Genetically Modified Foods Have Serious Health Risks

[nosmokes]

Does anyone think this is gonna make it into any news cycle of any media in the States? Cause I'll give ya odds it don't.It's a Brit study and it has colostomy bags (eww ick,merkun's don't talk about that stuff in mixed company) and what kinda name is *Mahdi Ebrahimi*? It sure don't sound Irish.Nah, This ain't getting any air time or copy inches.
--###


original-organicagriculture


Genetically Modified Foods Have Serious Health Risks

Sep 30th, 2007 by Mahdi Ebrahimi

In the summer of 2002, the British government sponsored the first-ever research on genetically modified food (GMOs) using human subjects. Researchers fed seven volunteers a single meal of soy burgers and soy milkshakes. The soy was genetically modified, as are 80 percent of the soybeans planted in the US.The volunteers were selected because they had all previously had their lower intestines removed and were using a colostomy bag-the bag collected digested material after it passed through the small intestine. Researchers were surprised to discover that in every case, a large amount of genetically modified DNA survived digestion and remained intact. (Biotech companies had insisted that DNA is broken down.) Moreover, the modified gene from the soybean transferred into DNA of bacteria inside the gut of three volunteers. Their intestinal bacteria, like GMO soybeans, contained a foreign gene that allowed the bacteria to survive a dose of weed killer. No one knows what the health consequences of this are.

Scientists are more concerned about a related danger. Most genetically engineered crops contain an antibiotic resistant marker (arm) gene. These allow the cells to survive an otherwise deadly application of antibiotics. The arm gene used in GMO corn, for example, confers resistance to the antibiotic, Ampicillin. What if an arm gene jumped from our corn muffins into our gut bacteria? Could bacteria in our body become resistant to antibiotics?

The British Medical Association thinks so and cited this serious risk as one of their reasons for wanting an immediate moratorium on genetically engineered foods. Likewise, when FDA scientists were asked in 1992 to approve arm genes in the first GMO crop, (a tomato no longer on the market), they were against it. The director of the Division of Anti-infective Drug Products wrote in all capital letters:”IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTI-BIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.” Political appointees overrode the scientists’ recommendations and approved arm genes, siding with the biotech industry that assured them that DNA was destroyed during digestion, and that genes could not transfer to gut bacteria.

Having disproved these assumptions, the soy burger study raises a more serious threat. Before inserting a foreign gene, engineers attach a promoter to keep the gene permanently switched on. Promoters overpower the cells’ regulatory system, which normally turn on genes only as needed. But promoters can sometimes unintentionally switch on other naturally occurring genes in the DNA, causing them to pump out potentially toxic or allergenic proteins. Scientists are afraid that if these promoters transferred to bacteria or internal organs, they might turn genes on at random or create unstable dna.

Stanley Ewen, one of Scotland’s leading experts in tissue disease, believes that promoters might generate uncontrolled cell growth that could theoretically lead to cancer. Evidence of unusually high cell growth in the digestive tract of animals was discovered in three of the ten published animal feeding studies on GMO foods. (Two showed increased cell growth. One showed increased weight of the intestines. The other seven were not necessarily designed to detect such changes.) In addition to the cell growth, a study published in the prestigious Lancet found that young GMO-fed rats also had more sluggish immune systems, partial atrophy of the liver, and smaller brains, livers, and testicles. Researchers believe that the unstable, unregulated, and aggressive promoter may be the culprit.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

[BlooInBloo]

1. Yup. They killed Mendel. Damn peas.

[nosmokes]

2. Intellectually dishonest argument.

breeding and GE are two totally different things. Or rather, they're related in the same fashion that removing a splinter and removing a brain tumor are both surgery. You don't speak of them in the category because they ain't. night bloo.;)

[TZ]

4. Then don't let anyone you know

get gene therapy for Parkinson's disease or get any vaccines like Hep A, Hep B, and others that will soon be here including an vaccine agaisnt stomach cancer/ulcers/h.pylori all of which SAFELY use the same damn type of genetic technology you are constantly railing agaisnt.
BTW the studies that show a rat or mouse "dying" is not gonna tell you much. Human physiology and rodent physiology are quite different which is why a lot of disease researchers actually gm modify their animals to have some human genetics. I would like to see how some of these transgenic animals react. That would give a better story.
GM technology is not some large experiment people think it is. Its actually been used in the labs (and increasingly in the real world) quite successfully for awhile now.

[sendero]

5. More disingenuous bullshit..

.. who said they were against ALL gene manipulation?

I just don't want to EAT THIS SHIT. There is NO GOOD REASON for what Monsanto is doing to our crops other than their profit, NONE.

