The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.
For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.organics4U.org
Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies
Part 2: Genetically Engineered Corn
By Jeffrey M. Smith
The biotech industry is fond of saying that they offer genetically modified (GM) crops that resist pests. This might conjure up the image of insects staying away from GM crop fields. But “resisting pests” is just a euphemism for contains its own built-in pesticide. When bugs take a bite of the GM plant, the toxin splits open their stomach and kills them.
The idea that we consume that same toxic pesticide in every bite is hardly appetizing. But the biotech companies and the Environmental Protection Agency—which regulates plant produced pesticides—tell us not to worry. They contend that the pesticide called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is produced naturally from a soil bacterium and has a history of safe use. Organic farmers, for example, have used solutions containing the natural bacteria for years as a method of insect control. Genetic engineers simply remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and then insert it into the DNA of corn and cotton plants, so that the plant does the work, not the farmer. Moreover, they say that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in our stomach; and even if it survived, since humans and other mammals have no receptors for the toxin, it would not interact with us in any case.
These arguments, however, are just that—unsupported assumptions. Research tells a different story.
Bt spray is dangerous to humans
When natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room for allergies or asthma.[1],[2] Workers who applied Bt sprays reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritation,[3] and some showed an antibody immune response in linked to Bt.[4] Farmers exposed to liquid Bt formulations had reactions including infection, an ulcer on the cornea,[5] skin irritation, burning, swelling, and redness.[6] One woman who was accidentally sprayed with Bt also developed fever, altered consciousness, and seizures.[7]
In fact, authorities have long acknowledged that “People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”[8] The Oregon Health Division advises that “individuals with . . . physician-diagnosed causes of severe immune disorders may consider leaving the area during the actual spraying.”[9] A spray manufacturer warns, “Repeated exposure via inhalation can result in sensitization and allergic response in hypersensitive individuals.”[10] So much for the contention that Bt does not interact with humans.
As for being thoroughly destroyed in the digestive system, mouse studies disproved this as well. Mice fed Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses—as potent as cholera toxin. In addition, the Bt caused their immune system to become sensitive to formerly harmless compounds This suggests that exposure might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.[11],[12] The EPA’s own expert advisors said that the mouse and farm worker studies above “suggest that Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources.”[13]
The toxin in GM plants is more dangerous than natural sprays
The Bt-toxin produced in GM crops is “vastly different from the bacterial [Bt-toxins] used in organic and traditional farming and forestry.”[14] First of all, GM plants produce about 3,000-5,000 times the amount of toxin as the sprays. And the spray form is broken down within a few days to two weeks by sunlight,[15] high temperatures, or substances on the leaves of plants; and it can be “washed from leaves into the soil by rainfall,”[16] or rinsed by consumers. A Bt producing GM plant, on the other hand, continuously produces the toxin in every cell where it does not dissipate by weather and cannot be washed off.
The natural toxic produced in bacteria is inactive until it gets inside the alkaline digestive tract of an insect. Once inside, a “safety catch” is removed and the Bt becomes toxic. But scientists change the sequence the Bt gene before inserting it into GM plants. The Bt toxin it produces usually comes without the safety catch. The plant-produced Bt toxin is always active and more likely to trigger an immune response than the natural variety.[17]
Bt-toxin fails safety studies but is used nonetheless
Tests cannot verify that a GM protein introduced into the food supply for the first time will not cause allergies in some people. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) offer criteria designed to reduce the likelihood that allergenic GM crops are approved.[18] They suggest examining a protein for 1) similarity of its amino acid sequence to known allergens, 2) digestive stability and 3) heat stability. These properties aren’t predictive of allergenicity, but their presence, according to experts, should be sufficient to reject the GM crop or at least require more testing. The Bt-toxin produced in GM corn fails all three criteria.
For example, the specific Bt-toxin found in Monsanto’s Yield Guard and Syngenta’s Bt 11 corn varieties is called Cry1AB. In 1998, an FDA researcher discovered that Cry1Ab shared a sequence of 9-12 amino acids with vitellogenin, an egg yolk allergen. The study concluded that “the similarity . . . might be sufficient to warrant additional evaluation.”[19] No additional evaluation took place.[20]
Cry1Ab is also very resistant to digestion and heat.[21] It is nearly as stable as the type of Bt-toxin produced by StarLink corn. StarLink was a GM variety not approved for human consumption because experts believed that its highly stable protein might trigger allergies.[22] Although it was grown for use in animal feed, it contaminated the US food supply in 2000. Thousands of consumers complained to food manufacturers about possible reactions and over 300 items were subject to recall. After the StarLink incident, expert advisors to the EPA had called for “surveillance and clinical assessment of exposed individuals” to “confirm the allergenicity of Bt products.”[23] Again, no such monitoring has taken place.
Bt cotton triggers allergic reactions
A 2005 report by medical investigators in India describes an ominous finding. Hundreds of agricultural workers are developing moderate or severe allergic reactions when exposed to Bt cotton. This includes those picking cotton, loading it, cleaning it, or even leaning against it. Some at a ginning factory must take antihistamines daily, in order to go to work. Reactions are only triggered with the Bt varieties.[24] Furthermore, the symptoms are virtually identical to those described by the 500 people in Vancouver and Washington who were sprayed with Bt. Only “exacerbations of asthma” were in one list and not the other (see table).
Upper respiratory
Eyes
Skin
Overall
Bt Spray
Sneezing,
runny nose,
exacerbations of asthma
Watery,
red
Itching, burning, inflammation, red, swelling
Fever,
some in hospital
Bt cotton
Sneezing,
runny nose
Watery,
red
Itching, burning, eruptions,
red, swelling
Fever,
some in hospital
(We are unaware of similar reports in the US, where 83% of the cotton is Bt. But in the US, cotton is harvested by machine, not by hand.)
The experience of the Indian workers begs the question, “How long does the Bt-toxin stay active in the cotton?” It there any risk using cotton diapers, tampons, or bandages? In the latter case, if the Bt-toxin interfered with healing it could be a disaster. With diabetics, for example, unhealed wounds may be cause for amputation.
Cottonseed is also used for cottonseed oil—used in many processed foods in the US. The normal methods used to extract oil likely destroy the toxin, although cold pressed oil may still retain some of it. Other parts of the cotton plant, however, are routinely used as animal feed. The next part of this series—focused on toxicity—presents evidence of disease and deaths associated with animals consuming Bt cotton plants.
Bt corn pollen may cause allergies
Bt-toxin is produced in GM corn and can be eaten intact. It is also in pollen, which can be breathed in. In 2003, during the time when an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating, virtually an entire Filipino village of about 100 people were stricken by a disease. The symptoms included headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever and allergies, as well as respiratory, intestinal, and skin reactions. The symptoms appeared first in those living closest to the field, and then progressed to others by proximity. Blood samples from 39 individuals showed antibodies in response to Bt-toxin; this supports, but does not prove a link to the symptoms. When the same corn was planted in four other villages the following year, however, the symptoms returned in all four areas—only during the time of pollination.
The potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had been identified in a letter to the US FDA in 1998 by the UK Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. They had even warned that genes from inhaled pollen might transfer into the DNA of bacteria in the respiratory system.[25] Although no studies were done to verify this risk, years later UK scientists confirmed that after consuming GM soybeans, the foreign inserted genes can transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria. If this also happens with Bt genes, than years after we decide to stop eating GM corn chips, our own gut bacteria may continue to produce Bt-toxin within our intestines.
Studies show immune responses to GM crops
Studies confirm that several GM crops engineered to produce built-in pesticides provoke immune responses in animals. A Monsanto rat study on Bt corn (Mon 863), that was made public due to a lawsuit, showed a significant increase in three types of blood cells related to the immune system: basophils, lymphocytes, and total white cell counts.[26]
Australian scientists took an insecticide producing gene (not Bt) from a kidney bean and put it into a pea, in hopes of killing the pea weevil. The peas had passed the tests normally used to approve GM crops and were on the way to being commercialized. But the developers decided to employ a mouse study that had never before been used on other GM food crops. When they tested the pesticide in its natural state, i.e. the version produced within kidney beans, the protein was not harmful to mice. But that “same” protein, when produced by the kidney bean gene that was inserted into pea DNA, triggered inflammatory responses in the mice, suggesting that it would cause allergies in humans. Somehow, the protein had been changed from harmless to potentially deadly, just by being created in a different plant. Scientists believe that subtle, unpredicted changes in the pattern of sugar molecules that were attached to the protein were the cause of the problem. These types of subtle changes are not routinely analyzed in GM crops on the market.
Experimental potatoes engineered with a third type of insecticide caused immune damage to rats.[27] Blood tests showed that their immune responses were more sluggish, and organs associated with immune function also appeared to be damaged. As with the peas, the insecticide in its natural state was harmless to the rats. The cause of the health problems was therefore due to some unpredicted change brought about by the genetic engineering process. And like the peas, if the potatoes had been subjected to only the type of tests that are typically used by biotech companies to get their foods on the market, the potatoes would have been approved.
Allergic reactions are a defensive, often harmful immune system response to an external irritant. The body interprets something as foreign, different and offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. According to GM food safety expert Arpad Pusztai, “A consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished, . . . indicates major problems with changes in the immune status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods.” [28]
In addition to immune responses, several studies and reports from the field provide evidence that GM foods are toxic. In the next article in this series, we look at thousands of sick, sterile and dead animals, linked to consumption of GM crops.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the new publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.
[1] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
[2] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.
[3] M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, “Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray” (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992).
[4] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,” (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, “Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),” Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).
[5] J. R. Samples, and H. Buettner, “Ocular infection caused by a biological insecticide,” J. Infectious Dis. 148, no. 3 (1983): 614; as reported in Carrie Swadener, “Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)”, Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994)
[6] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health, 80, no. 7 (1990): 848–852.
[7] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,” (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, “Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),” Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).
[8] Carrie Swadener, “Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),” Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994).
[9] Health effects of B.t.: Report of surveillance in Oregon, 1985-87.
Precautions to minimize your exposure (Salem, OR: Oregon Department
of Human Resources, Health Division, April 18, 1991).
[10] Material Safety Data Sheet for Foray 48B Flowable Concentrate (Danbury, CT: Novo Nordisk, February, 1991).
[11] Vazquez et al, “Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice,” Life Sciences, 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897–1912; Vazquez et al, “Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,” Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147–155.
