BBC News | Sci/Tech | GM food safety row

BBC News | Sci/Tech | GM food safety row:


Dr Arpad Pusztai: Vindicated 

Twenty established scientists have come out in support of a colleague who said that rats fed on genetically-modified potatoes suffered damage to their immune systems.

The UK Government is now facing calls for an urgent safety review of genetically-modified (GM) foods and a row is brewing in the scientific community over the apparent suppression of important research.

Dr Arpad Pusztai, 68, made a public statement about his fears last August. He was effectively forced to retire by the Rowett Research Institute after it accused him of misinterpreting his results.

But the group of scientists, drawn from 13 different countries, have re-examined his work and signed a joint memorandum supporting his conclusions.

GM crops: Moratorium requested

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Labour MP Alan Simpson said Dr Pusztai had been "completely vindicated" and called for a moratorium on GM food.

Last year, the doctor's £1.6m research project, funded by the Scottish Office, found that when rats were fed on GM potatoes for a period of 10 days, the development of certain vital organs was impaired and their immune systems suffered.

Reports in the press also says the size of the rats' brains decreased.



Speaking on BBC Two's Newsnight programme, group spokesman Dr Vyvyan Howard, a Liverpool University toxipathologist, said he believed Dr Arpad's data was "sound".

2014 Food and Health Survey | IFIC Foundation

2014 Food and Health Survey | IFIC Foundation:

2014 food and health survey full report from FoodInsight

While taste and price consistently have been the top two facors that impact consumers’ food and beverage purchases (90 percent and 73 percent respectively), healthfulness in 2014 almost entirely closed the gap with price, rising from 61 percent of consumers in 2012 to 71 percent this year, a 10 percentage-point increase. 



Consumers aged 18-34, who cite healthfulness as a driver of food and beverage purchases, increased from 55 percent in 2013 to 66 percent in 2014, significantly narrowing the gap with other age groups. 

On May 9, 2014, we went to the National Mall to ask people what they thought about various health and nutrition issues to see how their answers compare with average Americans, as revealed in the IFIC Foundation's 2014 Food and Health Survey More than a third of consumers report regularly buying food that is labeled as “natural” (37 percent) or “local” (35 percent), with 32 percent who regularly buy products advertised as “organic.” This year, 66 percent of consumers are at least somewhat confident in the food supply, while 30 percent are not too confident or not at all confident. In 2012, the former figure stood at 78 percent, while the latter stood at 18 percent. Americans are most likely to trust that health professionals will provide accurate information about weight loss, physical activity, and nutrition. On the other hand, Americans trust the U.S. government the most when it comes to food safety, food ingredients, and the way foods are produced and farmed. Survey Objectives: To understand the attitudes and opinions regarding food biotechnology and the importance of certain benefits of today’s modern food supply that are made possible with biotechnology. To gauge consumer knowledge and awareness pertaining to plant and animal biotechnology safety, benefits and labeling, as well as sustainability and emerging technologies. To gauge purchase behavior and determine which information about food biotechnology, and from what sources, best assists consumers with making informed food decisions.

What led to the death of the FLAVR SAVR tomato?

What led to the death of the FLAVR SAVR tomato?

Introduction

What is the FLAVR SAVR Tomato?
Why it fails on conquering the market?

Even though genetic
engineering promises better and more plentiful products, genetically engineered
foods may encounter a few obstacles to widespread public acceptance. Some
consumers, along with a few advocacy groups, have voiced concern about the
safety and environmental impact of these new food products. Some urge an
outright ban on any genetically engineered foods. Others support mandatory
labeling that discloses the use of genetic engineering. Still others advocate
more stringent testing of these products before marketing.
 
Public Acceptance

Thus whether genetically
engineered foods succeed or fail depends on public acceptance. Early reports on
the Flavr Savr tomato, the first recombinant DNA-derived whole food product to
reach grocery shelves, were favorable. Calgene said sales in the product's
first two markets--California and Illinois--were "a total success."
Calgene chairman Roger Salquist said consumers responded "with purchases
and praise."
 
In contrast, some
consumer groups have criticized the Calgene product, demanding greater FDA
scrutiny of genetically engineered foods or an outright ban on all of them.
Their reasons range from safety fears to ethics. One group, the Environmental
Defense Fund, said, "Consumption of some of these novel foods might
present new hazards. [Some genetically engineered] compounds are new food
ingredients and clearly should be evaluated for their safety."
 
FDA scientists and
others in the field blame some negative consumer reaction on the recombinant
DNA technique's complexity. The technology is difficult to understand, so there
is a fear of the unknown. Genetic engineering "simply sounds scary",
says Maryanski. "People call FDA and say, 'We don't want anyone tinkering
with our food.' Then we remind them that there's hardly a food in the grocery
store that hasn't been extensively tinkered with."
 
