Eating genetically modified food is gambling with your health

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Corporate and Government
Lies about the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods, (www.seedsofdeception.com)
Published by Green Books, UK, May 2004
Genetically modified foods are those which have foreign genes inserted into their DNA.
While scientists originally assumed that the inserted genes would only add a particular
desired trait to the crop, new evidence suggests that the host’s normal natural genes can get
switched off, turned on permanently, damaged, or altered in the process. And that’s just some
of the many ways that GM foods may create unpredicted and potentially dangerous side
effects.
A January 2001 report from an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada said it was
“scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe, and that the “default
prediction” for any GM foods is the creation of unintended side effects. They called for
safety testing, looking for short- and long-term human toxicity, allergenicity, and other health
effects.1
Unfortunately, there have only been about a dozen peer-reviewed animal feeding safety
studies. The most in-depth one showed evidence of damaged immune systems, digestive
problems, and excessive cell growth in rats fed an experimental GM potato. Rats also had
smaller brains, livers, and testicles. The scientists identified the process of genetic
modification as the probable cause—the same process used in creating most GM food on the
market.2 When the scientist went public with his findings, he was fired from his job after 35
years, and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. Unfortunately, no published study has yet tested
the GM food on the market to see if they create these same damaging effects in laboratory
animals or humans.
Rats fed the genetically modified FlavrSavr tomato developed stomach lesions. Seven of
forty rats died within two weeks. The crop was approved, but has since been taken off the
market.
The only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that the transgenes from soy burgers
and a soy milkshake transferred to the bacteria inside the digestive tract after only one meal,
making the bacteria resistant to herbicide.3 (The biotech industry had previously said that
such a transfer was impossible.) The World Health Organization, the British and American
Medical Associations, and several other groups have expressed concern that if the “antibiotic
resistant marker genes” used in GM foods got transferred to bacteria, it could create superdiseases that cannot be treated with antibiotics.4 Likewise, if the gene engineered in corn to create the Bt pesticide were to jump to bacteria, it might be transforming our gut bacteria into living pesticide factories. Would this be harmful? Mice fed the Bt pesticide developed immune responses equal to that created by cholera toxin.
Mice also had an adjuvant response, which can increase their susceptibility to allergies. Some
developed abnormal cell growth in their small intestines. Farm workers exposed to Bt
developed skin reactions and antibody responses in blood tests. Thirty-nine Philippinos living
next to a Bt cornfield developed skin, intestinal, and respiratory reactions while the corn was
pollinating. Preliminary tests of their blood showed an immune response to Bt.
If the promoter, inserted into DNA to keep the foreign gene permanently turned on, were to
transfer to human gut bacteria or internal organs, the results may be far more dangerous.
Promoters can unintentionally switch on other naturally occurring genes in the DNA, causing
them to pump out potentially toxic or allergenic proteins. They may also create a “hotspot,” a
point of genetic instability that can wreak havoc on DNA structure and function. Some
scientists believe that promoters might switch on dormant viruses that have become
embedded within the DNA, or might even generate uncontrolled cell growth that could
theoretically lead to cancer. (Evidence of cell growth was discovered in three of the published
animal feeding studies on GM foods.) On February 22, the Norwegian Institute for Gene
Ecology announced the sobering news that intact promoters were found in rat tissue two
hours, six hours, and three days after rats were fed a single meal with GM material. They also
verified that the promoter does work inside human DNA, in vitro.
In the 1980’s a deadly epidemic was traced to the food supplement L-tryptophan, created
from genetically modified bacteria. About 100 Americans died and an estimated 5-10,000 fell
sick—some were permanently disabled. Biotech proponents successfully diverted the blame
away from genetic engineering by attributing the disease to changes in the filtration system at
the factory. It is now known, however, that hundreds had contracted the disease from
genetically modified versions of L-tryptophan created during the four years prior to the
change in the filter. The disease created by the contaminated L-tryptophan was acute, rare, and came on quickly. If all three of these characteristics had not been present, it is unlikely that doctors would have identified the supplement as the cause; it might still be on the market. This begs the question, Are there other genetically modified products on the market creating serous health problems that are not being traced?
According to a March 2001 report, the Center for Disease Control says that food is
responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the U.S. compared to estimates just seven
years earlier. This increase roughly corresponds to the period when Americans have been
eating lots of newly introduced GM foods. Could that be contributing to the 5,000 deaths,
325,000 hospitalizations, and 76 million illnesses related to food each year? It’s hard to say
since there is no monitoring in place.
In the UK—one of the few places that do annual evaluations of allergy statistics— soy
allergies skyrocketed by 50% just after GM soy was imported for the first time from the
United States.5 This might have resulted from the increased amount of the most common soy
allergen, trypsin inhibitor, in the genetically modified Roundup Ready® soy6 or perhaps from
the protein in that soy that has never before been part of the human food supply.
