Dangers of genetically modified food

[homesteadmamma]

This is one area I really want to do some research on this coming year.

Check this link out. http://www.safe-food.org/welcome.html

[COUNTRYBUMPKIN]

Glad you posted this CJ. We talk alot about GM foods in one of my Yahoo Groups. Let me see if I can pull a few more articles to post here for you and everyone else who has interest here

[COUNTRYBUMPKIN]

From: JoAnn Guest <angelprincessjo@y...>
Date: Wed Dec 1, 2004 11:34 am
Subject: Consumer's Guide to Genetically Altered Foods





Consumer’s Guide to Genetically Altered Food
JoAnn Guest
Dec 01, 2004 08:33 PST
=======================================================================
Consumer’s Guide to Genetically Altered Food
Excerpt from the new book,"Imagine a World without Monarch Butterflies"
By Alex Jack


As we enter the 21st century, the world food supply is undergoing
rapidtransformation. For the first time, human beings are eating foods
that have not developed naturally—foods whose genetic structures have
been changed in waysthat millions of years of natural evolution could
never achieve.

Genetically altered foods (also known as genetically modified and
genetically engineered foods) have moved invisibly into the marketplace.

Today a majority of items in American supermarkets and restaurants—and
possibly even natural foods stores—include GA ingredients.

No long-term studies have been done on the impact of these new foods on
health and the environment.

No labeling is required by the U.S. government, and the ordinary
individual or family has no way of knowing what they are buying in the
store, eating at the restaurant, or even growing in their garden.

At the present time:

• An estimated 90 million acres in the U.S. are planted with GA
crops,constituting about one fourth of the total farmland

• This includes about 55% of soybeans, 35% of corn, 40% of cotton, and
5% of potatoes

• 30% of American dairy cows are in herds injected with a genetically
altered
growth hormone (BGH), which has been banned in Canada

• 50-60% of processed foods in the U.S. contain GA foods or
ingredients,especially soy and corn derivatives. This includes
margarine, mayonnaise, salad
dressing, shortening, bread, and baked goods

• Most meat, chicken, eggs, and other animal products are produced from
livestock fed genetically altered corn, soybeans, and cotton.

Modern science has contributed many benefits to society. New
technologies such as genetic engineering have several positive
dimensions.

For example, DNA screening is now widely used to analyze blood and
bodily fluids and has resulted in the release of scores of individuals
convicted of crimes they did not commit.

Similarly, paternity suits and ancestral bloodlines are now being
convincingly established on the basis of genetic testing. Anthropology,
archeology, and several other fields may benefit.

Applied to food production and agriculture, however, genetic engineering
is fraught with risks.
Because no long-term studies have been done, we have no way of gauging
their impact on personal health, social health, and planetary health.

Preliminary short-term studies suggest potentially serious consequences
to humans, plants, and animals. Unlike many consumer products, such as
automobiles,toasters, or even drugs and medications, genetically altered
crops cannot be recalled if they are found to be unsafe.

They are out there forever,multiplying, mutating, and spreading novel
genes, viruses, and toxins, and overturning 4 billion years of natural
evolution. Their effects are irreversible.

Most of the rest of the world, especially Europe, has begun to control
and limit this new technology.

Sensitized by the epidemic of mad cow disease, the British Medical
Association called for a moratorium on the introduction of GA crops and
foods, pending comprehensive studies of their impact on health and the
environment.

The Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, Consumer’s Union,
and other groups have also called for a halt. Scientists are warning
about an increase in allergies, immune-deficiency diseases, cancer, and
other disorders, as well as peril to insects, birds, and mammals.

Virtually alone among nations, America has ignored the warnings and
forged recklessly ahead to redesign the world’s flora and fauna.

But that changed almost overnight when Cornell University researchers
reported that the pollen from GA corn could migrate to adjacent milkweed
plants and kill the larvae of Monarch butterflies.

The peril to the majestic orange and black creatures—a symbol of beauty,
perseverance, and hope and widely regarded as America’s national
insect—served as a wake up call to the nation.

CBS News produced a two-part documentary on “Amber Waves of Altered
Grains,” sensibly asking why this potentially dangerous new technology
was not labeled and went virtually unregulated.

The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, and other
mainstream publications also began more serious, in-depth coverage of
the subject, especially the looming trade war between America and the
European Union over this issue.

Since 1992, when the FDA declared that engineered foods would be
regulated no differently from regular foods, the biofoods industry has
transformed American agriculture with virtually no regulation,
oversight, or public awareness of the hazards involved.

The “don’t know, don’t test” mindset that prevailed through
most of the 1990s has now peaked. As public health, scientific,
environmental,and religious organizations in the U.S. weigh in on this
issue, fueled by grassroots activists, organic farmers, and natural
foods consumers, the biotech industry is in full retreat.

In this rapidly changing social, economic, and political climate, some
form of consumer labeling in the U.S. is inevitable.

Ultimately, GA food makes for bad science, bad business, and bad eating.

Over the last generation, our country has undergone a tremendous health
revolution. The importance of a balanced diet based on whole grains,
vegetables, and other fresh foods has been widely recognized.