[12] Vazquez et al, “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,” Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
[13] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76. Available at:http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf
[14] Terje Traavik and Jack Heinemann, “Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research: Still No Answers to Ageing Questions, 2006. Cited in their quote was: G. Stotzky, “Release, persistence, and biological activity in soil of insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis,” found in Deborah K. Letourneau and Beth E. Burrows, Genetically Engineered Organisms. Assessing Environmental and Human Health Effects (cBoca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC, 2002), 187–222.
[15] C. M. Ignoffo, and C. Garcial, “UV-photoinactivation of cells and spores of Bacillus thuringiensis and effects of peroxidase on inactivation,” Environmental Entomology 7 (1978): 270–272.
[16] BT: An Alternative to Chemical Pesticides, Environmental Protection Division, Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia, Canada, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/ipmp/fact_sheets/BTfacts.htm
[17] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
[18] FAO-WHO, “Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology,” Jan. 22–25, 2001; http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf
[19] Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.
[20] US EPA, “Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD)—Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human Health Assessment,” EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf
[21] US EPA, “Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD)—Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human Health Assessment,” EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf
[22] “Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn,” FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Report No. 2001-09, July 2001.
[23] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf
[24] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
[25] N. Tomlinson of UK MAFF’s Joint Food Safety and Standards Group 4, December 1998 letter to the U.S. FDA, commenting on its draft document, “Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants,” http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp1998.pdf; (see pages 64–68).
[26] John M. Burns, “13-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,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf, see also Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; and Jeffrey M. Smith, “Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up,” Spilling the Beans, June 2005, http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExposed/index.cfm
[27] A. Pusztai, et al, “Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects,” in: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D’Mello) (Wallingford Oxon, UK: CAB International), 347–372, also additional communication with Arpad Pusztai.
[28] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.
For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.organics4U.orgProtect Yourself from Genetically Engineered Foods
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
In a study in the early 1990’s rats were fed genetically modified (GM) tomatoes. Well actually, the rats refused to eat them. They were force-fed. Several of the rats developed stomach lesions and seven out of forty died within two weeks.1 Scientists at the FDA who reviewed the study agreed that it did not provide a “demonstration of reasonable certainty of no harm.†In fact, agency scientists warned that GM foods in general might create unpredicted allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems. Internal FDA memos made public from a lawsuit reveal that the scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safety testing to catch these hard-to-detect side effects.2 But FDA political appointees, including a former attorney for Monsanto in charge of policy, ignored the scientists’ warnings. The FDA does not require safety studies. Instead, if the makers of the GM foods claim that they are safe, the agency has no further questions. The GM tomato was approved in 1994.
According to a July 27, 2004 report from the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS),3 the current system of blanket approval of GM foods by the FDA might not detect “unintended changes in the composition of the food.†The process of gene insertion, according to the NAS, could damage the host’s DNA with unpredicted consequences. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), which released its findings a few days earlier, identified a long list of potentially dangerous side effects from GM foods that are not being evaluated. The ICMR called for a complete overhaul of existing regulations.4
The safety studies conducted by the biotech industry are often dismissed by critics as superficial and designed to avoid finding problems. Tragically, scientists who voice their criticism, as well as those who have discovered incriminating evidence, have been threatened, stripped of responsibilities, denied funding or tenure, or fired.5 For example, a UK government-funded study demonstrated that rats fed a GM potato developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth,6 damaged immune systems, partial atrophy of the liver, and inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles.7 When the lead scientist went public with his concerns, he was promptly fired from his job after 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit.
Americans eat genetically modified foods everyday. Although the GM tomato has been taken off the market, millions of acres of soy, corn, canola, and cotton have had foreign genes inserted into their DNA. The new genes allow the crops to survive applications of herbicide, create their own pesticide, or both. While there are only a handful of published animal safety studies, mounting evidence, which needs to be followed up, suggests that these foods are not safe.
Rats fed GM corn had problems with blood cell, kidney and liver formation.8 Mice fed GM soy had problems with liver cell formation9 and pancreatic function,10 and the livers of rats fed GM canola were heavier.11 Pigs fed GM corn on several Midwest farms developed false pregnancies or sterility.12 Cows fed GM corn in Germany died mysteriously. And twice the number of chickens died when fed GM corn compared to those fed natural corn.13
Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent.14 Without follow-up tests, we can’t be sure if genetic engineering was the cause, but there are plenty of ways in which genetic manipulation can boost allergies.
A gene from a Brazil nut inserted into soybeans made the soy allergenic to those who normally react to Brazil nuts.15
GM soy currently consumed in the US contains a gene from bacteria. The inserted gene creates a protein that was never before part of the human food supply, and might be allergenic.
• Sections of that protein are identical to those found in shrimp and dust mite allergens.16 According to criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), this fact should have disqualified GM soy from approval.
• The sequence of the gene that was inserted into soy has inexplicably rearranged over time.17 The protein it creates is likely to be different than the one intended, and was never subject to any safety studies. It may be allergenic or toxic.
• The process of inserting the foreign gene damaged a section of the soy’s own DNA, scrambling its genetic code.18 This mutation might interfere with DNA expression or create a new, potentially dangerous protein.
• The most common allergen in soy is called trypsin inhibitor. GM soy contains significantly more of this compared with natural soy.19
The only human feeding study ever conducted showed that the gene inserted into soybeans spontaneously transferred out of food and into the DNA of gut bacteria.20 This has several serious implications. First, it means that the bacteria inside our intestines, newly equipped with this foreign gene, may create the novel protein inside of us. If it is allergenic or toxic, it may affect us for the long term, even if we give up eating GM soy.
The same study verified that the promoter, which scientists attach to the inserted gene to permanently switch it on, also transferred to gut bacteria. Research on this promoter suggests that it might unintentionally switch on other genes in the DNA—permanently.21 This could create an overproduction of allergens, toxins, carcinogens, or antinutrients. Scientists also theorize that the promoter might switch on dormant viruses embedded in the DNA or generate mutations.22
Unfortunately, gene transfer from GM food might not be limited to our gut bacteria. Preliminary results show that the promoter also transferred into rat organs, after they were fed only a single GM meal.23
This is only a partial list of what may go wrong with a single GM food crop. The list for others may be longer. Take for example, the corn inserted with a gene that creates its own pesticide. We eat that pesticide, and plenty of evidence suggests that it is not as benign as the biotech proponents would have us believe. Preliminary evidence, for example, shows that thirty-nine Philippinos living next to a pesticide-producing cornfield developed skin, intestinal, and respiratory reactions while the corn was pollinating. Tests of their blood also showed an immune response to the pesticide.24 Consider what might happen if the gene that produces the pesticide were to transfer from the corn we eat into our gut bacteria. It could theoretically transform our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.
GM corn and most GM crops are also inserted with antibiotic resistant genes. The ICMR, along with the American Medical Association, the WHO, and organizations worldwide, have expressed concern about the possibility that these might transfer to pathogenic bacteria inside our gut. They are afraid that it might create new, antibiotic resistant super-diseases. The defense that the biotech industry used to counter these fears was that the DNA was fully destroyed during digestion and therefore no such transfer of genes was possible. The human feeding study described above, published in February 2004, overturned this baseless assumption.
No one monitors human health impacts of GM foods. If the foods were creating health problems in the US population, it might take years or decades before we identified the cause. One epidemic in the 1980’s provides a chilling example. A new disease was caused by a brand of the food supplement L-tryptophan, which had been created through genetic modification and contained tiny traces of contaminants. The disease killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness or disability in about 5-10,000 others.25 The only reason that doctors were able to identify that an epidemic was occurring, was because the disease had three simultaneous characteristics: it was rare, acute, and fast acting. Even then it was nearly missed entirely.
Studies show that the more people learn about GM foods, the less they trust them.26 In Europe, Japan, and other regions, the press has been far more open about the potential dangers of genetic manipulation. Consequently, consumers there demand that their food supply be GM-free and manufacturers comply. But in the US, most people believe they have never eaten a GM food in their lives27 (even though they consume them daily). Lacking awareness, complacent consumers have been the key asset for the biotech industry in the US. As a result, millions of Americans are exposed to the potential dangers, and children are most at risk. Perhaps the revelations in the reports released on opposite sides of the planet will awaken consumers as well as regulators, and GM foods on the market will be withdrawn.
This is the first in a series of articles by Jeffrey Smith. To learn more about GM foods and how to avoid them, to download a letter to food manufacturers, and to receive a free monthly electronic newsletter with the rest of the series, go to www.seedsofdeception.com.
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, and the Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. He has traveled to five continents to inform world leaders and the public on the documented risks of genetically modified foods and crops and the controversies surrounding their approval. See www.seedsofdeception.com for the current tour schedule.
(References available at www.seedsofdeception.com)
© Copyright 2004 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part.