Rats fed GM soy showed odd shaped cell nuclei in their livers. Rats fed GM canola had livers
that were 15% heavier, and rats fed GM corn had several unexplained anomalies. Pigs fed
GM corn on more than twenty farms in the Midwest developed false pregnancies and other
reproductive problems. Twelve cows fed GM corn mysteriously died in Germany. And
eyewitness reports from all over North American describe how several types of animals,
including cows, pigs, geese, elk, deer, squirrels, and rats, when given a choice, avoid eating
GM foods. Milk and dairy products from cows treated with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (bGH) milk contain an increased amount of the hormone IGF-1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with breast7 and prostate cancer.8
One of the most dangerous aspects of genetic engineering is the closed thinking and
consistent effort to silence those with contrary evidence or concerns. Just before stepping
down from office, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman admitted the following:
“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was
good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve
the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was
a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re
stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost
an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view”9
Contrast this with the warning by the editors of Nature Biotechnology: “The risks in
biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce.
It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or
foolhardy behavior.”10
In spite of such warnings and the mounting evidence of potential dangers, the United States
Food and Drug Administration claims that GM foods are no different and do not require
safety testing. A manufacturer can introduce a GM food without even informing the
government or consumers. Internal FDA documents made public from a lawsuit, however,
reveal that agency scientists warned that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional
problems, and new diseases that might be difficult to identify. They insisted that each GM
variety should be subjected to long-term safety tests before being allowed on the market.
How could the agency ignore their own scientists and put such a dangerous industry-friendly
policy in place? One hint was that a former attorney to the biotech giant Monsanto was in
charge of FDA policy making. Another hint comes from a memo by former FDA
Commissioner David Kessler, who described the agency’s policy as “consistent with the
general biotechnology policy established by the Office of the President.” He said, “It also
responds to White House interest in assuring the safe, speedy development of the U.S.
biotechnology industry.”11
Thus, the biotech companies themselves determine if their own foods are safe. While they
voluntarily submit studies, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, they
contain “technical shortcomings in the safety data . . . as well as some obvious errors that the
FDA failed to detect.” 12 There are also a handful of published industry-sponsored studies.
But many scientists describe these as “designed to avoid finding any problems.”13,14 With
soybean research, for example, serious nutritional differences between GM and natural soy
were omitted from a published paper. Feeding studies masked any problems by using mature
animals instead of young ones and by diluting their GM soy 10 to 1 with non-GM protein. A
laboratory was instructed to use an obsolete and less precise method to detect phytoestrogens.
Milk was pasteurized 120 times longer than normal and corn was heated four and a half times
longer. GM corn would not pass the FAO/WHO recommended tests designed to prevent
allergenic GM crops from getting on the market.
Many of the key assumptions used as the basis for industry and government safety claims
have been proven wrong or remain untested. Although they continue to promote the myth
that GM foods are needed to feed the world, according to United Nations food production
statistics, this is not true.15 Furthermore, GM crops increase reliance on agricultural
chemicals16 and actually reduce average yields17. And the economic impact from growing
GM crops has been a disaster. A close examination of the data provides a compelling case
why these foods should never have been approved, and why eating them is gambling with
your health. Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating. Smith is also on the national Genetic Engineering Committee of the Sierra Club, on the Steering Committee of the Genetic Engineering
Action Network (GEAN), on the Advisory Board of the Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, and is the founding director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. More information is available at www.seedsofdeception.com.
1 “Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology,” January, 2001:
http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf
2 John Vidal, “GM genes found in human gut,” The Guardian, July 17, 2002:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,756666,00.html
3 “The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health,” BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Board of Science and Education, May 1999.
4 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 (Also see data taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
5 Mark Townsend, “Why soya is a hidden destroyer,” Daily Express, March 12, 1999.
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 (Also see data taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
7 S. E. Hankinson, and others, “Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth
factor 1 and risk of breast cancer,” Lancet, vol. 351, no. 9113, 1998, pp. 1393-1396.
8 June M. Chan and others, “Plasma Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 [IGF-1] and
Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Study,” Science, vol. 279, January 23, 1998,
pp. 563-566.
9 Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Café, p. 139.
10 “Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology,” January, 2001:
http://wwww.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GmreportEN.pdf
11 David Kessler, “FDA Proposed Statement of Policy Clarifying the Regulation of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Plants—DECISION,” March 20, 1992, www.biointegrity.org.
12 “Plugging The Holes in Biotech Food Safety,” Center for Science in the Public Interest, Press Release, January 7 2003.
13 Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Trust Us We’re Experts, Jeremy P. Tarcher/ Putnam, New York, 2001, p154
14 Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA, 2003, pp. 34-38.
15 “Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology,” January, 2001:
http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf
16 Charles Benbrook, “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Eight Years,” BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 6, November 2003, http://www.biotech-info.net/Technical_Paper_6.pdf.
17 Charles Benbrook, “Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998,” Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1, July 13, 1999:
http://www.biotech-info.net/RR_yield_drag_98.pdf.