Beware of the Life Science Industry --- and its GM Foods From Genetically Engineered Crops

BEWARE OF THE LIFE SCIENCE INDUSTRY--- AND ITS GM FOODS FROM
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS.

By Dr. Michael W. Fox

Industrial agribusiness’ indifference and corpus of denial of toward the suffering of intensively raised farm animals parallels the indifference toward all the harmful agrichemical pesticides and fertilizers that are now in our rain, food, drinking water, mothers’ milk, and even amniotic fluids, and that have turned the countryside into a toxic chemical wasteland.

The infamy and hegemony of the multinational, ologopolistic ‘Life Science’ industry, pushing these agricultural inputs from seed and equipment to chemical fertilizers and pesticides onto developing countries, after decimating the once sustainable network of small farming and food processing operations in the Americas and Europe, and much of the rest of the industrial, ‘developed’ world, are a matter of public and historic record. This multinational industry also ‘outsources’ agricultural production of commodity crops that it imports to the U.S. on the cheap from countries where poverty and corruption often rampant, and agricultural chemicals banned in the U.S. are widely used.

A major, global venture of this Life Science industry has been to develop varieties of high-yield hybrid seeds, and more recently, genetically engineered seeds that are resistant to herbicides, produce their own pesticides, nutrient supplements for livestock, ( like lysine that factory farmed pigs need a lot of), and even pharmaceutical drugs. During the 1980’s these monopoly players---the petrochemical, pharmaceutical and life science conglomerates-- rushed to buy up all independent seed companies and their seed stocks. Patented, high yield hybrid varieties are few in number, widely planted, and genetically uniform. The uniformity means genetic vulnerability to disease (same for the patented hybrid strains of commercially farmed animals). It is these highly inbred, hybrid varieties that are now being genetically engineered, and spreading world wide at the ever quickening pace of global monopoly.

The seed stocks of conventional and heirloom varieties are not being planted, are deteriorating in storage, and when planted are likely to be come contaminated by the pollen of genetically engineered crops from neighboring fields and counties. This accelerating decline in the genetic diversity of our major food, feed and fiber (and biomass and green manure) crops, coupled with the genetic disruption of plant genomes that the genetic engineering process can cause (see below) call for a total moratorium on any further plantings of GM seeds. As will be revealed below, there are enough documented research studies to negate the government-industry response to such a moratorium and community-linked GM-FREE Zones that would say that there is no scientific evidence of harm to animals or to human consumers, and that GM seeds are ‘substantially equivalent’ to conventional varieties.

The socially and politically disruptive and devastating human suffering soon to come, according to some agronomists, including Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug (whose crop ‘improvement’ genetic research has arguably caused more harm than good in the hands of agribusiness oligopolies) is from the Ug99 strain of black stem rust fungus on the world’s wheat crop. This world wheat crop has so little genetic diversity now that there are few varieties and cultivars with any genetic resistance to this devastating disease that could mean global famine. Putting all our eggs in the same basket is never a wise investment.

This Life Science industry has convinced legislators that genetically engineered crops are safe, and ‘substantially equivalent’ to conventional varieties of food and animal feed crops. But the scientific evidence, and documented animal safety tests, point in the opposite direction. The US government even attempted to have genetically engineered seeds and foods included under the National Organic Standards. Genetically engineered crops of corn, soy and canola that are herbicide resistant, and corn that produces its own insecticidal poison called Bt, get into the human food chain, and are put into livestock feed and pet foods with the government’s blessing: And they quite probably contribute to the demise of the honey bee and a large agricultural sector of bee-pollination dependent orchard and field crops.

Herbicide resistant crops actually absorb the herbicide that is repeatedly sprayed to kill competing weeds which we and the animals subsequently consume, along with whatever endogenous pesticides they have been genetically engineered to produce and have been treated with from seed to shelf.

As for the documented, peer-reviewed, published studies generally mandated by good judgment before the government’s approving any novel food, such as a genetically engineered one, there were virtually none made public before and after the Life Science Industry developed and patented new GM foods and animal feeds and put them on the market. In spite of world wide public opposition, GM crops and seeds have respectively come to dominate and contaminate both conventional and organic food and industrial commodity crop markets.

