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.

Warning: This is your brain on toxins | Opinion | The Seattle Times

Warning: This is your brain on toxins | Opinion | The Seattle Times:

“Lead helps to guard your health.”

That was the marketing line that the former National Lead Co. used decades ago to sell lead-based household paints. Yet we now know that lead was poisoning millions of children and permanently damaging their brains. Tens of thousands of children died, and countless millions were left mentally impaired.

One boy, Sam, born in Milwaukee in 1990, “thrived as a baby,” according to his medical record. But then, as a toddler, he began to chew on lead paint or suck on fingers with lead dust, and his blood showed soaring lead levels.

Sam’s family moved homes, but it was no use. At age 3, he was hospitalized for five days because of lead poisoning, and in kindergarten his teachers noticed that he had speech problems. He struggled through school, and doctors concluded that he had “permanent and irreversible” deficiencies in brain function.

Sam’s story appears in “Lead Wars,” a book by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner published this year that chronicles the monstrous irresponsibility of companies in the lead industry over the course of the 20th century. Eventually, over industry protests, came regulation and the removal of lead from gasoline. As a result, lead levels of U.S. children have declined 90 percent in the past few decades, and scholars have estimated that, as a result, children’s IQs on average have risen at least two points and perhaps more than four.

So what are the lessons from the human catastrophe of lead poisoning over so many decades? 

Alarm about endocrine disruptors once was a fringe scientific concern, but increasingly has moved mainstream. There is still uncertainty and debate about the risk posed by individual chemicals, but there is growing concern about the risk of endocrine disruptors in general — particularly to fetuses and children. There is less concern about adults.

These are the kinds of threats that we in journalism are not very good at covering. We did a wretched job covering risks from lead and tobacco in the early years; instead of watchdogs, we were lap dogs.

Andrea C. Gore, the editor of Endocrinology, published an editorial asserting that corporate interests are abusing science today with endocrine disruptors the way they once did with lead: for the “production of uncertainty.”

She added that the evidence is “undeniable: that endocrine-disrupting chemicals pose a threat to human health.”

When scientists feud, it’s hard for the rest of us to know what to do. But I’m struck that many experts in endocrinology, toxicology or pediatrics aren’t waiting for regulatory changes. They don’t heat food in plastic containers, they reduce their use of plastic water bottles, and they try to give their kids organic food to reduce exposure to pesticides.

So a question for big chemical companies: Are you really going to follow the model of tobacco and lead and fight regulation every step of the way, once more risking our children’s futures?

Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association and Governor Jay Inslee

No on I-522 money flooding in from out of state - Spin Control - Spokesman.com - June 13, 2013:



“The biotech industry in Washington has enormous potential,” said Clay Siegall, President and CEO of Seattle Genetics, “Jay was a recognized leader on this issue in Congress because he understands this industry. With the right kind of leadership and the right kind of policies, Washington can become an important international hub for research and development, manufacturing and sales of these innovative new medicines and products. Jay will provide that leadership as governor.”

Is Governor Inslee undecided about I-522 and labeling genetically engineered foods? (KURW Oct. 9)

"The No on I-522 campaign was formed by the Washington Farm Bureau, which has contributed “in-kind” contributions of $1,610 for staff and meeting time. Until last month, all of the campaign’s contributions were in-kind, from the farm bureau and other northwest organizations like the Spokane-based Far West Agribusiness Association and the Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association of Seattle." (The Spokesman-Review)

Chris Rivera, Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association President and CEO:

“The long-term vision for the biotechnology industry is to heal, feed and fuel the world, and the only way we’re going to be able to take care of nine billion people by 2050 is through biology and biotechnology.”