[Tsiyu]

7. Thank you

I have nothing against Penicillin either but i don't want it mass-sprayed on all my food.

We do not know the long-term ramifications of all this manipulation of plant DNA. The mutant weeds, the effects on the humans and animals who ingest them. Common sense doesn't allow me to say this looks good. Science should get some... common sense that it, rather than more lust for $$$$ But sadly, much of science has been taken over by greedy fundies too.

Anyone who says GM foods aren't a Pandora's Box of future horrors is making money off them, you can be sure.

[TheWraith]

26. Boy talk about a strawman.

"Anyone who says GM foods aren't a Pandora's Box of future horrors is making money off them, you can be sure."

Ah, the joy of false arguments. Well, I'm not making money off GM foods or crops of any kind, and I don't believe for a second that the paranoia surrounding them is anything close to justified. It's something to be careful with, but nobody has ever produced any solid evidence that genetically modified foods are inherently harmful--the only negative cases have been a few where transplanted traits or genes have triggered reactions in people allergic to the source plant, and even that is rare. Most of our corn and cotton have already been genetically modified, but the sky is still above us and the Earth still below.

[PaulaFarrell]

38. And no one has ever produced any solid evidence that they are inherently safe

This is what people are against - the foisting of an unknown into the food chain and environment for no valid reason and usually without even giving people the choice of whether they want to eat it. GM foods are approved on the basis that they are 'substantially' the same. The only GM food which has ever been tested to pharmaceutical standards was withdrawn as unsafe. I am sure that there are probably some 'safe' GM foods - but why take the risk? No one can ever give a real valid reason why we need to use GM foods - unlike certain medecines for which there are valid reasons. Similarly why take the risk of creating a new organism and releasing it into the environment without being able to predict the long-term effects?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_42341.html


Note that people against the use of bt in GM grops widely predicted resistance developing to this important insecticide, and this is already happening after what, a decade or so? bt is extremely important to organic farmers and if insects develop resistance to it, they will be badly affected.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/feb01/farm0201.htm

and i guess the sky and earth will still be here long after we are gone. However, your point is that there have been no disastrous effects - well, it's simply to early to know that.

[TheWraith]

44. You can't prove that an entire class of items is "inherently safe."

Any more than you can prove that all fruit cakes taste bad. And I repeat: most of our corn and cotton are already genetically modified, and have been for many years, and there hasn't yet been an apocalypse.

I think that people have seen way too many bad movie with genetic modification as a plot device. It's not like this is some wacky science that just sprung up overnight. It's a more powerful equivalent to the kind of cross-breeding of plants that has been going on since the dawn of agriculture. There are going to be issues, sure, but I'd rather my food produced its own defenses against insects than having to be hosed down in God knows what.

"No one can ever give a real valid reason why we need to use GM foods"

I suggest you read up on Norman Borlaug, and his use of early biotech and gene targeting in creating the disease-resistant and dwarf wheat which is credited with saving about 1 billion people from starvation.

Properly targeted genetic mods can mean more productivity, and less need to use industrial chemicals in farming. Which is to say nothing of the other possibilities, like creating peanuts that people aren't allergic to, or crops that will grow with less irrigation and fertilizer.

[PaulaFarrell]

46. Nevertheless you can prove a single item is safe before releasing ity on the market

And this hasn't been done. The test done on these crops work on the basis that they are 'substantially' the same as the non-modified organism, and only very basic tests are done. As for the idea that GMs use less chemicals, this only holds true for about 10 years. After that period, farmers are generally use as much as more pesticides/herbicides. This has been the case with bt cotton. ANd there is really no evidence that GM crops are more productive in the long-term. As for peanuts which don't cause allergies, I just say, huh? If you had a peanut allergy would you really take the risk just because you were told these particular peanuts were safe? The only way to make peanuts safe for these people would be to ensure the entire food supply in basically the whole world (given the way commodities are bought and sold internationally) was GM.


Sorry, but Mr. Borlaug did not use genetic momdification although he may advocate its use now. You are trying to say that plant-breeding and GM are the same and they simply are not. It IS a science which has sprung up virtually overnight, and its long-term effects are unknown. I don't think it's the anti-GM people watching too much sci-fi, if anything it's the pro-GM who have been watching the sci-fi and seme to think that the technofix will cure any problem, without acknowleding how many problems the 'fixes' actually create.

The figure 1 billion is unprovable is unprovable by the way - a guesstimate if anything. But while the 'green revolution' may have provided more food in the short term, it has also introduced methods of farming which are inherently unsustainable. When the crash comes it will just be worse due to the higher number of people in the world.