The oil-shortage panic move in the U.S in 2007/8 to ill advised ethanol production from corn meant more plantings of GM varieties, less land for livestock feed, and for human food-crop production to stockpile for humanitarian emergency relief food programs that are in more demand than ever with climate change.

Arguably the worse case scenario of non-sustainable industrial agriculture is the U.S. government’s commodity crop support program that subsidizes corn and soybean production---crops, now predominantly GM, that result in serious soil erosion and water pollution from agichemicals--- at an estimated $ 12.2 billion. Such subsidies are a disincentive to farmers to adopt more ecologically sound farming practices.

This Life Science industry with its patented new seeds, rising from its agribusiness commodity-crop, pet food, petrochemical fertilizer and pharmaceutical roots, became a star of investor hope in the World Trade Organization’s new world order, and with free trade blessings. But its promises of better seeds and crops through genetic engineering that would benefit all, in spite of its now almost global domination, have proven to be false. In the face of climate change and food riots, these touted wonder crops to feed the poor and to resist drought are still being touted twenty years after their first patented appearance in the US. But they were developed primarily to monopolize the corn/rice/soy/canola and cotton commodity crop market and to boost sales of herbicides to which these new crops had been made genetically resistant.

The humanitarian benefits proclaimed by the Life Science industry were a sham, and served to emotionally blackmail legislators and hoodwink the public into accepting GM crops that have caused far more harm to many than any good. The indirect and unforeseen costs far outweigh the short term benefits, which more and more governments and businesses are now beginning to realize. Yet still the Life Science industry holds out the promise of their seeds to solve Africa’s problems and those of other impoverished and overpopulated countries, and to this end the US government and World Bank have been working to gain acceptance of GM crops by foreign governments through fair means and foul, bribes being the common currency of multinational corporations and corrupt governments and politicians.

The Life Science industry employs scientists to defend GM crops and the genetic engineering and cloning of farm animals, like oil companies employed scientists to say that global warming/climate change was a myth. They gave billions to Universities, setting up Chairs, Departments, Fellowships and lucrative consultative and patent sharing agreements, along with the US Chamber of Commerce.

One of the first government employed scientist to blow the whistle on the health risks and unproven safety of GM foods was immediately fired. He worked for the same British government laboratory that collaborated with China to develop genetically engineered wheat.

This good scientist, Dr. Arapad Pusztai whose research findings he has now shared with millions of concerned consumers around the world, were suppressed and loudly discredited by the Life Science government-industry-university complex. Their act of suppression gave Dr. Pusztai his world forum, and he came to this as an objective scientist with no bias pro or con GM foods. (More details to come below).

Since 85-90 percent of the US corn and soy crops are now GM, along with more and more of our rice, and since more and more of these crop byproducts are put into pet foods, and dogs and cats are getting more allergies, digestive and other debilitating and costly health problems, consumers are beginning to wake up.

We can all find information, direction and hope in many organizations that are addressing the critical issues of human health, food security, safety and quality from a variety of perspectives. The following reports, posted on the internet by scientists and analysts include full reference citation to support their assertions and conclusions.
Having read many scientific papers on the risks and benefits of GM crops, the most disturbing review published in a highly credible, peer-reviewed journal confirms what concerned analysts and others have feared for several years. This is that GM seeds are genetically unstable because they are more prone than normal to undergo spontaneous mutations. This can mean that GM crops could produce novel, harmful proteins, excessive, even toxic amounts of normal nutrients, or become extremely deficient in same (6).

(1) See Jeffrey M. Smith’s book ‘Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods’, and visit his website www.seedsofdeception.com.
(2) For details see Eating With Conscience: The Bioethics of Food by Dr. M.W.Fox New Sage Press, Troutdale,OR, 1997.
(3) See www.non-gmoreport.com for more details.
(4) See Daniel Imhoff, ‘Food Fight: A Citizen’s Guide to the Food and Farm Bill’, Watershed Media Publ., 2007.
(5) For an in-depth review of the development of genetically engineered crops, foods, and animals, see M.W. Fox, Killer Foods: What Scientists Do To Make Better Is Not Always Best. The Lyons Press, Guilford, CT 2004
(6) A.K.Wilson, J.R.Latham, and R.A.Steinbrecher, ‘Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications.’ Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, vol 23, p 209-226, 2006.

