Think the Anti-GMO Movement is Unscientific? Think Again

Think the Anti-GMO Movement is Unscientific? Think Again

 

Posted on:

Wednesday, June 19th 2013 at 8:15 am

Written By:

Sayer Ji, Founder

 

 

\

"Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid, or deliberately lying. The reality is, we don't know. The experiments simply haven't been done, and now we have become the guinea pigs."  ~ David Suzuki, geneticist


Now that the mainstream media is catching on to the public sentiment against GMO food, or at least against unlabeled GMO food, to the tune of millions of Americans who made it a point to drag themselves out of their homes to protest Monsanto last month (as well as at least 40 additional countries), inevitably the indictment will be made: "the anti-GMO movement is "unscientific."" Is that really so?

What we do know is that the unintended consequences of the recombinant DNA process employed to create genetically engineering organisms are beyond the ability of present-day science to comprehend.  This is largely due to the post-Human Genome Project revelation that the holy grail of molecular biology, the overly-simplified 'one gene > one trait' model, is absolutely false.

Only recently, for instance, a previously unidentified viral gene fragment was discovered to be present in most of the GM crops commercialized to date; a finding which calls into question the safety of 54 commercialized crops already commercialized and being used in both food and feed. There could be hundreds of viral-gene altered proteins within these foods, whose complex interactions with DNA and toxicity have never been characterized.
Which statement therefore is more unscientific?

1)      GMO food safety cannot be proven

2)      GMO food harms cannot be proven

The scientific and logical answer would be that both GMO food safety and harms cannot be sufficiently proven; for reasons that include the fundamentally unethical nature of a human clinical trial that could result in poisoning the test subjects.

But, the weight of evidence actually indicates that statement #2 is the more unscientific one, as there is a growing body of scientific research produced by independent scientists indicating that GMO food harms can be clearly demonstrated, and through a simple process of extending feeding studies beyond the 90-day cut-off mark established by biotech corporations with a vested interest in hiding chronic adverse health effects. [see the latest long-term feeding study]

In other words, a failure of science to positively identify a problem does not mean that a problem does not exist. To err on the side of caution, is no less scientific than to err on the side of reckless abandon. When we fail to exercise the precautionary principle in our risk assessments, we are basically saying that GM foods are innocent until proven guilty. Juxtapose that to the burden of proof applied to nutritional or dietary supplements, which despite billions of doses taken in the US each year, have never been found to take anyone's life. These are increasingly defined as guilty unless proven innocent through multi-million dollar clinical trials.

The problem, of  course, is that the burden of proving safety or toxicity falls on the exposed populations (Suzuki's "guinea pigs), which only after many years of chronic exposure reveal the harms in their diseases, and then only vaguely in hard-to-prove post-marketing surveillance and epidemiological associations and linkages.

So, with this in mind, let's bring up one dimension of the toxicity of GM foods and agriculture that cannot be thrown out as 'unscientific,' because it is clearly proven to be a health problem in the peer-reviewed and published literature:  

Roundup herbicide.

free Roundup herbicide download

First, GreenMedInfo.com would like to announce that we are providing a free PDF download of all the research we have accumulated on the dangers of the glyphosate-based herbicide formulations, the most well-known being Monsanto's patented glyphosate-based formulation known as Roundup. This document contains over 100 study abstracts from the National Library of Medicine (NLM) linking these herbicides to over 40 adverse health effects. Each study in the document is hyperlinked back to the original citation location on the NLM's bibliographic citation database  MEDLINE. Download the document for free here: Glyphosate formulation research.

As the research in this document will clearly show (and the related open access research page on our website which also contains all the abstract) Roundup's main ingredient glyphosate is now a ubiquitous poison, found in virtually all water, air and rainfall samples tested. It contaminates the groundwater, the source of most of our natural drinking water, and the soil to the point where it has suppressed and destroyed the microbial biodiversity in certain regions of the world, including probiotic organisms of major food importance. Moreover, it has been found to exhibit toxicity and carcinogenicity in cell studies at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than found in agricultural applications (within the parts per trillion range).  When you calculate that several hundred millions of pounds are produced and used globally each year, this chemical is producing a health and environmental nightmare that is running completely out of control, with the future outlook looking even grimmer. With the discovery of  glyphosate-resistant weeds and insects, companies like Dow and Monsanto are planning on 'stacking' herbicide resistance GM traits, and producing plants that are resistant to a multitude of highly toxic agrichemicals, including the Agent Orange ingredient 2,4-D, guaranteeing the ratcheting up of a chemical arms race against the biosphere (and ourselves).