[Javaman]

41. Read up on the "Flavor Savor" tomato.

also read up on the now new breed of weeds that have developed resistance to Roundup. There is an eye opener for you.

Also, do some more research on how GM foods are market tested. Here's a clue: they're not.

I've done extensive reading on this matter.

Also check out the totalitarian practices by monsanto and other agrocorps to control the seed supply.

[TheWraith]

43. Actually, you should know that it's "Flavr Savr" tomato...

...and that "Savr" is a play on "Saver," not "Savor." As for them, they were a commercial failure, not because they were unsafe, but they just weren't very good.

As for terminator genes, I'm all against that, and think that frankly it should be illegal. But that has nothing to do with the safety of genetically modified food. Neither does whether GM plants are commercially popular.

[Javaman]

45. wrong.

not reported in the main stream news because of fear of bad publicity, they were pulled because up to one third of the people that ate them, got severe rashes.

check out the documentary "future of food".

[truedelphi]

33. Sendero's response to your tripe is so spot on that I will repeat it:

Sendero says:
More disingenuous bullshit..
.. who said they were against ALL gene manipulation?

I just don't want to EAT THIS SHIT. There is NO GOOD REASON for what Monsanto is doing to our crops other than their profit, NONE

End of quoted material.

Turtlensue - if you are unaware that eating a substance and having it injected are far different activities - often having far different outcomes - then I can only wonder what as to the holes in your reasoning capacity.

A substance's effect on you can vary wildly depending upon the method by which it gets inside you. For instance, if the product is eaten and then passes through your stomach (where it has allyour stomach acids launched against it)rather than through skin ingestion. (Monsanto's RoundUp for instance has far different effects if orally consumed than if ingested through skin absorption.
WHich is one reason why those bstards at Monsanto insisted on using a feeding tube study of dogs ingesting RoundUp rather than looking at the effects of skin absorption.)

[BlooInBloo]

12. It's all genetic modification.

[ljm2002]

14. Yes, and there's not difference between rust and fire...

...they're both just oxidation.

[BlooInBloo]

16. Yup - and if you were to say "oxidation is dangerous", you'd be including both. Duh.

[ljm2002]

22. But then I wasn't saying that, was I?

Way to miss the point.

I don't claim that selective breeding is dangerous. Nor do I claim that we should not do gene splicing -- I am not anti technology per se. But comparing the two, saying they are the "same thing" -- it is true only in a theoretical sense, similar to the theoretical correspondence between rust and fire. Yes they are fundamentally the same process -- but I've never seen anybody run when someone else yelled "Rust!".

Making direct genetic modifications should be approached with caution, that we aren't even close to understanding the subtleties involved, and that it is truly careless to introduce these organisms into our food supplies on a massive scale, based on reassurances from an industry with a vested interest in the outcome.

[BlooInBloo]

27. The OP did.

[Stargazer99]

3. Did you read about the rats that died after eating GM potatoes?

the American public better wake up. These corps will force feed you anything that makes them richer even if it makes you sick or kills you. The FDA is useless if you are relying on them...they are owned by money and power.

[Zodiak]

6. Some points:

1. Gut flora are bacteria, which typically take up DNA fragments from their environment...not surprising in the least. If said bacteria become Ampicillin-resistant, that is not near as big as concern as multidrug resistance. Amicillin is standardly used in all genetic engineering. I can think of no other of the thousands of antibiotics that are commonly used, so this is not a big concern unless Ampicillin is the only drug that can be administrered to the patient.

2. There is nothing inherent to genetically modified DNA that makes it more resistant to digestion. It is not surprising that digestion of any biorganic polymer (like DNA or protein) is incomplete. How incomplete is the issue, and the article states nothing in that regard. What is the average length of the DNA not digested? If it is a couple of hundred base pairs, then the capacity of this DNA to still be functional is next to nil.

3. Human cells are NOT designed to take up DNA from the evironment, so I do not see how the concern about guy flora taking up genes is valid. Also, the promoter would have to be separated from the gene it is attached to and be conjugated with a groth gene....that is extremely unlikely to happen. You are far more likely to get a piece of DNA from a viruse in your gut, which is DESIGNED to inject its genes into a host cell...the good thing is viruses do not take up DNA from the environement like bacteria does.


All in all, I find this article to be a bit alarmist and based on biological knowledge that is erroneous on its face. I would imagine that the article was written in such a fashion as to rely on people's paranoia and ignorance of the biology of GE to promulgate fears. Not a surprise in Europe where it is in accordance with the wishes of the local governments.

