One of the biggest challenges today in addressing human and animal health and various complex disease problems is in the accurate identification of causal factors responsible for illness. This is essential if effective government regulation, oversight and preventive measures are to be implemented, and where feasible, appropriate treatments.

Possible causal factors in some of the health problems commonly occurring in companion animals include thousands of chemicals and synthetic organic compounds derived from various industrial and agricultural sources and which variously enter the environment, and what is eaten, drunk and inhaled.

 Recent toxicological advances have identified certain effects of these substances on the body, such as endocrine (hormonal) and metabolic (obesogenic and diabetogenic) disruption, as well as causing cancer, mutations and birth defects, notably herbicides like glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, compounds like the phthalates and Bisphenyl A in plastics and food containers, the omnipresent flame-retardant bromide compounds (PBDEs), and dioxins and PCBs.

Now when it comes to making a risk assessment of genetically modified (GM)/ genetically engineered food ingredients, primarily derived from herbicide resistant crops (and therefore containing herbicide residues as well as endogenously produced insecticide like Bt), supporters of such biotechnology are quick to point out that because so many chemical compounds already contaminate our environment, bodies and food, you just can’t prove that GM crops and food are harmful. Controlled laboratory animal studies, like those summarized by Smith (2007) and Fox (2011)are too often dismissed as not being relevant to real-life conditions, and if there were adverse health consequences, they would be readily diagnosed since GM crops and foods are now being grown and consumed globally.

 In their recent review, Dona & Arvanitoyannis (2009) conclude that “The results of most of the rather few studies conducted with GM foods indicate that they may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters the significance of which remains unknown. The above results indicate that many GM foods have some common toxic effects. Therefore, further studies should be conducted in order to elucidate the mechanism dominating this action. Small amounts of ingested DNA may not be broken down under digestive processes and there is a possibility that this DNA may either enter the bloodstream or be excreted, especially in individuals with abnormal digestion as a result of chronic gastrointestinal disease or with immunodeficiency”
In a study analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603, approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities, caused liver, kidney and other internal organ damage when fed to rats. Researchers J.S.de Vendomois and co-workers summarized these findings as follows:
"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Beyond the uncertainty and precautionary principles, human and veterinary evidence-based medicine can help raise or lower probabilities when it comes to making objective risk determinations of new drugs, vaccines, GM foods and various chemical contaminants and adulterants.

My assertion that GM pet food ingredients can be a health risk to dogs and cats is based on the increasing number of letters that I have been receiving from readers of my nationally syndicated Animal Doctor newspaper column in the U.S., whose animals are suffering from what attending veterinarians are diagnosing and treating as allergies, atopic dermatitis, irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease. I have been writing this weekly column for over 40 years, and the increase in letters dealing with these kinds of health problems in dogs and cats began around the mid 1990s when GM crop acreage began to explode and more and more of the ingredients in livestock feed and pet foods were derived from such crops.

This assertion is supported by the evidence-based medicine of health improvement following a change in diet. Afflicted animals’ symptoms were often quickly resolved when they were transitioned on to a diet containing no GM ingredients. Their often reported increased vitality and healthfulness would imply some impairment of metabolism and immune system function had been rectified by a change in diet and improved nutrition.

This assertion that pet food ingredients derived from GM corn and soy can pose a significant health hazard to companion animals is further supported by the fact that other potential disease co-factors in the background of companion animals have, to my knowledge, remained relatively constant over the years, with no significant market increase in the use of agricultural pesticides, with the exception of glyphosate, of animal insecticides and anti-parasite drugs, while the frequency rates of cat and dog vaccinations have actually begun to decline.

Many of the pathophysiological, anatomical and developmental changes documented in laboratory animals fed GM foods may be eventually identified by veterinary pathologists and immunologists doing detailed forensic and toxicological studies of diseased, dying and dead companion animals. But currently such research, to the best of my knowledge, is neither being conducted nor funded. So I advise both consumers and pet care-givers to avoid all foods derived from GM crops because the findings of evidence-based medicine support the growing consensus that such foods are unsafe and not fit for man or beast.