References
1. Pusztai, A. et al. (2003) Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. In: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D’Mello) pp. 347-372. CAB International, Wallingford Oxon, UK
2. www.biointegrity.org
3. SAFETY OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS: APPROACHES TO ASSESSING UNINTENDED HEALTH EFFECTS, Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS, Washington, D.C., 2004
4. Ashok B. Sharma, “ICMR Wants Overhaul Of GM Foods Regulation,†Financial Express, New Delhi, India July 25, 2004
5. Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Iowa, US, 2003
6. Ewen, SWB & Pusztai, A. (1999) Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354, 1727-1728.
7. Personal communication with Arpad Pusztai.
8. French experts very disturbed by health effects of Monsanto GM corn (24/4/2004), www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3308, Translation of Le Monde article “L’expertise confidentielle sur un inquiétant maïs transgénique,†Confidential report on a worrying GM corn by Herve Kempf, 22.04.04, www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-362061,0.html. Also see Spilling the Beans, June 2005, www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExposed/index.cfm
9. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, et al “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean”. Cell Structure and Function Vol. 27 (2002), No. 4, pp. 173-18. www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3622
10. Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy, Volume 201 Issue 5 p. 409, November 2002
11. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Advice on a notification for marketing of herbicide tolerant GM oilseed rape, www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice36.pdf
12. www.savejerryscorn.org/
13. Report for the Chardon LL Hearing, Non-Suitability of Genetically Engineered Feed for Animals, Dr. Eva Novotny, Scientists for Global Responsibility, May 2002, www.sgr.org.uk/GenEng/animalfeel_all.pdf
14. Mark Townsend, “Why soya is a hidden destroyer,†Daily Express, March 12, 1999
15. J Ordlee, et al, “Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans,†The New Englandd Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1996
16. G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg, “Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens,†BMC Structural Biology, vol. 2, 2002, p. 8-19
17. Mae-Wan Ho, Transgenic Lines Proven Unstable, www.i-sis.org.uk/TLPU.php about Collonier C, et al, Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster courtesy of Pr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org
18. 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
19. 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 (Data was taken from the journal archives, as they had been omitted from the published study. It was reported by Barbara Keeler and Marc Lappé, “Some Food for FDA Regulation,†Los Angeles Times, January 7, 2001)
20. Netherwood, et al, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number 2 February 2004.
21. Michael Hansen, “Possible Human Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Bt Crops: Comments on the human health and product characterization sections of EPA’s Bt Plant-Pesticides Biopesticides Registration Action Document,†Presented to the EPA Science Advisory Panel Arlington, VA, October 20, 2000
22. Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan and Joe Cummins, “Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter—A Recipe for Disaster?†Institute of Science in Society, www.i-sis.org.uk/camvrecdis.php
23. Jeffrey M. Smith, The cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) promoter was found intact in rat tissues after a single meal, and was also confirmed to be active in human cells, Press Release, February 2004, www.seedsofdeception.com/Media-rattissue.php
24. Jeffrey M. Smith, Bt-maize (corn) during pollination, may trigger disease in people living near the cornfield, Press Release February 2004, www.seedsofdeception.com/Media-maizepollen.php and Allen V. Estabillo, Farmer’s group urges ban on planting Bt corn; says it could be cause of illnesses, Mindanews / 19 October 2004, www.seedsofdeception.com/Media-update-Philippines-BT-corn.php
25. Jeffrey M. Smith, “Deadly Epidemic,†Chapter 4 in Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Iowa, US, 2003
26. GM Nation? The findings of the public debate, www.gmnation.org.uk/ut_09/ut_9_6.htm#summary
27. Public Sentiment About Genetically Modified Food, September 2003 Update, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, http://pewagbiotech.org/research/2003update
The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.
For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.organics4U.org
Unintended GMO Health Risks
Genetically modified foods:
YES, you are already eating them.
NO, they are not safe to eat.
Did you know… since 1996 Americans have been eating genetically modified (GM) ingredients in most processed foods.
Did you know… GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. And the inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and viruses, that have never been in the human food supply.
Did you know… genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not safe. They have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergenic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals.
Find out what the risks are and start protecting yourself and your family today!
Why isn’t the FDA protecting us?
In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown foods and therefore were safe to eat. But internal memos made public by a lawsuit reveal that their position was staged by political appointees under orders from the White House to promote GMOs. FDA scientists, on the other hand, warned that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long term safety studies, but were ignored.[1] The FDA does not require any safety evaluations for GMOs. Instead, biotech companies, who have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products, are now in charge of determining whether their GM foods are safe. (The FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney and later their vice president.)
Although these biotech companies participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, it is a meaningless exercise. The summaries of the superficial research they submit cannot identify most of the health risks of GMOs.[2]
Genetic modification is radically different from natural breeding
In contrast to the statements of biotech advocates, FDA scientists and others affirm that genetic modification is not just an extension of the conventional breeding techniques that have been used by farmers for millennia. Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers, using imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding. Furthermore, the technology is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.[3]
Widespread, unpredictable changes
Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a “gene gun†into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant. These processes create massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant’s DNA.[4] Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of expression.[5]
In addition:
*
The inserted gene is often rearranged;[6]
* It may transfer from the food into our body’s cells or into the DNA of bacteria inside us;[7] and
* The GM protein produced by the gene may have unintended properties or effects.
GM foods on the market
The primary reason companies genetically engineer plants is to make them tolerant to their brand of herbicide. The four major GM plants, soy, corn, canola, and cotton, are designed to survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed killer. These crops have much higher residues of toxic herbicides. About 68% of GM crops are herbicide tolerant.
The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide. A gene from the soil bacterium called Bt (for Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted into corn and cotton DNA, where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. About 19% of GM crops produce their own pesticide. Another 13% produce a pesticide and are herbicide tolerant.
There is also Hawaiian papaya and a small amount of zucchini and yellow crookneck squash, which are engineered to resist a plant virus. Help stop the introduction of GM sugar in late 2008. Send a letter to top companies on our website.
Growing evidence of harm from GMOs
GM soy and allergic reactions
* Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced.[8]
* A human subject showed a skin prick allergic-type reaction to GM soy, but not to natural soy.[9]
* The level of one known soy allergen is as much as 7-times higher in cooked GM soy compared to non-GM soy.[10]
* GM soy also contains an unexpected allergen-type protein not found in natural soy.[11]
Bt corn and cotton linked to allergies
The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to Bt spray had allergic-type symptoms,[12] and mice fed Bt had powerful immune responses[13] and damaged intestines.[14] Moreover, Bt in GM crops is designed to be more toxic than the natural spray and is thousands of times more concentrated.
Hundreds of laborers in India report allergic reactions from handling Bt cotton.[15] Their symptoms are identical to those exposed to Bt spray.[16]
GMOs fail allergy tests
No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a protein screening protocol,[17] the GM soy, corn, and papaya in our food supply fail those tests— because they have properties of known allergens.[18]
GMOs cause immune reactions to non-GM foods
* If proteins “digest†slowly, there is more time for allergic reactions. Because GM soy reduces digestive enzymes in mice,[19] it may slow protein digestion and promote allergies to many foods.
* Mice not only reacted to Bt -toxin, they had immune responses to formerly harmless compounds.[20]
* Similarly, a mouse test indicated that people eating GM peas could develop allergies both to the peas and to a range of other foods. The peas had already passed all the allergy tests normally used to get GMOs on the market. It took this advanced mouse test, which was never used on the GMOs we eat, to discover that the peas could be deadly.[21]
GMOs and liver problems
* Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers.[22]
* The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier.[23]
* GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult.[24] The changes reversed after their diet switched to non-GM soy.[25]
GM soy, reproductive problems, and infant mortality
* More than half the offspring of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.[26]
* Male rats[27] and mice[28] fed GM soy showed changes in their testicles; the mice had altered young sperm cells.
* The DNA of mouse embryos whose parents ate GM soy functioned differently than those whose parents ate non-GM soy.[29]
Many offspring of female rats fed GM soy were considerably
smaller,and more than half died within three weeks (compared
to 10% of the non-GM soy controls). [30]
Bt crops linked to sterility, disease, and death
* When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within a week 1 in 4 died. Shepherds estimate 10,000 sheep deaths in one region of India.[31]
* Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.[32]
* About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.[33]
* Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.[34]
The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may be a precursor to cancer. Rats also had damaged organs and immune systems.[35]
Functioning GM genes remain inside you
Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment verified that genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and continues to function.[36] This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us.
* If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics.
* If the gene that creates Bt -toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.
* Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into the fetus.[37]
GM food supplement caused deadly epidemic
In the 1980s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000-10,000 people. The source of contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production.[38] The disease took years to find and was almost overlooked. It was only identified because the symptoms were unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were not in place, the deadly GM supplement might never have been identified or removed.
If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source of the problem for decades, if at all. There is no monitoring of GMO-related problems and no long-term animal studies. Heavily invested biotech corporations are gambling away the health of our nation for profit.
Help end the genetic engineering of our food supply
When the tipping point of consumer concern about GMOs was achieved in Europe in 1999, within a single week virtually all major food manufacturers committed to remove GM ingredients. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to reach a similar tipping point in the US before the end of 2009.
Our growing network of manufacturers, retailers, healthcare practitioners, organizations, and the media, is informing consumers of the health risks of GMOs and helping them select healthier non-GMO alternatives.
Go to www.responsibletechnology.org to get involved and learn how to avoid GMOs. Look for our Non-GMO Shopping Guide in summer 2008.
Start buying non-GMO today.
Help us stop the genetic engineering of our food supply.
Donations to the Institute For Responsible Technology are tax-deductible. Your $25 membership includes a free educational gift.
There are three ways to become a member or make a donation:
1.
By mail: Institute For Responsible Technology, P.O. Box 469, Fairfield, IA 52556
2.
Online: www.responsibletechnology.org
3.
By phone: (641) 209-1765
The health information is from the book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risk of Genetically Engineered Foods, by Jeffrey M. Smith.
© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2008. The Institute is a fully tax deductible project of The Coordinating Council, a 501c(3).
[1] See www.biointegrity.org
[2] See Part 2, Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
[3] See for example 233-236, chart of disproved assumptions, in Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
[4] J. R. Latham, et al., “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,†The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376: 1-7; see also Allison Wilson, et. al., “Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications,†Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews – Vol. 23, December 2006.
[5] Srivastava, et al, “Pharmacogenomics of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and the cystic fibrosis drug CPX using genome microarray analysis,†Mol Med. 5, no. 11(Nov 1999):753–67.
[6] Latham et al, “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation, Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006:1-7, article ID 25376, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/JBB/index.html; Draft risk analysis report application A378, Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77 (GTSB77),†ANZFA, March 7, 2001, www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/anzfa_gtsb77.pdf; E. Levine et al., “Molecular Characterization of Insect Protected Corn Line MON 810.†Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by Monsanto, EPA MRID No. 436655-01C (1995); Allison Wilson, PhD, Jonathan Latham, PhD, and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD, “Genome Scrambling—Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants Technical Report—October 2004,†www.econexus.info; C. Collonier, G. Berthier, F. Boyer, M. N. Duplan, S. Fernandez, N. Kebdani, A. Kobilinsky, M. Romanuk, Y. Bertheau, “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
[7] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,†Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2; Chowdhury, et al, “Detection of genetically modified maize DNA fragments in the intestinal contents of pigs fed StarLink CBH351,†Vet Hum Toxicol. 45 , no. 2 (March 2003): 95–6; P. A. Chambers, et al, “The fate of antibiotic resistance marker genes in transgenic plant feed material fed to chickens,†J. Antimic. Chemother. 49 (2000): 161–164; and Paula S. Duggan, et al, “Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep,†Br J Nutr. 89, no 2 (Feb.2003): 159–66.
[8] Mark Townsend, “Why soya is a hidden destroyer,†Daily Express, March 12, 1999.