He illustrates this by
comparing today's foods with those in the last century. "Take corn. Those
nice, juicy ears of corn we have--they didn't exist. Some kinds of corn had a
hard outer shell on the kernel that you couldn't eat until it was made into
flour. And the kiwi was developed from a hard little berry. We only have our
present-day kiwi--and our corn and wheat and hundreds of other foods--because
of extensive plant breeding." 

The story
Discussion
The story of the rise
and fall of the first genetically engineered crop accepted for the FDA has a
lot of actors that influenced its final fate. On one side are the scientists
that believe in the biotechnology and support the new developments and a whole
world of possibilities, not only in agricultural products but also in
pharmaceutical, health and environmental too. In the other side are the
frighten people that don’t understand the technology used for producing their
food and do not find the support or accompaniment necessary for given a very
big step in their life style.
References

Genetic transformation has developed several
new products with impacts on society, from medicines to food products with
better nutritional quality. The largest commercial success of genetic engineering
was the production of human insulin in transgenic bacteria in 1980. Since then,
many other products have been released.

The first genetically engineered crop variety
to reach the market was the tomato variety Flavr Savr, developed by the Calgene
Company, located in Davis, California. This product, introduced to the market
on May 21, 1994, was developed with the introduction of two novel genes in a
tomato plant. The first gene was a reverse copy of the poligalactonurase gene,
which codes for an enzyme that breaks down cellulose. The introduction of this
gene in the reverse form, also called antisense, resulted in low production of
the poligalactonurase enzyme. Consequently, ripe tomato fruits do not lose
their firmness because the cell wall of these fruits, which is made of
cellulose, does not degrade as rapidly as it does in normal tomatoes. The
second gene transferred in the development of Flavr Savr codes for resistance
to the antibiotic kanamycin. This gene works as a reporter or marker to
facilitate the identification of transformed individuals.

The first genetically
engineered whole product went on the market in May 1994 when FDA determined
that a new tomato that can be shipped vine-ripened without rotting rapidly is
as safe as other commercial tomatoes. The Flavr Savr is the first ready-to-eat
food product available to the U.S. public that used recombinant DNA processes.
Its maker, Calgene, Inc., created the Flavr Savr on the premise that many
consumers are not satisfied with most store-bought tomatoes, especially in the
off-season. Surveys show that though 85 percent of U.S. households buy fresh
tomatoes, some 80 percent are displeased with the quality of grocery store
tomatoes.

The problem is that tomatoes need warm
climates to grow, so most off-season store tomatoes must travel a long way
after they are picked. To survive their journey intact, tomatoes are picked
while they are still green, which is a good way to avoid bruising, but which
results in a tomato that is often described as having the consistency and
mouth-feel of a tennis ball.

If picked when ripe, tomatoes rot quickly.
Though Calgene vine-ripens its tomatoes, the company solved the rotting problem
by inserting a reversed copy--an "antisense" gene of the gene that
encodes the enzyme that results in tomato spoilage. This suppresses the enzyme
that results in rotting, allowing the tomato to stay ripe, but not rot, up to
10 days--plenty of time for shipping and sale. Refrigeration is not necessary.

Though FDA policy didn't require premarket
approval of the Flavr Savr tomato, Calgene sought FDA's review anyway. The
company also asked FDA to approve as a new food additive the protein that
produces kanamycin resistance. This marker protein allows breeders to identify
early in the gene-transfer process which plant cells have successfully
incorporated the new trait. Inserting the marker confers resistance to the
antibiotic kanamycin. This is a valuable tool when trying to figure out which
cells have the new gene and which do not. But it also adds very small amounts
of a new protein to diets of millions of Americans and raises concerns about
issues such as antibiotic resistance.

"That was one of the scientific issues we
evaluated," says Jim Maryanski, Ph.D., FDA's food biotechnology
coordinator. "And we found the kanr gene encoded marker protein would not
affect the clinical effectiveness of kanamycin in people taking the drug
orally."

FDA published regulations in 1994 allowing use
of the kanr gene encoded marker protein in new plant varieties. Though not
required, Calgene provided point-of-sale information that describes the tomato
as a genetically engineered product. Reactions to the Flavr Savr have been largely
positive, though some consumer groups have decried the product, giving it names
like "Frankentomato." Others, including some restaurant chefs, issued
public criticism of all recombinant DNA-derived foods.

But industry groups were enthusiastic. Carl
Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, called the new
tomato "a significant step forward for consumers in terms of the quality
of the food they eat."

And Tom Stenzel, president of the United Fresh
Fruit & Vegetable Association, said the genetically engineered food
products now in development "will offer consumers more choices for
improved quality, nutrition, and environmental benefits."