Biotechnology Agriculture 

Genetically modified organisms are increasingly a topic of conversation in society, the media and the internet.  The many questions and answers are often charged with a lot of emotion ranging from optimism and excitement to skepticism and even fear. The biotech industry stands 100 percent behind the health and safety of the GMO crops on today’s market, but acknowledges that we haven’t always done the best job communicating about them. GMO Answers was created to answer your questions about how food is grown and to engage in a conversation. They invite people to “Join us. Ask tough questions. Be skeptical. Be open. We look forward to sharing answers.” (WWBA - Public Policies)

The WWBA supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade-agreement (TPP): Protect biotech in Trans-Pacific Partnership trade-agreement talks The U.S. should strengthen intellectual-property protection for biotech companies in negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, writes guest columnists Matt Morrison and Chris Rivera. (Seattle Times)

October 25:              GOVERNOR'S LIFE SCIENCE SUMMIT & ANNUAL MEETING 

---------------------------
Maris Abelson (Facebook Post)

Gov. Inslee cosponsored bills on GM food labeling while he was in Congress. Why won't he support a labeling initiative in his own state?

Inslee co-sponsored Kucinich's 
H.R.2916 - Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act 108th Congress (2003-2004): 

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/2916/cosponsors

and the previous one:
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4814/cosponsors

I-522 Google News Article Stream (60+)

The battle lines on food labeling Politico - ‎2 hours ago‎ Just like in California, the opponents to I-522 are lining up late in the game in Washington with campaign donations. As of the latest disclosure reports filed with the state Sept. 30, the opposition campaign  had raised almost $17.2 million — roughly four times ... I-522 Will Finish Job We Started in California, Mother of GMO Labeling Initiative ... Seattle Post Intelligencer (blog) - ‎16 hours ago‎ In the last two weeks of September Larry toured Washington state to support the state's grassroots effort to pass I-522, the labeling initiative whose fate will be decided by voters November 5. We spoke with her in Seattle. Clarissa asked our first question. GMOs in I-522 debate The Seattle Times (blog) - ‎8 hours ago‎ It is not surprising that Monsanto is a big supporter of the “No on I-522” campaign, since they are the supplier of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. The Food & Water Watch found that the  “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE ... Science: The Missing Ingredient in the GMO Food Labeling Debate Xconomy - ‎1 hour ago‎ Residents of Washington State are currently being buried in an avalanche of ads regarding  a citizen's initiative that would require the labeling of genetically engineered foods sold in grocery stores. Estimates for the percentage of items that contain genetically ... Advocacy group's new study says I-522's GMO labels won’t add to consumer ... TheNewsTribune.com - ‎13 hours ago‎ An initiative requiring labeling of genetically modified foods would not add costs to Washington residents' food bills, a new study by an Emory University professor claims. The report was released Monday by the Alliance for Natural Health USA, an advocacy ...

Welcome Message: I-522 Volunteers Media List

Hello wonderful volunteers!  Thank you so much for offering to call some reporters for us.  We send out weekly press releases to over 700 reporters and we need your help to follow up with some phone calls.  

Step 1 - go to our media contact info spreadsheet. (To participate, sign up here)

Step 2 - Look at the media contact list, and pick a reporter with a listed phone number, and give them a call.  

Here is an example of what you could say: 

Hi, my name is Sarah Stolar and I am calling to ask if you received the press release about the Washington state speaking tours for Pamm Larry and Howard Vlieger being organized by I-522 GMO grassroots groups?  Are you interested in interviewing Pamm, Howard, or a grassroots leader?  I feel this is a really important story because... (ex - The speaking tours will raise awareness of I-522, which will require GMO's/GE foods to be labeled and as a Mom, and I feel that every mom should have a chance to learn about GMO's so that they can be educated about what they feed their kids.) If the mood is right, talk about why you are involved in this issue.

Step 3 - Once you have called a reporter, please make a note of it in the "Date called/Name of caller" column.  We are asking that each volunteer call at least 10 reporters, as soon as possible.  If you would like to do more, please feel free!

Thank you all so much for offering your help.  We need it!  Please let us know if you have any questions at all in the comments below.

Press Releases

I-522 GMO Grassroots Groups Organize September Speaking Tour For Grandmother Pamm Larry and Farmer Howard Vlieger

SEATTLE, WA (August 19, 2013) Washington grassroots volunteers for I-522 have asked Pamm Larry, the initial instigator of the genetically engineered labeling act in California, and Iowa Farmer Howard Vlieger (R) to participate in a statewide speaking tour in September to educate voters on GMO Food Labeling issues and help organize the grassroots troops. Annmarie Gianni Skin Care and Good Earth Natural Foods are funding the fall tour.