[9] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,†Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[10] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,†Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005.
[11] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,†Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,†Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852; and M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
[13] Vazquez et al, “Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice,†1897–1912; Vazquez et al, “Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,†Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147–155; and Vazquez et al, “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,†Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
[14] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,†Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219–233.
[15] See for example “Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; cattle dead,†Bhopal, Nov. 23, 2005, http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health;
[16] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),†Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005; and M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,†Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852; and M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
[17] FAO-WHO, “Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology,†Jan. 22–25, 2001; http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf
[18] Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,†Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62; G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg, “Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens,†BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002): 8–19; H. P. J. M. Noteborn, “Assessment of the Stability to Digestion and Bioavailability of the LYS Mutant Cry9C Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis serovar tolworthi,†Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05 (1998); and H. P. J. M. Noteborn et al, “Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes,†in Genetically modified foods: safety issues, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 605, eds. K.H. Engel et al., (Washington, DC, 1995): 134–47.
[19] M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,†Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385–388.
[20] Vazquez et al, “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,†Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
[21] V. E. Prescott, et al, “Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity,†Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005): 53.
[22] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,†Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84
[23] 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, “Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,†http://www.iher.org.au/
[24] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,†Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173–180.
[25] M. Malatesta, C. Tiberi, B. Baldelli, S. Battistelli, E. Manuali, M. Biggiogera, “Reversibility of Hepatocyte Nuclear Modifications in Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,†Eur J Histochem, 49 (2005): 237-242.
[26] I.V. Ermakova, “Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats,†14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006; “Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists’ studies,†REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html; Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,†Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[27] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,†Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[28] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,†European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
[29] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,†48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
[30] I.V. Ermakova, “Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats,†14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006; “Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists’ studies,†REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html; Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,†Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh†Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494
[32] Mae-Wan Ho, “GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines,†ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; and Mae-Wan Ho and Sam Burcher, “Cows Ate GM Maize & Died,†ISIS Press Release, January 13, 2004, http://www.isis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php
[33] Personal communication with Jerry Rosman and other farmers, 2006; also reported widely in the farm press.
[34] See for example Mae-Wan Ho, “GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines,†ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; “Study Result Not Final, Proof Bt Corn Harmful to Farmers,†BusinessWorld, 02 Mar 2004; and “Genetically Modified Crops and Illness Linked,†Manila Bulletin, 04 Mar 2004.
[35] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,†Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84; Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,†Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4; and Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,†Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany: Literaturhaus, 2005)
[36] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,†Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
[37] Ricarda A. Steinbrecher and Jonathan R. Latham, “Horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to unrelated organisms,†GM Science Review Meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on “GM Gene Flow: Scale and Consequences for Agriculture and the Environment,†January 27, 2003; Traavik and Heinemann, Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research; citing Schubbert, et al, “Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice,†Mol Gen Genet. 242, no. 5 (1994): 495–504; Schubbert et al, “Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral leukocytes, spleen, and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa and can be covalently linked to mouse DNA,†Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94, no. 3 (1997): 961–6; Schubbert et al, “On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus,†Mol Gen Genet. 259, no. 6 (1998): 569–76; Hohlweg and Doerfler, “On the fate of plants or other foreign genes upon the uptake in food or after intramuscular injection in mice,†Mol Genet Genomics 265 (2001): 225–233; Palka-Santani, et al., “The gastrointestinal tract as the portal of entry for foreign macromolecules: fate of DNA and proteins,†Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 201–215; Einspanier, et al, “The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals; a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material,†Eur Food Res Technol 212 (2001): 129–134; Klotz, et al, “Degradation and possible carry over of feed DNA monitored in pigs and poultry,†Eur Food Res Technol 214 (2002): 271–275; Forsman, et al, “Uptake of amplifiable fragments of retrotransposon DNA from the human alimentary tract,†Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 362–368; Chen, et al, “Transfection of mEpo gene to intestinal epithelium in vivo mediated by oral delivery of chitosan-DNA nanoparticles,†World Journal of Gastroenterology 10, no 1(2004): 112–116; Phipps, et al, “Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows,†J Dairy Sci. 86, no. 12(2003): 4070–8.
[38] William E. Crist, Toxic L-tryptophan: Shedding Light on a Mysterious Epidemic, http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm; and Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2003, chapter 4, Deadly Epidemic.
The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.
For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.organics4U.org
Correlation between GMOs and multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis—Ingrid Blank
“Instead of blaming multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis on patients and their alleged non-adherence to the prescribed drug regime, it would be prudent to investigate and eradicate the underlying cause for multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis and other drug and antibiotic resistant infectious diseases first – namely commercial gene technology!
The disaster unfolding on a global scale is exactly the reason why the first genetic engineers called for a moratorium in the Asilomar Declaration of 1975. For decades, reputable and ethical scientists such as Dr. Mae Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins have warned -substantiated by scientific evidence – that horizontal gene transfer, i.e. the transfer of genes by vectors (viruses and other infectious agents)designed to cross species barriers and thus enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, will result in the creation of superbugs and multi-drug resistant diseases. According to these eminent genetic researchers, strains of bacteria “crippled” in the laboratory can survive in the environment and exchange genes with other organisms. DNA from dead and living cells persists in the environment and transfers to other organisms. Naked viral DNA (virus without its viral coat)is even more infectious and may well be taken up by mammalian cells including our own! In addition, viral DNA has shown to resist digestion in the gut of mice, enters the blood stream to infect white blood cells, spleen and liver cells. One such virus most commonly used as a promoter in genetic engineering is the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV)which, due to its recombination hotspot, is prone to break and join with other DNA to integrate into the cell’s genome, which could activate host genes and lead to cancer. In addition, CaMV is closely related to the Hepatitis B and HIV virus and due to its ability to propagate in plant and insect hosts after recombination may also recombine with related Hepatitis B and HIV to create a most powerful disease in a large number of people consuming large numbers of virus genes incorporated into crop plants.
In the South African setting, the number of people at risk could not get any larger, since our government unilaterally decided without the peoples’ knowledge and above all prior CONSENT, to grow our staple food (white maize) in genetically modified form without adhering to the precautionary principle, thus violating our constitutional rights to a healthy environment and healthy food. For the reasons described above it is therefore imperative to demand immediate implementation of mandatory labeling of genetically modified food products in compliance with our constitutional rights of informed choice and consent, participation in decision-making processes and above all the individual’s right to bodily integrity, the latter being the most significant provision of the Nuremberg Code, which sets forth the legal requirements for human experimentation, i.e. ” voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”. Likewise, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares bodily integrity central to both human rights and human dignity and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights unmistakably declares that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation”. By deliberately ignoring the precautionary principle and refusing to implement mandatory labeling of GM products, this government allows its citizens to be used as guinea pigs, sacrificing the nation’s health for corporate greed.
There is no such thing as “substantial equivalence”. This phrase was coined by scientifically illiterate lawyers of the biotech industry and in 1992 written into law by H.W. Bush, who proclaimed GM plants to be “substantially equivalent” to their traditional counterparts and therefore did not need any special health safety study or testing. Ethical scientists and researchers consider this the biggest farce and fraud ever committed in the science field. Contrary to what the corporate yarn spinners of biotech companies want the public to believe, not one single human safety study has ever been conducted!
One does not need a PhD in genetics to see the correlation between GMOs and the sharp rise in HIV infections and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and other diseases.The decision-makers who keep violating our human right to bodily integrity by unleashing these toxins into our environment and food chain without our knowledge and consent must be held accountable.
Ingrid Blank/South Africa
The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.
For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.organics4U.org
Making the World GM-Free and Sustainable
http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/gm-free-sustainable.html
By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, director of the London-based Institute for Science in
Society (ISIS), (i-sis.org.uk) delivered this article as the keynote
address at Wise Traditions 2006, the 7th annual conference of the Weston A.
Price Foundation.
Genetically modified (GM) crops epitomize industrial monoculture, with its
worst features exaggerated. They are part and parcel of the “environmental
bubble economy,” built on the over-exploitation of natural resources, which
has destroyed the environment, depleted water and fossil fuels and
accelerated global warming. As a result, world grain yields have been
falling for six of the seven past years. Expanding the cultivation of GM
crops at this time is a recipe for global bio-devastation, massive crop
failures and global famine. GM crops are a dangerous diversion from the
urgent task of getting our food system sustainable in order to really feed
the world.
We possess a wealth of knowledge for making our food system sustainable and
for providing food security and health for all, while effectively
mitigating global warming. The greatest obstacle to implementing that
knowledge is the dominant economic model of unrestrained, unbalanced growth
that has precipitated the current crises.
I have proposed to put together all the appropriate technologies in a
potentially highly productive zero-emission, zero-waste food and energy
“Dream Farm 2” based on a model of sustainable systems as organisms. It is
our best way forward to a greener, healthier and more fulfilling life
without fossil fuels.
Stunted Rats
The latest alarming findings on the health hazards of GM food come from the
laboratory of senior scientist Dr. Irina Ermakova at the Russian Academy of
Sciences in Moscow. Her experiments began two years ago, and the initial
results hit the world press when Ermakova was invited to address the 11th
Russian Gastroenterological Week in Moscow in October, 2005.
Female rats given a supplement of GM Roundup Ready soya beginning two weeks
before mating and continuing afterwards through pregnancy and lactation
produced litters in which more than a third of the pups were severely
stunted, and over half of the pups died within three weeks after birth.1
Stunting was five to six times, and mortality six to eight times those of
control litters produced by females on normal rat pellets only, or rat
pellets supplemented with non-GM soya. These results were confirmed in
further experiments. In addition, the surviving pups from the GM soya-fed
females were completely sterile when mated with one another whether they
continued to be fed GM soya or not.
Criminal Negligence
Ermakova’s findings are by no means an isolated case peculiar to a specific
batch of GM soya. They are the latest in a long line of evidence (see
sidebar) from all over the world indicating that GM food and feed may be
inherently hazardous to animal and human health.
Many GM crops–soybean, tomato, maize, cotton, potato, pea–with different
transgenes, fed to rats, mice, cows, sheep, chickens or human beings–have
resulted in illness and deaths. You don’t have to be a scientific genius to
suspect that the genetic modification process itself or the artificial
genetic material used in genetic modification could be causing problems.