Ultimately, consumers will decide for
themselves whether these new products and processes make sense. As for safety,
FDA officials emphasize that these foods will be just as safe as products
consumers are used to finding on their store shelves

Possibly the main factor that helps the fall of the Flavr
Savr tomato was the lost of sight of the objective from the Calgene company
management; they chose their product based on technical and regulatory
convenience, not on developing and marketing a superior product. They didn’t
include tomato breeders and production experts in their decision making and
production process.

·      
Borém
Aluízio, Santos Fabrício R., Bowen David E.
Understanding Biotechnology. ED.
Prentice Hall, 2003.

·      
Massey
Rachel. Biotech--the basics. Rachel's Environment and Health News #719,
March 1, 2001.

·      
Henkel
John, Publication No. (FDA) 98-2295

·      
Alan
McHughen, You Say Tomato. Nature biotechnology. October 2001 p.
909.

Report done by:

Camilo
Mancera Arias.

GMOs: Food, Money & Control: Part III | Buddhist Global Relief

GMOs: Food, Money & Control: Part III | Buddhist Global Relief

Despite pervasive human intervention, the dynamism of the natural world overcomes virtually all artificial boundaries and limits.  We directly experience nature’s refusal to stay within the lines we draw. Plants penetrate concrete sidewalks; moving water inexorably surmounts or breaks through barriers; nature retakes land abandoned by humans.

Seed dispersal and plant cross-pollination are examples of this dynamic movement in the natural world.  In fact, the plant world depends upon it.   The notion that we can control genetically modified organisms requires a willful blindness to this fundamental fact of nature.

“Guilty by GMO Contamination”

Genetically modified crop seed can contaminate other crops. Seed movement, pollen flow and other causes result in “gene flow”, the transfer of genes from one population to another.  This occurs in a variety of natural ways: via birds, animals, flooding, or wind.  It can also result from human activities such as farm or seed cleaning machinery, spillage during transport, and other human errors throughout the production process.

Transgenic contamination cannot be recalled.  Genetically modified plants continue to reproduce where the seeds are sown or blown and where plants are pollinated. Their traits are passed on to subsequent generations of crops. They also reproduce in nature where genetically modified varieties can forever alter wild relatives, native plants, and ecosystems.

Part I
Part II

Idaho group backs mandatory GMO food labeling law | Excerpt/summary from: GMO Myths & Truths (2012)

