|
Minor Corrections to Seeds of Deception
GM soy genes transferred into gut bacteria before the soy burger meal, page 60
In the first three print runs, a study is described in which volunteers were fed a single meal of a soy burger and soy milkshake. The Guardian, on July 17, 2002, had reported that in three of seven volunteers, the herbicide resistant gene transferred to gut bacteria as a result of the meal.
The study, by Trudy Netherwood, and others, was finally published in February, 2004, in Nature Biotechnology. It showed that the transfer of genes to gut bacteria had in fact occurred before the meal. The transfer was stable and did not measurably increase after the meal. Some observers believe that this finding is even more incriminating then that incorrectly reported in The Guardian, and subsequently in Seeds of Deception. The study shows that the transference is not transitory, but potentially long term. Further, the study was conducted in the UK, where GM soy consumption is believed to be quite low. Transfer of transgenic genes into gut bacteria may be quite a bit more common in countries such as the US, where GM foods are commonplace.
The text, as of the fourth printing, is as follows:
More pertinent, however, is a 2002 study that was dubbed "the world's first known trial of GM foods on human volunteers." Researchers used seven people whose large intestines had previously been removed. Their digestive systems were rerouted out of the body into colostomy bags. In their digestive material, "a relatively large proportion of genetically modified DNA survived the passage through" the small intestine. Moreover, in three of the seven subjects, horizontal gene transfer did occur. Some of their digestive bacteria contained the herbicide-resistant gene used in soybeans. Since no increase in gene transfer was detected after subjects ate a meal with GM soy, researchers suggest that the transference might be related to long-term consumption. "Everyone used to deny that this was possible," says Antoniou. "It suggests that you can get antibiotic marker genes spreading around the stomach which would compromise antibiotic resistance."
GMOs are not allowed in even the non-organic ingredients of foods labeled organic, page 244
Good news! I am happy to correct a mistake describing the legal requirements of organic food. I had indicated that the non-organic ingredients in organic food can be GM. In fact, according to organic standards, they are not allowed to be! (I must add, however, that there is no enforcement.) The new paragraph on page 244 will now read:
If a package says "100% Organic" each ingredient must be organic. If the label says "Organic," at least 95 percent of the ingredients must be organic. The remaining 5 percent are not supposed to be genetically modified according to the organic standards. If the label states, "Made with Organic Ingredients," at least 70 percent of the ingredients must be organic-the non-organic ingredients are also not supposed to be GM. The non-organic ingredients, usually listed at the bottom of the label, do not need to be tested as non-GMO.
Cross-pollination by GM crops is not prohibited in organic, but some buyers have rejection thresholds, page 244.
As of the fourth printing, the book now reflects the organic standards allowance for accidental contamination via pollination. The text is as follows:
The new rules forbid the use of genetic engineering for products labeled as organic. If seeds or crops have been accidentally mixed with GM content, the product cannot be sold as organic. An exception is made in the case of contamination from cross-pollination. The organic standards do not penalize farmers who take reasonable precautions, but whose crops become contaminated from pollination outside their control. Although the standards do not specify any maximum level of allowable contamination from cross-pollination, many buyers in the organic industry set their own thresholds. They reject products with GM content greater than some specified low level such as 0.1 percent. Unless their buyers ask for it, many organic producers do not test for GMOs. It is not required. Thus, organic products may contain undetected contamination. Some farmers and certifiers would prefer to establish a universal threshold for GM content, which could pave the way for regular testing.
Wisdom of the Mice changed to Wisdom of the Rats, page 157
In the first print run, the book refers to Roger Salquist as a scientist involved with creating the FlavrSavr tomato. He says, "I gotta tell you, you can be Chef Boyardee and mice are still not going to like them." Although this was reported as such in the Washington Post, Salquist is actually the former CEO of Calgene. Furthermore, Salquist may have been mistakenly referred to rats instead of mice, as the feeding studies on Calgene's FlavrSavr used rats. The section is now changed to read:
"The Washington Post reported that rodents, usually happy to munch on tomatoes, turned their noses up at the genetically modified FlavrSavr tomato that scientists were so anxious to test on them. Calgene CEO Roger Salquist said of his tomato, 'I gotta tell you, you can be Chef Boyardee and . . . [they] are still not going to like them.'1 Rats were eventually force fed the tomato through gastric tubes and stomach washes. Several developed stomach lesions; seven of forty died within two weeks. The tomato was approved."
Calgene sponsored three feeding studies, not one, page 137
In the first print run, the book indicates that Calgene sponsored an animal feeding study on the FlavrSavr tomato. Technically, there were three separate studies, not one. The criticisms by the FDA evaluators, however, such as "unresolved questions still remain," refer to the three studies taken together. The number of studies is now listed as three.
(The reference on the book's back cover, which says that the tomato was approved without further tests, refers the three studies taken together. In other words, even though FDA scientists said that "the data [from all three studies] fall short of 'a demonstration of safety' or of a 'demonstration of a reasonable certainty of no harm,'" the crop was approved without further tests.)
Amount of money spent on Measure 27 by pro-measure campaigners changed, page 219
The financial expenditures made by the pro-measure 27 campaigners was changed from about $80,000 to more than $217,000. The corrected version describes is as a multiple of the amount spent by the anti-measure 27 campaign: "They spent $5.4 million-twenty-five times the amount spent by pro-27 campaigners."
Folic acid typo removed, page 240
Due to a typo in the source material used, the first print run incorrectly stated that Vitamins B2 and B12 combine to create folic acid. That is not correct and the reference has been removed. (The source document meant to indicate that B2 and B12 are combined with folic acid to fortify cereals.)
The wrong citation is used in three instances in Chapter 4, Deadly Epidemic Page 113-114.
The footnote #11 cites P. Raphals, “Does medical mystery threaten biotech?” Science, vol. 249, no. 619, 1990. It should have cited: Leslie Roberts, "L-tryptophan puzzle takes new twist," Science, vol. 249. p 988, August 31, 1990. The other instances in chapter 4 that use the footnote # 11 properly cite the P. Raphals’ article.
To stem the tide of anti-biotech sentiment, the industry relied on a spokesman it would later count on year after year—the FDA. In an article in Science magazine in late August, Sam Page, chief of the natural products and instrumentation branch at the FDA, “blasted Osterholm for ‘propagating hysteria.’ The whole question: Is there any relation to genetic engineering? is premature—especially given the impact on the industry.”11
Osterholm countered: “Anyone who looks at the data comes to the same conclusion. . . . I think FDA doesn’t want it to be so because of the implications for the agency.”
According to the article, the FDA knew for months that the contaminated L-tryptophan was created by GM bacteria, but withheld the information from the public “apparently hoping to keep the recombinant link quiet until they could determine whether it in fact did play a role in the outbreak.”11
|