522 Volunteers Landing Page

Digital Communication Tools for 522 Volunteers

Google:

Calendar - Howard and Pamm's WA Speaking Tour (The calendar is embedded on the sidebar of this blog)
Hard Drive (Share documents, spread sheets, creat online polls) - Press Release: Pamm Larry and Howard Vlieger WA September Speaking Tour

Slideshare (powerpoint site) - Upload and share powerpoint presentations (with audio track) Three GMO Presentations

Facebook: Information, news and personal connections

Volunteers for I-522 Seattle (Group)
Yes On 522 (Page)
WWGF News (Page)

About Me Landing Page

WWGF News (Short URL, Link Page)
You can make any page a landing page. I used this blog post as a landing page.

If you have questions, please post a comment.

NOTE: This page will be updated through Nov.

Monsanto: A Corporate Profile | Food & Water Watch

You know who Monsanto is. Even if you don’t recognize the company name, you’ve come across some of its products: maybe you’ve used Roundup weed killer on your lawn or garden, you’ve heard about the debate over treating cows with the artificial growth hormone rBGH, you’re worried about unlabeled genetically engineered organisms in your food, or you’ve learned about the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, maybe from family members, coworkers or friends who suffered the health consequences. These may not seem related, but they all are a major part of Monsanto’s legacy.

The agriculture and life sciences company that’s known today as Monsanto is only a recent development. Most of Monsanto’s history is steeped in heavy industrial chemical production — a legacy that is extremely at odds with the environmentally friendly, feed-the-world image that the company spends millions trying to convey.
Monsanto is a global agricultural biotechnology company that specializes in genetically engineered (GE) seeds and herbicides, most notably Roundup herbicide and GE Roundup Ready seed.GE seeds have been altered with inserted genetic material to exhibit traits that repel pests or withstand the application of herbicides.

In 2009, in the United States alone, nearly all (93 percent) of soybeans and four-fifths (80 percent) of corn were grown with seeds containing Monsanto-patented genetics.The company’s power and influence affects not only the U.S. agricultural industry, but also political campaigns, regulatory processes and the structure of agriculture systems all over the world.

Read Full Report
Download the PDF

OpEdNews - Article: NYT Editors Ignore GMO Health Dangers

By Stephen Lendman (about the author)

GMO foods and ingredients pose serious health hazards.

It doesn't surprise. Times policy is irresponsible. It's unprincipled. It's reprehensible. It's longstanding. It supports wealth, power and privilege.

It endorses what demands condemnation. It ignores GMO dangers. Doing so betrays its readers. More on that below.

GMO foods and ingredients are toxic. They're unsafe to eat. They harm human health. Independent scientific research proves it. Coverup and denial suppress what's vital to know.

 Read More
OpEdNews - Article: NYT Editors Ignore GMO Health Dangers

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

Read Capital Press Article:
Idaho group backs mandatory GMO food labeling law | capitalpress.com

Excerpt/summary from: GMO Myths & Truths (2012)

Rebuttal By

Dr. Nancy L. Swanson

Abacus Enterprises

http://www.abacus-ent.com

Ban GMOs -- Ask me why!

1. George Gough, who oversees Monsanto's government affairs division, said the safety and effectiveness of Roundup Ready crops has been proven by multiple federal agencies and farmers themselves.

Before new drugs are approved by the FDA they must go through a series of rigorous animal testing.  If adverse effects are not found in the animal tests, they must then proceed to a series of rigorous clinical trials with human beings.  The chemical companies who have developed the GE seeds have made the claim to the FDA that their products do not qualify as a new drug because they are essentially identical to non-GMO crops and therefore do not require the same rigorous testing.  The EPA agreed and as a result, the FDA’s GMO policy is  that Monsanto and others can determine if their own foods are safe. There are no required safety studies. [See excerpts from the FDA Federal Register at the end of this document.]

   
 A genetically modified plant may or may not require FDA approval (depending on whether or not the modification can be considered an “additive.”  If it does require approval, it is up to the producer to perform the tests to insure safety.  The tests that have been performed for FDA approval have all been performed and/or paid for by the petitioner and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review.  Most of these studies were done on rats, none were undertaken for more than 90 days and many were much less; not nearly long enough for adverse effects to show.  There have been no safety studies done by any federal agencies or farmers, as stated.