Idaho group backs mandatory GMO food labeling law | capitalpress.com

Excerpt/summary from: GMO Myths & Truths (2012) http://bit.ly/O0IAQS

1
HEALTH HAZARDS OF GM FOODS
Myth: GM foods are safe to eat
Truth: Studies show that GM foods can be toxic or allergenic

“Most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter haematological [blood], biochemical, and immunologic parameters, the significance of which remains to be solved with chronic toxicity studies.” – Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009; 49: 164–1751
Feeding studies on laboratory and farm animals show that GM foods can be toxic or allergenic: Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach lesions (sores or ulcers).2 3 This tomato, Calgene’s Flavr Savr, was the first commercialized GM food. Mice fed GM peas (not subsequently commercialized) engineered with an insecticidal protein from beans showed a strong, sustained immune reaction against the GM protein. Mice developed antibodies against the GM protein and an allergic-type inflammation response. Also, the mice fed on GM peas developed an immune reaction to chicken egg white protein. The findings showed that the GM insecticidal protein acted as a sensitizer, making the mice susceptible to developing immune reactions and allergies to normally non-allergenic foods. This is called immunological cross-priming.4 Mice fed GM soy showed disturbed liver, pancreas and testes function. The researchers found abnormally formed cell nuclei and nucleoli in liver cells, which indicates increased metabolism and potentially altered patterns of gene expression.5 6 7 Mice fed GM soy over their lifetime (24 months) showed more acute signs of ageing in the liver than the control group fed non-GM soy.8 Rabbits fed GM soy showed enzyme function disturbances in kidney and heart.9 Female rats fed GM soy showed changes in uterus and ovaries compared with controls fed organic non-GM soy or a non-soy diet. Certain ill effects were found with organic soy as well as GM soy, showing a need for investigation into the effects of soy-based diets (GM and non-GM) on health.10 A review of 19 studies (including industry’s own studies submitted to regulators in support of applications to commercialise GM crops) on mammals fed with commercialised GM soy and maize that are already in our food and feed chain found consistent toxic effects on the liver and kidneys. Such effects may be markers of the onset of chronic disease, but long-term studies, in contrast to these reported short- and medium-term studies, would be required to assess this more thoroughly. Such long-term feeding trials on GMOs are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.11 Rats fed insecticide-producing MON863 Bt maize grew more slowly and showed higher levels of certain fats (triglycerides) in their blood than rats fed the control diet. They also suffered problems with liver and kidney function. The authors stated that it could not be concluded that MON863 maize is safe and that long-term studies were needed to investigate the consequences of these effects.12 Rats fed GM Bt maize over three generations suffered damage to liver and kidneys and alterations in blood biochemistry.13 A re-analysis of Monsanto’s own rat feeding trial data, submitted to obtain approval in Europe for three commercialised GM Bt maize varieties, MON863, MON810, and NK603, concluded that the maize varieties had toxic effects on liver and kidneys. The authors of the re-analysis stated that while the findings may have been due to the pesticides specific to each variety, genetic engineering could not be excluded as the cause.14
Excerpt/summary from: GMO Myths & Truths (2012) http://bit.ly/O0IAQS
2
Old and young mice fed GM Bt maize showed a disturbance in immune system cells and in biochemical activity.15 Female sheep fed Bt GM maize over three generations showed disturbances in the functioning of the digestive system, while their lambs showed cellular changes in liver and pancreas.16 GM Bt maize DNA was found to survive processing and was detected in the digestive tract of sheep. This raises the possibility that the antibiotic resistance gene in the maize could move into gut bacteria, an example of horizontal gene transfer.17 In this case, horizontal gene transfer could produce antibiotic-resistant disease-causing bacteria (“superbugs”) in the gut. Rats fed GM oilseed rape developed enlarged livers, often a sign of toxicity.18 Rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive growth of the lining of the gut similar to a pre-cancerous condition and toxic reactions in multiple organ systems.19 20 Mice fed a diet of GM Bt potatoes or non-GM potatoes spiked with natural Bt toxin protein isolated from bacteria showed abnormalities in the cells and structures of the small intestine, compared with a control group of mice fed non-GM potatoes. The abnormalities were more marked in the Bt toxin-fed group. This study shows not only that the GM Bt potatoes caused mild damage to the intestines but also that Bt toxin protein is not harmlessly broken down in digestion, as GM proponents claim, but survives in a functionally active form in the small intestine and can cause damage to that organ.21 Rats fed GM rice for 90 days had a higher water intake as compared with the control group fed the non-GM isogenic (from same genetic background but without the genetic modification) rice. The GM-fed rats showed differences in blood biochemistry, immune response, and gut bacteria. Organ weights of female rats fed GM rice were different from those fed non-GM rice. The authors claimed that none of the differences were “adverse”, but they did not define “adverse”. Even if they had defined it, the only way to know if such changes are adverse is to extend the length of the study, which was not done.22 Rats fed GM Bt rice developed significant differences as compared with rats fed the non-GM isogenic line of rice. These included differences in the populations of gut bacteria – the GM-fed group had 23% higher levels of coliform bacteria. There were differences in organ weights between the two groups. The authors concluded that the findings were likely to be due to “unintended changes introduced in the GM rice and not from toxicity of Bt toxin” in its natural, non-GM form.23 A study on rats fed GM Bt rice found a Bt-specific immune response in the non-GM-fed control group as well as the GM-fed groups. The researchers concluded that the immune response in the control animals was due to their inhaling particles of the powdered Bt toxin-containing feed consumed by the GM-fed group. The researchers recommended that for future tests involving Bt crops, GM-fed and control groups should be kept separate.24 This indicates that animals can be sensitive to very small amounts of GM proteins, so even low levels of contamination of non-GM crops with GMOs could be harmful to health.
In these studies, a GM food was fed to one group of animals and its non-GM counterpart was fed to a control group. The studies found that the GM foods were more toxic or allergenic than their non-GM counterparts.
Study findings such as those described above have made it increasingly difficult for GM proponents to claim that there are no differences between the effects of GM foods and their non-GM counterparts – clearly, there are.
To sidestep this problem, GM proponents often claim that statistically significant effects, such as those found in the above studies, are not “biologically relevant”.
Excerpt/summary from: GMO Myths & Truths (2012) http://bit.ly/O0IAQS
3
But this is not scientifically justified. In order to determine whether changes seen in these short- to medium-term studies are biologically relevant, the researchers would have to: Define in advance what “biological relevance” means in the context of the particular crop and test animal Extend the current study design from a medium-term to a long-term period to see how changes seen in the short-term experiments develop – whether they disappear or develop into disease or premature death.11
This is not generally done.
Myth: EU research shows GM foods are safe
Truth: EU research shows evidence of harm from GM foods
A report published in 2010 by the European Commission called A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research (2001–2010)25 is often claimed to show that GM foods are safe. But this is untrue: some of studies included in the project, summarised below, show risks.
A feeding trial on rats fed GM rice found significant differences in the GM-fed group as compared with the control group fed the non-GM parent line of rice. These included a higher water intake by the GM-fed group, as well as differences in blood biochemistry, immune response, and gut bacteria. Organ weights of female rats fed GM rice were different from those fed non-GM rice. Commenting on the differences, the authors said, “None of them were considered to be adverse”. But they added that this 90-day study “did not enable us to conclude on the safety of the GM food.”22 In reality, a 90-day study is too short to show whether any changes found are “adverse” (giving rise to identifiable illness). A study on rats fed GM Bt rice found significant differences in the GM-fed group of rats as compared with the group fed the non-GM isogenic (of a genetically similar background but without the genetic modification) line of rice. These included differences in the distribution of gut bacterial species – the GM-fed group had 23% higher levels of coliform bacteria. There were also differences in organ weights between the two groups, namely in the adrenals, testis and uterus. The authors concluded that the “possible toxicological findings” in their study “most likely will derive from unintended changes introduced in the GM rice and not from toxicity of Bt toxin” in its natural, non-GM form.23 A study on rats fed GM Bt rice found a Bt-specific immune response in the non-GM-fed control group as well as the GM-fed groups. This unexpected finding led the researchers to conclude that the immune response in the control animals must have been due to their inhaling particles of the powdered Bt toxin-containing feed consumed by the GM-fed group. The researchers recommended that for future tests on Bt crops, GM-fed and control groups should be kept in separate rooms or with separate air handling systems.24
Myth: GM foods have been proven safe for human consumption
Truth: The few studies that have been conducted on humans show problems
GM foods are not properly tested for human safety before they are released for sale.26 19 The only published studies that have directly tested the safety of GM foods for human consumption found potential problems but were not followed up:
Excerpt/summary from: GMO Myths & Truths (2012) http://bit.ly/O0IAQS
4
In a study on human volunteers fed a single GM soybean meal, GM DNA survived processing and was detected in the digestive tract. There was evidence of horizontal gene transfer to gut bacteria.27 28 Horizontal gene transfer is a process by which DNA is transferred from one organism to another through mechanisms other than reproductive mechanisms. In a study on humans, one of the experimental subjects showed an immune response to GM soy but not to non-GM soy. GM soy was found to contain a protein that was different from the protein in non-GM soy. This suggests that GM foods could cause new allergies.29 A GM soy variety modified with a gene from Brazil nuts was found to react with antibodies present in blood serum taken from people known to be allergic to Brazil nuts. This indicates that this soy variety would produce an allergic reaction in people allergic to Brazil nuts.30 A study conducted in Canada detected significant levels of the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, which is present in GM Bt crops, circulating in the blood of pregnant women and in the blood supply of their foetuses, as well as in the blood of non-pregnant women.31 How the Bt toxin protein got into the blood is unclear and the detection method used has been disputed. Nevertheless, this study raises questions as to why GM Bt crops are being commercialised when research raises serious concerns about their safety and no systematic effort is under way to replicate and assess the validity of that research.
These studies should be followed up with controlled long-term studies and GM foods and crops should not be commercialised in the absence of such testing.
Myth: No one has ever been made ill by a GM food
Truth: There is no scientific evidence to support this claim
GM proponents claim that people have been eating GM foods in the United States for 16 years without ill effects. But this is an anecdotal, scientifically untenable assertion, as no epidemiological studies to look at GM food effects on the general population have ever been conducted.
Furthermore, there are signs that all is not well with the US food supply. Reports show that food-related illnesses increased two- to ten-fold in the years between 1994 (just before GM food was commercialized) and 1999.32 33 No one knows if there is a link with GM foods because they are not labelled in the US and consumers are not monitored for health effects.
References
All references are to peer-reviewed studies with the exception of nos. 2, 18 (FDA documents); 3 (scientist’s testimony to New Zealand government); 25 (EU Commission report).
1. Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009; 49(2): 164–175.
2. Hines FA. Memorandum to Linda Kahl on the Flavr Savr tomato (Pathology Review PR–152; FDA Number FMF–000526): Pathology Branch's evaluation of rats with stomach lesions from three four-week oral (gavage) toxicity studies (IRDC Study Nos. 677–002, 677–004, and 677–005) and an Expert Panel's report. US Department of Health & Human Services. 16 June 1993. http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html
3. Pusztai A. Witness Brief – Flavr Savr tomato study in Final Report (IIT Research Institute, Chicago, IL 60616 USA) cited by Dr Arpad Pusztai before the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification; 2000.
4. Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, et al. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agric Food Chem. 16 Nov 2005; 53(23): 9023–9030.
Excerpt/summary from: GMO Myths & Truths (2012) http://bit.ly/O0IAQS

5. Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali E, Rocchi MBL, Baldelli B, Gazzanelli G. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry. Oct-Dec 2003; 47: 385–388.
6. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, et al. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. Aug 2002; 27(4): 173–180.
7. Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M, Martin TE, Biggiogera M. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. Oct-Dec 2004; 48(4): 448-454.
8. Malatesta M, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130: 967–977.
9. Tudisco R, Lombardi P, Bovera F, et al. Genetically modified soya bean in rabbit feeding: Detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis. Animal Science. 2006; 82: 193–199.
10. Brasil FB, Soares LL, Faria TS, Boaventura GT, Sampaio FJ, Ramos CF. The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat Rec (Hoboken). Apr 2009; 292(4): 587–594.
11. Séralini GE, Mesnage R, Clair E, Gress S, de Vendômois JS, Cellier D. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: Present limits and possible improvements. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2011; 23(10).
12. Séralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux de Vendomois J. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. May 2007; 52(4): 596–602.
13. Kilic A, Akay MT. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. Mar 2008; 46(3): 1164–1170.
14. de Vendomois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 2009; 5(7): 706–726.
15. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. Dec 10 2008; 56: 11533–11539.
16. Trabalza-Marinucci M, Brandi G, Rondini C, et al. A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep. Livestock Science. 2008; 113(2): 178–190.
17. Duggan PS, Chambers PA, Heritage J, Michael Forbes J. Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep. Br J Nutr. Feb 2003; 89(2): 159–166.
18. US Food and Drug Administration. Biotechnology consultation note to the file BNF No 00077. Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 4 September 2002. http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm155759.htm
19. Pusztai A, Bardocz S. GMO in animal nutrition: Potential benefits and risks. In: Mosenthin R, Zentek J, Zebrowska T, eds. Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals. Vol 4: Elsevier Limited; 2006:513–540.
20. Ewen SW, Pusztai A. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet. Oct 16 1999; 354(9187): 1353-1354.
21. Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins. 1998; 6(6): 219-233.
22. Poulsen M, Kroghsbo S, Schroder M, et al. A 90-day safety study in Wistar rats fed genetically modified rice expressing snowdrop lectin Galanthus nivalis (GNA). Food Chem Toxicol. Mar 2007; 45(3): 350-363.
23. Schrøder M, Poulsen M, Wilcks A, et al. A 90-day safety study of genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab protein (Bacillus thuringiensis toxin) in Wistar rats. Food Chem Toxicol. Mar 2007; 45(3): 339-349.
24. Kroghsbo S, Madsen C, Poulsen M, et al. Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice expressing PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats. Toxicology. Mar 12 2008; 245(1-2): 24-34.
25. European Commission. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). 2010.
26. Freese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2004: 299-324.
27. Netherwood T, Martin-Orue SM, O'Donnell AG, et al. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat Biotechnol. Feb 2004; 22(2): 204–209.
28. Heritage J. The fate of transgenes in the human gut. Nat Biotechnol. Feb 2004; 22(2): 170-172.
29. Yum HY, Lee SY, Lee KE, Sohn MH, Kim KE. Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologic comparison. Allergy Asthma Proc. May-Jun 2005; 26(3): 210-216.
30. Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA, Bush RK. Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. N Engl J Med. Mar 14 1996; 334(11): 688-692.
31. Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in EasternTownships of Quebec, Canada. ReproductiveToxicology. 2011; 31(4).
32. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, et al. Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis. Sep-Oct 1999; 5(5): 607-625.
33. Foegeding PM, Roberts T, Bennet J, et al. Foodborne pathogens: Risks and consequences. Ames, Iowa. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1994.