It will take dramatic, concerted action to protect freedom of choice,
end the war on nature, and ensure the health of America and the planet
as a whole.

Countries with Genetically Altered Foods

Scores of genetically altered foods and products have been introduced
around the world. Those currently available include:

• United States (50+ foods in total)

• Canada (30 foods)

• Japan (22 varieties of 6 crops, including soy)

• European Union(9 foods)

• Argentina (3 foods)

• Mexico (3 foods)

• Australia (2 crops—cotton, carnations)

• Brazil (1 food)

• South Africa (1 food)

• China (1 crop—cotton)

Selected U.S. Companies Using GA Foods

• Crisco (shortening)

• Frito, Dorito, Tostito (corn chips)

• Green Giant (harvest burger)

• Isomil and ProSobee (soy formula)

• Kellogg’s (corn flakes)

• Kraft (salad dressings)

• McDonald’s (french fries)

• Nabicso (sundry)

• Nestle (chocolate)

• Old El Paso (taco shells)

• Ovaltine (malt beverage)

• Parkey (margarine)

• Pillsbury (sundry)

• Procter & Gamble (sundry)

• Quaker Mills (sundry)

• Wesson (vegetable oils)

Sources: Consumer Reports, September 1999, pp. 41-46; New York Times,
September 8, 1999; and other published reports.

Corn and Other Grain Products

Corn is the only genetically altered grain currently on the American
market. An estimated 35% of the U.S. corn crop, including corn for both
animal feed and human consumption, is now engineered.

GA corn contains Bt, a bacteria that releases a toxic protein that is
designed to kill the corn borer and other organisms that can damage the
crop, but the plant’s pollen can migrate to
adjacent milkweed plants and kill the larvae of Monarch butterflies.

Many processed food products in the supermarket and natural foods store
contain corn syrup, cornstarch, corn dextrose, corn oil, corn flour, or
other corn product that may be genetically altered.

In Japan, scientists announced that they have produced an altered form
of rice that contains three times more dietary iron than conventional
rice.

The high-iron rice is made using by inserting a soybean gene that
produces a protein called ferritin into the rice plant DNA.
Meanwhile, Swiss and German researchersare developing a rice engineered
to have a vitamin A derivative with genes spliced from a daffodil and
from a bacterium.



Genetically Altered Corn

Products

• Corn on the Cob

• Popcorn

• Corn Tortillas

• Grits

• Polenta

• Corn Syrup

• Corn Fructose

• Corn Starch

• Corn Dextrose

• Corn Oil

• Corn Flour

• Other Corn Products



Genetically Altered Processed Foods

and Products with Corn Ingredients

• Corn Chips

• Cookies

• Candies and Gum

• Bread

• Cereals

• Pickles

• Margarine

• Alcohol

• Enriched Flours and Pastas

• Salad Dressings

• Vanilla

Genetically Altered Grain

Products in Development

• Rice

• Wheat

• Barley


Soybeans and Soy Products

Soybeans are the only altered beans currently available in the U.S. and
commonly are spliced with genes that help make them resistant to
herbicides or alter their oil content.

The Journal of Medicinal Foods reported the results of an
independent study showing that GA soybeans have from 12 to 14% less
phytoestrogens than normal.

These are naturally occurring substances that help protect against
cancer and heart disease.

About 50% of the American soybean crop is genetically engineered.

GA soybeans,like most GA foods in the U.S., are produced by Monsanto, a
large biotech company headquartered in St. Louis.

They are sold commercially as Roundup Ready Soybeans because they are
designed to withstand the application of Roundup, the
herbicide which Monsanto also manufactures and sells to farmers.

Since Japan imports 86% of its soybeans from America, many processed
soy foods sent back to the U.S. may contain GA soy.

In one independent spot test conducted by the New York Times, a
majority of soy products tested positive for GA ingredients.

Soybean oil constitutes 80% of the vegetable oil consumed in America and
is used
in margarine, salad dressings, mayonnaise, shortening, and other common
foods.

Many other foods and products contain soy products or derivatives such
as
lecithin, soy protein, and soy flour.

Genetically Altered

Soy Products

• Soybeans

• Tofu

• Tempeh

• Soymilk

• Miso

• Shoyu

• Tamari

• Lecithin

• Soybean Oil

• Soy Flour

• Soy Protein

• Soy Isolates

• Genistein

• Other Soy Products and

Derivatives


Processed Foods and Products

with Genetically Altered Soy


Ingredients

• Soy hotdogs

• Soy burgers

• Soy cheese

• Soy yogurt

• Dairy Ice Cream

• Frozen Yogurt

• Sauces and Dressings

• Candies, Cookies, Chocolate

• Bread and Baked Goods

• Breakfast Cereals

• Peanut Butter

• Protein Powder

• Infant Formula

• Shampoo

• Cosmetics

• Other Foods and Products


Potatoes, Tomatoes, and Other Vegetables

GA potatoes (such as the Burbank Russet) commonly have built in
pesticides andare used to make french fries, mashed potatoes, baked
potatoes, potato chips,and other products.

They are also used to make potato starch and potato flour
which is found in many processed foods.

