Sensitive subject, or can be, so keep it cool. If your gonna argue about it, due so from cited sources and back it up with empirical evidence.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Pro or Anti - GMO poll
- Thread starter Mr Celsius
- Start date
Right now against 100%...human kind today has the collective sense of responsability of a ten year old!
GMOs are not worth it...stop spreading like cancer for a moment and we dont need GMOs..
But it is definatley amazing to think what can be done...i just dont think its the time or the place..
GMOs are not worth it...stop spreading like cancer for a moment and we dont need GMOs..
But it is definatley amazing to think what can be done...i just dont think its the time or the place..
9Lives said:
So, you would agree that they have a potential to be helpful to humanity, but your saying that we don't have the intellectually ability to be responsible enough to wield this power?
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Author of Seeds of Deception
GMWatch.com
10-31-5
The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating
genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she
got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-
billion dollar industry.
Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher
Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of
Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female
rats. Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The
experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and
continued through pregnancy and nursing.
Ermakova's first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving
birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After
2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6%
from the other groups.
(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.)
But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three
weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared
to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%)
from the non-soy controls.
Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and
offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created
plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out
of research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for
a year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a
symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic
Security, Ermakova wrote "PRELIMINARY STUDIES" on the top of her
paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to
the risks of GM food.
Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in
controversy.
GM Soy's Divisive Past
The soy she was testing was Monsanto's Roundup Ready variety. Its
DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive
applications of Monsanto's "Roundup" brand herbicide. About 85% of
the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives,
including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of
processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients
derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.
The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified
foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods
safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for this
hands-off position is a sentence in the FDA's 1992 policy that
states, "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."[1] The statement, it turns out, was
deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed
that the FDA's own experts agreed that GM foods are different and
might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or
nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-
term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA
policy was, conveniently, Monsanto's former attorney (and later
their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food
policy as "just a political document" without scientific basis, and
warned that industry would "not do the tests that they would
normally do" since the FDA didn't require any.[2] He was correct.
There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding
safety studies and no human clinical trials - in spite of the fact
that millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily.
There are no adequate tests on "biochemistry, immunology, tissue
pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function,"[3] and
animal feeding studies are too short to adequately test for cancer,
reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes
Ermakova's research particularly significant. It's the first of its
kind.
Past Studies Show Significant Effects
Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions.
Research on the liver, the body's major de-toxifier, showed that
rats fed GM soy developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular
anomalies.[4] This indicates increased metabolic activity, probably
resulting from a major insult to that organ. Rats also showed
changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in the production of
a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit digestion.
Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin, which
can also block nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that
GM soy has 12-14% less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer
fighting.[7]
An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent
problems with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely
criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used
mature animals instead of young, more sensitive ones, diluted their
GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much protein, never weighed the
organs, and had huge variations in starting weights. The study's
nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed significant
differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower levels
of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers
had actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences,
which were later discovered and made public. For example, the
published paper showed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin
inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-
fold increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy
allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was
introduced.
The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two
sections that are identical to known allergens. This might also
account for the increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human
feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that this inserted gene
transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the intestines. This means
that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your own gut
bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein
inside your digestive tract.
The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists
found fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of
their newborn.[10] Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also
found in the blood, spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were
fed GM corn.[11] It was not clear if the GM genes actually entered
the DNA of the animal, but scientists speculate that if it were to
integrate into the sex organ cells, it might impact offspring.
The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens,
or anti-nutrients in the mother's diet. These may be created in GM
crops, due to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of
gene insertion can delete one or more of the DNA's own natural
genes, scramble them, turn them off, or permanently turn them on. It
can also change the expression levels of hundreds of genes. And
growing the transformed cell into a GM plant through a process
called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of additional
mutations throughout the DNA.
Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in
Roundup Ready soy. We don't know how many mutations or altered gene
expressions are found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed,
however, scientists did discover a section of natural soy DNA that
was scrambled[12] and two additional fragments of the foreign gene
that had escaped Monsanto's detection.
Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often
astounded by their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who
discovered incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about
the technology have been fired, threatened, stripped of
responsibilities, or censured.[13] And when problems do arise, they
are not followed up. For example, animals fed GM crops developed
potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and
testicles, damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy of
the liver, lesions in the livers, stomachs, and kidneys,
inflammation of the kidneys, problems with their blood cells, higher
blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in the death rate.
(See Spilling the Beans, August 2004.) None have been adequately
followed-up or accounted for.
Ermakova's research, however, will likely change that. That's
because her study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme.
A 55.6% mortality rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the
study is the only reasonable option.
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up
Study
I presented Dr. Ermakova's findings, with her permission, at the
annual conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine
(AAEM) in Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board
passed a resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health
(NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up of the study.
Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy's president, said, "Genetically
modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed
daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need
rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these
foods put the population at risk."
Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even
follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed
the inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready
soybeans.[14] In each case, the genetic sequence was different than
that which had been described by the biotech companies years
earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That's unlikely.
Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels
lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what
was originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels
didn't all match those found by the French.[15] This suggests that
the inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways. It
also means that they are creating new proteins-ones that were never
intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the Russian
test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready
soybeans used in follow-up studies.
Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may
explain some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For
example, nearly 25 farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM
corn varieties caused their pigs to become sterile, have false
pregnancies, or give birth to bags of water. A farmer in Germany
claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his cows and
caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM
cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and
fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms
returned the following year, also during pollination, and blood
tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt
toxin-created by the GM corn.
These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may
result from a GM crop that has "gone bad" due to genetic
rearrangements. Even GM plants with identical gene sequences,
however, might act differently. The amount of Bt toxin in the
Philippine corn study described above, for example, varied
considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16]
With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding
has yet been sufficient to reverse the industry's growth in the US.
It may take some dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening
discovery. That is why Ermakova's findings are so important. If the
study holds up, it may topple the GM food industry.
I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM's request, and fund an
immediate, independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not
forthcoming, our Institute for Responsible Technology will try to
raise the money. This is not the time to wait. There is too much at
stake.
Jeffrey M. Smith is working with a team of international scientists
to catalog all known health risks of GM foods. He is the author of
Seeds of Deception , the world's bestselling book on GM food, and
the producer of the video, Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals.
_____
Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at
www.responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer
this article or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by
emailing [email protected]. Individuals may read the
column each month by subscribing to a free newsletter at
www.responsibletechnology.org.
_____
[1]"Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,"
Federal Register vol. 57, no. 104 at 22991, May 29, 1992
[2]Louis J. Pribyl, "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92," March
6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org
[3]Epidemiologist Judy Carman's testimony before New Zealand's Royal
Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001.
[4]Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S,
Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G. (2002a) Ultrastructural morphometrical and
immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on
genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 27: 173-180.
[5]Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic
acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal
of Anatomy, Volume 201 Issue 5 Page 409 - November 2002
[6]Stephen R. Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-
Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional
Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996
(The data was taken from the journal archives, as it had been
omitted from the published study.)
[7]Lappe, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R.
(1999) Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in
genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of
Medical Food 1, 241-245.
[8]Stephen R. Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-
Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional
Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996
[9]For example, Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, "In Vivo Studies on
Possible Health Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed-
with Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically
Modified Plant Materials," Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003
[10]Doerfler W; Schubbert R, "Uptake of foreign DNA from the
environment: the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals
of entry," Journal of molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-
504, 1994
[11]Raffaele Mazza1, et al, "Assessing the Transfer of Genetically
Modified DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues," Transgenic Research,
October 2005, Volume 14, Number 5, pp 775 - 784
[12]P. Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and
M. DeLoose, "Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert,"
European Food Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112
[13]Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, 2003
[14] Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S,
Kebdani N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. 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, www.crii-gen.org; also "Transgenic lines
proven unstable" by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003 www.i-
sis.org.uk
[15] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php
[16] http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?
objectID=36
© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith.
Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part
Monsanto's GM corn MON863 shows kidney, liver toxicity in animal studies
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 by: David Gutierrez
A variety of genetically modified corn that was approved for human consumption in 2006 caused signs of liver and kidney toxicity as well as hormonal changes in rats in a study performed by researchers from the independent Committee for Independent Research and Genetic Engineering at the University of Caen in France.
Jump directly to: conventional view | alternative view | resources | bottom line
What you need to know - Conventional View
• The corn in question, MON863, is made by the Monsanto Company and approved for use in Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, and the United States. It has had a gene inserted from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which causes the plant's cells to produce a pesticide.
• Researchers fed rats either unmodified corn or diets containing 11 or 30 percent MON863 for 90 days. The rats who ate modified corn were found to exhibit signs of liver and kidney toxicity, as well as signs of hormonal changes.
• Male rats lost an average of 3.3 percent of their body weight, and their excretion of phosphorus and sodium decreased. Female rats gained an average of 3.7 percent of their body weight, while their triglyceride levels increased by 24 to 40 percent.
• The mechanism that causes the toxicity is not yet known, but the researchers say there is evidence that the Bt toxin may cause the perforation of blood cells. They expressed concern that the methods used by Monsanto in initial tests of the corn were statistically flawed and called their own tests "the best mammalian toxicity tests available."
• Greenpeace responded to the study by calling for an immediate recall of all MON863 corn and the reassessment of all genetically modified foods currently approved for the market.
• Quote: "Our counter-evaluation shows that there are signs of toxicity, and nobody can say scientifically and seriously the consumption of the transgenic maize MON863 is safe and good for health." - Lead Author Gilles Eric Seralini
What you need to know - Alternative View
Statements and opinions by Mike Adams, author of Grocery Warning: How to identify and avoid dangerous food ingredients
• It seems that the more these GM foods are tested, the more frightening the implications seem to be for human health. When companies like Monsanto do their own in-house testing, results are mysteriously favorable in nearly all cases, but when independent labs run their own tests, the results are downright shocking.
• I find it interesting that the FDA believes U.S. consumers should not be allowed to know which foods are genetically modified and which aren't. The push for honest labeling of GM foods has been blockaded by corporate interests and corrupt federal regulators.
Resources you need to know
The Campaign for labeling of GM foods: http://www.thecampaign.org
Bottom line
• A variety of genetically modified corn was found to cause signs of hormonal changes and liver and kidney toxicity in rats.
http://www.newstarget.com/021784.html
Author of Seeds of Deception
GMWatch.com
10-31-5
The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating
genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she
got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-
billion dollar industry.
Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher
Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of
Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female
rats. Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The
experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and
continued through pregnancy and nursing.
Ermakova's first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving
birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After
2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6%
from the other groups.
(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.)
But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three
weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared
to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%)
from the non-soy controls.
Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and
offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created
plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out
of research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for
a year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a
symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic
Security, Ermakova wrote "PRELIMINARY STUDIES" on the top of her
paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to
the risks of GM food.
Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in
controversy.
GM Soy's Divisive Past
The soy she was testing was Monsanto's Roundup Ready variety. Its
DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive
applications of Monsanto's "Roundup" brand herbicide. About 85% of
the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives,
including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of
processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients
derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.
The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified
foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods
safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for this
hands-off position is a sentence in the FDA's 1992 policy that
states, "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."[1] The statement, it turns out, was
deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed
that the FDA's own experts agreed that GM foods are different and
might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or
nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-
term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA
policy was, conveniently, Monsanto's former attorney (and later
their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food
policy as "just a political document" without scientific basis, and
warned that industry would "not do the tests that they would
normally do" since the FDA didn't require any.[2] He was correct.
There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding
safety studies and no human clinical trials - in spite of the fact
that millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily.