Monsanto's Gifts to Humanity: Leslie Stoddard of GMO Free Idaho (Part 1)

Leslie Stoddard talks about the unethical practices of Monsanto. Part 1 in a series call "Unethical Agriculture".

Resources
Monsanto hid Decades of Pollution in Anniston, Alabama (Video, 6mins)

U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUPERFUND FACT SHEET
Amended Agreement for Removal Action
ANNISTON PCB SITE 

Toxic Secret, A 60 minutes report on Anniston, Alabama

Today, parts of Anniston are so contaminated that residents have been told not to grow vegetables in the soil, kick up dirt, eat food, chew gum or smoke cigarettes while working in their yards.

"Our children have to play in the streets, on the sidewalks, because they can't play in the grass because it's contaminated," says resident David Baker.

"We have to wear masks if we cut our grass. Where else in the United States of America are people doing that?"

The problem is polychlorinated byphenyls - PCBs - one of the most pervasive and profitable industrial chemicals of 20th Century America.

They were used as insulators in electric transformers, and mixed into everything from paint to newsprint.

They were invented in Anniston in 1929 and manufactured here by Monsanto for almost 40 years - a source of wealth and jobs until the 1970s, when it became clear that PCBs were doing more harm to the environment than good for industry.

Who Proves What about GMOs and Human Health? | Willamette Live

Who Proves What about GMOs and Human Health? | Willamette Live

American federal agencies agree with highly respected and persuasive scientific institutions here and in Great Britain who maintain there is no evidence GMOs harm people.  These groups characterize GMO opponents as touchy-feely, mushy-headed conspiracy theorists who don’t understand hard science.

