|
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Dangerous?
by Jeffrey M. Smith
This Is Food Quality
Feb/March 2004
While the US asserts that European resistance to genetically modified (GM) foods is a baseless, illegal trade barrier, British insurers liken the foods to asbestos and thalidomide, and refuse to insure them. The FDA claims that GM foods are Generally Recognized as Safe, at the same time popular geneticist David Suzuki says, Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying?[1]
Who do we believe?
A January 2001 report from an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada said it was scientifically unjustifiable to presume that GM foods are safe, and that the default prediction for any GM foods is the creation of unintended side effects. They called for safety testing, looking for short- and long-term human toxicity, allergenicity, and other health effects.[2]
Internal documents made public from a lawsuit reveal that FDA scientists agreed. In 1992, they wrote that GM foods can create unpredicted toxins, allergens, nutritional problems, and other effects that might not be obvious,[3] and urged the agency to require long-term safety testing of each new variety.[4] But the political appointees in charge, including Deputy Commissioner for Policy Michael Taylor, former attorney to biotech giant Monsanto, and later Monsanto vice president, overruled the scientists' suggestions no tests are required. The political roots of this policy were confirmed by FDA Commissioner David Kessler who described it as consistent with the general biotechnology policy established by the Office of the President. He said, It also responds to White House interest in assuring the safe, speedy development of the U.S. biotechnology industry.[5] As a result, biotech companies determine if their foods are safe and are not required even to inform the FDA when introducing a GM food. The studies industry does submit voluntarily, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, contain technical shortcomings in the safety data... as well as some obvious errors that the FDA failed to detect.[6] And many scientists describe published industry-sponsored animal feeding studies as designed to avoid finding any problems.[7][8]
An independent in-depth animal feeding study showed evidence of damaged immune systems, digestive problems, and stunted organ development in rats fed a GM potato. The scientists identified the process of genetic modification as the probable cause, the same process used in creating most GM food on the market.[9] Unfortunately, no published study has tested the GM food on the market to see if they create these same effects in laboratory animals or humans.
The only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that genetically engineered genes from soy transferred to the bacteria inside the digestive tract, rendering the bacteria resistant to herbicide.[10] This finding gives credence to the fear that the antibiotic resistant genes used in most GM foods will create antibiotic-resistant super diseases. The British Medical Association cited this as one reason why they called for a moratorium on GM crops.[11]
Many British scientists also expressed alarm when, immediately following the importation of GM soy into their country, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. [12] This might have resulted from the increased allergen, trypsin inhibitor, in Roundup Ready® soy,[13] or perhaps from the protein in the soy that has never been part of the human food supply. There are actually no tests to guarantee that a novel protein won't create an allergy attack in at least some portion of the population. While the UN's FAO and WHO designed a testing protocol to minimize the likelihood of a GM allergen getting onto the market, the GM corn now sold in the US would almost certainly fail those recommended tests.[14]
The biotech industry survived a nearly fatal incident in the 1980's when a deadly epidemic was traced to the food supplement L-tryptophan, created from genetically modified bacteria. About 100 Americans died and an estimated 5-10,000 fell sick some were permanently disabled. Biotech proponents successfully diverted the blame away from genetic engineering by attributing the disease to changes in the filtration system at the factory. It is now known, however, that hundreds had contracted the disease from GM versions of L-tryptophan created during the four years prior to the change in the filter.
The reason the GM supplement had been traced as the cause of the epidemic was because the disease was acute, rare, and had a rapid onset. If all three characteristics were not present, the supplement might still be on the market. This begs the question, What about the other products on the market created from genetic engineering? Might they have contributed to the doubling of food-related illnesses between 1994 and 2001, reported by the Center for Disease Control? It's hard to say since no one is looking.
When the FDA gave the green light to GM foods in 1992, it was on the basis of more than a dozen scientific assumptions that have since been proven wrong.[15] There is more evidence today supporting the agency scientists' concerns about unpredicted side effects. I encourage those responsible for food safety to bypass the vacuous claims made by government and industry and review the data for your selves. It provides a compelling case why these foods should never have been approved.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating, published by Yes! Books. It is available at www.seedsofdeception.com, or at bookstores nationwide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography:
[1] Andrea Baillie, Suzuki Warns of Frankenstein Foods, CP Wire, October 18, 1999
[2] Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology, January, 2001,http://www.rsc.ca/index.php?page_id=119 [3] Louis J. Pribyl, Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92, March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org
[4] www.biointegrity.org
[5] David Kessler, FDA Proposed Statement of Policy Clarifying the Regulation of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Plants DECISION, March 20, 1992, www.biointegrity.org
[6] Plugging The Holes in Biotech Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Press Release, January 7 2003
[7] Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Trust Us We're Experts, Jeremy P. Tarcher/ Putnam, New York, 2001, p154
[8] Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA, 2003, pp. 34-38
[9] Stanley W B Ewen, Arpad Pusztai, EFFECT OF DIETS CONTAINING GENETICALLY MODIFIED POTATOES EXPRESSING GALANTHUS NIVALIS LECTIN ON RAT SMALL INTESTINE, LANCET, Research letters, Volume 354, Number 9187, 16 October 1999
[10] John Vidal, GM genes found in human gut, The Guardian, July 17, 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,756666,00.html
[11] The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health, BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Board of Science and Education. May 1999
[12] Mark Townsend, Why soya is a hidden destroyer, Daily Express, March 12, 1999
[13] 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 (Also see data taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
[14] Bill Freese, on behalf of Friends of the Earth, A Critique of the EPA's Decision to Re-Register Bt Crops and an Examination of the Potential Allergenicity of Bt Proteins, Adapted from Final Comments for Submission to the Environmental Protection Agency Docket No. OOP-00678B Concerning the Revised Risks and Benefits Sections for Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Pesticides (submitted to the EPA on September 21, 2001) December 9, 2001
[15] http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Genetically-Modified-Foods-are-Inherently-Unsafe.php
<< Back to reviews
|
