The Documented Health Risks Genetically Engineered Food

The Documented Health Risks

of Genetically Engineered Food By Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology Author

Seeds of Deception & Genetic Roulette

Hawaiian papaya virus resistant

Zucchini crookneck squash virus resistant

Minor Food

US GM crops Soy Corn Cotton Canola

91% 73% 87% 80% (Canada)



How do we avoid GMOs? Buy organic

 Buy products that are labeled non-

GMO

 Buy products listed on a

Non-GMO Shopping Guide  Avoid at-risk ingredients See

responsibletechnology.o

www.

Rate yourself

1-100, How vigilant were you to avoid GM food when eating out? 1-100, How vigilant were you this week to avoid bringing GM food home?

Rate yourself 1-100, How active you have been in educating people on this issue?

cells

nucleus

chromosome DNA gene

A

A

T

T

C

T

C

G

T Basepairs: A-T & C-G (nucleotides)

G

A

G

C

A

How does Genetic Engineering work? 1.

Isolate a gene with a desired trait*

4.

Change the gene so it will work in plants*

7.

Prepare plant cells or tissue

9.

Transform plant cells using a gene gun bacteria infection *or Steps that contain scientific method* uncertainties and risk potential

Gene construct Regulatory sequence: on/off switch Coding sequence of a gene

often CaMV (virus) e.g. Bt toxin gene from soil bacterium

Regulatory sequence: Termination signal Plasmid backbone DNA,

e.g. from pea

Identify cells with incorporated genes Test for markers Add antibiotic

Only transformed cells survive

Grow transformed GM cells via cloning (tissue culture)

Antibiotic Resistant Genes “IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.”

Director, Division of Anti-infective Drug

Agency scientists warned of: Allergens

Toxins New diseases



GM plants could “contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.”



“The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants justifies a limited traditional toxicological study.”

Group

FDA Toxicology

1. “Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins”, 2. “Appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins, 3. Increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from the environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals”, and 4. “Undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients.” They recommended testing every GM food “before it enters the marketplace.” Division of Food Chemistry and Technology

“Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety concerns.” Gerald Guest, Director, FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)

FDA declares GMOs no different

“The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniformofway.” “Statement Policy” May 29, 1992 Food and Drug Administration

Secret FDA documents confirmed that the facts contradicted the statement

What was said within FDA

“The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” officer

Linda Kahl, FDA compliance

By “trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices,” the agency was “trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.”

“Animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.” “I would urge you to eliminate statements that suggest that the lack of information can be used as evidence for no regulatory concern.” Gerald Guest, Director, FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)

“There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering,” “There is no certainty that [breeders] will be able to pick up effects that might not be obvious.” “This is the industry’s pet idea, namely that there are no unintended effects that will raise the FDA’s level of concern. But time and time again, there is no data to back up their contention.” FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl

“What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type document. . . . It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.” FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl

Who overruled the scientists? Michael Taylor • In charge of FDA policy • Former Monsanto attorney • Later Monsanto vice president

‘Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . as you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe...’”

First GM Crop

FlavrSav Tomato r

Rats refused to eat the Yuk! tomato

After 28 days

•7 of 20 rats developed stomach lesion Industry study •Another 7 of 40 died within 2 weeks

First possible cause of problems The process of creating a GM crop creates unpredicted changes in DNA and plant composition

Unexpected changes in the DNA •Mutations (2-4% of DNA) •Deletion of genes •Permanently on or off •Altered gene expression (up to 5%)

Disruption of gene networks July 1, 2007, New York Times: 





The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized. . . . It is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built. Evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products. Yet to date, every attempt to challenge safety claims for biotech products has been categorically dismissed, or derided as unscientific.