Evidence of GM hazards has been emerging since the 1980s, evidence that
should have halted the development of many GM crops.2 But our regulators
have acted with bias in favor of GM from the beginning and have
systematically ignored and dismissed research findings that might harm the
fledgling biotech industry.11 By now, the evidence has accumulated to such
an extent that regulators should be answering a charge of criminal
negligence at the very least in continuing their campaign of denial and
misrepresentation while failing to impose a ban on further releases of all
GM crops until and unless they have been proven safe by thorough
independent investigations.5
A ban on further releases is all the more important, as so many scientists
have tried to tell the public what they know. But instead of decisive
action, Ermakova’s funding has been cut, and she is now strongly
discouraged from continuing with the research. She is pleading for other
scientists to repeat her work to see whether they can replicate her
results.
Meanwhile, the biotech industry is aggressively pushing the next generation
of GM food and feed, and our ever-permissive government regulators are
obligingly reassuring everyone that “GM food is safe.”
Think Again
For those who believe that “GM food is safe” because “people have been
eating GM food since its first release in 1994 and no one has fallen ill or
died from it,” think again. First, there has been no labelling in countries
like the US where GM food and feed are most available. Second, many GM
products are “de-regulated” and hence not known or traceable as such.
Third, there has been no post-release monitoring, so it is impossible to
tell how many people and animals have become ill or have died from eating
GM food and feed, even though in 1999, researchers at the Centers for
Disease Control published a paper suggesting that food-related illnesses
increased two- to ten-fold compared with results of a survey carried out
just before GM food was commercially released in 1994.12,13
Fourth, GM food and feed may be linked to chronic illnesses such as
autoimmune disease, slow viruses or cancer,14 which may be difficult to
detect. Finally, animal feed accounts for up to half the world’s harvest,15
so most of the GM produce so far has probably ended up in animal feed after
being processed for seed oil, corn starch, corn syrup and, increasingly,
ethanol and biodiesel.16,17 That means GM produce is seldom eaten directly
by either animals or human beings so far. But that is soon to change, if
proponents have their way.
New Generation GM foods
The first GM crop, Calgene’s Flavr Savr tomato for prolonged shelf life,
was approved for commercial release in 1992. It was a complete flop. Since
then, however, the area planted to GM crops has been steadily increasing,
and, according to industry sources, reached 90 million hectares in 2005.19
It should be emphasized that this comprises only 1.8 percent of the world’s
agricultural land, and is confined largely to the US, Argentina and Canada.
Two traits–herbicide-tolerance and insect-resistance–currently account
for nearly all GM crops, but not for long.
New GM crops with other traits and other GM gut bacteria are poised to
enter the market, in the guise of nutritional benefits and health
foods.20,21 Food crops genetically modified to overproduce single nutrients
could be public health hazards, as overdoses of many single nutritional
factors are known to be toxic; and genetically modifying natural gut
bacteria could turn into pathogens pre-adapted to invade the human gut.
In addition, the US FDA is set to approve foods derived from genetically
modified animals for commercial release.22,23 These are likely to be
contaminated by potent vaccines, immune regulators and growth hormones, as
well as nucleic acids, viruses and bacteria that have the potential to
create pathogens and to trigger cancer. The Institute for Science in
Society has submitted strong objections to United Nations regulator Codex
Alimentarius on these new developments.
Inherently Hazardous
Let me start with some basics. GM food is derived from genetically modified
organisms (GMOs). A GMO is an organism whose natural genetic material has
been modified by having synthetic genetic material inserted into it in the
laboratory, so as to give it special traits or characteristics.
It is generally not easy to get the synthetic gene or genes to work in an
organism, so a very aggressive signal or promoter is needed for each gene,
literally to force the cell to make the desired protein.25 The cauliflower
mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter is the most popular one used, and is often
accompanied by other “boosters” from a variety of sources. The gene (coding
sequence) itself could also be a composite of pieces copied from other
organisms, with substantial changes in the coding sequence.
For example, MON863 maize is described on the AGBIOS Database as follows:
“The introduced DNA contained the modified cry3Bb1 gene from B.
thuringiensis subsp. kumamotoensis under the control of the 4-AS1 promoter
(CaMV 35S promoter with 4 repeats of an activating sequence), plus the 5′
untranslated leader sequence of the wheat chlorophyll a/b binding protein
(wt CAB leader) and the rice actin intron. The transcription termination
sequence was provided from the 3′ untranslated region of the wheat 17.3 kD
heat shock protein (tahsp17). The modified cry3Bb1 gene encodes a protein
of 653 amino acids whose amino acid sequence differs from that of the
wild-type protein by the addition of an alanine residue at position 2 and
by seven amino acid changes.”26
Thus, MON863 maize contains 9 bits of DNA from different sources including
the coding sequence, which has been quite substantially altered from the
natural gene.
The synthetic genes and combinations of genes inserted into GMOs and
introduced into our food chain have never existed in billions of years. The
genes code for proteins completely foreign to our food chain and are likely
to provoke immune reactions including allergy. That could happen even when
the proteins are copies of those in a closely related species. Thus, a
transgenic (GM) pea with a copy of a normally harmless bean protein
provoked debilitating immune responses in mice,4 simply because each
species processes its proteins differently, decorating them with distinct
carbohydrate chains. Transgenic proteins also differ from the native
proteins in amino acid sequences, some of which are intentional and others
unintentional. And if you just look at the amino acid sequences, 22 out of
33 transgenic proteins in GM crops already commercialized are found to have
similarities to known allergens, and are therefore suspected allergens.27
Direct evidence also exists indicating that the synthetic genes are not the
same as the natural genes. Take the Bt toxins isolated from the soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and incorporated into many GM maize,
cotton and other crop varieties to kill insect pests. Green lacewings
suffer significantly reduced survival and delayed development when fed an
insect pest (lepidopteran) that has eaten GM maize containing the Bt toxin
Cry1Ab, but not when fed the same pest treated with much higher levels of
the natural toxin.28,29 This extremely important effect, which is passed on
through the food chain, has been documented in several laboratories.
Unfortunately, the researchers misrepresented the results only to mean that
natural Cry1Ab does not harm beneficial insect predators.30
The synthetic genetic material is introduced into the cells of organisms
with invasive methods that are far from precise–they are uncontrollable,
unreliable and unpredictable. They end up damaging the natural genetic
material of the organism with many unpredictable, unintended effects,
including gross abnormalities that you can see, and metabolic changes that
may be toxic that you can’t see.31
The transgenic line is essentially derived from a single cell which has
taken up the trans gene, so its properties will depend on where and in what
form in the genome–the totality of the organism’s genetic material–have
landed in the insert or inserts, and what collateral damage is done. That
is why EU regulation now requires “event specific” characterization of the
transgenic insert or inserts, which also provides a way of detecting
transgenic contamination of GM produce, an increasingly frequent occurrence
involving transgenic lines that have not even been approved for commercial
release.32
Even more serious, transgenic lines are genetically unstable, so it is
impossible to control for safety or quality. This instability increases the
dangers from unintended horizontal gene transfer. The expression of the
genes can change from generation to generation and, most worrying of all,
the inserts may rearrange, insert at new sites in the genome or insert into
other genomes by horizontal gene transfer.24,25
The transgenic inserts in practically all the commercially approved lines
were found to have rearranged since they were first characterized by the
biotech companies. A frequent breakpoint is the cauliflower mosaic virus
promoter present in most, if not all transgenic lines, which we have warned
about.35,36 We have also warned about the fact that the promoter is active
in animal and human cells, contrary to the assumption of GM proponents that
it is active only in plant cells37 and this warning has also been recently
confirmed.38 The genetic instability itself is worrying, as the transgenic
variety effectively changed into something else, thereby invalidating all
previous safety assessments and making it difficult to detect contaminating
transgenic material.
Horizontal Gene Transfer
Another major worry is horizontal gene transfer and recombination. Many
foreign synthetic genes are copies of those from bacteria and viruses that
cause diseases and include antibiotic resistance marker genes to help track
the movements of the foreign gene inserts and select for cells that have
taken up the foreign genes.
Right from the beginning of genetic engineering in the mid 1970s,
geneticists themselves were concerned that releasing those synthetic
genetic materials increased the risk of creating new disease-causing
viruses and bacteria and spreading antibiotic resistance that would make
infections untreatable.39 They even imposed a moratorium subsequent to the
1975 Asilomar Declaration, which endorsed sustainable agriculture.
Unfortunately, the moratorium was short-lived, as geneticists were in a
hurry to begin commercial exploitation of genetic engineering. The
guidelines set up were totally inadequate, and remain so to this day.40
It is important to realize that the toolkit of genetic engineering is
precisely the same as that for making biological weapons.41 The US
government has been ostentatiously concerned about “biosecurity” ever since
September 11, which extends to experiments directly or indirectly involved
in creating lethal biological agents. Yet the regulators are still
reassuring us that all genetic engineering experiments and the release of
GMOs and products thereof are safe. I have warned the UK government that
there can be no biosecurity without biosafety.42 The numerous “biodefense”
labs set up in the US and elsewhere to research and genetically engineer
lethal pathogens for the stated purpose of creating vaccines pose the most
serious public health risks.
The genetic material persists long after the cell or organism is dead, and
can be taken up by bacteria and viruses in all environments. This
process–called horizontal gene transfer and recombination–is the main
route to creating dangerous pathogens. Genetic engineering is nothing if
not greatly enhanced horizontal gene transfer and recombination, and nasty
surprises have been sprung already. For example, researchers in Australia
“accidentally” transformed a harmless mousepox virus into a lethal pathogen
that killed all the mice, even those that were supposed to be resistant to
the virus.
Headlines in the New Scientist editorial of January, 2001 proclaimed: “The
genie is out, biotech has just sprung a nasty surprise. Next time, it could
be catastrophic.”43 The lead article continued in the same vein: “Disaster
in the making. An engineered mouse virus leaves us one step away from the
ultimate bioweapon.”44
The researchers added a gene coding for an immune signalling molecule to
the virus, which they thought would boost antibody production; instead, it
suppressed immune responses. The researchers had previously put the same
gene into a vaccinia virus and found that it delayed the clearance of virus
from the animals, so it may well have the same immune suppressive effects
for all viruses. Imagine what would happen if this gene ever got into a
smallpox virus.
