An excellent article by Jeffrey Smith, a Fairfield, IA Sierra Club member who
serves on the Sierra Club national Genetic Engineering Committee.
It's now time for the Sierra Club, Iowa Chapter to ask Senator Harkin, and
other lawmakers whom the Club has endorsed, for a National Institutes of Health
study on the safety of genetically engineered (genetically modified, or GM)
foods.
Tom
Subj: GMW: Jeffrey Smith article on Russian rat study
Date: 10/31/2005 5:27:21 PM Central Standard Time
From: [log in to unmask] (GM WATCH)
Sender: [log in to unmask] (GM WATCH)
To: [log in to unmask] ([log in to unmask])
GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
---
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=297
Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate
Genetically Engineered Soy
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating
genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she got, however, was an
astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar industry.
Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous
Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added GM soy
flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. Other females were fed non-GM
soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet began two weeks before the rats
conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing.
Ermakova’s first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth.
Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36% of
them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other groups (see
photo below).
(Photo of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted growth - the
larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the smaller rat, 20 days old,
is from the "GM soy" group.)
But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25
of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33 (9%)
from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls.
Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring,
drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and
expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The $70,000
needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was invited to
present her research at a symposium organized by the National Association for
Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote "PRELIMINARY STUDIES" on the top of her paper.
She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks of GM
food.
Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in controversy.
GM Soy's Divisive Past
The soy she was testing was Monsanto’s Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA has
bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive applications of
Monsanto's "Roundup" brand herbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is Roundup
Ready. Since soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in
the majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients
derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.
The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods. If
Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the agency has no
further questions. The rationale for this hands-off position is a sentence in
the FDA’s 1992 policy that states, "The agency is not aware of any
information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in
any meaningful or uniform way."[1] The statement, it turns out, was deceptive.
Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed that the FDA's own
experts agreed that GM foods are different and might lead to hard-to-detect
allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional problems. They had urged their
superiors to require long-term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in
charge of FDA policy was, conveniently, Monsanto's former attorney (and later
their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food policy as
"just a political document" without scientific basis, and warned that industry
would "not do the tests that they would normally do" since the FDA didn't
require any.[2] He was correct.
There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding safety
studies and no human clinical trials - in spite of the fact that millions of
people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are no adequate tests on
“biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and
kidney function,"[3] and animal feeding studies are too short to adequately
test for cancer, reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This
makes Ermakova's research particularly significant. It's the first of its
kind.
Past Studies Show Significant Effects
Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions. Research on
the liver, the body’s major de-toxifier, showed that rats fed GM soy developed
misshapen nuclei and other cellular anomalies.[4] This indicates increased
metabolic activity, probably resulting from a major insult to that organ. Rats
also showed changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in the production of
a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit digestion. Cooked GM
soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin, which can also block
nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that GM soy has 12-14% less
isoflavones, which are touted as cancer fighting.[7]
An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent problems
with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely criticized as rigged to
avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used mature animals instead of young, more
sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much protein, never
weighed the organs, and had huge variations in starting weights. The study’s
nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed significant differences
in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower levels of protein, a fatty
acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had actually omitted the most
incriminating nutritional differences, which were later discovered and made
public. For example, the published paper showed a 27% increase in a known allergen,
trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold
increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy allergies in
the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced.
The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two sections
that are identical to known allergens. This might also account for the increased
allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human feeding trial ever conducted
confirmed that this inserted gene transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the
intestines. This means that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your own
gut bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein inside
your digestive tract.
The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists found
fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of their newborn.[10]
Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also found in the blood, spleen, liver
and kidneys of piglets that were fed GM corn.[11] It was not clear if the GM
genes actually entered the DNA of the animal, but scientists speculate that if
it were to integrate into the sex organ cells, it might impact offspring.
The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens, or
anti-nutrients in the mother’s diet. These may be created in GM crops, due to
unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of gene insertion can delete one
or more of the DNA’s own natural genes, scramble them, turn them off, or
permanently turn them on. It can also change the expression levels of hundreds of
genes. And growing the transformed cell into a GM plant through a process
called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations
throughout the DNA.
Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in Roundup Ready
soy. We don’t know how many mutations or altered gene expressions are found
in its DNA. Years after it was marketed, however, scientists did discover a
section of natural soy DNA that was scrambled[12] and two additional fragments of
the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto’s detection.
Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often astounded by
their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who discovered incriminating
evidence or even expressed concerns about the technology have been fired,
threatened, stripped of responsibilities, or censured.[13] And when problems do
arise, they are not followed up. For example, animals fed GM crops developed
potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, damaged
immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy of the liver, lesions in the
livers, stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of the kidneys, problems with their
blood cells, higher blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in the
death rate. (See Spilling the Beans, August 2004.) None have been adequately
followed-up or accounted for.
Ermakova’s research, however, will likely change that. That’s because her
study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A 55.6% mortality rate
is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the study is the only reasonable
option.
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study
I presented Dr. Ermakova’s findings, with her permission, at the annual
conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in Tucson on
October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board passed a resolution asking the US
National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent
follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy’s president, said,
“Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily
by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous, independent
and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the population at risk.”
Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even follow-up
studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted genes in
five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.[14] In each case, the
genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by the biotech
companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That’s unlikely.
Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels lab
confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what was originally
listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn’t all match those found by
the French.[15] This suggests that the inserted genes are unstable and can
change in different ways. It also means that they are creating new proteins—ones
that were never intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the
Russian test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready soybeans used
in follow-up studies.
Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may explain
some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For example, nearly 25
farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM corn varieties caused their pigs
to become sterile, have false pregnancies, or give birth to bags of water. A
farmer in Germany claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his cows
and caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield
developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and fever, while the corn
was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms returned the following year, also
during pollination, and blood tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune
response to the Bt toxin—created by the GM corn.
These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may result from
a GM crop that has “gone bad” due to genetic rearrangements. Even GM plants
with identical gene sequences, however, might act differently. The amount of
Bt toxin in the Philippine corn study described above, for example, varied
considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16]
With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding has yet
been sufficient to reverse the industry’s growth in the US. It may take some
dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery. That is why Ermakova’s
findings are so important. If the study holds up, it may topple the GM food
industry.
I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM’s request, and fund an immediate,
independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not forthcoming, our Institute for
Responsible Technology will try to raise the money. This is not the time to wait.
There is too much at stake.
Click here for press release on Russian rat study.
Click here for the resolution by the American Academy of Environmental
Medicine.
Click here for downloadable photos of the rats.
Jeffrey M. Smith is working with a team of international scientists to
catalog all known health risks of GM foods. He is the author of Seeds of Deception ,
the world’s bestselling book on GM food, and the producer of the video,
Hidden Dangers in Kids’ Meals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at
www.responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer this article or monthly series to
your readers at no charge, by emailing [log in to unmask]
Individuals may read the column each month by subscribing to a free newsletter at
www.responsibletechnology.org.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
[1]“Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” Federal
Register vol. 57, no. 104 at 22991, May 29, 1992
[2]Louis J. Pribyl, “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,” March 6, 1992,
www.biointegrity.org
[3]Epidemiologist Judy Carman’s testimony before New Zealand’s Royal
Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001.
[4]Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C,
Gazzanelli G. (2002a) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical
analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell
Struct Funct. 27: 173-180.
[5]Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar
cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy, Volume
201 Issue 5 Page 409 - November 2002
[6]Stephen R. Padgette and others, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant
Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of
Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (The data was taken from the journal
archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
[7]Lappe, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R. (1999)
Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified,
herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medical Food 1, 241-245.
[8]Stephen R. Padgette and others, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant
Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of
Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996
[9]For example, Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, “In Vivo Studies on Possible
Health Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed—with Particular
Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials,”
Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003
[10]Doerfler W; Schubbert R, “Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment: the
gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry,” Journal of
molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-504, 1994
[11]Raffaele Mazza1, et al, “Assessing the Transfer of Genetically Modified
DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues,” Transgenic Research, October 2005, Volume 14,
Number 5, pp 775 - 784
[12]P. Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M.
DeLoose, “Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert,” European Food
Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112
[13]Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, 2003
[14] Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N,
Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO inserts:
a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster presented at
ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona,
23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du
Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org; also "Transgenic lines proven
unstable" by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003 www.i-sis.org.uk
[15] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php
[16] http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=36
© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted to reproduce this
in whole or in part.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]