NEW EVIDENCE OF HARM FROM GM FOOD TRIGGERS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE BAN

Contacts in Europe sent the following review of animal safety tests that the agricultural biotechnology industry is now hard pressed to refute, but as with DES (diethylstilbestrol) implants for women a generation ago, ( that caused an epidemic of cancer and harmed male offspring in particular), it will take time to ban GM crops and foods because advocates will talk about all the many benefits that outweigh the costs and risks.

Press Notice 25th November 2005
Immediate Release
Source: GM Free Cymru, Wales, UK (1)
( Abbreviated synopsis)

New studies of the health effects of GM foods have triggered fresh demands for GM components in human food and animal feed to be banned immediately, and have also led to accusations of criminal negligence aimed at the UK Government and European Commission.

A study conducted by Manuela Malatesta and colleagues in the Universities of Pavia and Urbino in Italy, showed that mice fed on GM soya experienced a slowdown in cellular metabolism and modifications to liver and pancreas (2). A second study, conducted by CSIRO in Australia, showed that the introduction of genes from a bean variety into a GM pea led to the creation of a novel protein which caused inflammation of the lung tissue of mice (3). So serious was the damage that the research was halted, and stocks of the GM pea have been destroyed. The developers have now made a commitment that the "rogue" variety will never be marketed.

These studies, all revealed in the scientific literature within the past few weeks, have caused widespread alarm throughout the world, since one of them suggests that GM soya (used in a large number of foods) might be very dangerous, and since they appear to confirm the findings of Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Stanley Ewen, whose paper on physiological changes in rats fed on GM potatoes caused a worldwide sensation in 1999 (4). The authors were given the full "shoot the messenger" treatment; they were widely vilified by the scientific community, and following an intervention from the office of Prime Minister Tony Blair Dr Pusztai was sacked, his research team was dismantled, and his funding stopped. The Ewen/Pusztai research has never been repeated, let alone extended, for fear that their results will also be replicated. And there has never been a comprehensive human feeding trial involving GM food.

There is now overwhelming evidence in the literature of deaths attributable to GM products -- among laboratory and farm animals and in the human population. Some of this evidence is presented below. Despite opposition from European Member States, the European Commission appears to be intent upon issuing one contentious and dangerous GM authorization after another, and basing its decisions upon highly selective and biased research by the applicants themselves, while taking guidance from a despised European Food Safety Authority which has lost the confidence of NGOs and consumer groups across Europe.

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said today: "Neither the UK government nor the European Commission can pretend any longer that GM foods are harmless. They must stop singing from the hymn-sheets provided for them by the GM industry, and -- not before time -- recognize that they have a legal duty to protect residents and consumers. In our view they are already guilty of criminal negligence and the willful suppression of facts. There must be no further GM consents, and GM foodstuffs must be banned immediately -- at least until such time that independent research on animals and humans gives GM a clean bill of health (24). We already know enough to be confident that that will never happen (25)."

Professor Malcolm Hooper (20) said: "The genetic modification to food is not without danger to the consumer who may be affected by genetic changes that subsequently lead to serious chronic illnesses (cancer and chronic inflammatory disease). Further independent studies, divorced from any influence of government or corporations, are now imperative and urgent."

Prof Vyvyan Howard (21) said: "We need to change the focus of the debate away from the limited studies that have been done to date onto the size of the irreversible legacy that we are probably going to leave for future generations”.

BRIEFING NOTE

OTHER EVIDENCE OF HARM

In spite of concerted efforts from the GM industry and from the political establishment to prevent truly independent research on the health effects of GM food, there is now a mass of information in the public domain to demonstrate that such food is potentially dangerous. We will never know how many GM varieties have been developed and then quietly abandoned before reaching the regulatory process as a result of deaths or physiological damage during animal feeding trials, since studies by Monsanto, Syngenta and the other GM corporations are conducted in-house and under conditions of great secrecy. But we do know of at least seven cases where GM varieties have been withdrawn because of direct evidence of health damage (5) (6) (7); and there are many instances of human and animal deaths arising from GM feeding trials and premature release onto the market of GM products (8-12).