On the other side, opponents of GMOs say there is plenty of real evidence that GMO foods are unsafe.  They maintain that most of the entities who claim GMOs harmless have significant vested interest in them, that the vast majority of safety trials have been run by the biotech industry itself, without government oversight, and there is no public access to data produced in private that contradicts safety claims.  They also say there are virtually no long-term trials that would prove safety with more certainty.

Peer review, the process by which science checks and double-checks itself, is the most independent, reliable source of information we have today.  This research can generally guide our understanding of the facts better than any other source.

Having said that, the vast preponderance of published, peer reviewed studies state that GMOs are safe.  These studies have led to the theory of “substantial equivalence,” which means that GMO crops are presumed to be generally the same as non-GMOs in their effects.  Substantial equivalence has been adopted by many governments, and in practice, the theory means that no long-term studies need to be done.

Beyond substantial equivalence, a new term has developed called “biological relevance.”  This is used in cases where studies do show differences between animals fed genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods.  In practical terms, the result of biological relevance is that though there may be statistically significant effects of GMO -fed animals (such as changes in kidney and heart function, impaired immune symptoms, cellular changes in the liver and pancreas), they are not important enough to matter to regulators.

Research that shows a relationship between GMOs and health are attacked for reasons other than “substantial equivalence” and “biological relevance,” and these studies indicate the high emotion and level of scientific antipathy on both sides.

Dr. Mercola Discusses a New GMO Study (playlist)

Internationally renowned natural health physician and Mercola.com founder Dr. Joseph Mercola discusses new study on GMO.

The first-ever lifetime feeding study1 evaluating the health risks of genetically engineered foods was published online on September 19, and the results are troubling, to say the least. This new study joins a list of over 30 other animal studies showing toxic or allergenic problems with genetically engineered foods.

The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, found that rats fed a type of genetically engineered corn that is prevalent in the US food supply for two years developed massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and other serious health problems.

The research was considered so "hot" that the work was done under strict secrecy. According to a French article in Le Nouvel Observateur,2 the researchers used encrypted emails, phone conversations were banned, and they even launched a decoy study to prevent sabotage! Read More

GMO Debate Heats Up: Critics Say Biotech Industry Manipulating Genes, And Science

GMO Debate Heats Up: Critics Say Biotech Industry Manipulating Genes, And Science

Sporting a white coat and tagged with impressive credentials, Dr. Ronald Kleinman carries an aura of authority on camera as he says, "There are no cancer risks associated with agriculture produced through biotech. None whatsoever."

The online advertisement featuring the physician-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School was rolled out on Tuesday by a campaign opposing California’s Proposition 37, which would require the labeling of genetically modified foods -- so-called GMOs.

But on Wednesday, Californians -- along with the rest of the world -- heard a very different message: A two-year study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen in France and published in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal, found that a widely grown GMO corn variety raised the rate of cancer and increased the risk of kidney and liver problems in rats.

Dr. Kleinman consults for General Mills and presents webinars on children's health for Coca-Cola, both major funders of the fight against Proposition 37 -- along with Monsanto, DuPont and others.

So, what does this leave the public to believe? Where does the science stand on the safety of GMOs?
It's not easy to say. And that's exactly the problem, according to experts. There have been a handful of studies that have hinted at human health concerns, including allergies. And there have been studies, even a recent review of studies evaluating five different genetically modified crops, suggesting there are no concerns. But overall, few studies have looked at the range of potential effects that the introduction of foreign genes may have on a food's safety.

Scientist that Discovered GMO Health Hazards Immediately Fired, Team Dismantled | Consciousness TV

Scientist that Discovered GMO Health Hazards Immediately Fired, Team Dismantled | Consciousness TV

Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.

Arpad Pusztai, who is considered to be one of the world's most respected and well-learned biochemists, had for three years led a team of researchers from Scotland's prestigious Rowett Research Institute (RRI) in studying the health effects of a novel GM potato with built-in Bt toxin. Much to the surprise of many, the team discovered that, contrary to industry rhetoric, Bt potato was responsible for causing severe health damage in test rats, a fact that was quickly relayed to the media out of concern for  public hearing.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.egyptindependent.com

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

What to Make of the Scary GMO Study? | Food Safety News

What to Make of the Scary GMO Study? | Food Safety News

I am a strong supporter of labeling GMO foods. Consumers have the right to know.

That’s enough of a reason to support California’s Prop. 37. There is no need to muddy the waters with difficult-to-interpret science.

My e-mail inbox was flooded with messages yesterday about the new long-term rat study reporting that both GMO corn and Roundup (glyphosate herbicide) increase mammary tumors in mice.
The study, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, concludes:

The results of the study presented here clearly demonstrate that lower levels of complete agricultural glyphosate herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below officially set safety limits, induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances… the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work confirm the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes.