Another fundamental point that many miss with GM food safety is that not only is genetically engineered no longer food (food, by definition, are organisms that we have co-evolved with and consumed for hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of years), but in the case of the Bt gene-containing commercial crops are actually classified by the EPA as biopesticides.

But it gets worse. Roundup-ready foods have been engineered to survive the application of glyphosate-based herbicide poisoning. The toxic compounds in herbicides like Roundup, which include toxicity-amplifying surfactants like polyethoxylated tallow amine, end up in the tissue of the plants that we consume, or that our animals consume, bioaccumulating and amplifying their toxicity when we consume them as food.  One major metabolite of glyphosate called Aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which accumulates in the plant tissues of all Roundup Ready GM plants, is itself highly toxic, but which has not fallen under stringent regulatory oversight.  Essentially, if you eat GM food, it is not just the transgenes and the unintended toxic proteins they produce that are the problem. Rather, the 'food' is guaranteed to contain residues of highly toxic chemicals.

While it can be argued that it is 'unscientific' to claim the transgenes and their proteins in GMO food cause harm, it is foolish to argue that the continual exposure to known biocides like Roundup residues in our food is safe. Those who make this argument are the ones who lack the guidance of good science, or use the term 'science' as a political weapon against those who would seek out and express the truth.

Next time the invective "Unscientific!" comes up in a discussion about GMO food safety, arm yourself with the research that already exists proving GM food is harmful to animal, human and environmental health. And please help us share this article and the PDF far and wide.

Looking to voice your opinion on GMOs? Join the upcoming Monsanto Video Revolt: http://monsantovideorevolt.com/

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation.

He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

 

Poll: Skepticism of Genetically Modified Foods

Analysis

By Gary Langer 

 

June 19

 

 

With safety concerns widespread, Americans almost unanimously favor mandatory labels on genetically modified foods. And most say they'd use those labels to avoid the food.

Barely more than a third of the public believes that genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Instead 52 percent believe such foods are unsafe, and an additional 13 percent are unsure about them. That's broad doubt on the very basic issue of food safety.

Nearly everyone, moreover — 93 percent — says the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it's been genetically modified, or "bio-engineered" (this poll used both phrases). Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare.

Fifty-seven percent also say they'd be less likely to buy foods labeled as genetically modified. That puts the food industry in a quandary: By meeting consumer demand for labeling, it would be steering business away from its genetically modified products.

The image problem of genetically modified food is underscored by contrast to organic foods. While only five percent of Americans say they'd be more likely to buy a food labeled as genetically modified, 52 percent say they'd be more likely to buy food that's labeled as having been raised organically.

Genetically modified foods are particularly unpopular among women, another problem for food producers since so many women do the family shopping.
Sixty-two percent of women think genetically modified foods are unsafe to eat, a view that's shared by far fewer men, 40 percent. Indeed a plurality of men think these foods are safe, while women disagree by better than 2-1.

Similarly, while 49 percent of men say they'd be less likely to buy food labeled as genetically modified, that jumps to 65 percent of women. (Similar numbers of women and men say they're more likely to buy organic foods.)

There's also a distinction by age; people under 45 are about 10 points more likely than their elders to think genetically modified foods are safe to eat. But a bare majority of young adults still calls genetically modified foods unsafe.
There's also a political difference. Republicans divide evenly on whether genetically modified foods are safe or unsafe. Independents rate them unsafe by a 20-point margin; Democrats, by a 26-point margin.
What's at Issue

This poll, conducted for ABCNEWS.com by telephone among a random sample of adults across the country, described genetic engineering as a process by which "scientists can change the genes in some food crops and farm animals to make them grow faster or bigger and be more resistant to bugs, weeds and disease." Organic foods were described as raised "without the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers or feed additives."