It is not illegal in the U.S. for food and beverage manufacturers to make the legitimized claim “No GM” ingredients or “GM-Free” on their packaging to indicate that no ingredients come from genetically engineered food sources. In all the European countries and in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South .Korea, Brazil and other countries, there is mandatory labeling for all produce containing GM crop ingredients, but not in the U.S. So I see no reason why some enlightened pet food manufacturer in the U.S. should not set the ball rolling and make the legitimate claim of being GM-free. Many have the green and white “USDA Organic” certification logo on their packaging, and many more could qualify for “GM-Free” or “No-GM” since they do not include genetically engineered corn, soy, canola, rice, sugar beet or cotton byproducts in their diets for dogs and cats. If they do ‘co-manufacture’ with other pet food companies who include GM ingredients in their pet food formulations, and are concerned about cross-contamination, equipment cleaning standards as already established for Organically certified pet foods being manufactured after a conventional pet food company has used the equipment could well be applied to give the all clear to those co-manufacturers claiming to be GM free.

The Non-GMO Project is becoming the standard for verifying the non-GMO status of  food products. Many companies are putting their products through the Project's verification program, and a Non-GMO Project verified claim on pet foods would be the most credible claim a pet food company could make regarding the absence of GM material.

 ****

So I can see no legitimate reason for those manufactured pet foods containing no ingredients from genetically engineered food sources to not be labeled “GM-Free” unless there is some tacit agreement within the industry to not do so. In which case, I would say that it is time to break ranks and for those pet food manufacturers who can make a legitimate claim, to indicate such on their pet food containers. To not do so is to abdicate corporate responsibility to inform consumers who have a right to know; and to conform to the overarching ethos of the U.S. and multinational agribusiness food and drug alliance (FDA), and related government de-regulating agencies, that continues to whitewash public concern, deny a growing scientific consensus, and dismiss evidence-based medicine that consumables that include GM ingredients are safe for neither man nor beast.

References
de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci  5:706-726, 2009
Dona A. and Arvanitoyannis,I.S., Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 49: 164-175, 2009
Fox, M.W. Healing Animals and the Vision of One Health. Tallevast, FL One Health Vision Press/Amazon.com 2011
Smith, J.M. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods Fairfield. Iowa Yes! Books  2007.

*Consultant veterinarian and syndicated newspaper columnist. Web site www.twobitdog.com/drfox/

For additional information, visit www.non-gmo-report.com and also www.nongmoproject.org

*********************************************************************************
****The Non-GMO Project Standard is a consensus-based document that has been crafted with the insight and expertise of dozens of individuals, reflecting a dynamic range of perspectives. Beginning with a 60-day public comment period in October and November of 2007, ongoing public comment periods have been established as an important mechanism for keeping the Standard current and collaborative.
Public comments are accepted every fall from October 10th through November 10th and every spring from March 10th through April 10th. To submit a comment, please click here.
Click here to download a current copy of the Non-GMO Project Standard, v7.
Click here to download a draft of version 8, showing proposed comments and changes from the spring 2011 public comment period

Costs to Pet Food Manufacturers

In order to provide the most accurate information about Product Verification Program fees, customized cost estimates are prepared for each Participant. FoodChain Global Advisors, the technical administrator for the Project, will send you your customized cost estimate (at no charge or obligation) after they have received the necessary initial information about your unique operation.  Because variances to the Standard allow co-packer, supplier and/or facility exemptions in order to lower costs and effort, it is to your advantage that FoodChain provide you with an initial cost estimate tailored to your specific circumstances.

If you are interested in receiving a customized cost estimate, please contact us and we will have FoodChain to send you the Product Information Spreadsheet that provides them with the information they need in order to construct your cost estimate. You will receive the estimate within one or two days.