Soybeans: 91% in the US are Genetically Modified (GM)
(Update – now includes a list of references at the bottom.)
Should people be concerned about genetically modified organisms (GMOs)? Absolutely! And a growing number of critics from around the world, including doctors, molecular biologists, farmers, environmentalists, agronomists, and many others agree. (Most processed foods are made of GMOs.) Genetic engineering (GE) has inherent, dangerous, unpredictable consequences, and an increasing body of evidence is bearing this out. Just as tobacco companies hid research showing the danger of cigarettes, there is proof that biotechnology companies are harboring hidden, raw data that show dangers of GMOs. As hazardous as GE is, the problems don’t stop there. The chemicals required by GE crops are becoming ever more dangerous, too, for people, animals, and the environment. Additionally, there are other insidious problems: new, dangerous forms of dominance created by biotechnology companies over farmers and consumers.
GMOs: Unintended, Dangerous, Unpredictable Consequences
Richard Strohman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California at Berkeley, says that we are in a crisis position regarding genetic engineering, which he spells out in his paper, “Crisis Position.”[1] A weakness of concept exists because while scientists have the capability to move a gene from one organism to another and to know that the function of that particular gene will be expressed, other unintended consequences occur. The genetic transfer produces changes in the cell or organism as a whole that are unpredictable.
He goes on to say, “The reason why Monsanto can claim scientific soundness is that they are only answering the technical question, ‘Can I move this gene and this characteristic from A to B?’ They are not asking the questions that the current understanding of cell biology demands.” Indeed, genes exist working together as part of an entire genomic network. However, the biotech companies, like Monsanto, only understand genes in isolation. The understanding needed to safely create GMOs does not exist. Strohman continues, “Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this. They all know what I know. But they don’t want to look at it because it’s too complicated and it’s going to cost too much to figure out. The number of questions, the number of possibilities for what happens to a cell, to the whole organism when you insert a foreign gene, are almost incalculable. And the time it would take to assess the infinite possibilities that arise is beyond the capabilities of computers. But that’s what you get when you’re dealing with living systems.”
Richard Lacey, M.D., Ph.D., and expert in food safety issues, who accurately anticipated what would later be named “mad cow” disease, gave expert court testimony[2] on the dangers of GMOs. He said, “Wedging foreign genetic material in an essentially random manner into an organism’s genome necessarily causes some degree of disruption, and the disruption could be multi-faceted. Further, whether singular or multi-faceted, the disruptive influence could well result in the presence of unexpected toxins or allergens or in the degradation of nutritional value. Further, because of the complexity and interactivity of living systems — and because of the extent to which our understanding of them is still quite deficient — it is impossible to predict what specific problems could result in the case of any particular genetically engineered organism. Prediction is even more difficult because even when dealing with one variety of a food-producing organism and one particular set of foreign genetic material, each insertion event is unique and can yield deeply different results.”
In the June 2001 article “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?”[3] Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D., the author who was researching GM potatoes, talks about the scarcity of safety tests, which to this day, over nine years later, is still true. The first and only safety evaluation of a GM crop as of 2001 was on the Flavr SavrTM tomato developed by Calgene in the early 1990s. Since the company claimed there were no “significant alterations in total protein, vitamins and mineral contents and in toxic glycoalkaloids,” the FDA deemed the GM tomato “substantially equivalent” to the parent tomato. That’s all it took to for the FDA to say the tomato was safe to eat. However, the research Calgene presented to the FDA had many significant problems, which should have invalidated the study. Among other problems, no studies on intestinal tissues were performed even though seven out of twenty GM-fed rats showed lesions of various types while none of the controls had lesions. Also, seven out of forty rats on GM tomatoes died within two weeks for unstated reasons. Pusztai documents plenty of other problems with other GM plant studies in the article. Additional photos of changed stomach linings and intestinal walls of mice fed GM and non-GM potatoes can be found in the article “Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive Failures.”[4]
As Pusztai points out, “It’s more difficult to evaluate the safety of crop-derived foods than individual chemical, drug, or food additives.” Indeed, genetic modifications and transgenics, inserting DNA from another species into another, are not only inherently prone to unintended consequences because of a lack of understanding of how the genomic network works together, but also because the insertion process, itself, creates damage and large numbers of unwanted mutations. All these issues make the GMO’s DNA unstable with variations specific to each individual GMO. Additionally, as Pusztai points out, this process is made more difficult because crop compositions vary with different environmental and agronomic conditions. The Bioscience Resource Project’s article “Roundup Ready 2 Yield as much as conventional soybeans?”[5] discusses the problem of unintended consequences and how Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GM soybeans aren’t as good in crop yields as non-GM crops, a problem with GM crops in general.