Genetic modification of foods has been in development since the 1980s, inciting heated argument pro and con. A variety of genetically modified crops has been approved by the FDA for general use, and it's reviewing an application to market genetically modified fish.

The FDA has said labeling isn't necessary because there's no evidence genetic engineering changes a food's quality, safety, "or any other attribute." In a report late last year, the American Medical Association also said there was "no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class."
Starlink, a genetically modified corn that is approved for use in animal feed but not for human consumption, made its way into human foods last year. The government reported last week that Starlink did not cause allergic reactions in people who reported health problems after eating it.

Methodology 

This ABCNEWS.com survey was conducted by telephone June 13-17, among a random national sample of 1,024 adults. The results have a three-point margin of error. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.

Previous ABCNEWS polls can be found in our Poll Vault.

Look who’s squealing now: GMO lovers freak over new study of sick pigs

grist

A BEACON IN THE SMOG

13 Jun 2013 10:21 AM 

 

Look who’s squealing now: GMO lovers freak over new study of sick pigs

By Tom Laskawy

Shutterstock

OK, everyone have a seat and take a few deep breaths. Go to your calming place. Ready? Good. Because I’m about to talk about a new study that suggests that eating genetically modified crops might not be the best thing for us.

OK, another deep breath. I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “Tom, didn’t we settle this issue already?” After all, as the “plant science” industry group CropLife — you know, the one that hates First Lady Michelle Obama — likes to say, “more than 150 scientific studies have been done on animals fed biotech crops and to date, there is no scientific evidence of any detrimental impact.”

You’ll remember, I’m sure, the recent brouhaha over a French study by scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini that purported to find evidence that a GMO-based diet caused tumors in rats. Critics immediately raised significant questions about that study and the consensus quickly became that it was poorly conceived and executed. It was also the study that caused several science writers to conclude that anti-GMO sentiment was the moral equivalent of climate denial. Good times.
So is this new study [PDF], as the critics are already asserting, “L’affaire Seralini” redux? Let’s take a look.


Australian scientists, working with an Iowa farmer and U.S. veterinarians, studied 168 “commercial” piglets as they were raised and fattened for slaughter. Half of the pigs received non-GMO feed and another half ate feed made from GMO corn and soy. Researchers made sure that the GMO feed contained multiple kinds of genetically modified grains that are common in livestock feed; one grain was raised from seed that is herbicide-tolerant, for example, and another from seed that expresses its own pesticide. (One of the complaints of past GMO feeding trials is that they did not reflect actual feeding practices and thus couldn’t account for any potential “synergy” from exposing animals to more than one of these so-called “transgenes.”)

The vets who examined the pigs post-mortem didn’t know whether they were looking at an animal raised on GMO feed or not — to preserve the “blind” nature of the study.

The results, as reported by Reuters:

Researchers said there were no differences seen between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements.

But those pigs that ate the GM diet had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation — 32 percent of GM-fed pigs compared to 12 percent of non-GM-fed pigs. The inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0, and GM-fed females compared to non-GM-fed females by a factor of 2.2. As well, GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25 percent heavier than non-GM fed pigs, the study said.

So what are we to make of this?

Some critics, like crop scientist Anastasia Bodnar, co-director of the nonprofit group Biology Fortified, take serious issue with a lack of attention to ensuring the feeds were truly equivalent except for their GMO status. As she told me via email, “ideally, a feeding study like this would have controlled growing environments, genetic isolines, and component testing” so that researchers could isolate any effects they may have found. This study did not.

And there are legitimate questions about how the researchers analyzed the data they collected. While it’s true that researchers did find “statistically significant” differences in the incidence of “severe” stomach inflammation among the GMO- and non-GMO-fed animals, they didn’t use the ideal techniques that can help identify the possibility that the findings were the result of random chance. One scientist, an agronomist and statistician who is often critical of anti-GMO studies, observed in a blog post that different, potentially more defensible statistical techniques would have found no differences between the animals.