More surprisingly, in 2003, researchers at the University of California at
Berkeley reported that disrupting a set of disease-causing genes in the
tuberculosis bacterium resulted in a hyper-virulent mutant strain that
killed all infected mice by 41 weeks, while all the control mice exposed to
the unmodified bacterium survived.45 This goes to show how very little we
understand about the way bacteria and viruses cause diseases.
Cancer Triggers
Genetic engineering poses yet another insidious danger. The synthetic genes
created for genetic modification are designed to cross species barriers and
to jump into the genome of cells. Such constructs jumping into the genome
of human cells can trigger cancer. This is not just a theoretical
possibility; it has happened in gene therapy,46 which is genetic
modification of human cells using synthetic constructs very similar to
those for genetic modification of plants and animals.
In 2000, researchers in the Neckar Hospital in Paris, France, treated
infants with X-linked Severe Combined Immune Deficiency apparently
successfully by isolating bone marrow cells from the patients, genetically
modifying them in the test tube, and then injecting the genetically
modified cells back into the patients. In this way, they thought they had
avoided the widely acknowledged major hazards of gene therapy: creating
replicating viruses and triggering cancer. But since 2002, three infants
have developed leukemia, and one has died. The foreign synthetic gene
carried by the virus vector was inserted near a human gene that controls
cell division, making it overactive, resulting in uncontrollable
multiplication of the white blood cells.
Failure on All Counts
GM crops are industrial monocultures, only far worse. Two traits account
for nearly all GM crops planted: herbicide-tolerance (almost all
glyphosate-tolerant or Roundup Ready) accounting for more than 80 percent
of GM crops, and insect-resistance (Bt-crops engineered with toxins from
the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to kill insect pests), accounting
for 30 percent.19 (Eleven percent of GM crops have both traits.)
Evidence has been accumulating over the years that both types of GM crops
have failed on every count: yield drag, poor performance in the field, more
pesticides used, reduced profits for farmers (at times drastically so,
causing poor farmers to commit suicide), and bad for health and the
environment;49 so much so that many people, including me, were ready to
say, “Good-bye, GMOs,” in 2002.50 We were too optimistic; we did not
consider how powerful were corporate propaganda and disinformation.51
But a spate of recent findings not only confirms what we already know, but
also completes the debacle. And health hazards of GM food and feed are not
the only worry; Roundup-resistant super-weeds and Bt-resistant insect pests
have now been documented, rendering useless both Roundup-tolerant and Bt
crops.
The problems don’t end there. Roundup herbicide causes sudden crop death.
It is lethal to frogs and highly toxic to human placental cells, even at
one-tenth the recommended dosage. It is linked to cancers, neuro-defects
and spontaneous abortions.52 Bt crops express variable amounts of the
toxins, often insufficient to kill target pests but sufficiently poisonous
to harm beneficial insects including predators, bees and soil decomposers.
And Bt toxins are known to be actual or potential allergens that can
provoke strong immune reactions.53
Farmers from all over the world are now reporting that GM crops require
more water, and are less tolerant to drought than non-GM varieties;63 this
finding may prove to be a final nail in the coffin for GM crops.
It is sheer lunacy to expand the cultivation of GM crops across the world,
as the pro-GM lobby is pushing for. It can lead nowhere else but towards
global bio-devastation, massive crop failures and global famine.
A Dangerous Diversion
GM crops are a dangerous diversion that prevents us from addressing the
global energy and food crises. Perhaps people are still unaware or in
denial of the crises as food54,55 and energy run out56 and as global
warming accelerates.57
World grain yield has fallen for six of the past seven years, bringing
reserves to the lowest level in more than thirty years.58 Chronic depletion
of aquifers in the major bread baskets of the world, droughts, and soaring
temperatures, all from global warming, are taking their toll and are set to
do even more damage to food production. An international team of crop
scientists has already reported that crop yields fall by 10 percent for
each degree Centigrade rise in night-time temperature during the growing
season.59
The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that the
earth’s average temperature would rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C within this
century.60 But the IPCC model fails to capture the abrupt nature of climate
change, which could be happening over a matter of decades or years.61 A
group based in Oxford University in the UK is predicting a greater
temperature rise of 1.9 to 11.5 degrees C when the carbon dioxide level in
the atmosphere doubles its pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million
sometime within the present century.62
Dream Farm
The good news is that we have a wealth of existing knowledge that can
provide food security and health for all while significantly mitigating
global warming.64,65 We have the knowhow to be food and fuel rich without
fossil fuels. A major obstacle to implementing this knowledge is the
overwhelming commitment of our elected representatives to the dominant
neo-liberal economic model, otherwise known as the environmental bubble
economy.
The dominant model glorifies competitiveness and unlimited growth involving
the most wanton and destructive exploitation of the earth’s natural
resources, laying waste to agricultural land and biodiversity, and
impoverishing billions of souls in the process.
In order to overcome these obstacles to implementing the knowledge, we have
proposed to set up Dream Farm 2.66
Dream Farm 2 is a model, integrated, zero-emission, zero-waste, highly
productive farm that maximizes the use of renewable energies and turns
“wastes” into food and energy resources, thereby completely obviating the
need for fossil fuels. It is our answer to the food and energy crises,
climate change and many other problems. It is a microcosm of a different
way of being and becoming in the world, and in that respect, nothing short
of a social revolution.
In a way, I have dedicated the past 20 years towards developing Dream Farm
2. The technical underpinnings are described in my book The Rainbow and the
Worm – The Physics of Organisms (2nd Edition),67 which presents a theory of
the organism and sustainable systems, and the social and spiritual
revolution this theory entails.
The ideas have been taken further forward recently, thanks to theoretical
ecologist Robert Ulanowicz at the University of Maryland who co-authored a
paper with me entitled Sustainable Systems as Organisms?;68 and George
Chan’s Integrated Food and Waste Management System (IFWMS),69 which
inspired me to extend the theory of sustainable systems as organisms to
include growth and development explicitly. I call his model Dream Farm 1.
The farms are very diverse, depending on local resources, ingenuity and
imagination. Anaerobic digestion is the core waste-treatment and energy
technology in Dream Farm 1. It has numerous advantages over other
waste-treatment and energy technologies, including other biofuels71 The
Chinese gover.nment, by the way, is promoting the widespread use of biogas
digesters to support a burgeoning eco-economy.72
Unsustainable Versus Sustainable Systems
Dream Farm 1 gave me a lot of food for thought on how my theory of the
organism and sustainable systems contrasts with the dominant model.
The dominant model of infinite competitive growth can be represented as the
bigger fish swallowing the smaller ad infinitum, and it describes equally
how a person should behave and how a company should develop in order to be
successful. Another way to represent it is a diagram in Figure 1. The
system grows relentlessly, swallowing up the earth’s resources, laying
waste to everything in its path, like a hurricane. There is no closed cycle
to hold resources within, to build up stable organized social or ecological
structures.
Spiral
Figure 1. The dominant economic model of infinite unsustainable growth that
swallows up the earth’s resources and exports massive amounts of wastes and
entropy.
In contrast, the archetype of a sustainable system is a closed lifecycle,
like that of an organism. It is ready to grow and develop, to build up
structures in a balanced way and perpetuate them, and that’s what
sustainability is all about. Closing the cycle creates a stable, autonomous
structure that is self-maintaining, self-renewing and self-sufficient.
In order to do that, one needs to satisfy as much as possible the
zero-entropy or zero-waste ideal, as shown in Figure 2. All natural systems
tend towards this ideal, which is why we don’t fall apart, and why we grow
old only very slowly. If we were perfect, we’d never grow old. The secret
is described in my book, the Rainbow Worm.
Zero Entropy Model
Figure 2. The zero-entropy ideal of a sustainable system.
The “zero-waste” or “zero-entropy” model of the organism and sustainable
systems essentially predicts balanced development and growth at every
stage, as opposed to the dominant model of infinite, unsustainable growth.
This immediately disposes of the myth that the alternative to the dominant
model is to have no development nor any growth at all, which is how most of
the dominant model critics see it.
Cycles Within Cycles
The system’s cycle contains more cycles within that are interlocked to help
one another thrive and prosper. The minimum integrated farm has the farmer,
livestock and crops. The farmer prepares the ground to sow the seeds for
the crops to grow, which feed the livestock and the farmer; the livestock
returns manure to feed the crops. Very little is wasted or exported to the
environment. In fact, a high proportion of the resources is recycled and
kept inside the system. The system stores energy as well as material
resources such as carbon. The extra carbon is sequestered in the soil as
the soil improves and in the standing biomass of crops and livestock.
The farm can perpetuate itself like that quite successfully and
sustainably, or it can grow by engaging more cycles, that is, units of
devolved autonomy that help support the other cycles so that all become
more productive and efficient.
In the old paradigm, organisms are predominantly viewed as competing for
resources and for space. But in nature there are three space dimensions and
the time dimension also. We’ve got space-time that we can fill up more
thickly with life cycles of different sizes that occupy different
space-times. That is exactly what organisms in a naturally biodiverse
ecosystem do to maximize the reciprocal, symbiotic relationships that
benefit all the species. So you can add fish, algae, poultry, worms,
mushrooms, and so forth, turning the “waste” from one cycle into resources
for another.
The more lifecycles incorporated, the more energy and standing biomass are
stored within the system, and the more productive the farm. It will also
support more farmers or farm workers.
Productivity and biodiversity always go together in a sustainable system,
as generations of farmers have known, and recent academic researchers have
rediscovered. It is also the most energy efficient. Why? Because the
different life cycles are essentially holding the energy for the whole
system by way of reciprocity, keeping as much as possible and recycling it
within the system.
In contrast, industrial monoculture–particularly monoculture based on GM
crops–is the least energy efficient system in terms of output per unit of
input, and often less productive than sustainable systems in absolute
terms, despite high external input, because it does not close the cycle, it
does not have biodiversity to hold the energy within, and it ends up
generating a lot of waste, entropy and soil depletion
In a recent visit to China as part of the Dream Farm 2 project, I was
delighted to discover that something very similar to my model of
sustainable systems as organisms is in the official Chinese mainstream
discourse–they call it the “circular economy.” Chinese farmers have
perfected this elegant system over the past two thousand years73 especially
in the Pearl River Delta of southeast China. This integrated agriculture
and fish farming system is a key component of George Chan’s IFWMS. The
success of this system really disposes of the Malthusian myth that a given
piece of land has only a constant carrying capacity in terms of the number
of people it can support. There is a world of difference between industrial
monoculture and circular integrated farming. The Pearl River Delta
sustained an average of 17 people per hectare in the 1980s, a carrying
capacity at least ten times the average of industrial farming, and two to
three times the world average.