In laboratory studies in Scotland, GA potatoes fed to rats resulted in
stunted growth and damage to major organs,including kidney, spleen,
thymus, and stomach.
To its credit, McCain Foods USA, the world’s largest potato company,
has not embraced the new technology and requires farmers to declare if
they are using GA potatoes.

Several varieties of tomatoes on the market are altered and include
spliced organisms that may withstand herbicide applications.

One variety of engineered squash is also now available, with many others
vegetables expected to be introduced in the next few
years.

Genetically Altered Vegetables

• Potatoes

• Tomatoes (regular and cherry)

• Yellow Squash

• Red-Headed Chicory

(Radicchio)


Genetically Altered Processed Foods Containing Potato or Tomato

Ingredients

• French Fries

• Mashed Potatoes

• Baked Potatoes

• Potato Chips

• Potato Soup

• Tomato Sauce

• Tomato Soup

• Tomato Purée

• Lasagna

• Pizza

• Italian Foods

• Mexican Foods

• Other Foods and Products



Genetically Altered

Vegetables in Development

• Peppers

• Cucumber

• Peas

• Broccoli

• Carrots

• Cauliflower

• Lettuce

• Sweet Potatoes

• Beets

• Other Vegetables


Milk and Dairy Products

An estimated 30% of the cows in the U.S. are in herds given Bovine
GrowthHormone (BGH), a genetically engineered growth hormone that
increases yields.

In medical studies BGH has been linked with cancer and it increases
mastitis andother diseases in dairy cows.

The European Union and most recently Canada have banned the use of BGH.

Genetically engineered enzymes are also used in cheese
production, and Consumers Union reported that 60% of all hard cheese
products on American shelves are made with an engineered form of rennet.

Animal feed
(including corn, soybeans, and cotton) commonly includes GA ingredients,
so that
almost all non-organic dairy and meat products includes engineered
components.



Genetically Altered Dairy

• Milk

• Butter

• Cream

• Sour Cream

• Whey

• Buttermilk

• Ice Cream

• Yogurt

• Dairy or Soy Cheese made

with Chymosis or Chymax,

(GA Rennet)



Processed Foods Containing

Genetically Altered Dairy Ingredients

• Whipped Cream

• Cottage Cheese

• Milk Shakes

• Cocoa

• Candies

• Cookies

• Bread

• Cake Mixes

• Sauces and Dressings

• Soups

• Other Products with Dairy

Meat, Poultry, Fish, and Other

Animal Foods

Both genetically engineered and cloned cattle, sheep, chickens, and fish
are indevelopment but their meat, milk, eggs, or other products have not
yet been approved for human consumption.

However, with the exception of animal food produced from organically
grown grains or other natural foods, almost all meat,
diary, poultry, and factory-bred (farmed) fish in the United States are
raised on feed that is genetically altered or contains GA ingredients.

Up to 90% of America’s total corn and soybean production goes to feed
livestock, and from one third to one half of these crops are genetically
altered.

Moreover, 90 to 95% of soy meal, including the outer hulls of the beans,
used in human foods are recycled in animal feed.

Cottonseed oil and cotton byproducts are also added to silage,
up to 50% in some cases, and fed to livestock. About 40% of the cotton
grown inthe U.S. is genetically engineered.



Animal Foods Commonly Made with Altered Feed

(Corn, Soy, and Cotton)

• Beef, including Hamburger, Steak, etc.

• Pork, Ham, Hot Dogs

• Lamb

• Chicken, Eggs, Turkey, and Other Poultry

• Factory-fed Trout, Salmon, and Other Fish



Genetically Altered Fish and Seafood in Development

• Abalone

• Atlantic Salmon

• Catfish

• Prawns

• Trout


Fruits and Juices

Papayas are the only fruit currently engineered, but bananas, grapes,
strawberries, and many others are expected to appear in the next few
years.

Fruit drinks at the present time may contain GA corn syrup and corn
dextrose.

Dried fruit is commonly sprayed with an oil derived from soybeans that
may be GA.

This includes raisins, sultanas, currants, dates, and dried fruit in
breakfast cereal.



Gentically Altered Fruits

• Papaya



Genetically Altered Fruits in Development

• Apples

• Grapes

• Strawberries

• Pineapples

• Bananas

• Melons

• Other Fruits

Canola, Cotton, Peanut, and Other Oils,

Seeds, and Nuts

About 60% of the canola oil produced and sold in North America is GA.

Canola is an increasingly popular oil in restaurants and institutional
cooking because of its polyunsaturated quality, light texture, and mild
taste.

It is widely used in processed foods and products. Along with soybeans,
corn, and canola oil, cotton is one of the four major engineered crops
in America. An estimated 50% of all cotton grown in the US is GA.

In addition to clothing, linens, and other fabric,its derivatives,
especially cottonseed oil,
are used in manufacturing chips,peanut butter, cookies, crackers, and
other processed foods.

GA peanuts just entered the market and are used in peanut oil for
cooking and peanut butter.



