Genetically
Engineered Foods May Pose National Health Risk
by Jeffrey M. Smith
August 2004
In a study in the early 1990’s rats were
fed genetically modified (GM) tomatoes. Well actually, the
rats refused to eat them. They were force-fed. Several of the
rats developed stomach lesions and seven out of forty died
within two weeks. Scientists at the FDA who reviewed the study
agreed that it did not provide a “demonstration of reasonable
certainty of no harm.” In fact, agency scientists warned that
GM foods in general might create unpredicted allergies,
toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional
problems. Internal FDA memos made public from a lawsuit reveal
that the scientists urged their superiors to require long-term
safety testing to catch these hard-to-detect side effects. But
FDA political appointees, including a former attorney for
Monsanto in charge of policy, ignored the scientists’
warnings. The FDA does not require safety studies. Instead, if
the makers of the GM foods claim that they are safe, the
agency has no further questions. The GM tomato was approved in
1994.
According to a July 27, 2004 report from the US National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), the current system of blanket
approval of GM foods by the FDA might not detect “unintended
changes in the composition of the food.” The process of gene
insertion, according to the NAS, could damage the host’s DNA
with unpredicted consequences. The Indian Council of Medical
Research (ICMR), which released its findings a few days
earlier, identified a long list of potentially dangerous side
effects from GM foods that are not being evaluated. The ICMR
called for a complete overhaul of existing regulations.
The safety studies conducted by the biotech industry are often
dismissed by critics as superficial and designed to avoid
finding problems. Tragically, scientists who voice their
criticism, and those who have discovered incriminating
evidence, have been threatened, stripped of responsibilities,
denied funding or tenure, or fired. For example, a UK
government-funded study demonstrated that rats fed a GM potato
developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged
immune systems, partial atrophy of the liver, and inhibited
development of their brains, livers and testicles. When the
lead scientist went public with his concerns, he was promptly
fired from his job after 35 years and silenced with threats of
a lawsuit.
Americans eat genetically modified foods everyday. Although
the GM tomato has been taken off the market, millions of acres
of soy, corn, canola, and cotton have had foreign genes
inserted into their DNA. The new genes allow the crops to
survive applications of herbicide, create their own pesticide,
or both. While there are only a handful of published animal
safety studies, mounting evidence, which needs to be followed
up, suggests that these foods are not safe.
Rats fed GM corn had problems with blood cell formation. Those
fed GM soy had problems with liver cell formation, and the
livers of rats fed GM canola were heavier. Pigs fed GM corn on
several Midwest farms developed false pregnancies or
sterility. Cows fed GM corn in Germany died mysteriously. And
twice the number of chickens died when fed GM corn compared to
those fed natural corn.
Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies
skyrocketed by 50 percent. Without follow-up tests, we can’t
be sure if genetic engineering was the cause, but there are
plenty of ways in which genetic manipulation can boost
allergies.
A gene from a
Brazil nut inserted into soybeans made the soy allergenic to
those who normally react to Brazil nuts.
GM soy
currently consumed in the US contains a gene from bacteria.
The inserted gene creates a protein that was never before
part of the human food supply, and might be allergenic.
Sections of
that protein are identical to those found in shrimp and dust
mite allergens. According to criteria recommended by the
World Health Organization (WHO), this fact should have
disqualified GM soy from approval.
The sequence of
the gene that was inserted into soy has inexplicably
rearranged over time. The protein it creates is likely to be
different than the one intended, and was never subject to
any safety studies. It may be allergenic or toxic.
The process of
inserting the foreign gene damaged a section of the soy’s
own DNA, scrambling its genetic code. This mutation might
interfere with DNA expression or create a new, potentially
dangerous protein.
The most common
allergen in soy is called trypsin inhibitor. GM soy contains
significantly more of this compared with natural soy.
The only human feeding study ever conducted showed that the
gene inserted into soybeans spontaneously transferred out of
food and into the DNA of gut bacteria. This has several
serious implications. First, it means that the bacteria inside
our intestines, newly equipped with this foreign gene, may
create the novel protein inside of us. If it is allergenic or
toxic, it may affect us for the long term, even if we give up
eating GM soy.
The same study verified that the promoter, which scientists
attach to the inserted gene to permanently switch it on, also
transferred to gut bacteria. Research on this promoter
suggests that it might unintentionally switch on other genes
in the DNA—permanently. This could create an overproduction of
allergens, toxins, carcinogens, or antinutrients. Scientists
also theorize that the promoter might switch on dormant
viruses embedded in the DNA or generate mutations.
Unfortunately, gene transfer from GM food might not be limited
to our gut bacteria. Preliminary results show that the
promoter also transferred into rat organs, after they were fed
only a single GM meal.
This is only a partial list of what may go wrong with a single
GM food crop. The list for others may be longer. Take for
example, the corn inserted with a gene that creates its own
pesticide. We eat that pesticide, and plenty of evidence
suggests that it is not as benign as the biotech proponents
would have us believe. Preliminary evidence, for example,
shows that thirty-nine Philippinos living next to a
pesticide-producing cornfield developed skin, intestinal, and
respiratory reactions while the corn was pollinating. Tests of
their blood also showed an immune response to the pesticide.
Consider what might happen if the gene that produces the
pesticide were to transfer from the corn we eat into our gut
bacteria. It could theoretically transform our intestinal
flora into living pesticide factories.
GM corn and most GM crops are also inserted with antibiotic
resistant genes. The ICMR, along with the American Medical
Association, the WHO, and organizations worldwide, have
expressed concern about the possibility that these might
transfer to pathogenic bacteria inside our gut. They are
afraid that it might create new, antibiotic resistant
super-diseases. The defense that the biotech industry used to
counter these fears was that the DNA was fully destroyed
during digestion and therefore no such transfer of genes was
possible. The human feeding study described above, published
in February 2004, overturned this baseless assumption.
No one monitors human health impacts of GM foods. If the foods
were creating health problems in the US population, it might
take years or decades before we identified the cause. One
epidemic in the 1980’s provides a chilling example. A new
disease was caused by a brand of the food supplement L-tryptophan,
which had been created through genetic modification and
contained tiny traces of contaminants. The disease killed
about 100 Americans and caused sickness or disability in about
5-10,000 others. The only reason that doctors were able to
identify that an epidemic was occurring, was because the
disease had three simultaneous characteristics: it was rare,
acute, and fast acting. Even then it was nearly missed
entirely.
Studies show that the more people learn about GM foods, the
less they trust them. In Europe, Japan, and other regions, the
press has been far more open about the potential dangers of
genetic manipulation. Consequently, consumers there demand
that their food supply be GM-free and manufacturers comply.
But in the US, most people believe they have never eaten a GM
food in their lives (even though they consume them daily).
Lacking awareness, complacent consumers have been the key
asset for the biotech industry in the US. As a result,
millions of Americans are exposed to the potential dangers,
and children are most at risk. Perhaps the revelations in the
reports released on opposite sides of the planet will awaken
consumers as well as regulators, and GM foods on the market
will be withdrawn.
He is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and
Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered
Foods You’re Eating, and the Director of the Institute for
Responsible Technology.