By Nathan B. Batalion
Published by Americans for Safe Food. Oneonta, N.Y.
Page 2 of 6 (Page 1)
Condensed Summary of Hazards
This book reviews and disputes the industry claims that GM foods are the equivalent of ordinary foods not requiring labeling. It offers an informative list of at least 50 hazards, problems and dangers.
There is also a deeper philosophical discussion of how the "good science" of biotechnology can turn out to be thano-technology. When pesticides were first introduced, they also were heralded as absolutely safe and a miracle cure for farmers. Only decades later did the technology reveal its lethal implications.
The following list is divided into easily referred to sections on health, environment, farming practices, economic/political/social implications, and issues of freedom of choice. There is a concluding review of inner concerns -- philosophical, spiritual and religious issues involving "deep ecology" -- or our overall way of relating to nature.
Furthermore there is a list of practical ideas and resources for personal, political and consumer action on this vital issue. Finally, this book as a whole is subject to change as new information becomes available.
The reader is encouraged to keep in touch with the many Web sites that have updated information and to contact Americans for Safe Food to offer new information or feedback to help make this book a timely resource.
Health
" Recombinant DNA technology faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of three billion years of evolution.
Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms: animal and plant breeding ... All the earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species ... Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain ... this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."
Dr. George Wald: Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 1967
Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University
Health Deaths and Near-Deaths
Recorded Deaths from GM in 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically altered version of the food supplement - L-tryptophan. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by Showa Denko, Japan's third-largest chemical company. (Mayeno and Gleich, 1994).
Near-deaths from Allergic Reactions in 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so allergic to this nut, they go into apoplectic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction), which can cause death. Animal tests confirmed the peril and fortunately the product was removed from the market before any fatalities occurred.
"The next case could be less than ideal and the public less fortunate," writes Marion Nestle, head of the Nutrition Department of NYU, in an editorial to the New England Journal of Medicine. About 25 percent of Americans have adverse reactions to foods. Eight percent of children and two percent of adults have food allergies as tested by blood immunoglobins.
Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links
In 1994, FDA approved Monsanto's rBGH, a genetically produced growth hormone, for injection into dairy cows -- even though scientists warned the resulting increase of IGF-1, a potent chemical hormone, is linked to 400 to 500 percent higher risks of human breast, prostate, and colon cancer.
According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Illinois, it "induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells." Rat studies confirmed the suspicion and showed internal organ damage with rBGH ingestion. In fact, the FDA's own experiments indicated a spleen mass increase of 46 percent -- a sign of developing leukemia. The contention was that the hormone was killed by pasteurization.
But in research conducted by two Monsanto scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19 percent of the hormone was destroyed despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 30 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UN's Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continues to market this product in the US.
Part of the reason may be that the policy in the FDA was initiated by Margaret Miller, Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine ... . and former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto. She spearheaded the increase in the amount of antibiotics farmers were allowed to have in their milk -- by a factor of 100 or 10,000 percent.
Michael Taylor, Esq. was the executive assistant to the director of the FDA. He drafted the Delaney Amendment that allowed for the minimizing of cancer risk and was later hired as legal counsel to Monsanto, and subsequently again became Deputy Commissioner of Policy at the FDA. Several other GM approved products involve herbicides that are commonly known carcinogens - bromoxynil used on transgenic cotton and Monsanto's Roundup or glufonsinate used on GM soybeans, corn, and canola.
Furthermore and according to researcher Sharyn Martin, a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human stomach and intestines. DNA fragments are absorbed into the bloodstream, potentially mixing with normal DNA. The genetic consequences are unpredictable and unexpected gene fragments have shown up in GM soy crops.
Indirect, Non-traceable Effects on Cancer Rates
The 20th century saw an incremental lowering of infectious disease rates -- especially where a single bacteria was overcome by an antibiotic -- but a simultaneous rise in systemic, whole body or immune system breakdowns, such as with cancer.
Cancer is affected by the overall polluted state of our environment, including in the air, water, and food we take in. There are unimaginably many combinations for the 100,000 or so chemicals released into the environment.
The real impact cannot be revealed by a handful of stringent experiments that isolate just a few controlled factors or chemicals at a time. Rather all of nature is a testing ground. Scientists a few years ago were startled that a random combination of chemicals (mostly pesticides) caused 1000 times more cancer than the sum of the individual chemicals indicated in separate tests.
More startling was the fact that some chemicals were thought to be harmless by themselves. Similarly, there is the potential, with entirely new ways of rearranging the natural order with genetic mutations that such non-traceable influences can also cause cancer. We definitively know X-rays and chemicals cause genetic mutations, and mutagenic changes are behind many higher cancer rates, where cells duplicate out of control.
If nothing else, this should make us extremely cautious. In the US in 1900, cancer affected approximately one out of every 11 individuals. It now inflicts one out of two men and one out of three women in their lifetime. These rates relentlessly shot upward throughout the 20th century.
Viral and Bacterial Illness
Viruses can mix with genes of other viruses and retroviruses such as HIV. This can give rise to more deadly viruse -- at rates higher than previously thought. One study showed that gene mixing occurred in viruses in just eight weeks (Kleiner, 1997).