There have, however, been numerous reports of infertility, death and disease as a result of feeding livestock GMO feed.  “Infertility rates as high as 20% are being seen in cattle and pigs, and spontaneous abortions are occurring at rates of 45% among cattle. This is still early in the Roundup Ready era—and it's clearly unsustainable.” [1] 

When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within a week 1 in 4 died. Shepherds estimate 10,000 sheep deaths in one region of India.[2] Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.[3]  A pig farmer in Denmark cured his pigs of chronic diarrhoea, birth defects, reproductive problems, reduced appetite, bloating, stomach ulcers, weaker and smaller piglets, and reduced litter sizes by taking them off of GMO feed. [4]

There have also been numerous, peer-reviewed articles showing toxicity, tumors, infertility and a host of ills in laboratory animals. 

[1] http://www.gaia-health.com/articles451/000455-gmo-crop-dieoffs-infertility-miscarriages.shtml

[2]"Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields-Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh" Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006,
[3] Mae-Wan Ho, "GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines," ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; and Mae-Wan Ho and Sam Burcher, "Cows Ate GM Maize & Died," ISIS Press Release, January 13, 2004

[4] http://farmwars.info/?p=8723 [note: original article is in Danish]

2.  He said 16 million farmers around the world grew 395 million acres of biotech crops in 2011, and producers grow the crops every year because they increase productivity and decrease input costs.

A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists  showed that GMO crops actually have less yield than conventional crops.  [5]

“There have been widespread reports of GM crop failures in India. Of course it's only anecdotal...There is almost no research on the subject. Monsanto manages to prevent it by refusing to allow their seeds to be used in studies that might demonstrate the truth.”

[5]  Gurian-Sherman D., “Failure to yield: Evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops,” Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009

3.   If you sell them one thing one year that doesn't work, they're not going to come back and use it again," said Gough, who used corn as an example of how biotechnology has resulted in significant production gains.

Do they have a choice?

4. While the average corn yield in this country was 72.4 bushels per acre in 1970, he said, it was 122 bushels per acre in 2012 and Monsanto officials project it will reach 300 bushels by 2030.

Curious that he would  choose 1970 because much of the U.S. corn crop was wiped out by Southern Corn Leaf Blight causing a full-blown crisis in that year. [6]  A lack of biodiversity in the corn varieties was a large part of the problem. [7] 

In fact, a study by Mike Tannura, Scott Irwin, and Darrel Good has shown that the increase in corn yield from 1996-2007 was the same as the increase from 1960-1995 after adjusting for weather effects. [8]  Their study examined data from 1960-2007 for Iowa, Illinois and Indiana comprising nearly half of the U.S. corn production.

“The sensitivity of the results was examined by also fixing the  breakpoint at 1994, 1995, 1997, and 1998.  The magnitude of the estimated change in trend yields was not sensitive to the alternative breakpoints.  In sum, the regression models did not indicate that a notable increase in trend yields for corn occurred in the mid-1990s.”  Turns out that corn production is most sensitive to weather.

Increase in corn yield/acre	1960-1995	1996-2007
Illinois:	+1.8 bu./yr.	+2.0 bu./yr.
Indiana:	+1.8 bu./yr.	+1.8 bu./yr.
Iowa:	+1.9 bu./yr.	+2.1 bu./yr.

[6]  Blight in the Corn Belt

[7] The American Corn Blight

[8] Mike Tannura, Scott Irwin, and Darrel Good, “Are Corn Trend Yields Increasing at a Faster Rate?”, February 20, 2008, Marketing and Outlook Briefs, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

5. Gough said similar biotechnology gains among other crops are needed to feed an increasing global population projected to reach 8.4 billion by 2030.

Besides the fact that it is far from clear that GE crops increase yield, Round-up Ready crops result in higher applications of herbicides.  In 2009, Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus of Purdue University noted for his expertise in plant pathology, co-produced a paper with G.S. Johal, of Purdue's botany and plant pathology department. Entitled, "Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants" [9], it was published in the European Journal of Agronomy. It has, of course, been routinely ignored by the USDA.