There are no adequate tests on "biochemistry, immunology, tissue
pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function,"[3] and
animal feeding studies are too short to adequately test for cancer,
reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes
Ermakova's research particularly significant. It's the first of its
kind.
Past Studies Show Significant Effects
Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions.
Research on the liver, the body's major de-toxifier, showed that
rats fed GM soy developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular
anomalies.[4] This indicates increased metabolic activity, probably
resulting from a major insult to that organ. Rats also showed
changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in the production of
a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit digestion.
Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin, which
can also block nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that
GM soy has 12-14% less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer
fighting.[7]
An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent
problems with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely
criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used
mature animals instead of young, more sensitive ones, diluted their
GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much protein, never weighed the
organs, and had huge variations in starting weights. The study's
nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed significant
differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower levels
of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers
had actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences,
which were later discovered and made public. For example, the
published paper showed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin
inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-
fold increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy
allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was
introduced.
The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two
sections that are identical to known allergens. This might also
account for the increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human
feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that this inserted gene
transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the intestines. This means
that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your own gut
bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein
inside your digestive tract.
The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists
found fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of
their newborn.[10] Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also
found in the blood, spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were
fed GM corn.[11] It was not clear if the GM genes actually entered
the DNA of the animal, but scientists speculate that if it were to
integrate into the sex organ cells, it might impact offspring.
The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens,
or anti-nutrients in the mother's diet. These may be created in GM
crops, due to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of
gene insertion can delete one or more of the DNA's own natural
genes, scramble them, turn them off, or permanently turn them on. It
can also change the expression levels of hundreds of genes. And
growing the transformed cell into a GM plant through a process
called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of additional
mutations throughout the DNA.
Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in
Roundup Ready soy. We don't know how many mutations or altered gene
expressions are found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed,
however, scientists did discover a section of natural soy DNA that
was scrambled[12] and two additional fragments of the foreign gene
that had escaped Monsanto's detection.
Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often
astounded by their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who
discovered incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about
the technology have been fired, threatened, stripped of
responsibilities, or censured.[13] And when problems do arise, they
are not followed up. For example, animals fed GM crops developed
potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and
testicles, damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy of
the liver, lesions in the livers, stomachs, and kidneys,
inflammation of the kidneys, problems with their blood cells, higher
blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in the death rate.
(See Spilling the Beans, August 2004.) None have been adequately
followed-up or accounted for.
Ermakova's research, however, will likely change that. That's
because her study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme.
A 55.6% mortality rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the
study is the only reasonable option.
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up
Study
I presented Dr. Ermakova's findings, with her permission, at the
annual conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine
(AAEM) in Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board
passed a resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health
(NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up of the study.
Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy's president, said, "Genetically
modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed
daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need
rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these
foods put the population at risk."
Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even
follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed
the inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready
soybeans.[14] In each case, the genetic sequence was different than
that which had been described by the biotech companies years
earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That's unlikely.
Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels
lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what
was originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels
didn't all match those found by the French.[15] This suggests that
the inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways. It
also means that they are creating new proteins-ones that were never
intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the Russian
test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready
soybeans used in follow-up studies.
Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may
explain some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For
example, nearly 25 farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM
corn varieties caused their pigs to become sterile, have false
pregnancies, or give birth to bags of water. A farmer in Germany
claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his cows and
caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM
cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and
fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms
returned the following year, also during pollination, and blood
tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt
toxin-created by the GM corn.
These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may
result from a GM crop that has "gone bad" due to genetic
rearrangements. Even GM plants with identical gene sequences,
however, might act differently. The amount of Bt toxin in the
Philippine corn study described above, for example, varied
considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16]
With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding
has yet been sufficient to reverse the industry's growth in the US.
It may take some dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening
discovery. That is why Ermakova's findings are so important. If the
study holds up, it may topple the GM food industry.
