Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food
By Jeffrey M. Smith
On May
19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)
called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community,
and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and
provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health
risks.”[1]
They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies,
and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies
indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including
infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and
changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude,
“There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse
health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized
scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between
GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”
More
and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a
Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I
strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.”
Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all
the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous
that I tell people never to eat it.”
Dr.
Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably
seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the
right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one
step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he
concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major
contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.
Pregnant women and babies at great
risk
Among
the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that
“children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other
dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies,
the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]
The
experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM
soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three
weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural
soy.[3]
The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting
pregnant.[4]
When
male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the
normal pink to dark blue.[5]
Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6]
Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their
DNA.[7]
Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which
were also smaller than normal.[8]
Reproductive problems also plague livestock.
Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo
that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries,
abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the
US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile
after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies;
others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile
when fed the same corn.[9]
In the
US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and
infant mortality are all escalating.
Food
designed to produce toxin
GM corn and cotton are
engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When
bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them.
Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil
bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic
farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control.
Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do
the killing.
The
Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more
concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more
toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike
the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic
natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy
moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or
flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]
The
exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout
India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the
Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively
this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]
GMOs
provoke immune reactions
AAEM
states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,”
including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma,
allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.
According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad
Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent
feature of all the studies.”[15]
Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in
rats fed Bt corn.[16] A
November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an
immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]
GM soy
and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic
properties,[18]
GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy
allergen,[19]
and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM
soy.[20]
Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by
50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of
genetic manipulation.
Animals dying in large numbers
In
India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds
let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed
severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well
as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly
suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably
Bt-toxin.”[21]
In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all
sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on
natural cotton plants remained healthy.
In a
small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight
years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo
grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next
day; all died within 3 days.[22]
Bt corn
was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water
buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]
In lab
studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20
rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died
within two weeks.[24]
Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats
fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]
Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of
us
The
only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous
problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the
DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to
function.[26]
This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have
potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put
more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our
intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest
of our lives.
When
evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the
US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal
problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be
colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.
Warnings by government scientists ignored and
denied
Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s.
According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus
at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might
create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria,
new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to
require rigorous long-term tests.[27]
But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and
the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former
attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in
effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that
no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other
biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later
became Monsanto’s vice president.
Dangerously few studies, untraceable
diseases
AAEM
states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious
health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been
published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the
“potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that
experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by
asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are
toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]
Famed
Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t
been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that
says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either
unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]
Dr.
Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know
because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long
time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute
symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to
trace the cause.
This is
precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The
disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in
the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an
epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and
caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It
was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called
L-tryptophan.
If
other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes,
asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any
other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In
fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems,
susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is
therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale
introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or
more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]
To help
identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the
medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case
studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects,
begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on
human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM
foods on human health.”
Citizens need not wait for the results before
taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from
anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and
sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a
pocket Non-GMO
Shopping Guide, co-produced
by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food
Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food
stores and in many doctors’ offices.
If even a small percentage of people choose
non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in
Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO
prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.
International bestselling author and independent
filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for
Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers
of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s
bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette:
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods,
identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government
approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the
biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk,
but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the
data to show that their products are safe.
[2] David Schubert,
personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25,
2002.
[3] Irina Ermakova,
“Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high
mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,”
Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[4] Irina
Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at
Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12,
2007
[5]
Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at
Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12,
2007
[6] L. Vecchio et al,
“Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified
Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec
2004):449–454.
[7] Oliveri et al.,
“Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos
from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the
Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10,
2006.
[8] Alberta Velimirov
and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810
fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der
Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[9] Jerry Rosman,
personal communication, 2006
[10] See for example, A.
Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by
herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator
Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7;
and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis
toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing
Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),”
Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004):
175–183.
[11]
Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance
activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington
State Dept. of Health, 1993).
[12] M.
Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide
Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,”
Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.
[13] Ashish Gupta et.
al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District
of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec
2005.
[14] Sunday
India, October, 26, 2008
[15] October
24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian
John
[16] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002. http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[17] Alberto Finamore, et
al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion
in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56
(23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008
[18] See L Zolla, et
al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended
side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic
modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum,
Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically
Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and
Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel,
“The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential
allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances
in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998),
45–62.
[19] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005
[20] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[21] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
[22] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.
[23] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[24] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
[25] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; referencing, John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002. http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[26] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
[28] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, no8, pp. 721-733
[29] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.
[30] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25