ccould lead to

liver damage

and consequently general toxemia. 1D[16]

Higher death rates and organ damage

 

Some studies showed higher death rates in GM-fed animals. In the

FlavrSavr

tomato study, for example, a note in the appendix indicated that 7 of

40 rats

died within two weeks and were replaced.[17] In another study,

chickens fed the

herbicide tolerant 1CLiberty Link 1D corn died at twice the rate of

those fed

natural corn.[18] But in these two industry-funded studies, the

deaths were

dismissed without adequate explanation or follow-up.

 

In addition, the cells in the pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy

had

profound changes and produced significantly less digestive

enzymes;[19] in rats

fed a GM potato, the pancreas was enlarged.[20] In various analyses

of kidneys,

GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production or

inflammation. Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by

GM soy.[21]

And GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brain of rats.[22]

 

Reproductive failures and infant mortality

 

In both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans, their testicles

showed

dramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink

(see

photo).[23] In mice, young sperm cells were altered.[24] Embryos of

GM soy-fed

mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared to

those

whose parents were fed non-GM soy.[25]

 

More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the

Russian

National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting

two weeks

before they were mated.

 

Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring

from the

GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10

percent from the

non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.

1CHigh pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from mothers

fed the GM

soy flour. 1D[26]

The average size and weight of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit

smaller.[27]

In a preliminary study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to

conceive.[28]

After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the

Russian

laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the

rats housed at

the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls were

available for

subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were canceled. After

two months

on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality rate of rats

throughout the

facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99 of 179).[29]

 

Farmers report livestock sterility and deaths

 

About two dozen farmers reported that thousands of their pigs had

reproductive

problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile,

had false

pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some cows and bulls also

became

sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths of

cows, horses,

water buffaloes, and chickens. [30]

 

When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton

plants,

within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated

10,000 sheep

deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post

mortems on the

sheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines

and liver

(as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary

evidence

1Cstrongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a

toxin. . . . most

probably Bt-toxin. 1D[31]

 

Dangerous denial

 

The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we

were not

supposed to know about their concerns. The agency 19s internal memos

were only

made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed to believe

the official

FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware of information

showing that GM

foods are meaningfully different. This statement, crafted by political

appointees, directly contradicts the scientific consensus at the FDA.

 

Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods

shows adverse

or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about these

problems

either 14the biotech industry works overtime to try to hide them.

Industry

studies described above, for example, are neither peer-reviewed nor

published.

It took lawsuits to make two of them available. And adverse findings

by

independent scientists are often suppressed, ignored, or denied.

Moreover,

researchers that discover problems from GM foods have been fired,

stripped of

responsibilities, deprived of tenure, and even threatened. The myth

that GM

crops are the same safe food we have always eaten continues to

circulate.

 

With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction

in 1996,

however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the

deterioration of

health in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-

marketing

surveillance, we can 19t tell which worsening health statistic may be

due to

these foods. But we also can 19t afford to wait until we find out. GM

foods must

be removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately, more and more

people are

making healthy non-GM choices for themselves and their family. To

learn which

foods are genetically modified and how to protect yourself, visit

www.GeneticRoulette .com.

 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

 

[*] Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both

using the same

inserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety

that was not

associated with the lesions. This was not required by the FDA, which

did not

block approvals on the lesion-associated variety. The FlavrSavr

tomato has since

been taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr, no other biotech

company has

submitted such detailed data to the FDA. And the superficial

summaries they do

present to the agency are dismissed by critics as woefully inadequate

to judge

safety.

 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

 

[1] Edwin J. Mathews, Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology

Section of the

Biotechnology Working Group. Analysis of the Major Plant

Toxicants.

Dated October 28, 1991

 

[2] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of

Contaminants

Chemistry, 1CPoints to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically

Modified

Foods: Supplemental Information, 1D November 1, 1991,

www.biointegrity. org

 

[3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of

Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007

 

[4] Department of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16,

1993. As

quoted in Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. 1CFlavr Savr

Tomato: . . .

Pathology Branch 19s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From

Three

Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel

19s Report,

1D Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)

http://www.biointeg rity.org/ FDAdocs/17/ view1.html

 

[5] Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator

and others,

1CResponse to Calgene Amended Petition, 1D Alliance for Bio-Integrity

(October

27, 1993) www.biointegrity. org

 

[6] Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others, 1CFlavr Savr!22 Tomato:

Significance of Pending DHEE Question, 1D Alliance for Bio-Integrity

(December

7, 1993) www.biointegrity. org

 

[7] Arpad Pusztai, 1CGenetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to

Human/Animal Health? 1D June 2001 Action Bioscience

www.actionbioscienc e.org/biotech/ pusztai.html

 

[8] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, 1CFine Structural Changes in

the Ileum of

Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes, 1D

Natural

Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219 13233.