Two thirds of Ukrainians believe most foods contain GMOs

Two thirds of Ukrainians believe most foods contain GMOs

In addition, the lion's share of respondents (71%) acknowledged that the issue of GMOs is relevant to them, while 25% think the subject is irrelevant to them.

Meanwhile, female respondents (74%) pay more attention to GMO content than male ones do (66%).
Almost three-quarters (74%) of those polled claim to know about what GMOs are, while 23% state the opposite.

According to the survey, 80% of Ukrainians believe that GMOs are dangerous to human health, and one in ten (10%) has the opposite opinion.

Eighty percent of those polled say that the GMO content in food is a problem of current importance to the country, while 13% have the opposite opinion.

GMOs topic of discussion at Northeastern Organic Farmers Association of New York’s winter conference

GMOs topic of discussion at Northeastern Organic Farmers Association of New York’s winter conference

Saturday afternoon at the Northeastern Organic Farm Association of New York’s winter conference Dave Rogers and Dr. Michael Hansen kicked off their session on the importance of labeling genetically modified organisms by asking the audience members to play the devil’s advocate and argue in favor of genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The two men came prepared. They presented research showing that GMOs do not yield more than a natural crop, there is no successful climate or drought-ready crops and that, over time, GMOs actually need more pesticides than non-GE crops.

“What people should know is that there are these questions and uncertainties pertaining to risks. These genetically engineered substances are in 75 percent of the processed foods in the supermarket and in some of the fresh produce as well,” Rogers said, “It’s a system that is built on legal protection and control of the market place and it shuts down other lines of inquiry and research that could be very beneficial.”

Hansen has been working on getting the GE food bill, requiring manufacturers to label GMOs through legislation for the last 27 years.

My Seven Year Itch | Inspired Bites

My Seven Year Itch | Inspired Bites

by Robyn O'Brien  

It is seven years ago today that my life changed over a plate of scrambled eggs.

As my daughter’s face swelled shut, I didn’t want to witness what I saw that morning, to do the work that had to be done, to find the courage that would be needed.

In all candor, seven years ago, as all of this was hitting, there was a deep yearning to somehow go back to the simplicity that we had known before that breakfast.
But that would never happen.

I couldn’t unlearn what I went on to learn or forget what I had seen.

And as I watched her struggle to breathe that morning, my life forever changed.

What I unearthed that day – that the number of children with the peanut allergy had doubled from 1997-2002, that food allergies had become so pervasive in preschool children – was the beginning of a much greater story.

As I learned about food allergies, I learned more than I could have imagined.

Today, too many Americans have allergies or asthma.   Autism now affects 1 in 54 boys in our country, while in other countries, its lack of prevalence means that the numbers aren’t even tabulated.  And while the United States only represents 5% of the world’s population, 90% of the world’s ADHD prescriptions are written for our children. But it’s not just the children who are struggling under these conditions,  41% of us are expected to get cancer in our lifetimes, while 1 in 2 minority children are expected to be insulin dependent by the time they reach adulthood.   The Centers for Disease Control now reports that cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of 15.

Our children have earned the title “Generation Rx” and “Generation XL” due to their escalating rates of obesity and these other conditions...

GMO Seralini Ten things you need to know about the Séralini study - GMO Seralini

GMO Seralini Ten things you need to know about the Séralini study - GMO Seralini

1. Most criticisms of Séralini’s study wrongly assume it was a badly designed cancer study. It wasn’t. It was a chronic toxicity study – and a well-designed and well-conducted one.
http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralinis-study-was-so-badly-designed-that-no-conclusions-can-be-drawn-from-it/

2. Séralini’s study is the only long-term study on the commercialized GM maize NK603 and the pesticide (Roundup) it is designed to be grown with. http://gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-is-the-study-important/

3. Séralini used the same strain of rat (Sprague-Dawley, SD) that Monsanto used in its 90-day studies on GM foods and its long-term studies on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient of Roundup, conducted for regulatory approval.  http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-a-type-of-rat-naturally-prone-to-tumours/

4. The SD rat is about as prone to tumours as humans are. As with humans, the SD rat’s tendency to cancer increases with age. http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-a-type-of-rat-naturally-prone-to-tumours/

Groups say the fight against Monsanto GMO’s is not over

Groups say the fight against Monsanto GMO’s is not over

"Environmentalists and others that formed part of a large resistance against the GMO corn in November, 2012 feel that there was a great deal of disregard and lack of consideration of the studies that were submitted, which they say contained numerous, convincing scientific arguments against the introduction of the GMO corn, in addition to economic, political, social, and environmental arguments.

The studies were presented by various sectors in Costa Rica, including academic and scientific institutions and various social movements.

“What really surprises us is that Costa Ricans do not act, and do not fight against this decision,” added Pacheco."