In the most deadly case of all, the premature release of the GM food supplement L-tryptophan in the USA led to a large number of human deaths (estimates range from 39 to well over 100) and to the development of a new disease (referred to as eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, or EMS) which afflicted up to 10,000 people (8). When StarLink maize (intended and only approved for animal fodder) found its way into the US human food chain in 2000, there was a massive food scare when it was realized that it was potentially capable of triggering severe allergic reactions; the crop was recalled (far too late), and $9 million had to be paid out in compensation (6). People may well have died, but the medical impact of the Starlink fiasco is a closely-guarded secret. In Hesse, Germany, 12 dairy cows died in 2001-2002 after eating GM fodder maize Bt176, which contains the Cry1Ab protein (11). When broiler chickens were fed on a diet of Chardon LL (T25) maize, the mortality rate was twice as high as that of the control group. That fodder maize variety has now been withdrawn. When the infamous Flavr-Savr GM tomato was tested, 7 out of 40 rats died within two weeks due to necrosis (5). In the case of the GM bovine growth hormone known as rBGH or BST Monsanto has persistently attempted to promote its use in spite of abundant evidence of cattle deaths and attributable problems including mastitis (10). Allergic reactions among farm workers have been preliminarily linked to Monsanto Bt maize and Bt cotton in the Philippines (2004) and India (2005), respectively (14).

In 2005 Monsanto was heavily criticized across the world for the obsessive secrecy with which it sought to keep animal feeding studies for MON863 maize out of the public domain (6). The company even insisted on a "gagging order" on Dr Arpad Pusztai, the scientist retained by the German Government to assess the scientific dossier submitted with the Monsanto authorization application to the EU. The study found "statistically significant" differences to kidney weights and certain blood parameters in the rats fed on the GM maize as compared with the control groups, and a number of scientists across Europe who saw the study (and heavily-censored summaries of it) expressed concerns about the health and safety implications if MON863 should ever enter the food chain. There was particular concern in France, where Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen had been trying (without success) for almost eighteen months to obtain full disclosure of all documents relating to the MON863 study. At last, it required a resolute campaign from NGOs and a German court order to obtain the release of the study, which was then revealed to have been highly selective, and carefully designed to minimize negative health effects.

There have still been virtually no studies of the impact of GM food consumption on human health. But in one small study, referred to as the "Newcastle Feeding Study", showed in 2003 that even after one small meal containing a GM soya component, transgenes could transfer out of GM food into gut bacteria at detectable levels (15). The study was commissioned by the FSA in the UK, and that body (which has consistently promoted the merits of GM food) was so frightened by the implications of the result that it has refused absolutely to commission any repeat or follow-up studies in spite of a flood of requests from NGOs and consumer groups.

A CONSPIRACY OF FALSEHOOD
During the past decade, as the giant biotechnology corporations have extended their power base and have taken over the role as the prime funders of GM research, politicians worldwide have been happy to promote the merits of biotechnology and to believe almost everything fed to them by the spin-doctors of Monsanto, Syngenta and other companies. They have blindly promoted the interests of these corporations in spite of on-going and vociferous opposition from the public -- and from concerned NGOs and consumer groups. Public opinion polls consistently show large majorities in Europe who are opposed to the use of GMOs in food supplies. Independent scientists who have had the temerity to question the objectivity of studies submitted with applications for GM approvals, or who have themselves published "uncomfortable" research, have been victimized, marginalized and "warned off" further involvement with community groups. The conclusion is inescapable that the British Government, and the EC, subscribe to a corrupt scientific system which is based upon the following contract: "we tell you in advance what the result is, and you will be paid to get on with your work and provide us with the evidence we need".

For at least ten years the industry has consistently peddled the line that nobody has ever died or even been harmed as a result of consuming GM products. That is a lie, and it is still a lie if it is repeated a thousand times. These are typical reproductions of the lie:

Eliott Morley, Environment Minister: "In terms of existing products there has never been any indication that there is a health risk."

