Post by AnnB (NE) on Feb 13, 2007 18:18:52 GMT -5
This was posted today on the Americans_Against_NAIS yahoo list.
Long but well worth the read.
Spilling the Beans
Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate
Genetically Engineered Soy
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating
genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she got,
however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar
industry.
Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous
Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added
GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. Other females were fed
non-GM soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet began two weeks before
the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing.
Ermakova’s first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth.
Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36%
of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other
groups (see photo below).
Photo of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted growth - the
larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the smaller rat, 20 days
old, is from the "GM soy" group.
But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25
of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33
(9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls.
Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring,
drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and
expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The $70
000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was
invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the National
Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote “PRELIMINARY STUDIES” on
the top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session
devoted to the risks of GM food.
Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in
controversy.
GM Soy’s Divisive Past
The soy she was testing was Monsanto’s Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA has
bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive applications of
Monsanto’s “Roundup” brand herbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is
Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are
found in the majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat
ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.
The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods. If
Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the agency has
no further questions. The rationale for this hands-off position is a
sentence in the FDA’s 1992 policy that states, “The agency is not aware of
any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from
other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.”[1] The statement, it turns
out, was deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later
revealed that the FDA’s own experts agreed that GM foods are different and
might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional
problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies
but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA policy was, conveniently,
Monsanto’s former attorney (and later their vice president). One FDA
microbiologist described the GM food policy as “just a political document”
without scientific basis, and warned that industry would “not do the tests
that they would normally do” since the FDA didn’t require any.[2] He was
correct.
There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding safety
studies and no human clinical trials—in spite of the fact that millions of
people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are no adequate
tests on “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver
function and kidney function,”[3] and animal feeding studies are too short
to adequately test for cancer, reproductive problems, or effects in the next
generation. This makes Ermakova’s research particularly significant. It’s
the first of its kind.
Past Studies Show Significant Effects
Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions. Research on
the liver, the body’s major de-toxifier, showed that mice fed GM soy
developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular anomalies.[4] This indicates
increased metabolic activity, probably resulting from a major insult to that
organ. Mice also showed changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in
the production of a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit
digestion. Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin,
which can also block nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that GM
soy has 12-14% less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer fighting.[7]
An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent problems
with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely criticized as rigged to
avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used mature animals instead of young,
more sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much
protein, never weighed the organs, and had huge variations in starting
weights. The study’s nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed
significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower
levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had
actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences, which were
later discovered and made public. For example, the published paper showed a
27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered
data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold increase, after the soy was cooked.
This might explain why soy allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after
GM soy was introduced.
The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two sections
that are identical to known allergens. This might also account for the
increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human feeding trial ever
conducted confirmed that this inserted gene transfers into the DNA of
bacteria inside the intestines. This means that long after you decide to
stop eating GM soy, your own gut bacteria may still be producing this
potentially allergenic protein inside your digestive tract.
The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists found
fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of their newborn
[10] Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also found in the blood,
spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were fed GM corn.[11] It was not
clear if the GM genes actually entered the DNA of the animal, but scientists
speculate that if it were to integrate into the sex organ cells, it might
impact offspring.
The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens, or
anti-nutrients in the mother’s diet. These may be created in GM crops, due
to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of gene insertion can
delete one or more of the DNA’s own natural genes, scramble them, turn them
off, or permanently turn them on. It can also change the expression levels
of hundreds of genes. And growing the transformed cell into a GM plant
through a process called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of
additional mutations throughout the DNA.
Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in Roundup
Ready soy. We don’t know how many mutations or altered gene expressions are
found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed, however, scientists did
discover a section of natural soy DNA that was scrambled[12] and two
additional fragments of the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto’s
detection.
Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often astounded by
their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who discovered
incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about the technology have
been fired, threatened, stripped of responsibilities, or censured.[13] And
when problems do arise, they are not followed up. For example, animals fed
GM crops developed potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains,
livers and testicles, damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy
of the liver, lesions in the livers, stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of
the kidneys, problems with their blood cells, higher blood sugar levels, and
unexplained increases in the death rate. (See Spilling the Beans, August
2004.) None have been adequately followed-up or accounted for.
Ermakova’s research, however, will likely change that. That’s because her
study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A 55.6% mortality
rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the study is the only
reasonable option.
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study
I presented Dr. Ermakova’s findings, with her permission, at the annual
conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in
Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board passed a resolution
asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate,
independent follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy’s
president, said, “Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil
are being consumed daily by a significant proportion of our population. We
need rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods
put the population at risk.”
Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even follow-up
studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted genes
in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.[14] In each case,
the genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by the
biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake?
That’s unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A
Brussels lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what
was originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn’t all
match those found by the French.[15] This suggests that the inserted genes
are unstable and can change in different ways. It also means that they are
creating new proteins—ones that were never intended or tested. The Roundup
Ready soybeans used in the Russian test may therefore be quite different
from the Roundup Ready soybeans used in follow-up studies.
Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may explain
some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For example, nearly 25
farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM corn varieties caused their
pigs to become sterile, have false pregnancies, or give birth to bags of
water. A farmer in Germany claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed
12 of his cows and caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to
a GM cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and
fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms returned the
following year, also during pollination, and blood tests on 39 of the
Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt toxin—created by the GM corn.
These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may result
from a GM crop that has “gone bad” due to genetic rearrangements. Even GM
plants with identical gene sequences, however, might act differently. The
amount of Bt toxin in the Philippine corn study described above, for example
varied considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16]
With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding has yet
been sufficient to reverse the industry’s growth in the US. It may take some
dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery. That is why
Ermakova’s findings are so important. If the study holds up, it may topple
the GM food industry.
I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM’s request, and fund an immediate,
independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not forthcoming, our
Institute for Responsible Technology will try to raise the money. This is
not the time to wait. There is too much at stake.
Click here for press release on Russian rat study.
Click here for the resolution by the American Academy of Environmental
Medicine.
Click here for downloadable photos of the rats.
Jeffrey M. Smith is working with a team of international scientists to
catalog all known health risks of GM foods. He is the author of Seeds of
Deception , the world’s bestselling book on GM food, and the producer of the
video, Hidden Dangers in Kids’ Meals.
Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www
responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer this article
or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by emailing
column@responsibletechnology.org. Individuals may read the column each month
by subscribing to a free newsletter at www.responsibletechnology.org.
[1]“Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” Federal
Register vol. 57, no. 104 at 22991, May 29, 1992
[2]Louis J. Pribyl, “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,” March 6, 1992,
www.biointegrity.org
[3]Epidemiologist Judy Carman’s testimony before New Zealand’s Royal
Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001.
[4]Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C,
Gazzanelli G. (2002a) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical
analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean.
Cell Struct Funct. 27: 173-180.
[5]Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar
cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy,
Volume 201 Issue 5 Page 409 - November 2002
[6]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 (The data was taken from the
journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
[7]Lappe, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R. (1999)
Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified,
herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medical Food 1, 241-245.
[8]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
[9]For example, Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, “In Vivo Studies on Possible
Health Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed—with Particular
Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials,”
Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003
[10]Doerfler W; Schubbert R, “Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment:
the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry,” Journal of
molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-504, 1994
[11]Raffaele Mazza1, et al, “Assessing the Transfer of Genetically Modified
DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues,” Transgenic Research, October 2005, Volume
14, Number 5, pp 775 - 784
[12]P. Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M.
DeLoose, “Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert,” European
Food Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112
[13]Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, 2003
[14] Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N,
Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO
inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster
presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology
(n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric
Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN,
also "Transgenic lines proven unstable" by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23
October 2003 www.i-sis.org.uk
[15] www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php
[16] www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=36
© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part.
Long but well worth the read.
Spilling the Beans
Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate
Genetically Engineered Soy
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating
genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she got,
however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar
industry.
Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous
Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added
GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. Other females were fed
non-GM soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet began two weeks before
the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing.
Ermakova’s first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth.
Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36%
of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other
groups (see photo below).
Photo of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted growth - the
larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the smaller rat, 20 days
old, is from the "GM soy" group.
But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25
of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33
(9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls.
Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring,
drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and
expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The $70
000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was
invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the National
Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote “PRELIMINARY STUDIES” on
the top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session
devoted to the risks of GM food.
Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in
controversy.
GM Soy’s Divisive Past
The soy she was testing was Monsanto’s Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA has
bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive applications of
Monsanto’s “Roundup” brand herbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is
Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are
found in the majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat
ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.
The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods. If
Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the agency has
no further questions. The rationale for this hands-off position is a
sentence in the FDA’s 1992 policy that states, “The agency is not aware of
any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from
other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.”[1] The statement, it turns
out, was deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later
revealed that the FDA’s own experts agreed that GM foods are different and
might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional
problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies
but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA policy was, conveniently,
Monsanto’s former attorney (and later their vice president). One FDA
microbiologist described the GM food policy as “just a political document”
without scientific basis, and warned that industry would “not do the tests
that they would normally do” since the FDA didn’t require any.[2] He was
correct.
There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding safety
studies and no human clinical trials—in spite of the fact that millions of
people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are no adequate
tests on “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver
function and kidney function,”[3] and animal feeding studies are too short
to adequately test for cancer, reproductive problems, or effects in the next
generation. This makes Ermakova’s research particularly significant. It’s
the first of its kind.
Past Studies Show Significant Effects
Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions. Research on
the liver, the body’s major de-toxifier, showed that mice fed GM soy
developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular anomalies.[4] This indicates
increased metabolic activity, probably resulting from a major insult to that
organ. Mice also showed changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in
the production of a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit
digestion. Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin,
which can also block nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that GM
soy has 12-14% less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer fighting.[7]
An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent problems
with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely criticized as rigged to
avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used mature animals instead of young,
more sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much
protein, never weighed the organs, and had huge variations in starting
weights. The study’s nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed
significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower
levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had
actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences, which were
later discovered and made public. For example, the published paper showed a
27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered
data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold increase, after the soy was cooked.
This might explain why soy allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after
GM soy was introduced.