The greatest threat of GE still remains environmental...all of this "it will make you turn into a frankenstein" talk is paranoid. DNA is DNA.....its gets digested, but digestion is hardly ever complete. When we start taking up cow genes from eating burgers or lettuce genes from salad, I'll start being concerned.

[sendero]

8. The article...

.. at least the excerpt I read, referred to the issue of gut bacteria taking up dna. That's bad enough for me, thank you, since we have to live with our intestinal flora.

[PDenton]

10. good counterpoint

I eat GMO foods, and don't think much about. What choice is there? Organic, non-GMO foods are getting expensive. I probably eat plenty of GMO soybeans. My only concern is that there have been a few studies suggesting that GMO soybeans have fewer isoflavones.

[mwb970]

11. Thanks for the sanity check.

People with little technical knowledge of genetics (i.e., almost everybody) may allow fear to magnify a small issue, of genuine but limited concern, into a mega-issue involving doom for the human race. It reminds me of the way conspiracy theories often take root and grow despite a complete lack of actual information on the subject.

I suspect there is an issue here, but I wonder if it isn't being overblown by this type of article.

[JohnyCanuck]

13. People with little technical knowledge .....

You mean, like the British Medical Association?

Could bacteria in our body become resistant to antibiotics?

The British Medical Association thinks so and cited this serious risk as one of their reasons for wanting an immediate moratorium on genetically engineered foods. Likewise, when FDA scientists were asked in 1992 to approve arm genes in the first GMO crop, (a tomato no longer on the market), they were against it. The director of the Division of Anti-infective Drug Products wrote in all capital letters:”IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTI-BIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.” Political appointees overrode the scientists’ recommendations and approved arm genes, siding with the biotech industry that assured them that DNA was destroyed during digestion, and that genes could not transfer to gut bacteria.

[ljm2002]

15. "People with little technical knowledge of genetics"...

...geez, condescend much?

Skip the ad hominem and talk about the issues. While you're at it, would you care to answer the following questions (a) why do you suspect there is an issue? (b) what makes you more qualified to comment than the rest of us? (c) what specifically is overblown about the article? (d) just what "type" of article is it that makes it questionable? (e) citations please (the article cites real scientists and scientific organizations, and real incidents e.g. at FDA).

The article describes research, and discusses conclusions that researchers have drawn. Specifically, it starts out with a study funded by the British government; then it cites the British Medical Association's position for a moratorium on GM foods; then it describes an incident of FDA scientists -- including the Director of the Division of Anti-Infective Drug Products -- being overruled in favor of the industry position; and it cites Stanley Ewen, billed as "one of Scotland's leading experts in tissue disease." So where did the author go wrong, and his efforts end up being "this type" of article????? Are you just against articles that present science in layman's terms? Or is it that when you say "this type" of article, you are referring to articles that spell out potential risks of GM foods?

It is frustrating that the dialog on this issue always devolves into a dismissal of people's concerns, where the self-appointed arbiters of scientific reasoning accuse those who are concerned of being ignorant and anti-science. Then they reassure all of us non-experts that really, there's nothing to worry about here, because the chance that x could happen is .0000000000000x anyway... Excuse me if I don't just accept their word for it and quit thinking about the topic altogether.

For the record: I am not a biological scientist of any sort; however, I worked in the biotech industry in a technical position for 5+ years, and have a close relative who founded a successful biotech company over 20 years ago. He, by the way, agrees with me that the widespread adoption of GM crops and especially their widespread use in our food supply is way premature, and that the population is basically participating in an experiment that we did not sign up for. But I'm willing to say that's just one guy's opinion -- albeit he's a PhD with many, many years of research in genetic engineering under his belt. So give it whatever weight you want; but please, please refrain from arguing that people who express these concerns are scientifically ignorant, as compared to your illustrious self.

[live love laugh]

34. Thank you for taking the time to say so eloquently what I was thinking (sort of). n/t

[Odin2005]

18. The alarmists that are ignornant about the science dismiss any criticism of their fear-mongering...

...by simply dismissing any criticism as "shilling for Big Agro." You simply can't penetrate their circular reasoning.

[Odin2005]

17. I'm A Biotech major and I'll just say that the paranoid luddite alarmism over GMOs is pathetic.

Sure, I think companies like Monsanto need to be regulated but all the "GMOs ARE GOING TO POISON US ALL" fear-mongering by technophobes needs to stop. The anti-GMO people remind me of the people thinking water fluoridation was going to poison us or mess with out minds.