Dr Christopher Preston: "Many studies have been published since 2002 and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test species."
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html

CSIRO plant industry deputy director T. J. Higgins: "People have been eating GM food for 10 years and there isn't a single piece of evidence that it's any less safe than conventional food."

SIGNS OF PANIC
There are signs that the new studies of damage inflicted by GM foodstuffs is spreading panic in the corridors of power. That is why representatives of the President of the EC rang up Manuela Malatesta and her colleagues in Italy. That is why there is growing mistrust between the European Parliament and EFSA, which has a long reputation for "facilitating GM approvals" instead of protecting the European public. That is why EFSA has been forced to hold a stakeholders meeting (17) and to accept a barrage of criticism from NGOs and consumer groups furious with its secrecy, its complacency and its easy acceptance of all the evidence placed before it by Monsanto and other GM corporations (18). That is why the FAO organized an invitation-only workshop in its Rome HQ in October 2005 with 12 invited scientists, in order to assess the likelihood of health damage in the general population arising from the spread of GM foods. Dr Stanley Ewen, a practicing consultant histopathologist at Grampian University Hospital Trust, was invited to give the opening presentation. He subsequently said: " We laid down a definitive protocol for the testing of GM food using animals and, indeed, humans. However, Dr Harry Kuiper of the European Food Safety Authority made it quite clear that
his organisation was content to accept the results of "objective studies" carried out by the GM companies. I am concerned that such objective studies are still only being developed. Additionally, that the EFSA will only commission animal experiments if there were serious molecular differences between the parent protein and the genetically modified protein. Then there would seem to be the question of who would fund such experiments and where would they be carried out? I firmly believe that there continues to be an urgent need for
independent animal and human testing."

We understand from others present at that meeting that there was a consensus that there are many gaps in scientific knowledge, particularly related to GM health risks, and that new work on such risks must be commissioned at the earliest opportunity; but that Dr Kuiper, on behalf of EFSA, effectively refused to sanction such new work and refused to commit funding to it. As far as he is concerned, he is blind to any ill-effects arising from the consumption of GM foods, and he is also content to continue leading the blind European Commissioners who foolishly depend on him for guidance.

COMMENTS
Responding to the three new GM studies, and to the avalanche of new work demonstrating that GM foods are actually harmful to human beings and other animals, Dr Michael Antoniou (22) said: "If the kind of
detrimental effects seen in animals fed GM food were observed in a clinical setting, the use of the product would have been halted and further research instigated to determine the cause and find possible solutions. However, what we find repeatedly in the case of GM food is that both governments and industry plough on ahead with the development, endorsement and marketing GM foods despite the warnings of potential ill health from animal feeding studies, as if nothing has happened. This is to the point where governments and industry even seem to ignore the results of their own research! There is clearly a need more than ever before for independent research into the potential ill effects of GM food including most importantly extensive animal and human feeding trials." (24)

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "With news of these three studies, we have come to the inescapable conclusion that there is something seriously wrong with GM food. Any averagely intelligent person must also come to that conclusion. We think that GM soya is particularly dangerous. The GM industry, the regulatory authorities in Britain and Europe, and the politicians who are supposed to look after us, have been living in a permanent state of denial about GM ever since Arpad Pusztai and Stanley Ewen published their Lancet paper in 1999. If they persist in the pretence that all is well in the GM garden for a moment longer, they will compound their criminal negligence and their willful suppression of facts (23). They have already lost the trust of the present generation of consumers; if they continue to treat the protection of biotechnology multinationals as a greater priority than the protection of consumer health they will be guilty of a deliberate and cynical betrayal of the interests of future generations. We want nothing less than an immediate ban on all GM crops, all GM food and all GM animal feed."