Genetically Altered Oils, Seeds,

and Nuts

• Canola Oil

• Cottonseed Oil

• Peanuts and Peanut Oil



Processed Foods and Products

Containing Genetically Altered

Oils or Cotton

• Chips

• Cookies

• Crackers

• Margarine

• Fried Foods

• Sauces and Dressings

• Soups

• Baked Goods

• Peanut Butter

• Soaps

• Detergents

• Cottons (Jeans, T-Shirts, etc.)

• Linens

• Other Fabrics

• Other Products Containing

Canola, Cotton, or Peanuts



Genetically Altered Oils, Seeds,

and Nuts in Development

• Chestnuts

• Sunflower Seeds

• Walnuts

• Other Oils, Seeds, and

Nuts

Vitamins and Supplements

Several vitamin supplements especially vitamin C, is made with corn
fructose which may be genetically altered.



Genetically Altered Supplements

• Vitamin C

Enzymes

Enzymes are proteins that accelerate biological processes. They are used
widely in the food industry to make beer, bread and baked goods, sugar,
dairy foods,and other products. Because they are not considered foods,
enzymes are not required to be labeled on products.

Now new genetically engineered enzymes has been introduced. They also
are unlabeled, and the government does not require
that manufacturers notify the FDA. The following GA enzymes are known to
have been introduced:



Genetically Altered Enzymes

• Ampha Amylase (White Sugar, Corn Syrup, Honey)

• Aspartic (Cheese)

• Chymosis (Cheese)

• Novamyl (Bread and Baked Goods)

• Pullulanase (High Fructose Corn Syrup)



Foods Commonly Made with Enzymes

• Bread and Baked Goods

• Beer and Wine

• Dairy Products

• Fruit Juices

• Oils

• Sugar

How Can You Tell What Foods Are Safe?

In the absence of mandatory labeling, there is no way to know whether a
food contains GA ingredients without testing it in a genetic laboratory.

GA foods tend to be more uniform, bigger, and more blemish free than
usual foods, and in some cases GA perishable foods are reported to last
for months without spoiling.

As a general rule, smaller, irregular, less shiny, and faster ripening
and faster spoiling foods contain a better balance of nutrients and
energy and are safer to eat, even though they may not win a beauty
contest.

Safety Issues Related to Organic Foods

Whole unprocessed foods that are organically certified are generally
grown from natural seed and do not contain genetically altered
ingredients.

Processed or packaged organic foods can in some states contain up to 5%
non-organic ingredients, which could be GA. The biotech industry lobbied
extensively for its GA seeds to be considered organic, but after
opposition by the organic farming community and the natural foods
movement USDA Secretary Dan Glickman pledged that new national organic
standards soon scheduled to be released will, by
definition, not include GA components.

Unfortunately, this does not mean that organic food is necessarily GA
free. Some organic fields, for example, those growing organic corn, have
become
contaminated by “genetic drift,” pollen blown by the wind from nearby
genetically altered corn fields. A major organic farm in Britain was
reportedly decertified as organic because of such contamination.

Another major concern is that GA corn, cotton, and other crops will
produce new strains of Bt-resistant organisms that will spread to
organic farms.

Naturally occurring Bt—a much less toxic variety than engineered Bt—is
the most widely used pesticide on organic farms. The organic foods
community is worried that its
industry could be destroyed if natural Bt is rendered ineffective as a
result of GA Bt.

Commenting on the drift of GA modified corn and contamination of organic
fertilizer, Gary Anson, an organic farmer in Calhoun, Missouri,
commented, “It’s coming at me from every direction. I’ve got nowhere to
hide.”

Geneticist Bill Beavis, a researcher at the National Center for Genome
Resources and a supporter of genetic engineering, conceded that he is
worried about the
health effects of GA crops and the risks of introducing them into the
environment.

He said that the challenge of keeping them separate from organic
crops is baffling because organic crops could still be contaminated in a
cooperative’s grain elevator or mill.

“It’s just virtually impossible to segregate. We’d have to change our
whole agricultural system to do that [and] it
would interfere with the freedom of farmers to do as they please.”

Margit Kaltenekker, a certifier for the Organic Crop Improvement
Association,reported that many organic farmers are spending hundreds of
dollars per field for genetic tests to prove their crops are not
contaminated. “It’s tough for
them,” she said. “They can do everything right and still be ruined by
the guy a mile away.”

Chicken feed, commonly used as fertilizer on organic food, may also
contain remnants of feed made from gene-spliced corn.

Meanwhile, in Europe regulators for the European Union are discussing
whether to set permissible limits for genetic contamination on non-GA
foods, including
organic food, because they question whether genetic pollution can be
controlled.

An allowable threshold of up to 1/2 to 1 percent GA material has been
proposed to protect organic and sustainable farmers whose crops may
unintentionally contain minute amounts of altered ingredients.

Sources: Mothers for Natural Law; Scot Canon, “Missouri Organic Farmers
Struggle to Keep Crops Chemical-Free,” Kansas City Star, August 24,
1999; and Ronnie Cummins, “Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and
Crops,” Campaign for Food Safety, August 1999.

Consumer Group Calls for Organic Standards and Crop Liability

In autumn 1999, Consumers Union called for national standards that
prohibited GA foods or ingredients from being labeled organic.