This kind of scenario applies to the cauliflower mosaic virus CaMV, the most common virus used in genetic engineering found in Round Up ready soy of Monsanto, Bt-maise of Novaris, and GM cotton and canola. It is a kind of "pararetrovirus" or what multiplies by making DNA from RNA. It is somewhat similar to Hepatitis B and HIV viruses and can pose immense dangers.
In a Canadian study, a plant was infected with a crippled cucumber mosaic virus that lacked a gene needed for movement between plant cells. Within less than two weeks, the crippled plant found what it needed from neighboring genes -- evidence of gene mixing. This is significant because genes that cause diseases are often crippled to make the end product "safe."
Results of this kind led the US Department of Agriculture to hold a meeting in October 1997 to discuss the risks and dangers of gene mixing and superviruses, but no regulatory action was taken.
Antibiotic Threat - Via Milk
Cows injected with rBGH have a much higher level of udder infections and require more antibiotics. This leaves unacceptable levels of antibiotic residues in the milk. Scientists have warned of public health hazards due to growing antibiotic resistance.
Antibiotic Threat - Via Plants
Much of genetic implantation uses a marker to track where the gene goes into the cell. GM maize plants use an ampicillin resistant gene. In 1998, the British Royal Society called for the banning of this marker as it threatens a vital antibiotic's use. The resistant qualities of GM bacteria in food can be transferred to other bacteria in the environment and throughout the human body.
Resurgence of Infectious Diseases
The Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease journal reported in 1998 that gene technology may be implicated in the resurgence of infectious diseases. This occurs in multiple ways. There is growing resistance to antibiotics misused in bioengineering, the formation of new and unknown viral strains, and the lowering of immunity through diets of processed and altered foods.
There is also the horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA among bacteria. Several studies have shown bacteria of the mouth, pharynx and intestines can take up the transgenic DNA in the feed of animals, which in turn can be passed on to humans. This threatens the hallmark accomplishment of the 20th century -- the reduction in infectious diseases that critically helped the doubling of life expectancy.
Increased Food Allergies
The loss of biodiversity in our food supply has grown in parallel with the increase in food allergies. This can be explained as follows: the human body is not a machine-like "something" that can be fed assembly line, carbon copy foods. We eat for nourishment and vitality. What is alive interacts or changes with its environment.
Unnatural sameness, required for patenting of genetic foods , are "dead" qualities. Frequently, foods we eat and crave are precisely those testing positive for food allergies. Cells in our body recognize this lack of vitality, producing antibodies and white cells in response.
This is analogous to our brain's cells recognizing and rejecting mechanically repeated thoughts, or thinking "like a broken record." Intuitively our body cells and the overall immune system seem to reject excess homogeneity.
Birth Defects and Shorter Life Spans
As we ingest transgenic human/ animal products there is no real telling of the impact on human evolution. We know that rBGh in cows causes a rapid increase in birth defects and shorter life spans.
Interior Toxins
"Pesticidal foods" have genes that produce a toxic pesticide inside the food's cells. This represents the first time "cell-interior toxicity" is being sold for human consumption. There is little knowledge of the potential long-term health impacts.
Lowered Nutrition
A study in the Journal of Medicinal Food (Dr. Marc Lappe, 1999) showed that certain GM foods have lower levels of vital nutrients -- especially phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect the body from heart disease and cancer.
In another study of GM Vica Faba, a bean in the same family as soy, there was also an increase in estrogen levels, which raises health issues -- especially in infant soy formulas. Milk from cows with rBGH contains substantially higher levels of pus, bacteria, and fat. Monsanto's analysis of glyphosate-resistant soya showed the GM-line contained 28 percent more Kunitz-trypsin inhibitor, a known anti-nutrient and allergen.
No Regulated Health Safety Testing
The FDA only requests of firms that they conduct their own tests of new GM products in what Vice President Quale back in 1992 referred to as a "regulatory relief program."
The FDA makes no review of those tests unless voluntarily requested by the company producing the product. Companies present their internal company records of tests showing a product is safe -- essentially having the "fox oversee the chicken coup."
As Louis J. Pribyl, an FDA microbiologist explained, companies tailor tests to get the results they need. They further relinquish responsibility as Pjil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications expressed it, "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech foods. Our interest is in selling ... Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
But the FDA has not assumed the responsibility. Essentially it is "like playing Russian roulette with public health," says Philip J. Regal, a biologist at the University of Minnesota. In his contacts with the FDA, he noted that in the policy of helping the biotech industry grow "government scientist after scientist acknowledged there was no way to assure the health safety of genetically engineered food ... [yet] society was going to have to bear an unavoidable measure of risk."
The situation was summarized by Richard Steinbrecher, a geneticist working for the Women's Environmental Network, "To use genetic engineering to manipulate plants, release them into the environment and introduce them into our food chains is scientifically premature, unsafe and irresponsible."
Continue to page 3 of this article
[ Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 ]
Return to Table of Contents #372