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Report prepared by Dr. Brian John, GM Free Cymru. Tel 01239-820470

2. Manuela Malatesta and her colleagues have published five papers
2002-2004.
http://www.greenplanet.net/Articolo9833.html&prev=/search?q=Manuela+Malatesta&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=G)
Mangiare OGM non fa differenza? Non proprio.......
Abstracts of the papers can be found here:
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMfeedsafetypapers.html

3. Study conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/2005/53/i23/abs/jf050594v.html

New Scientist article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347

4. Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354:1353-1354

5. The Flavr-Savr tomato was withdrawn in 1996, amid claims that it
was a commercial failure. So was another variety called Endless
Summer. But trials of the Flavr-Savr tomato showed there were health
concerns which contributed to the "commercial" decision.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/0/80256cad0046ee0c80256d1f005b0ce5?OpenDocument

6. The StarLink maize fiasco occurred in 2000and is well documented.
See also: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biotechdebacle_updated.php

7. A new GM soya was developed, containing genes from Brazil nuts (1996). A novel protein was accidentally created which had the potential to affect people with nut allergies -- so the GM soya was withdrawn:
http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/Food_causing_disease/15-737-740,32410.asp

8. As a consequence of the L-tryptophan scandal (1989) there were c 100 deaths (Jeffrey Smith). See these:
>http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=283&find=L%2Dtryptophan
www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm

9. Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. 1998. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins. 6:219-33.

10. The rBGH bovine growth hormone (BST) has been promoted globally by Monsanto in the full knowledge of science showing damage to both cattle and those who consume the milk of cows treated with rBGH.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/ObjectID=193&find=BST

11. The deaths of cattle in Hesse, Germany, have been linked with Bt176 maize, but there appear to have been determined efforts to "lose" key scientific information and to attribute the cattle deaths to
mismanagement and other factors.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php

12. Broiler chickens fed on Chardon LL -- the mortality rate was twice as high as that of the control group (NB the infamous case of Prof Alan Gray of ACRE and the failure of that Committee to examine evidence placed before it........)
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/appeal.php

13. Rats fed on Chardon LL -- weight gain was much reduced
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/appeal.php

14. The work of the Norwegian scientist Terje Traavik and his colleagues is on-going and has still to be published. But see:
"Filipino islanders blame GM crop for mystery sickness. Monsanto denies scientist's claim that maize may have caused 100 villagers to fall ill"
-- John Aglionby in Kalyong, southern Philippines, The Guardian,
Wednesday 3 March 3, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1160789,00.html

Allergic reactions and livestock deaths 2005 attributable to Bt cotton In India (Madhya Pradesh):
http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health

15. The Newcastle feeding study (published 2003) involved a small portion of GM soya fed to just seven ileostomy patients:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/statement
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=990

Comments by Dr Michael Antoniou
http://www.gmwatch.org/print-archive2.asp?arcid=143

16. Re the Monsanto rat feeding study on MON863 maize, which the company was desperate to keep out of the public domain (2004):
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=221
Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up, by Jeffrey M. Smith
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=640430
http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/381_en.html
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5270

17. See this for the Stakeholders Meeting:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5804

18. See, for example:
http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/Bt11reportOct05.pdf

19. Workshop on Safety of Genetically Modified Foods held at FAO Headquarters, Rome, 13 - 14 October
ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/meetings/2005/gm_workshop_info.pdf

20. Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Sciences, University of Sunderland, UK

21. Professor of Bioimaging, School of Biomedical Sciences University of Ulster, Coleraine campus

22. Reader in Medical and Molecular Genetics, King's College London

23. The regulatory system for GM crops and foodstuffs is a disgrace, and needs to be scrapped and replaced. The GM authorizations process in both Europe and the USA is underpinned by the scientifically
nonsensical concept of "substantial equivalence", by which a cow with BSE would be considered to be "substantially equivalent" to one without. Further, the authorities depend almost exclusively upon the
"science" submitted by the biotechnology corporations with their applications, which is almost always partial and selective. In other words, it is corrupt. Again, the regulatory process is designed - quite specifically - to facilitate authorizations rather than to protect the consumer. The regulatory bodies themselves are packed with
placements from the GM industry -- people whose very careers depend upon a continuation of the GM enterprise. The precautionary principle, which is supposed to underpin the regulatory process, has now been
effectively replaced by the "anti-precautionary principle", by which GMs are assumed to be harmless unless opponents can prove otherwise, on a variety-specific basis. But independent scientists cannot undertake effective research because the genetic constructs of new GM varieties are closely guarded secrets, and because governments will not fund their studies. And finally, in Europe at least, the Commission is more
concerned about politics than science, and is determined to issue GM authorizations, come hell or high water, just to show the Americans and the WTO that there is no GM moratorium in place.