It also called on the U.S.government to required a comprehensive review
of the safety of altered foods before they are marketed, a policy to
hold the biotech industry liable for economic or health damages
resulting from GA crops, and mandatory labeling.

“Consumers have a fundamental right to know what they eat,” the nation’s
largest consumer organization stated.

Source: Consumer Reports
http://www.cybermacro.com/articles15.html

[kimmee]

This is something I was just currently researching as well - they make a GA soybean that will grow better in our area - drier, clay soil but I do not want to grow anything altered - I want all organic animal feed as well- this was one the partial impetus for my growing my own animal feed - And I have discovered that most of the seed stores around here carry ONLY genetically Altered "better Performing" seed... I am actually going to have to mailorder to get seed...

[guest2]

Thanks for the article I'm really interested in this since we live in a farming community and our Universities are doing research into GA crops.

[COUNTRYBUMPKIN]

HERES ANOTHER ONE JUST POSTED TO MY GROUP


The Root of Flavor!
JoAnn Guest
Dec 25, 2004 23:49 PST
======================================================================
The Root of Flavor!

Adding flavor and health to food often comes from our powerful root
vegetable friends. Potatoes are one of these universally loved
vegetables loaded with vitamins C and B-6, potassium and fiber.

A potato contains natural starch. Starches are sugar molecules bonded
together. Starches turn into sugars when enzymes break their bonds.
Starches are the main form of carbohydrate 'storage' in plants.

Starches are polysaccharides, which means strings of more than two
carbohydrate "molecules". These polysaccharides are whole foods
containing much more than just "isolated" carbohydrates.
Potatoes grown in good soil contain vitamins,minerals and enzymes.
Potatoes are called “complex” carbohydrates, meaning that they are
‘complete’ foods.

Because of the harmful effects of carbohydrates of blood sugar control,
some popular diets have led people to believe that the best way to eat
is to avoid carbohydrates almost entirely. I don't agree with this
approach. In fact, based upon results from short-term clinical trials as
well as large population-based based studies, diets that have a higher
intake of quality carbohydrates are consistently associated with lower
risk for diabetes, obesity, cancer and heart disease.

In natural foods the primary nutrients come prepacked with a variety of
vitamins and minerals, which enhance the maximal utilization of these
foods.
Whole foods also contain fibres which influence the rate at which food
passes through the intestine, and also control the rate at which the digestive

products are absorbed.
Moreover, the vitamins and minerals found in whole foods play an
essential role in metabolizing the nutrients we eat.
The slower absorbing less refined complex carbohydrates like potatoes
contain minerals, enzymes and vitamins.
These nutrients help convert complex carbohydrates to fuel, slowing down
conversion
to sugar, allowing the body to spend its fuel at the same rate it is
being produced.

The Standard American Diet (SAD) clogs our arteries, damages our joints,
slows down our nervous systems, decreases our mental alertness, produces
stones in our kidneys and gallbladder, and very often leads either to
chronic disease or early death. Pure whole foods, in the correct combinations,
will eliminate many
of these problems.

Potassium is found in a rather wide range of foods.
Cold-water fish, unprocessed beans, lentils, legumes, fruits,
vegetables,and organic whole grains are all respectable sources.
Unfortunately,however much of the potassium in potatoes may be lost in
cooking. A boiled potato may lose up to 50 percent of its original
potassium content. A steamed or baked potato, 3 to 6 percent.

Potatoes in their whole natural organic state, are a beneficial source of
nutrients, however
as we shall see, this healthy food, along with so many of the others in
our food supply are undergoing major changes. Potaotes are listed
as one of the vegetables which are genetically modified. (Atlantic,
Russett Burbank, Russet Norkatah, and Shepody are all genetically
engineered! varieties, and with many more in the planning stages . Processed
food products
that may contain GE potatoes or derivatives include: unspecified,
restaurant potato products (fries, mashed, baked, mixes with potato
flour, etc.), chips, Passover products, breads,baked goods, refined
vegetable oil,pies, soups, stews, etc.

GE foods create new toxins, antibiotic resistance, allergic
reactions, and other dietary risks for consumers and therefore are not
"generally recognized as safe." This was recently highlighted in an
article in “The Lancet”, a British medical journal which published a
study documenting that genetically modified potatoes fed to rats caused
significant health problems.

The most dramatic and high-profile allegations about retaliation against
GE researchers involve Arpad Pusztai, a native of Hungary who was, until
August 1998, the senior scientist at the Rowett Research Institute in
Aberdeen, Scotland. He made the mistake of publishing a study on
potatoes transgenically modified to make them more pest-resistant
without first consulting his institute. He fed the potatoes to rodents
and discovered that there were dramatically negative effects on the
animals' stomach linings, as well as immunological damage. This was one
of the few studies ever done to assess the risks of such food on humans
or animals.

The study was published in the leading United Kingdom medical journal,
The Lancet. Shortly thereafter, Pusztai's home was burglarized, his
files detailing the research were stolen, and he was fired from his job
of 30 years at Rowett. Pusztai says he has undergone a slanderous
international campaign to discredit him. He now spends much of his time
traveling to interested universities and groups telling his story.