Note that glyphosate is the scientific and generic term for Roundup.

The paper stated:

“[The widespread uses of glyphosate] significantly increase the severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defense to pathogens and diseases, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients rendering them unavailable for plant use. “

The authors further warned:

“[I]gnoring potential non-target detrimental side effects of any chemical, especially used as heavily as glyphosate, may have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering soils infertile, crops non-productive, and plants less nutritious. To do otherwise might well compromise not only agricultural sustainability, but also the health and well-being of animals and humans. “

We are to pin our hopes of feeding the world on GE crops?  How is this sustainable?

Roundup Ready seeds were created by Monsanto to leverage glyphosate. The GMO plants are resistant to it. Therefore, farmers can spray glyphosate recklessly in huge quantities. The result is, of course, profits from sales of the seeds, along with hugely inflated profits from sales of glyphosate. Monsanto makes money coming and going.

[9] G.S. Johal and D.N. Huber, “Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants,” European Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 31, No. 3, Oct. 2009, pp. 144-152

_______________________________________________________________

Excerpts from the

Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties

FDA Federal Register
Volume 57 - 1992
Friday, May 29, 1992

“In most cases, the substances expected to become components of food as a result of genetic modification of a plant will be the same as or substantially similar to substances commonly

found in food,...”

“Finally, the principles discussed in this notice do not apply to "new drugs" as defined by section 201 (p) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(p)), "new animal drugs" as defined by section 201(w) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(w)), or to "pesticide chemicals" as defined by section 201(q) of the act. As discussed in section IX., EPA is responsible for pesticide chemicals, including those produced in plants as a result to genetic modification.”

[note “the act” is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ]

“Any genetic modification technique has the potential to alter the composition of food in a manner relevant to food safety, although, based on experience, the likelihood of a safety hazard is typically very low. The following paragraphs describe some potential changes in composition that may require evaluation to assure food safety.”

“Section 402(a)(1) of the act imposes a legal duty on those who introduce food into the market place, including food derived from new crop varieties, to ensure that the food satisfies the applicable safety standard.”

“In enacting the amendment [food additive amendment, 1958], Congress recognized that many substances intentionally added to food do not require a formal premarket review by FDA to assure their safety, either because their safety had been established by a long history of use in food or because the nature of the substance and the information generally available to scientists about the substance are such that the substance simply does not raise a safety concern worthy of premarket review by FDA. Congress thus adopted a two-step definition of "food additive." The first step broadly includes any substance the intended use of which results in its becoming a component of food. The second step, however, excludes from the definition of food additive substances that are GRAS [generally recognized as safe]. It is on the basis of the GRAS exception of the "food additive" definition that many ingredients derived from natural sources (such as salt, pepper, vinegar, vegetable oil, and thousands of spices and natural flavors), as well as a host of chemical additives (including some sweeteners, preservatives, and artificial flavors), are able to be lawfully marketed today without having been formally reviewed by FDA and without being the subject of a food additive regulation. The judgment of Congress was that subjecting every intentional additive to FDA premarket review was not necessary to protect public health and would impose an insurmountable burden on FDA and the food industry.  It is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.”

“With respect to transferred genetic material (nucleic acids), generally FDA does not anticipate that transferred genetic material would itself be subject to food additive regulation. Nucleic acids are present in the cells of every living organism, including every plant and animal used for food by humans or animals, and do not raise a safety concern as a component of food. In regulatory terms, such material is presumed to be GRAS. Although the guidance provided in section VII. calls for a good understanding of the identity of the genetic material being transferred through genetic modification techniques, FDA does not expect that there will be any serious question about the GRAS status of transferred genetic material.”

“Section VII. of this notice provides guidance to producers of new foods for conducting safety evaluations. This guidance is intended to assist producers in evaluating the safety of the food that they market, regardless of whether the food requires premarket approval by FDA. This guidance also includes criteria and analytical steps that producers can follow in determining whether their product is a candidate for food additive regulation and whether consultation with FDA should be pursued to determine the regulatory status of the product. Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”
_____________________________________________________________________

 

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.