I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM's request, and fund an
immediate, independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not
forthcoming, our Institute for Responsible Technology will try to
raise the money. This is not the time to wait. There is too much at
stake.
Jeffrey M. Smith is working with a team of international scientists
to catalog all known health risks of GM foods. He is the author of
Seeds of Deception , the world's bestselling book on GM food, and
the producer of the video, Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals.
_____
Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at
www.responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer
this article or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by
emailing [email protected]. Individuals may read the
column each month by subscribing to a free newsletter at
www.responsibletechnology.org.
_____
[1]"Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,"
Federal Register vol. 57, no. 104 at 22991, May 29, 1992
[2]Louis J. Pribyl, "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92," March
6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org
[3]Epidemiologist Judy Carman's testimony before New Zealand's Royal
Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001.
[4]Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S,
Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G. (2002a) Ultrastructural morphometrical and
immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on
genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 27: 173-180.
[5]Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic
acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal
of Anatomy, Volume 201 Issue 5 Page 409 - November 2002
[6]Stephen R. Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-
Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional
Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996
(The data was taken from the journal archives, as it had been
omitted from the published study.)
[7]Lappe, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R.
(1999) Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in
genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of
Medical Food 1, 241-245.
[8]Stephen R. Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-
Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional
Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996
[9]For example, Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, "In Vivo Studies on
Possible Health Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed-
with Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically
Modified Plant Materials," Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003
[10]Doerfler W; Schubbert R, "Uptake of foreign DNA from the
environment: the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals
of entry," Journal of molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-
504, 1994
[11]Raffaele Mazza1, et al, "Assessing the Transfer of Genetically
Modified DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues," Transgenic Research,
October 2005, Volume 14, Number 5, pp 775 - 784
[12]P. Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and
M. DeLoose, "Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert,"
European Food Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112
[13]Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, 2003
[14] Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S,
Kebdani N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. 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, www.crii-gen.org; also "Transgenic lines
proven unstable" by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003 www.i-
sis.org.uk
[15] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php
[16] http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?
objectID=36
© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith.
Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part
Monsanto's GM corn MON863 shows kidney, liver toxicity in animal studies
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 by: David Gutierrez
A variety of genetically modified corn that was approved for human consumption in 2006 caused signs of liver and kidney toxicity as well as hormonal changes in rats in a study performed by researchers from the independent Committee for Independent Research and Genetic Engineering at the University of Caen in France.
Jump directly to: conventional view | alternative view | resources | bottom line
What you need to know - Conventional View
• The corn in question, MON863, is made by the Monsanto Company and approved for use in Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, and the United States. It has had a gene inserted from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which causes the plant's cells to produce a pesticide.
• Researchers fed rats either unmodified corn or diets containing 11 or 30 percent MON863 for 90 days. The rats who ate modified corn were found to exhibit signs of liver and kidney toxicity, as well as signs of hormonal changes.
• Male rats lost an average of 3.3 percent of their body weight, and their excretion of phosphorus and sodium decreased. Female rats gained an average of 3.7 percent of their body weight, while their triglyceride levels increased by 24 to 40 percent.
• The mechanism that causes the toxicity is not yet known, but the researchers say there is evidence that the Bt toxin may cause the perforation of blood cells. They expressed concern that the methods used by Monsanto in initial tests of the corn were statistically flawed and called their own tests "the best mammalian toxicity tests available."
• Greenpeace responded to the study by calling for an immediate recall of all MON863 corn and the reassessment of all genetically modified foods currently approved for the market.
• Quote: "Our counter-evaluation shows that there are signs of toxicity, and nobody can say scientifically and seriously the consumption of the transgenic maize MON863 is safe and good for health." - Lead Author Gilles Eric Seralini
What you need to know - Alternative View
Statements and opinions by Mike Adams, author of Grocery Warning: How to identify and avoid dangerous food ingredients
• It seems that the more these GM foods are tested, the more frightening the implications seem to be for human health. When companies like Monsanto do their own in-house testing, results are mysteriously favorable in nearly all cases, but when independent labs run their own tests, the results are downright shocking.