"I grew up under Nazis and Communists," Pusztai said during a panel
discussion on the difficulties faced by researchers studying genetically
modified organisms held at UC Berkeley in December. "But only in the
U.K. for seven months was I not allowed to defend myself. How many other
papers should have been -- but have not been -- published?"


In a well-funded and carefully-designed experiment carried out by Dr.
Arpad Pusztai in 1995-99, rats fed lectin-spliced potatoes (Bt
is a member of the lectin family) suffered significant
damage to their gut, immune system, and other vital organs.

Pusztai later warned--after he was abruptly fired and his lab was shut
down--that all gene-spliced lectins, including Bt crops, should be
carefully investigated for possible adverse human health impacts.

This study conducted by Dr. Alpad Pusztai has shown that genetically-manipulated
foods can,
when fed to animals in reasonable amounts, cause very gradual “organ
damage” and “immune system” damage.

The story begins in October 1995 when the Scottish Office commissioned a
research project from the Aberdeen-based Rowett Research Institute into
the effect of GM crops on animal nutrition and the environment. This
included, for the first time, feeding GM potatoes to rats to see if they
had any harmful effects on their guts, bodies, metabolism and health.
A former senior Scottish Office official involved in commissioning the
project told the Guardian there was "little regard" at the time for
research into the human nutritional and environmental consequences of GM
foods.


Dr Arpad Pusztai, a senior research scientist at the Rowett, beat off 28
other tenders to coordinate the project. He has always kept an open mind
about GM foods and conditionally supported their release as long as
there were rigorous and independent trials.

The other members of the project were the Dundee-based Scottish Crop
Research Institute (SCRI) and Durham University biology department who
grew the GM potato used in the feeding trials.

All three bodies had links with the biotech industry through the pursuit
of commercial research contracts. There was no reason to believe that
the research project would produce the controversial findings that could
threaten the scientific foundations of the biotech industry they sought
to embrace. A Scottish Office immunologist was called in as well. She approved
the
methodology used by Dr Pusztai's team.

The preliminary results of Dr Pusztai's work had begun to show
unexpected and worrying changes in the size and weight of the rats'
bodily organs. The team found liver and heart sizes were decreasing
worse still, the brain was getting smaller. There were also indications
of a weakening of the immune system.

With so many unanswered questions, far more public money would be
needed, Dr Pusztai concluded. But the Guardian understands that the Scottish
Office and the Rowett
Institute declined his funding requests.
For Dr Pusztai, the funding crisis and the prospect of his unexpected
results not being published led him to reconsider his attitude to the
media.

In January he appeared, with the Rowett Institute's
permission, on BBC2's Newsnight and voiced his concerns in measured
terms about weakening of the immune system in the rats fed GM potatoes.

In April, Granada TV's World in Action approached Dr Pusztai and again
with the institute's consent he gave an interview which was broadcast in
the documentary that August.

Dr Pusztai told ITV viewers that he would not eat GM food. He found it "very,
very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea
pigs.

We have to find [them] in the laboratory," he insisted.

Two days later Dr Pusztai was summarily suspended and forced to retire
by the Rowett Institute's director, Professor Philip James, who had
personally cleared the interview with Granada and put his name to
official press releases supporting the programme.

Dr Pusztai was denied access to his research data and an internal
investigation by the Rowett's senior management was launched after
unsourced allegations of scientific fraud against Dr Pusztai appeared in
a scientific journal.

Six months later, the truth about what happened in those two days is
still shrouded in mystery. The Pusztai camp claim there was industry and
political pressure on the institute to silence him but a press release
at he time stated that Dr Pusztai had presented provisional data in
public without peer review.

The food used in the experiment was genetically-manipulated potatoes.

Two sets of potatoes were grown in the same pot and greenhouse:
1) a genetically-manipulated variety altered to produce a non-toxic "GNA
lectin", and
2) a normal variety of potato.

The normal potato was fed to animals with no adverse effects.

The genetically-manipulated potato caused gradual “organ damage”and

”immune system”damage.

A separate followup experiment conducted by Dr. S.W.B. Ewen, a Senior
Pathologist at the University of Aberdeen, has confirmed that it was not
the "GNA lectin," but toxic or infectious by-products of the "genetic
manipulation" process that led to the immune system damage and organ damage in
the animals fed genetically-manipulated potatoes.

Because it was not the lectin in the potatoes,
but the”genetic manipulation”process itself which led to toxicity,

similar results might be seen in animals or humans fed
genetically-manipulated soy, canola, and corn over a long period of time
(i.e., years or decades).

There were initial reports of flaws in the research when government
agencies audited the Dr. Pusztai's preliminary notes.

But since that
time, over 20 top scientists around the world have peer-reviewed the
Final Report and stated that the conclusions are justified.

Parts of these experiments conducted by Dr. Pusztai and Dr. Ewen were
recently published in the scientific journal, The Lancet.

Most of The Lancet reviewers deemed it acceptable research for
publication.



A couple of reviewers and other scientists and organizations receiving
biotech money have been critical of the research.
They have made the following statements (paraphrased below):
"Raw potatos should not have been fed to the animals in the experiment."


However, the animals eating non-genetically manipulated raw potatos did
fine.
It was only the genetically manipulated food which caused 'health'
problems.