[BlooInBloo]

19. It won't stop. They'll just flame you for being a "corporate supporter".

[KittyWampus]

21. Like the Bristish Medical Association?

[KittyWampus]

20. NO ONE said "GMOs ARE GOING TO POISON US ALL" in this thread. Now, how many insults have you slung-

1.alarmists
2. ignornant about the science (btw, you spelled ignorant incorrectly. I copied/pasted)
3. fear-mongers
4. circular reasoning.
5. paranoid
6. luddite
7. pathetic
8. technophobes
9. conspiracy crackpots (by implication)

But gee, you're a biotech major who says "Sure, I think companies like Monsanto need to be regulated".

Gee, that's mightly objective of you.

Do you include the British Medical Association in your little rant?

The British Medical Association thinks so and cited this serious risk as one of their reasons for wanting an immediate moratorium on genetically engineered foods. Likewise, when FDA scientists were asked in 1992 to approve arm genes in the first GMO crop, (a tomato no longer on the market), they were against it. The director of the Division of Anti-infective Drug Products wrote in all capital letters:”IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTI-BIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.” Political appointees overrode the scientists’ recommendations and approved arm genes, siding with the biotech industry that assured them that DNA was destroyed during digestion, and that genes could not transfer to gut bacteria.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Sure they are.

"Oh, boo hoo! We don't want to eat GM food! Monsanto's just trying to make money!" = "GMOs ARE GOING TO POISON US ALL"

[whoneedstickets]

36. Fluoridation paranoia is on another thread!

This crowd is the DU analog to the Right Wing anti-scientists who deny evolution, global warming and second hand smoking. Instead we get fluoridation, vaccination and G-modification.

If they are following the crevo play book, they'll be assaulting our schools' science curriculum any day now.

[BlooInBloo]

39. Yup. Americans simply WANT to be stupid.

[PDenton]

9. what keeps gene transfer from happening

in non-GMO foods?

I'm not a molecular biologist so I don't know.

[hedgehog]

24. What genes do non-GMO foods have to transfer that we haven't

been exposed to for a couple millenniums?

[1776Forever]

23. Has anyone else noticed even high end brands like Dole are saying packaged in USA not made in USA?

I think this goes along with the fact that we cannot trust any company any more to be there for our good health. They are all into the "bottom" line mentality that leaves out the good judgment that we used to depend on!

[hedgehog]

25. "causing them to pump out potentially toxic or allergenic proteins"

There was a speculation in a thread earlier this week that GMO soybeans may be responsible for the sudden rise people who go into anaphylactic shock when exposed to peanuts.

[BlooInBloo]

28. There's a speculation about everything.

[hedgehog]

29. Is it a valid specualtion or a very unlikely speculation?

Something can be non-toxic and still provoke allergic reactions.

[BlooInBloo]

30. If it's from DUers, I assume it's just making shit up by default. But I could be wrong.

[hedgehog]

31. Someone made the statement last week, but the quote in the

article seems to lend credence to it, at least as a possibility.

[nebenaube]

32. or sudden allergies to gluten with age of onset at 40... n/t

[live love laugh]

35. "Alarmists", "ignorant", "fear mongering", "circular reasoning"...all right wing with-us/against-us

language.

Rush Limbaugh uses the same type of language to defend GMF. Has done it for years.


I suppose that people who question the efficacy of this scientifically questionable technology should just be so ashamed for being so "ignorant" that they/we should just allow all potential harm from it to go unquestioned.

[truedelphi]

37. here is something to consider: the usually conservative insurance industry

industry wants nothing to do with GMO's.

This report is from several years ago - but I doubt that in the UK or in Europe anything has changed.

(The UK and Europe have INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS -not the industy bought and paid for people we have here.)

UK Insurance Companies Refuse to Insure Frankencrops

FARM press release
7/10/03 for immediate release
No one will insure GM crops

"The worry is that GM could be like Thalidomide but only after some time
would the full extent of the problems be seen"
- Insurance company spokesperson

A survey of the principle insurance underwriters in the UK, carried out
by the new campaigning group FARM, found that neither farmers
considering growing GM crops or non-GM farmers seeking to protect their
businesses from contamination by GM crops would be able to find anyone
willing to give them insurance. <1>

The survey conducted by FARM staff and working farmer members revealed
a level of opposition from companies taking on the risks of insuring GM
crops, comparable to the public¹s hostility to purchasing and eating
them.

Insurance company spokespeople compared GM crops to Thalidomide,
Asbestos and Acts of Terrorism¹. <2>

[mainegreen]

40. GMO food is the wrong way to prevent loss due to pests.

There are organic/traditional methods as effective and GMO.

While GMO may be good for use in production of certain organic compounds, say for medicinal use, it's really not necessary nor appropriate to use for general food production.