24. Letters have now gone from GM Free Cymru to the UK Food Standards Agency and to the European Food Safety Authority demanding the initiation of an urgent programme of independent research into the
health effects of GM food, on the lines discussed at the recent unpublicised FOA meeting in Rome. Copies of these letters are available on request.

25. According to a letter received 24.11.05 from Arpad Pusztai, "A consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished, including MON863, indicates major problems with changes in the immune
status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods, the latest example of this coming from the GM pea research in Australia."

It should also be added that recent studies have shown that the pollen from various types of Bt corn/maize will kill caterpillars and other insects when the wind-blown pollen settles on the leaves of other plants; and that both Bt corn and Bt cotton crop residues contaminate the soil with Bt toxin.

Jeffrey M. Smith, who publishes Spilling The Beans, a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org. writes that:

It turns out that the damage done to DNA due to the process of creating a genetically modified organism is far more extensive than previously thought.[1] GM crops routinely create unintended proteins, alter existing protein levels or even change the components and shape of the protein that is created by the inserted gene. The concerns of Kirk Azevedo, former Monsanto employee and whistle blower (who left the company after his concerns about their GM crop varieties producing harmful mis- folded proteins, which he felt were in some ways analogous to the mis-folded prions responsible for Mad Cow disease, fell on deaf ears), have been echoed by other scientists as one of many possible dangers that are not being evaluated by the biotech industry’s superficial safety assessments.

GM cotton has provided ample reports of unpredicted side-effects. In April 2006, more than 70 Indian shepherds reported that 25% of their herds died within 5-7 days of continuous grazing on Bt cotton plants.[2] Hundreds of Indian agricultural laborers reported allergic reactions from Bt cotton. Some cotton harvesters have been hospitalized and many laborers in cotton gin factories take antihistamines each day before work.[3]

The cotton's agronomic performance is also erratic. When Monsanto's GM cotton varieties were first introduced in the US, tens of thousands of acres suffered deformed roots and other unexpected problems. Monsanto paid out millions in settlements.[4] When Bt cotton was tested in Indonesia, widespread pest
infestation and drought damage forced withdrawal of the crop, despite the fact that Monsanto had been bribing at least 140 individuals for years, trying to gain approval.[5] In India, inconsistent performance has resulted in more than $80 million dollars in losses in each of two states.[6] Thousands of indebted Bt
cotton farmers have committed suicide. In Vidarbha, in north east Maharashtra, from June through August 2006, farmers committed suicide at a rate of about one every eight hours.[7] (The list of adverse reactions reported from other GM crops, in lab animals, livestock and humans, is considerably longer.)

Kirk's concern about GM crop test plots also continues to remain valid. The industry has been consistently inept at controlling the spread of unapproved varieties. On August 18, 2006, for example, the USDA announced that unapproved GM long grain rice, which was last field tested by Bayer CropScience in 2001,
had contaminated the US rice crop[8] (probably for the past 5 years). Japan responded by suspending long grain rice imports and the EU will now only accept shipments that are tested and certified GM-free. Similarly, in March 2005, the US government admitted that an unapproved corn variety had escaped from Syngenta’s field trials four years earlier and had contaminated US corn.[9] By year's end, Japan had rejected at least 14 shipments containing the illegal corn. Other field trialed crops have been mixed with commercial varieties,
consumed by farmers, stolen, even given away by government agencies and universities who had accidentally mixed seed varieties.

Some contamination from field trials may last for centuries. That may be the fate of a variety of unapproved Roundup Ready grass which, according to reports made public in August 2006, had escaped into the wild from an Oregon test plot years earlier. Pollen had crossed with other varieties and wind had dispersed
seeds. Scientists believe that the variety will cross pollinate with other grass varieties and may contaminate the commercial grass seed supply—70 percent of which is grown in Oregon.