• I find it interesting that the FDA believes U.S. consumers should not be allowed to know which foods are genetically modified and which aren't. The push for honest labeling of GM foods has been blockaded by corporate interests and corrupt federal regulators.
Resources you need to know
The Campaign for labeling of GM foods: http://www.thecampaign.org
Bottom line
• A variety of genetically modified corn was found to cause signs of hormonal changes and liver and kidney toxicity in rats.
http://www.newstarget.com/021784.html
Last edited:
Passenger said:
EXACTLY!
I believe in controlling conditions better for optimal yield (as i've learned from mj growers) which is hard to do in nature but when you start ****ing with the genetics, that's a different beast! I think about how breeders have to stabilize a strain and I imagine how crazy it is to try to do that on a genetic level. It's some Island of Dr. Moreau shit with plants!
For a geneticist, its rather easy and exactly what they would want to be doing.
Imagine a large corporation giving you unlimited money to develop products for them? Thats why its done and will continue to be done.
The reason that GMO's aren't labeled legally is the same reason gay people are wrong in most Christians minds... "It just aint right". "It just aint right" to eat a taco that has some genes from a butterfly or whatever else in it, people would be heavily turned off of it, if they knew.
Imagine a large corporation giving you unlimited money to develop products for them? Thats why its done and will continue to be done.
The reason that GMO's aren't labeled legally is the same reason gay people are wrong in most Christians minds... "It just aint right". "It just aint right" to eat a taco that has some genes from a butterfly or whatever else in it, people would be heavily turned off of it, if they knew.
the whole BT corn thing frightens the f%$K out of me. I saw that documetary "to patent a pig" or "patent for a pig" can't remember exactly. That stopped me eating anything that could be even remotely GMO. so unless I know where the product came from I don't eat it.
so far locally grown is not GMO although that will change soon. we do get a lot of food from other countries so anything remotely foreign or of dubious origin is not going into my shopping basket. I noticed that most pre-made food like frozen dinners and oven baked food like french fries etc are cooked exclusively in canola and as that is a chronically GMO polluted grain now worldwide I don't won't eat anything cooked in it.
so far locally grown is not GMO although that will change soon. we do get a lot of food from other countries so anything remotely foreign or of dubious origin is not going into my shopping basket. I noticed that most pre-made food like frozen dinners and oven baked food like french fries etc are cooked exclusively in canola and as that is a chronically GMO polluted grain now worldwide I don't won't eat anything cooked in it.
Ray of Light
Member
I'd rather eat GMO than pesticides in my food.
V
vaprpig
85% of Soy today is GMO and about 50% of the corn. You have to assume that it could be in just about anything in the grocery store. Even Prince Charles refuses to eat GMO. How many times have they come out long after the fact and said "Oh by the way that food you are eating is poisonous, sorry". I try to buy organic as much as possible and I only buy soy products marked Non-GMO.
Plus what if the whole GMO thing is a way to control the food supply. The GMO seeds are patented, if they become dominate and mix their GMO genes into the other crops then they own all the food. This isn't crazy they have already sued farmers for patent infringement after seeds from gmo crops hundreds of miles away got into their crops.
Plus what if the whole GMO thing is a way to control the food supply. The GMO seeds are patented, if they become dominate and mix their GMO genes into the other crops then they own all the food. This isn't crazy they have already sued farmers for patent infringement after seeds from gmo crops hundreds of miles away got into their crops.
did you people who voted pro read my post? you people are ridiculous,. they have been proven to produce molecules are bodies arent meant to consume because they are totally new. **** GMOs! **** monsanto!
Sheriff Bart said:
One of the beautiful things about humans is that we all get an opinion. I would rather show people why its better to not use GMO products then to tell them.
Hopefully we will slowly change the world.
I think the question might rather be if we should let powerful pharmaceutical companies and food industries play around with this technology in order to create more 'competetive' products, or not.