DNA changes can alter:

•RNA •Proteins •Natural compounds

UK attempts to create long-term safety studies

Dr. Arpad Pusztai

GM potatoes damaged rats (10 or 110 days) Rats developed

• Potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract • Smaller brains, livers and testicles • Partial atrophy of the liver, and • Immune system damage Lancet, 1999 & others

Intestinal Wall

Non-GM

GM

Stomach lining

Non-GM

GM

A second cause of problem The protein produced by the inserted gene may be harmful

Two primary traits • Herbicide tolerance (73%) – Roundup Ready – Liberty Link • Pesticide production (18%) – Bt toxin • Crops with both traits (8%)

Bt-toxin Industry claims Bt: • Has a history of safe use • Is destroyed during digestion • Is not active in mammals

In reality

•People react to Bt spray •Bt survives digestion

•Mice react to Bt-toxin

Bt

in

crops

Thousands of times more concentrated than the spray Designed to be more toxic Has properties of a known allergen

Bt cotton Hundreds of laborers in India reported allergic reactions to Bt cotton

Upper Eyes respirator y

Skin

sneezing water itching Bt burning Spray runny nose y asthma

Bt cotto n

red

sneezing water runny nose y red

Overal l

fever

inflammatio some n in red, swelling hospita l itching fever burning eruptions some red, swelling in hospita l

Bt cotton Thousands of sheep died after grazing on Bt cotton plants

“The Andhra Pradesh government has advised farmers not to allow animals to graze on Bt cotton fields after four institutes reported the presence of toxins in them.” The Hindustan Times, 17 June 2007

Bt corn, reports… 12 cows died on German a farm

Bt corn, reports… Farmer s say pigs and cows becam e sterile

Bt corn, reports…

Inhaled pollen may have

Upper Eyes respirator y Bt sneezing Spray runny nose asthma Bt corn polle n

sneezing asthma coughs nose bleeds

Skin

watery Itching, red burning inflammation, red, swelling swelling

Overall

fever some in hospital fever some in hospital

Other symptoms: headache, stomach ache, dizziness, diarrhea, vomiting, weakness, numbness. 9 horses, 4 water buffalos, and 37 chickens died after eating the corn. 5 unexplained human deaths.

Rats ate Bt corn

(90

days)

Indicators for Liver and kidney toxicity Blood pressure problems, allergies, infections or disease, higher blood sugar and anemia Monsanto study

Third reason for The proteinproblems may be different than

intended

The transgene sequence may: Mutate or Rearrange truncate Be read differently Produce multiple proteins

The protein may:

Be folded differently Have different molecules

Mice had an immune response toAgricultural GM Food Chemistry, pea 2005 protein

Fourth possible problem

More herbicide residues in herbicide tolerant

Chickens fed Liberty Link corn died at twice the rate

Industry study

Fifth possible problem

Gene transfer to gut bacteria or

Transfer of transgen es to gut bacteria is optimized

•Bacterial sequences are easier to transfer to bacteria •The gene’s promoter works in bacteria

Nature Biotechnology, 2004

Promoter Antibiotic resistant marker Roundup Ready genes Viral genes

What can transfer?

Summary: Possible Sources of Problems 1. Disruption of DNA 2. GM protein 3. Changes in the protein 4. Herbicide residues

Case Study: Roundup Ready Soy

1.Disrupted DNA Damaged

section near transgene

Extra transgene European Food Research and Technology

fragments

Altered nutrients Increased:  Anti-nutrient (soy lectin)  Allergen (trypsin inhibitor) Reduced: Lignin (disease related?)

 Protein  A fatty acid  An essential amino acid

GM soy has higher lignin content “Components of this same biochemical pathway also produce… rotenone, a plant-produced insecticide that may cause Parkinson’s disease.” David Schubert, PhD, Salk Institute

2. Protein may be harmful Properties

of a known allergen (dust mite)

3. GM protein may be altered  RNA was longer than intended  Further processed into four variants, which may create unintended proteins

4. Increased herbicide 138 million pounds more in the US in the first 9

years In 2004, approximately 86% more Roundup on GM soy Increased fusarium on crops (wheat, soy roots)

Herbicide use is Estimated 120 million pound increase in 2 years accelerating In 1 year, 2005-2006, the increase was 38% Usage of the more toxic 2,4-D was up 237% 2004-2006

5. Gene transfer

Soy transgenes were confirmed in human gut

Evidence of GM soyrelated problems

Soon after GM soy was introduced into the UK, soy allergies skyrockete York Laboratory d by 50%.