Even GM crops with known poisons are being grown outdoors without adequate safeguards for health and the environment. A corn engineered to produce pharmaceutical medicines, for example, contaminated corn and soybean fields in Iowa and Nebraska in 2002.[10] On August 10, 2006, a federal judge ruled that
the drug-producing GM crops grown in Hawaii violated both the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.[11]

A December 29, 2005 report by the USDA office of Inspector General, blasted the agriculture department for its abysmal oversight of GM field trials, particularly for the high risk drug producing crops.[12] And a January 2004 report by the National Research Council also called upon the government to strengthen its oversight, but acknowledged that there is no way to guarantee that field trialed crops will not pollute the environment.[13]

With the US government failing to prevent GM contamination, and with state governments and agriculture commissioners unwilling to challenge the dictates of the biotech industry, some California counties decided to enact regulations of their own. California’s diverse agriculture is particularly vulnerable and thousands of field trials on not-yet-approved GM crops have already taken place there. If contamination were discovered, it could easily devastate an industry. Four counties have enacted moratoria or bans on the planting of GM crops,
including both approved and unapproved varieties. This follows the actions of more than 4500 jurisdictions in Europe and dozens of nations, states and regions on all continents, which have sought to restrict planting of GM crops to protect their health, environment and agriculture.

{Jeffrey Smith's book, Genetic Roulette, documents more than 60 health risks of GM foods in easy-to-read two-page spreads, and demonstrates how current safety assessments are not competent to protect consumers from the dangers. His previous book, Seeds of Deception (www.seedsofdeception.com), is the world's best selling book on the subject.
Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] JR Latham et al., "The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation," The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Vol 2006 Article ID 25376 Pages 1-7, DOI 10.1155/JBB/2006/25376; for a more in-depth discussion, see also Allison Wilson et al., “Genome Scrambling -Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants, Technical Report - October 2004,
www.econexus.info.

[2] 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

[3] Ashish Gupta, et. al., Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh), Investigation Report, Oct - Dec 2005

[4] See for example, Monsanto Cited In Crop Losses New York Times, June 16, 1998, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04EED6153DF935A25755C0A96E958260; and Greenpeace http://archive.greenpeace.org/geneng/reports/gmo/intrgmo5.htm

[5] Antje Lorch, Monsanto Bribes in Indonesia, Monsanto Fined For Bribing
Indonesian Officials to Avoid Environmental Studies for Bt Cotton, ifrik 1sep2005, http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Monsanto-Bribes-Indonesia1sep05.htm

[6] Bt Cotton - No Respite for Andhra Pradesh Farmers More than 400 crores' worth losses for Bt Cotton farmers in Kharif 2005 Centre for Sustainable Agriculture: Press Release, March 29, 2006 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6393;
see also November 14, 2005 article in www.NewKerala.com regarding Madhya Pradesh.

[7] Jaideep Hardikar, One suicide every 8 hours, Daily News & Analysis (India), August 26, 2006 http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1049554

[8]Rick Weiss, U.S. Rice Supply Contaminated, Genetically Altered Variety Is
Found in Long-Grain Rice, Washington Post, August 19, 2006;

[9] Jeffrey Smith, US Government and Biotech Firm Deceive Public on GM Corn Mix-up, Spilling the Beans, April 2005

[10] See for example, Christopher Doering, ProdiGene to spend millions on bio-corn tainting, Reuters News Service, USA: December 9, 2002

[11] See www.centerforfoodsafety.org

[12] Office of Inspector General, USDA, Audit Report Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Controls Over Issuance of Genetically Engineered Organism Release Permits, December 2005 http://www.thecampaign.org/USDA_IG_1205.pdf

[13] Justin Gillis, Genetically Modified Organisms Not Easily Contained; National Research Council Panel Urges More Work to Protect Against Contamination of Food Supply, Washington Post, Jan 21, 2004

Research continues to support the urgent need to adopt organic farming methods, as per the findings of L. Ozturk et al (New Phytologist, 2007) that the iron deficiency increasingly observed in major crops is associated with the application of the herbicide glyphosate, that interferes with plants’ uptake of iron from the soil.