Additionally, the Organic Consumers Association’s article “Spilling the Beans: Unintended GMO Health Risks”[6] points out additional unintended consequences of how GM foods may transfer genes from the food into our bodies’ cells, causing mutations and cancer or into the DNA of bacteria inside us. In fact, gut bacteria with GM soybean DNA has already been found in the intestinal tracts of humans in the only published human study as of 2009, discussed in the article “Monsanto and GM Foods: Health Risks.”[7] Additionally, the article “Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease”[8] discusses former Monsanto employee Kirk Azevedo’s concerns of what the unintended protein found in Monsanto’s GM cotton plants might do and that the “rogue proteins ‘might possibly lead to mad cow or some other prion-type diseases.’”
Independent Animal Studies Showing Sterility and Health Problems in Animals
In the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) position paper published in May 8, 2009 and titled “Genetically Modified Foods,”[9] the AAEM describes several animal studies which “indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.” The paper goes on to issue a recommendation, “Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.” AAEM says that there is mounting evidence that GMOs can possibly cause adverse health effects in humans. Actually, it’s already happened.
While GMOs were sold in the U.S. en masse in the 1990s, in 1989, according to the article “Deaths and Cripplings from Genetically Engineered L-tryptophan,”[10] written by Professor Philip J. Regal, PhD, University of Minnesota, a Japanese company paid out a $2 billion settlement after 37 American’s died and 1500 more became crippled after eating a GM supplement. The article mentions that effects were difficult to trace because one dose didn’t kill anyone. A slow deterioration of mind and body occurred after ingesting the amino acid on several occasions. This difficulty in tracking down the cause makes GM products that much more dangerous. There are plenty of other cases of problems in humans, some causing hospitalization.
The latest results of a study were announced in April 2010 where Russian scientists documented very disturbing research results of GM soybean-fed hamsters, described in the article “Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality.”[11] This study is the first long-term study that I’ve read about where the scientists looked at three generations of animals to determine the effects of GM food on offspring. While the first generation showed no ill effects, the second generation showed slower growth, reached sexual maturity more slowly, and had fewer pups. However, the third generation showed shocking mutations and total sterility, except for one lone female that had 16 pups of which 20% died. The article has one of the pictures of the mutations. Hair growing in the mouth with numerous, abnormal hollows of perforated bone. The actual study has not yet been published.
Other rat and mice experiments around the world are reporting damaged sperm, changes in testicles, small weight size of babies, and deaths of babies. For photos of the testicles, themselves and individual cells, see “GM Health Risks.”[12] These reports aren’t just showing up in the lab. Plenty of farmers are reporting sterility, illness, and deaths of their GM-fed animals.
Note: This is a multi-part article.
1. Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Donna Shalala. “Declaration of Dr. Richard Lacey, M.D., Ph.D.” Civil Action No. 98-1300 (United States District Court for the District of Columbia).
http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm
2. Strohman, Richard (2000). “Crisis Position.” Safe Food News 2000 http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm
3. Pusztai, Arpad (June 2001). “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?”
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html
4. Smith, Jeffery M. (July 2007). “Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive Failures”
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=1418
5. The Bioscience Resource Project Commentaries (Nov. 2008). “Roundup Ready 2 Yield as much as conventional soybeans?” http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/article.php?id=37
6. Smith, Jeffery M. (Mar. 2008). “Spilling the Beans: Unintended GMO Health Risks.”
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11361.cfm
7. Smith, Jeffery M. (Mar. 2008). “Monsanto and GM Foods: Health Risks.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_GM_Foods:_Health_Risks
8. Smith, Jeffery M. (Winter 2007). “Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease.”
http://www.greens.org/s-r/42/42-11.html
9. American Academy of Environmental Medicine (May 2009). “Genetically Modified Foods.”
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
10. Regal, Philip J., Ph.D. “Deaths and Cripplings from Genetically Engineered L-tryptophan.”
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=277
11. Institute for Responsible Technology. “Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality.” Originally reported in The Voice of Russia.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/article-gmo-soy-linked-to-sterility
12. Smith, Jeffery M. “Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive Failures.”
http://www.organicworks.com.au/GMHealthrisks.htm