Because, what's there to be 'against' in altering genetic material? That is the very proces that organic life has built its existence on. Whether we make Recombinant DNA technology the villain or not (In terms of genetic modification, Recombinant DNA is engineered through the addition of relevant DNA into an existing organismal genome, while natural genetic recombination occur through processes within the cell or ribosome), the result is the same. A genetic mutation.
When you look out on a lovely meadow in full summer bloom, you're actually looking at a natural DNA laboratory of genetic mutations and freaks, organisms trying to develop new and better ways of surviving. Most of these freaks do not have what it takes to survive and disappear. But some might have the requisite needs for survival, and they will incorporate these genetic traits in their species in order to strenghten them. Nature cares only about this, not how it came about.
Man is genetically engineering nature since thousands and thousands of years back. By selecting food crops and domestic animals according to Mendelian inheritance laws, we've altered species to the extent of creating new species.
By destroying natural habitats, by exterminating certain species, by introducing non-endemic species in new natural contexts, and now by deforestation, overheating and polluting the planet, we're creating new conditions in the biosphere that nature has to adapt to, or die.
In the light of this, the GMO debate becomes somewhat hollow, and what is it that they say? Empty barrel makes the most sound.
Because, what's there to be 'against' in altering genetic material? That is the very proces that organic life has built its existence on. Whether we make Recombinant DNA technology the villain or not (In terms of genetic modification, Recombinant DNA is engineered through the addition of relevant DNA into an existing organismal genome, while natural genetic recombination occur through processes within the cell or ribosome), the result is the same. A genetic mutation.
When you look out on a lovely meadow in full summer bloom, you're actually looking at a natural DNA laboratory of genetic mutations and freaks, organisms trying to develop new and better ways of surviving. Most of these freaks do not have what it takes to survive and disappear. But some might have the requisite needs for survival, and they will incorporate these genetic traits in their species in order to strenghten them. Nature cares only about this, not how it came about.
Man is genetically engineering nature since thousands and thousands of years back. By selecting food crops and domestic animals according to Mendelian inheritance laws, we've altered species to the extent of creating new species.
By destroying natural habitats, by exterminating certain species, by introducing non-endemic species in new natural contexts, and now by deforestation, overheating and polluting the planet, we're creating new conditions in the biosphere that nature has to adapt to, or die.
In the light of this, the GMO debate becomes somewhat hollow, and what is it that they say? Empty barrel makes the most sound.
Last edited:
DickAnubis
Member
Too many notes!
Great potential, impossible (for now) to predict. It's like having a very well running carburator BUT you try to adjust it a little to get that extra pop. Low and behold it goes awry. You don't consider the variables. Now that's just a mechanical object that doesn't change or mutate.
Living organisms are effected by so many more variables. Maybe an infinite variety. change one thing or a group of thingd, A strand here and helix there) and how many variables come into play? Who knows.
Perhaps some smarties with super-computers but then how does it apply to the world outside the lab. Whole new can of worms.
Nature's GM practices spread slowly through evolution and environmental change AND look how many faulty inefficient organisms are still walking around.
No Not us, we're drunk monkeys behind the wheels of high performance rocket cars.
Lot's of laughs, but big bang boom on the horizon.
PEACE DA
Great potential, impossible (for now) to predict. It's like having a very well running carburator BUT you try to adjust it a little to get that extra pop. Low and behold it goes awry. You don't consider the variables. Now that's just a mechanical object that doesn't change or mutate.
Living organisms are effected by so many more variables. Maybe an infinite variety. change one thing or a group of thingd, A strand here and helix there) and how many variables come into play? Who knows.
Perhaps some smarties with super-computers but then how does it apply to the world outside the lab. Whole new can of worms.
Nature's GM practices spread slowly through evolution and environmental change AND look how many faulty inefficient organisms are still walking around.
No Not us, we're drunk monkeys behind the wheels of high performance rocket cars.
Lot's of laughs, but big bang boom on the horizon.
PEACE DA