Skin prick test “One patient had a positive skin test result to GMO soybeans only.”

Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, 2005

Mice fed GM soy Pancreas

 Reduced digestive

enzymes  Altered cell structure Journal of Anatomy, 2002 European Journal of Histochemistry, 2003 Altered gene expression

Possible causes for increase allergies  Digestion impaired  New allergen created  Known allergen increased  Herbicide residues increased  Roundup Ready (RR) protein may be allergenic  RR protein continuously produced inside our intestines

Rabbits Fed Roundup Ready Soy (For 40 days)

 Increased cell

metabolism  Changed enzyme Animal Science, 2006 levels in the kidneys, hearts and livers

Mice fed GM soy Liver   

Cells damaged Altered gene expression Higher metabolic activity Cell Structure and Function, 2002 (suggesting toxic insult)

Mice livers Hepatocyte Nuclei

Control GM-fed

Mice livers Hepatocyte Nuclei

Control GM-fed

Rat Livers А, B – control group

C, D – GM-soy group

A

C

B

D

Dr. Irina Ermakova

Mice fed GM soy

Testicular cells had altered

structure and function

European Journal of Histochemistry, 2004

Rat testicles Control

GM soy fed

Control

GM-soy

Offspring of Mice Fed GM Soy Young embryos from GM-fed temporary decrease in gene expression parents had

In

First Generation

Mortality of rat pups

Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007

Control

GM-soy Non-GM soy

GM-soy group

Control

Ermakova Irina, 2005-2007

NonGM soy

Mortalit y of rat offsprin g for GM-soy one day

Rat litters at 9-days from mothers fed non-GM or GM soy. GM-soy group

Non-GM soy group

Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007

19-day old rats Larger rat is from control group; smaller from GM-soy group.

Irina Ermakova,

Preliminary evidence Rat offspring did not conceive

When the entire Russian facility began using GM soy-based feed, infant mortality for all rats hit 55.3%.

GM crops are so bad, why don’t we see more problems

L-tryptophan produced by GM bacteria

Killed about 100 and caused 5,000-10,000 to fall sick

The epidemic was discovered because the disease • Was new, with unique symptoms • Acute • Came on quickly

Current Assessments

No post-marketing surveillance No human clinical trials

No proper evaluation of plant changes or effects Approvals based on disproved or untested assumptions Industry studies

Rate yourself 1-100

• 1-100, How vigilant to avoid GM food when eating out? • How vigilant will you be to avoid bringing GM food home? • How active do you plan to be helping to stop this?

How do we stop the genetic engineering of our food supply?

Landslide among manufacturers

Removed GMOs from EU!

Dr. Arpad Pusztai

Limited expansion • • • •

4 major crops 2 major traits 6 countries 2.4% of global agricultural land

GM Sugar Beet Alert! Harvest planned for fall, 2008

www.DontPlantGMOBeets.org

US awareness is low As far as you know, have you ever eaten genetically modified foods? •No........................................60% •Don’t Know...........................15% •Yes.......................................25%

Tipping point for US rejection of GM crops may be quite soon

Campaign for Healthier Eating in America

www.ResponsibleTechnology.org

General population

School meals

Under intense scrutiny Removin g junk foods

Health professionals “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it— unless it says organic.” —John H. Boyles, MD, ear, nose, and throat, and allergy specialist

Religious groups

Healthconscious shoppers  28 million adults are “high usage” organic buyers  54 million are “temperate” organic Health and Wellness Trends shoppers Database

Tipping point against rBGH  September 2006, Boston Globe “Dairies are rushing to rid their bottled milk of artificial growth hormones. . . it could  be October 2006, New York a tipping point.” Times “It seems to be an explosion in  Wal-Mart, Kroger, Starbucks, the industry.” and

about 40 of the top 100 dairies

Education is Key!



How do we avoid GMOs? Buy organic

 Buy products that are labeled non-

GMO

 Buy products listed on a

Non-GMO Shopping Guide  Avoid at-risk ingredients See

responsibletechnology.o

www.