Dream Farm 2 is a particular implementation and extension of George Chan’s
IFWMS concept, in that it consciously integrates food and energy
production, emphasizing consumption of both at the point of production.
While it operates as a farm, it will also serve as a demonstration,
education and research center and incubator for new ideas, designs and
technologies. Its aim is to promote and support similar farms springing up
all over Britain and the rest of the world, not only through publicity
about Dream Farm 2 itself, but also by collating and analyzing data from
all similar farms, and by serving as resource center and center for
information exchange (see Sidebar).66
Most significant of all, it runs entirely without fossil fuels. As Robert
Ulanowicz says, “I’ll bet people will be surprised at how quickly the
carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere can come down if we stop burning
fossil fuels.” I think he may well be right.
Sidebars
Damning Evidence Against the Safety of GM Food and Feed
1. Scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported between 2005 and
2006 that female rats fed glyphosate-tolerant GM soya produced excessive
numbers of severely stunted pups with more than half of the litter dying
within three weeks, and the surviving pups completely sterile (see main
article).
2. Between 2004 and 2005, hundreds of farm workers and cotton handlers in
Madhya Pradesh, India, suffered allergy symptoms from exposure to Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) cotton.2
3. Between 2005 and 2006, thousands of sheep died after grazing on Bt
cotton crop residues in four villages in the Warangal district of Andhra
Pradesh in India.3
4. In 2005, scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization in Canberra, Australia reported that a harmless
protein in beans (alpha-amylase inhibitor 1) transferred to peas caused
inflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked sensitivities to other
proteins in the diet.4
5. From 2002 to 2005, scientists at the Universities of Urbino, Perugia and
Pavia in Italy published reports indicating that GM-soya affected cells in
the pancreas, liver and testes of young mice.5
6. In 2003, villagers in the south of the Philippines suffered mysterious
illnesses when a Monsanto Bt maize hybrid came into flower; antibodies to
the Bt protein were found in the villagers, there have been at least five
unexplained deaths and some remain ill to this day.5
7. In 2004, Monsanto’s secret research dossier showed that rats fed MON863
GM maize developed serious kidney and blood abnormalities.6
8. Between 2001 and 2002, a dozen cows died in Hesse, Germany after eating
Syngenta GM maize Bt176, and more in the herd had to be slaughtered due to
mysterious illnesses.7
9. In 1998, Dr. Arpad Pusztai and colleagues formerly of the Rowett
Institute in Scotland reported damage in every organ system of young rats
fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin, including a stomach lining
twice as thick as controls.8
10. Also in 1998, scientists in Egypt found similar effects in the gut of
mice fed Bt potato.9
11. The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early 1990s
showing that rats fed GM tomatoes with antisense gene to delay ripening had
developed small holes in their stomach.8
12. In 2002, Aventis company (later Bayer Cropscience) submitted data to UK
regulators showing that chickens fed glufosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon
LL were twice as likely to die compared with controls.10
The Language of the Dance
The greatest danger is the mindset of the GM proponents. Genetic
engineering of plants and animals began in the mid 1970s under the illusion
that the genetic material is constant and static and the characteristics of
organisms are hardwired in their genes. One gene determines one
characteristic. But geneticists soon discovered to their great surprise
that the genetic material is dynamic and fluid, in that both the expression
and structure of genes are constantly changing under the influence of the
environment. By the early 1980s, geneticists had already coined the term,
“the fluid genome,” to mark this major paradigm shift, as described in my
book, Living with the Fluid Genome.47
The processes responsible for the fluid genome are precisely orchestrated
by the organism as a whole in a dance of life that is necessary for the
organism to survive and thrive. In contrast, genetic engineering in the lab
is crude, imprecise and invasive. The synthetic genes can land anywhere, in
any form, causing a lot of collateral damage to the genome, and tending to
be unstable, basically because these rogue genes do not know the language
of the dance. Genetic engineers haven’t learned to dance with life.
Call for a Ban
In 2003, accumulating evidence on the many dangers of GM organisms prompted
dozens of prominent scientists from around the world to launch themselves
as the Independent Science Panel (ISP). Our stated goal: to overcome the
campaign of disinformation from pro-GM scientists who are working to
promote the corporate agenda, and to reclaim science for the public good.
We compiled all the evidence against GM crops as well as the evidence on
the successes and benefits of sustainable non-GM agriculture in an ISP
report, The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World.48 Based on this evidence,
we have called for a ban on the environmental releases of GM crops and a
comprehensive shift to sustainable agriculture. Please support these
efforts by sending this article, which updates the evidence contained in
the ISP report, to your policy makers and elected representatives.
Advantages of Anaerobic Digestion to Recover Methane
* Potential to provide 11.7 percent of all energy needs or 50.2 percent
of transport fuels in the UK.
* Methane can be used as fuel for mobile vehicles or for combined heat
and power generation.
* Methane-driven cars are already on the market, and currently the
cleanest vehicles on the road by far.
* Biogas methane is a renewable and carbon mitigating fuel (more than
carbon neutral).
* Saves on carbon emission twice over, by preventing the escape of
methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere and by substituting for
fossil fuel.
* Conserves plant nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus for soil
productivity.
* Produces a superb fertilizer for crops as a by-product.
* Prevents pollution of ground water, soil and air.
* Improves food and farm hygiene, removes 90 percent or more of harmful
chemicals and bacteria.
* Can be adapted to produce hydrogen either directly or from methane.
Dream Farm 1
Click here to see diagram of Dream Farm 1
The anaerobic digester takes in livestock manure plus wastewater and
generates biogas, which provides all the energy needs for heating, cooking
and electricity. The partially cleansed wastewater goes into the algal
basin where the algae produce by photosynthesis all the oxygen needed to
detoxify the water, making it safe for the fish. The algae are harvested to
feed chickens, ducks, geese and other livestock. The fishpond supports a
compatible mixture of five or six fish species. Water from the fishpond is
used to “fertigate” crops growing in the fields or on the raised dykes.
Aquaculture of rice, fruits and vegetables can be done in floats on the
surface of the fishpond. Water from the fishpond can also be pumped into
greenhouses to support aquaculture of fruits and vegetables. The anaerobic
digester yields a residue rich in nutrients that is an excellent fertilizer
for crops. It could also be mixed with algae and crop residues for
culturing mushrooms after steam sterilization. The residue from mushroom
culture can be fed to livestock or composted. Crop residues are fed back to
livestock. Crop and food residues are used to grow earthworms to feed fish
and fowl. Compost and worm castings go to condition the soil. Livestock
manure goes back into the anaerobic digester, thus closing the grand cycle.
The result is a highly productive farm that’s more than self-sufficient in
food and energy.
Farm animals are central to this model. Dream Farm 1 is strong on animal
welfare.70 The animals are organically fed. The pigs are especially easy to
toilet-train(!) to deposit their manure directly into the digester, so the
animals and their living quarter are spotlessly clean, which makes for
healthy and contented animals.
Dream Farm 2
Click here to see diagram of Dream Farm 2
The complete model of Dream Farm 2 will be implemented at potential sites
now under consideration. Because this is an organic system in the sense I
have described, we don’t have to have all the elements all at once. We can
have a very simple system consisting of biogas digesters, livestock, crops
and algae basins without fishponds, as that essentially does the water
purification already and closes the cycle. The algae can be used to feed
livestock, as an alternative to grain or soybeans.
Notice that three biogas digesters are present, connected both in parallel
and in series. This is advisable, because it provides spares in case one is
not working properly. It also provides for the production of both hydrogen
and methane in a two-stage digestion process. I am also suggesting that we
include human manure in the biogas digestion, as well as restaurant wastes.
That way, we hardly export any waste to the outside.
The challenge now is to make Dream Farm 2 a reality, to put flesh on the
bare bones of the diagram, so we can start building the best when sites are
agreed upon, and we can promote and support a worldwide movement. Already,
we have potential partners in UK, US, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Ethiopia,
Mauritius, and France. We believe this is the best way forward to a
greener, cleaner, healthier and more fulfilling life without fossil
fuels.59
Benefits of Dream Farm 2
1. Assembles in one showcase all the relevant technologies that can deliver
sustainable food and energy and a profitable zero carbon economy.
2. Generates all its own energy for heating and electricity, including
clean fuel for transport.
3. Energy use at the point of production enables combined heat and power
generation and improves efficiency by 70 percent.
4. Runs entirely without fossil fuels.
5. Saves substantially on carbon dioxide emissions, by preventing methane
and nitrous oxide escaping, by substituting for fossil fuels and by
improved energy efficiency.
6. Increases sequestration of carbon in soil and standing biomass.
7. Reduces wastes and environmental pollution to a minimum.
8. Conserves and purifies water and controls flooding.
9. Produces a diversity of crops, livestock and fish in abundance.
10. Fresh and nutritious food free from agrochemicals produced and consumed
locally for maximum health benefits.
11. Provides employment opportunities for the local community.
12. Provides a showcase and incubator for how appropriate new energy and
food technologies are implemented.
13. Provides hands-on education and research opportunities at all levels
from infants to university students and beyond.
14. Supports and promotes similar farms in the UK and all over the world.
References
1. Ho MW. GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science in Society 33
(in press).
2. Ho MW. More illnesses linked to Bt crops. Science in Society 30, 8-10,
2006.
3. Ho MW. Mass deaths in sheep grazing on Bt cotton. Science in Society 30.
12-13, 2006.
4. Ho MW. Transgenic pea that made mice ill. Science in Society 29, 28-29,
2006.
5. Ho MW. GM ban long overdue. Dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines.
Science in Society 29, 26-27, 2006.
6. “French experts very disturbed by health effects of Monsanto GM corn”
GMWatch, 23 April 2004. www.gmwatch.org
7. Ho MW and Burcher S. Cows ate GM maize and died. Science in Society 21,
4-6, 2004.
8. Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Ewen SWB. Genetically modified foods: Potential
human health effects. In Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins, (J P F
D’Mello ed.), Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, CAB International,
2003.