"Too few animals were used."

Initial objections of The Lancet's statistician reviewer were satisfied.
Enough animals were used to show a statistically significant difference
between the test group and control group.


"There was an inadequate control group."

This is a non-specific criticism. The experiment wasn't perfect.
But the only difference between the two groups of animals was that one
group ate genetically manipulated foods and the other didn't.


"One cannot take the results of this experiment and apply it to all
genetically manipulated foods."

The only difference was the genetic manipulation of the potatos.

The same hazards may be found in genetically manipulated soy,
canola, corn, etc.


It is prudent to assume that all genetically manipulated ingredients
have the same slow toxic effects until long-term, independent research
can be conducted on each genetically manipulated crop.


On ocasion, news reports of flaws in the research are mistakenly
repeated, but all independent scientists who have seen the Final
Report of Dr. Pusztai's research and are aware of the results of Dr.
Ewen's research
agree that the 'conclusions" are justified.

From a newsletter called Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly:

Monsanto has patented a genetically engineered (GE) potato called New
Leaf Superior (a thin-skinned white potato).

It includes a gene for a bacteria(Bt) that kills the Colorado potato
beetle.

The potato is a registered”pesticide”with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).

It is believed by EPA that this potato is reasonable safe for humans to
eat. ????????????????????


As the New York Times article stated, "Some genetists believe..inserting
foreign genes into plants may cause subtle changes that are difficult to
recognize."
It is expected that insects will develop a resistance to this Bt now
continually in use in the potato crop itself.

The mechanism of resistance is well documented since over 500 insects
have become resistant to one pesticide or another since 1945.

Bt has been used by organic farmers to fight beetles. It is used as a
last resort and sparingly. It is possible that this development by Monsanto may
affect the
integrity of organic farming of potatoes.

Europe and Canada have resisted buying food produced by GE/GM methods.

In the U.S. this genetically engineered food is already be in your supermarket.
Ask the manager. Ask for organic foods in your local supermarket.

Dr. Arpad Pusztai's explosive research found that that GE potatoes are
poisonous to
mammals. These potatoes were spliced with DNA from the snowdrop plant and a
commonly used viral promoter,
the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMv).
GE snowdrop potatoes were found to be significantly different in
chemical composition from regular potatoes, and when fed to lab rats,
damaged their vital organs and immune systems. The damage to the rats'
stomach linings apparently was a severe viral infection caused by the
"CaMv viral promoter" apparently giving the rats a severe viral infection.
Most alarming of all, the CaMv viral promoter is spliced into nearly all
GE foods and crops.

Dr. Pusztai's path breaking research work unfortunately remains
incomplete.
Government funding was cut off and he was fired after he spoke to the
media.

More and more scientists around the world are warning that genetic
manipulation can increase the levels of natural plant toxins or
allergens in foods (or create entirely new toxins) in unexpected ways by
switching on genes that produce poisons.

Since regulatory agencies do not currently require the kind of thorough
chemical and feeding tests that Dr. Pusztai was conducting, consumers
have now become involuntary guinea pigs in a vast genetic experiment.

Dr. Pusztai warns, "Think of William Tell shooting an arrow at a target.

Now put a blind-fold on the man doing the shooting and that's the
reality of the genetic engineer doing a "gene insertion".

Bioscience Warfare -
Big Biotech silences scientists working on risks
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3664

"They've been going after scientists in a systematic, organized way that
I haven't seen in my memory," says Chuck Benbrook, a food policy expert
and former executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the
National Academy of Sciences.

"Let's face it, [big biotech has] silenced the vast majority of
scientists who are interested in doing research on risks."

Because most biotech products have been created only recently, their
comprehensive effects on world ecology are, in many cases, unknown.

And sometimes, corporations try to control the research they fund.
Sometimes, information and research that are intended to benefit the
public are intentionally kept from the public. Sometimes, a lack of
attention to critical research on risk assessment -- or to research on
risk of any kind -- undermines the ends of scientific research itself.

Sometimes also, the facts and data are drowned in spin, and scientists
who bear "bad" news are buried in “pseudoscience" and innuendo. And as
biotech companies continue to forge partnerships with universities,
augmenting their dwindling research budgets, scientists at some of the
world's most prestigious institutions -- including Cornell University,
the University of California at Berkeley, the Swiss Federal Research
Station for Agro-Ecology, and the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland
-- complain that large multinational biotech companies have attempted to
suppress studies that suggest highly profitable products may have
adverse effects on health or the environment.

[COUNTRYBUMPKIN]

And one more...........

Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
(Footnotes refer to pages in the book Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey M. Smith.)

The following presents some of the dangers of genetically engineered foods and reasons why avoiding them is an important step to safeguard our health. The footnotes refer to page references in the book Seeds of Deception; there you can find meticulously documented evidence that leaves no doubt that GM food should never have been approved.