 

[9] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, 1CEffect of diets containing

genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on

rat small

intestine, 1D Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4.

 

[10] Arpad Pusztai, 1CFacts Behind the GM Pea Controversy:

Epigenetics,

Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment, 1D Proceedings of the

Conference, December

1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany: Literaturhaus, 2005).

 

[11] Arpad Pusztai, 1CCan science give us the tools for recognizing

possible

health risks of GM food, 1D Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-

84.

 

[12] John M. Burns, 1C13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study

with MON 863

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

Determination with

PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002, 1D December 17, 2002

www.monsanto. com/monsanto/ content/sci_ tech/prod_ safety/fullratst

udy.pdf

 

[13] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d 19Angelo, M. I.

Cutrignelli, V.

Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, 1CGenetically

Modified Soya

Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of

Metabolic

Effects by Enzymatic Analysis, 1D Animal Science 82 (2006): 193 13199.

 

[14] 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, 1CFood

produced from

glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73, 1D www.iher.org. au/

 

[15] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S.

Serafini, C.

Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, 1CUltrastructural Morphometrical and

Immunocytochemical

Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified

Soybean, 1D

Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173 13180

 

[16] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks

of

Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007

 

[17] Arpad Pusztai, 1CCan Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing

Possible

Health Risks for GM Food? 1D Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73 1384.

 

[18] S. Leeson, 1CThe Effect of Glufosinate Resistant Corn on Growth

of Male

Broiler Chickens, 1D Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences,

University of

Guelph, Report No. A56379, July 12, 1996.

 

[19] Malatesta, et al, 1CUltrastructural Analysis of Pancreatic

Acinar Cells

from Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean, 1D J Anat. 2002

November; 201(5):

409 13415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B. L.

Rocchi, B.

Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, 1CFine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic

Acinar Cell

Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean, 1D Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385

13388.

 

[20] Arpad Pusztai, 1CCan science give us the tools for recognizing

possible

health risks of GM food, 1D Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-

84

 

[21] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d 19Angelo, M. I.

Cutrignelli, V.

Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, 1CGenetically

Modified Soya

Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of

Metabolic

Effects by Enzymatic Analysis, 1D Animal Science 82 (2006): 193 13199.

 

[22] Arpad Pusztai, 1CCan science give us the tools for recognizing

possible

health risks of GM food, 1D Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-

84

 

[23] Irina Ermakova, 1CExperimental Evidence of GMO Hazards, 1D

Presentation at

Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12,

2007

[24] L. Vecchio et al, 1CUltrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice

Fed on

Genetically Modified Soybean, 1D European Journal of Histochemistry

48, no. 4

(Oct 13Dec 2004):449 13454.

 

[25] Oliveri et al., 1CTemporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse

Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,

1D 48th

Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy),

September 7

1310, 2006.

 

[26] I.V.Ermakova, 1CGenetically Modified Organisms and Biological

Risks, 1D

Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC)

Davos,

Switzerland August 27th 13 September 1st, 2006: 168 13172.

 

[27] Irina Ermakova, 1CGenetically modified soy leads to the decrease

of weight

and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary

studies, 1D

Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4 139.

 

[28] Irina Ermakova, 1CExperimental Evidence of GMO Hazards, 1D

Presentation at

Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12,

2007

 

[29] I.V.Ermakova 1CGMO: Life itself intervened into the experiments,

1D

Letter, EcosInform N2 (2006): 3 134.

 

[30] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks

of

Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007

 

[31] 1CMortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields

14Warangal

District, Andhra Pradesh 1D Report of the Preliminary Assessment,

April 2006,

http://www.gmwatch. org/archive2. asp

 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

 

What if a " dirty bomb " exploded over a large segment of

U.S.population that simultaneously exposed citizens to Hepatitis

B,Hepatitis A, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, three strains of polio

viruses, three strains of influenza, measles, mumps, and rubella

viruses, two types of meningitis, four strains of herpes viruses, the

chickenpox virus, 7 strains of Streptococcus bacteria, and four

strainsof rotavirus.

 

• We would declare a national emergency.

• It would be an " extreme act of BIOTERRORISM

• The public outcry would be immense and our government would react

accordingly.

 

And yet, those are the very organisms we inject into our babies and

our small children in multiple doses, with immature, underdeveloped

immunesystems, many at the same time with vaccines.

But instead of bioterrorism, we call it " protection. " Reflect on that

irony.

 

- Dr Sheri Tenpenny, MD