The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two sections
that are identical to known allergens. This might also account for the
increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human feeding trial ever
conducted confirmed that this inserted gene transfers into the DNA of
bacteria inside the intestines. This means that long after you decide to
stop eating GM soy, your own gut bacteria may still be producing this
potentially allergenic protein inside your digestive tract.
The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists found
fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of their newborn
[10] Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also found in the blood,
spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were fed GM corn.[11] It was not
clear if the GM genes actually entered the DNA of the animal, but scientists
speculate that if it were to integrate into the sex organ cells, it might
impact offspring.
The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens, or
anti-nutrients in the mother’s diet. These may be created in GM crops, due
to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of gene insertion can
delete one or more of the DNA’s own natural genes, scramble them, turn them
off, or permanently turn them on. It can also change the expression levels
of hundreds of genes. And growing the transformed cell into a GM plant
through a process called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of
additional mutations throughout the DNA.
Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in Roundup
Ready soy. We don’t know how many mutations or altered gene expressions are
found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed, however, scientists did
discover a section of natural soy DNA that was scrambled[12] and two
additional fragments of the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto’s
detection.
Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often astounded by
their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who discovered
incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about the technology have
been fired, threatened, stripped of responsibilities, or censured.[13] And
when problems do arise, they are not followed up. For example, animals fed
GM crops developed potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains,
livers and testicles, damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy
of the liver, lesions in the livers, stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of
the kidneys, problems with their blood cells, higher blood sugar levels, and
unexplained increases in the death rate. (See Spilling the Beans, August
2004.) None have been adequately followed-up or accounted for.
Ermakova’s research, however, will likely change that. That’s because her
study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A 55.6% mortality
rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the study is the only
reasonable option.
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study
I presented Dr. Ermakova’s findings, with her permission, at the annual
conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in
Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board passed a resolution
asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate,
independent follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy’s
president, said, “Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil
are being consumed daily by a significant proportion of our population. We
need rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods
put the population at risk.”
Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even follow-up
studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted genes
in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.[14] In each case,
the genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by the
biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake?
That’s unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A
Brussels lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what
was originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn’t all
match those found by the French.[15] This suggests that the inserted genes
are unstable and can change in different ways. It also means that they are
creating new proteins—ones that were never intended or tested. The Roundup
Ready soybeans used in the Russian test may therefore be quite different
from the Roundup Ready soybeans used in follow-up studies.
Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may explain
some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For example, nearly 25
farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM corn varieties caused their
pigs to become sterile, have false pregnancies, or give birth to bags of
water. A farmer in Germany claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed
12 of his cows and caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to
a GM cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and
fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms returned the
following year, also during pollination, and blood tests on 39 of the
Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt toxin—created by the GM corn.
These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may result
from a GM crop that has “gone bad” due to genetic rearrangements. Even GM
plants with identical gene sequences, however, might act differently. The
amount of Bt toxin in the Philippine corn study described above, for example
varied considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16]
With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding has yet
been sufficient to reverse the industry’s growth in the US. It may take some
dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery. That is why
Ermakova’s findings are so important. If the study holds up, it may topple
the GM food industry.
I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM’s request, and fund an immediate,
independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not forthcoming, our
Institute for Responsible Technology will try to raise the money. This is
not the time to wait. There is too much at stake.
Click here for press release on Russian rat study.
Click here for the resolution by the American Academy of Environmental
Medicine.
Click here for downloadable photos of the rats.
Jeffrey M. Smith is working with a team of international scientists to
catalog all known health risks of GM foods. He is the author of Seeds of
Deception , the world’s bestselling book on GM food, and the producer of the
video, Hidden Dangers in Kids’ Meals.
Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www
responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer this article
or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by emailing
column@responsibletechnology.org. Individuals may read the column each month
by subscribing to a free newsletter at www.responsibletechnology.org.
[1]“Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” Federal
Register vol. 57, no. 104 at 22991, May 29, 1992
[2]Louis J. Pribyl, “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,” March 6, 1992,
www.biointegrity.org
[3]Epidemiologist Judy Carman’s testimony before New Zealand’s Royal
Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001.
[4]Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C,
Gazzanelli G. (2002a) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical
analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean.
Cell Struct Funct. 27: 173-180.
[5]Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar
cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy,
Volume 201 Issue 5 Page 409 - November 2002
[6]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 (The data was taken from the
journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
[7]Lappe, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R. (1999)
Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified,
herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medical Food 1, 241-245.
[8]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
[9]For example, Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, “In Vivo Studies on Possible
Health Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed—with Particular
Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials,”
Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003
[10]Doerfler W; Schubbert R, “Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment:
the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry,” Journal of
molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-504, 1994
[11]Raffaele Mazza1, et al, “Assessing the Transfer of Genetically Modified
DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues,” Transgenic Research, October 2005, Volume
14, Number 5, pp 775 - 784
[12]P. Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M.
DeLoose, “Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert,” European
Food Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112
[13]Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, 2003
[14] Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N,
Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO
inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster
presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology
(n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric
Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN,
also "Transgenic lines proven unstable" by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23
October 2003 www.i-sis.org.uk
[15] www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php
[16] www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=36
© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part.