9. Fares NH and El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice
fed on dendotoxin-treated potatotes and transgenic potatoes. Natural
Toxins, 1998, 6, 219-33; also “Bt is toxic” by Joe Cummins and Mae-Wan Ho,
ISIS News 7/8, February 2001, ISSN: 1474-1547 (print), ISSN: 1474-1814
(online) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php Agricultural Biotechnology
2006, www.ISAAA.org
10. Novotny E. Animals avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science in Society
21, 9-11, 2004.
11. Ho MW and Steinbrecher RA. Fatal flaws in food safety assessment:
critique of the joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety Report.
Environmental & Nutritional Interactions 1998, 2, 51-84.
12. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS, Shapiro C. Griffin
PM and Tauxe RV. Food-related illness and death in the United States.
Emerging Infectious Diseases 1999, 5, 607-25.
13. Ho MW. US foodborne illnesses up two to ten fold. ISIS Report 3
November 2001, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FoodborneIllnesses.php; also ISIS
News 13/14, February 2002.
14. Ho MW. Horizontal gene transfer, the hidden hazards of genetic
engineering. ISIS Report 2001, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontal.php
15. Genetically modified animal feed. Briefing, Friends of the Earth, May
2006, http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/gm_animal_feeds.pdf
16. Ho MW. Biofuels for oil addicts. Science in Society 30, 29-30, 2006.
17. Ho MW. Biodiesel boom for Europe? Science in Society 30, 31-32, 2006.
18. Joensen L and Ho MW. Argentina’s GM woes. Science in Society 20, 2003.
19. Agricultural Biotechnology 2006, www.ISAAA.org
20. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM crops for health? ISIS Report, 24 September
2006, submitted to Codex Alimentarius public consultation.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Crops_for_Health.php
21. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM crops and microbes for health or public health
hazards? Science in Society 32 (in press).
22. Cummins J and Ho MW. Genetically modified food animals coming. ISIS
Report 25 September 2006, submitted to Codex Alimentarius public
consultation,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Genetically_Modified_Food_Animals_Coming.php
23. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM food animals coming. Science in Society 32 (in
press).
24. Ho MW. Special safety concerns of transgenic agriculture and related
issues. Briefing paper for Minister of State for the Environment, The Rt
Hon Michael Meacher, ISIS Report, April 1999,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meacher99.php
25. Ho MW and Cummins J. GM food and feed not fit for “man or beast”. ISIS
Report, ISP Briefing to UK Parliament, 7 May 2004,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ManorBeast.php
26. Agbios, http://www.agbios.com/main.php
27. Ho MW, Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Cummins J. Are transgenic proteins
allergenic? Science in Society 25, 4-5, 2005.
28. Dutton A, Klein H, Romeis J and Bigler F. “Uptake of Bt-toxin by
herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator
Chrysoperia carnea”, Ecological Entomology 2002, 27, 441-7.
29. Romeis J, Dutton A and Bigler F. “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab)
has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea
(Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)”, Journal of Insect Physiology 2004,
in press.
30. Dutton A, Romeis J and Bigler F. “Assessing the risks of insect
resistant transgenic plants on entomophagous arthropods: Bt-maize
expressing Cry1Ab as a case study”, BioControl 2003, 48, 611″36.
31. Ho MW. FAQs on genetic engineering. ISIS tutorial
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
32. Cummins J and Ho MW. USDA poised to deregulate illegal GM rice. Science
in Society 32 (in press).
33. Ho MW. Transgenic lines proven unstable. Science in Society 20 , 2003.
34. Ho MW. Unstable transgenic lines illegal. Science in Society 21, 2004.
35. Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. Cauliflower mosaic viral promoter — a
recipe for Disaster? Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 1999 11,
194-7. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
36. Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. Hazards of transgenic plants with the
cauliflower mosaic viral promoter. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease
2000, 12, 6-11. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
37. Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. CaMV35S promoter fragmentation hotspot
confirmed and it is active in animals. Microbial Ecology in Health and
Disease 2000, 12, 189.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
38. Myhre MR. Fenton KA, Eggert K. Nielsen KM and Traavik T. The 35S CaMV
plant virus promoter is active in human enterocyte-like cells. Eur Food Res
Technol 2005. DOI 10.1007/y00217.005.0154.3
39. Ho MW, Traavik T, Olscik R, Tappeser B, Howard V, von Weizsacker C and
McGavin G. Gene technology and gene ecology of infectious diseases.
Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 1998, 10, 33-59.
40. Ho MW. Ryan A.Cummins J and Traavik T. Slipping through the Regulatory
Net: Naked and Free Nucleic Acids, Biotechnology series, Third World
Network, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php
41. Ho MW. GM & bio-weapons in the post-genomics era. Science in Society
15, 15-19, 2002.
42. Ho MW. No biosecurity without biosafety, biodefence research endangers
the public. Science in Society 26, 44-47, 2005.
43. “The genie is out”, Editorial, New Scientist 13 January 2001.
44. Nowak R. Disaster in the making. New Scientist 2001: 13 Jan. 4-5.
45. Shimono N, Morici L, Casall N, Cantrell S, Sidders B, Ehrt S and Riley
LW. Hypervirulent mutant of Mycobacterium tuberculosis resulting from
disruption of the mce1 operon. PNAS 2003, 100, 15918-23.
46. Ho MW. Gene therapy woes. Science in Society 26, 36, 2005.
47. Ho MW. Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS & TWN, London & Penang, 2003.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/fluidGenome.php
48. Ho MW and Lim LC. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, Independent
Science Panel Report, Institute of Science in Society and Third World
Network, London and Penang, 2003; republished as GM-Free, Exposing the
Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply,
Vitalhealth Publishing, Ridgefield, Ct., 2004 (both available from ISIS
online bookstore http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php#1)
49. Lim LC and Matthews J. GM crops failed on every count. ISIS News 13/14,
31-33, 2002.
50. Ho MW. Goodbye GMOs, Science in Society 16, 10-27, 2002.
51. Gala R. India’s Bt cotton fraud. Science in Society 26, 27-28, 2005.
52. Ho MW and Cummins J. Roundup ready sudden death, superweeds,
allergens…Time to wipe GM crops off the globe. Science in Society 28,
26-27, 2005.
53. Ho MW. Scientists confirm failures of Bt crops. Science in Society 28,
22-24, 2005.
54. Brown L. Outgrowing the Earth, The Food Security Challenge in an Age of
Falling Water Tables and Rising Temperatures, W.W. Norton & C., New York,
2004.
55. Ho MW. The food bubble economy. Science in Society 25, 2005.
56. Ho MW. Is oil running out? Science in Society 25, 50-51, 2005.
57. Ho MW. Global warming is happening. Science in Society 31, 23-24, 2006.
58. Dyer G. How long can the world feed itself? Energy Bulletin, 10 October
2006, http://www.energybulletin.net/21736.html
59. Peng S, Huang J, Sheehy JE, LazAa RC, Visperas RM, Zhong X, Centeno GS,
Khush GS and Cassman KG, Rice yields decline with higher night temperatures
from global warming. PNAS 2004, 101, 9971-5.
60. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contributions of Working
Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2001.
61. Ho MW. Abrupt climate change happening. Science in Society 20, 23,
2003, 20, 23.
62. “Internet project forecasts global warming. Biggest-ever climate
simulation warns temperatures may rise by 11oC.” Michael Hopkin,
New@nature.com published online: 26 January 2005.
63. “Farmers ask why GM crops perform worse in drought” Network of
Concerned Farmers, 20 June 2005,
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2253
64. Ho MW. Sustainable food systems for sustainable development. Science in
Society 27, 33-35, 2005.
65. Ho MW, Bunyard P, Saunders PT, Bravo E and Gala R. Which Energy? 2006
ISIS Energy Report, Institute of Science in Society, London, 2006.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php#238
66. Ho MW. Dream Farm 2 — story so far. Science in Society 31, 40-43,
2006.
67. Ho MW. The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms. 2nd
(enlarged) ed. World Scientific, Singapore, 1998, reprinted 1999, 2001,
2003 (available online from ISIS website www.i-sis.org.uk).
68. Ho MW and Ulanowicz R. Sustainable systems as organisms? BioSystems
2005, 82, 39-51. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers1.php#section3
69. Ho MW. Dream farm. Science in Society 27, 26-28, 2005.
70. Chan G. Dream Farms. Effective & economic possibilities in applying
ecological engineering means to sustainable agriculture & agribusiness.
Presentation at ISIS Dream Farm workshop, Kindersley Centre, Berkshire, UK,
21 January 2006. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/av.php
71. Ho MW. How to be fuel and food rich under climate change, Science in
Society 31, 37-39, 2006.
72. Li K-M and Ho MW. Biogas China, Science in Society 32, 34-37, 2006.
73. Ho MW. Circular economy of the dyke-pond system. Science in Society 32,
38-41, 2006.
About the Author
Mae Wan Ho, PhDMae-Wan Ho, PhD, obtained her B.S. degree in biology in 1964
and her Ph.D. in biochemistry in 1967 from Hong Kong University. She was a
postdoctoral fellow in biochemical genetics from 1968 to 1972 at the
University of California in San Diego, during which time she won a
competitive fellowship of the U.S. National Genetics Foundation.
Since 1994, Ho has been scientific advisor to the Third World Network and
has played a major role in informing policy makers and the public during
negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international
agreement regulating the trade of genetically engineered products. Ho
continues to play a prominent part in exposing what she calls “the bad
science” of genetic engeneering that’s driven both by a Darwinian
perspective of the world and the mistaken view that organisms are hardwired
in their genes.
In April 2003, she initiated the Independent Science Panel to oppose the
corporate takeover of science, and drafted an influential report, “The Case
for a GM-free Sustainable World,” in which independent scientists will be
joining forces with all sectors of civil society in a bid to make our food
system sustainable, that would also ameliorate the worst excesses of global
warming and provide food security for all. In April 2006, she co-authored
an extremely influential Which Energy report sponsored by dozens of civil
society organisations which sets out clear options for shifting to a
zero-carbon economy.
She has more than 300 publications and a dozen books spanning several
disciplines, including The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms
(1993, 1998), Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare? (1998, 1999), and
Living with the Fluid Genome (2003). She also edits the radical science
magazine, Science in Society.
Ho heads the Bio-Electrodynamics laboratory at the Open University in
Milton Keynes in the UK. For further information, visit www.i-sis.org.uk.