The biotech industry claims that the FDA has thoroughly evaluated GM foods and found them safe. This is untrue. Internal FDA documents made public from a lawsuit, reveal that agency scientists warned that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional problems, and new diseases that might be difficult to identify.131-140 Although they urged their superiors to require long-term tests on each GM variety prior to approval, the political appointees at the agency, including a former attorney for Monsanto, ignored the scientists. Official policy claims that the foods are no different130 and do NOT require safety testing. A manufacturer can introduce a GM food without even informing the government or consumers.146 A January 2001 report from an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada said it was "scientifically unjustifiable"136 to presume that GM foods are safe. Likewise, a 2002 report by the UK's Royal Society said that genetic modification "could lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods," and recommended that potential health effects of GM foods be rigorously researched before being fed to pregnant or breast-feeding women, elderly people, those suffering from chronic disease, and babies.263

How could the government approve dangerous foods? A close examination reveals that industry manipulation and political collusion-not sound science-was the driving force.

Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired.77-83
Scientists were threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted. Some regulators even claimed they were offered bribes to approve a GM product.
There are only ten published animal feeding studies on the health effects of GM foods-only two of these are independent.

One study showed evidence of damage to the immune system and vital organs, and a potentially pre-cancerous condition.12-13 When the scientist tried to alert the public about these alarming discoveries, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit.18-20
Two other studies also showed evidence of a potentially pre-cancerous condition. The other seven studies, which were superficial in their design, were not designed to identify these details.37
In an unpublished study, laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and seven of the forty died within two weeks. The crop was approved without further tests.37, 137-140
Many industry studies appear to be rigged to find no problems. In the case of a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH), for example, researchers injected cows with only one forty-seventh the normal dosage before reporting hormone residues in milk.91-92 They heated the milk 120 times longer than standard, to report that pasteurization destroys the hormone.93-94 They added cows to their study that were pregnant before treatment, to claim that rbGH didn't impede fertility.89 Cows that fell sick were dropped from studies altogether.80-81

With soybeans, serious nutritional differences between GM and natural soy were omitted from a published paper.35-36 Feeding studies masked any problems by using mature animals instead of developing ones and by diluting their GM soy 10 to 1 with non-GM protein.34

There are no adequate tests to verify that GM food will not create dangerous allergic reactions. While an international organization developed testing standards to minimize the possibility of allowing allergenic GM varieties on the market, GM corn currently sold in the U.S. has not been subjected to those tests and would most certainly fail them. One of these tests, for example, uses a test tube simulation to evaluate how long a potential GM allergen can last inside the digestive system before being broken down. Compared to the recommended international standards, however, one biotech company used a far stronger acid concentration and more than 1,250 times the recommended amount of a digestive enzyme to make the claim that their protein degrades too quickly to cause a reaction.179

The only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that genetically engineered genes from soy transferred to the bacteria inside the digestive tract. (The biotech industry had previously said that such a transfer was impossible.) The World Health Organization, the British and American Medical Associations, and several other groups have expressed concern that if the "antibiotic resistant marker genes" used in GM foods got transferred to bacteria, it could create super-diseases that are immune to antibiotics.59-60 More worrisome is that the "promoter" used inside GM foods could get transferred to bacteria or internal organs. Promoters act like a light switches, permanently turning on genes that might otherwise be switched off. Scientists believe that this might create unpredictable health effects, including the potentially pre-cancerous cell growth found in the animal feeding studies mentioned above.37

The biotech industry says that millions have been eating GM foods without ill effect. This is misleading.

About 100 people died and 5-10,000 to fell seriously ill when they consumed the food supplement L-Tryptophan. Only those who consumed the variety that was genetically modified became ill. That brand had minute, but deadly contaminants that would easily pass through current regulations today. If the disease it created had not been rare and acute, with crippling and deadly symptoms, the GM supplement might never have been traced as the cause. Once discovered, however, industry and government covered up facts and diverted the blame. Even the FDA testimony before Congress withheld vital information.107-125
Milk from rbGH-treated cows contains an increased amount of the hormone IGF-1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with breast and prostate cancer, among others.94-97
Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, coinciding with the introduction of GM soy imports from the U.S.160-161
According to a March 2001 report, the Center for Disease Control says that food is responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the U.S. compared to estimates just seven years earlier. This increase roughly corresponds to the period when Americans have been eating GM food. Could that be contributing to the 5,000 deaths, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 76 million illnesses related to food each year? Might it play in role in our national epidemic of obesity or the rise in diabetes or lymphatic cancers? We have no way of knowing if there is a connection because no one has looked for one.

One of the most dangerous aspects of genetic engineering is the closed thinking and consistent effort to silence those with contrary evidence or concerns. Just before stepping down from office, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman admitted the following:

"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked... And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on... You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"152-153

Contrast this with the warning by the editors of Nature Biotechnology: "The risks in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce. It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or foolhardy behavior." 137

The biotech industry and the government have been foolhardy indeed. Blinded, perhaps by the baseless myth that GM foods are needed to feed the world,250-251 they gamble with our health and support their safety claims on obsolete or unproven assumptions. Accepting their vacuous assurances by eating these dangerous foods or serving them to your customers may likewise be overly optimistic or foolhardy.

Please read the evidence amassed in the book Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey M. Smith. The meticulously documented facts leave no doubt about a massive injustice. The topic is too important to put this off until tomorrow.