Nonetheless, even critics of the study agree that it was conducted in a rigorous way, and the findings are intriguing and worth pursuing. The researchers did, after all, find high rates of severe inflammation. As the study’s main author, Judy Carman, observed in a response to critics, all commercial pigs raised in typical hog barn conditions experience gut inflammation to a degree. The point is that the severity was much worse for GMO-fed pigs.

But instead of calling for independent, rigorous science to explore the questions the study raised, critics dismiss it as “junk science,” biased by Carman, who is a professor at Flinders University in South Australia but has produced commentary critical of GMOs. They also point out that that the farmer involved in the study is a provider of GMO-free feed. This, despite the fact that this study was funded by the Australian government, not an advocacy group (or the biotech industry, for that mater). The takeaway for scientists who might be interested in studying the effects of eating GMO crops is that it’s not worth the trouble.

I’ve written about this effect in the past and I should add that research produced by the companies that make these products, which represents almost all of the research done on GMOs, does not prompt the same response. In fact, government agencies use this science when deciding whether it’s OK for companies to put these products in our food.

In the wake of the Seralini backlash, François Houllier, the head of France’s agricultural research agency, took to the pages of the journal Nature and endorsed more research on GMOs, not less. He said:

I believe that we need to publicly fund more risk–benefit analyses of GM crops. We also need more interdisciplinary studies of GM foods, especially on health impacts in animals and humans …
Second, research must always follow proper academic standards. In my opinion, any breach in the rigour and traceability of the scientific workflow … could, I fear, lead to a lack of trust … The more unexpected the results, the more rigorous this workflow should be…
As scientists, we must champion the multiple concerns of society, even when they make a contradictory call for more innovation as well as more precaution.

These are not the words of someone who has dismissed out of hand the very possibility that GMOs might produce unknown harms. It’s not as if harmful effects from industrial products are always immediately understood (see: DDT, BPA, PCBs, etc., etc., etc.). We now have an entirely new field called epigenetics that is just beginning to explore how substances we are exposed to may affect us. And then there’s the notion of our microbiome, which opens an entirely new frontier for research.

Critics of GMOs are accused of letting ideology trump science. But watching the scathing, knee-jerk reactions to any new piece of research that shines a less-than-positive light on GMOs, it makes me think that the shrill has found itself on the other foot. As Michael Hansen, senior scientist of Consumers Union (the policy and action arm of Consumer Reports), put it to me: “This is something that needs to be followed up. It’s consistent with other findings. The critics of this study want to assume GE is safe and then try to tear down any study showing otherwise … This is an ideological position, not a good scientific one.”

So let’s all take one more breath. Houllier has it right. We need more rigor, yes, but also more science. And screaming down every scientist who claims to have found that GMOs are not as great as their proponents would have us believe is not the way to get it.

Tom Laskawy is a founder and executive director of the Food & Environment Reporting Network and a contributing writer at Grist covering food and agricultural policy. His writing has also appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, The New York Times, and The New Republic. Follow him on Twitter.

BREAKING: Glyphosate (Roundup) Carcinogenic In the PARTS PER TRILLION Range

BREAKING: Glyphosate (Roundup) Carcinogenic In the PARTS PER TRILLION Range

Posted on:

Thursday, June 13th 2013 at 10:45 am

 

 

Written By:

Sayer Ji, Founder

 

 

An alarming new study finds that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, is estrogenic and drives breast cancer cell proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range. Does this help explain the massive mammary tumors that the only long term animal feeding study on Roundup and GM corn ever performed recently found? 

An alarming new study, accepted for publication in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology last month, indicates that glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide due to its widespread use in genetically engineered agriculture, is capable of driving estrogen receptor mediated breast cancer cell proliferation within the infinitesimal parts per trillion concentration range.[i]

The study, titled, "Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors," compared the effect of glyphosate on hormone-dependent and hormone-independent breast cancer cell lines, finding that glyphosate stimulates hormone-dependent cancer cell lines in what the study authors describe as "low and environmentally relevant concentrations."

The results were broken down by the researchers as follows:

• Glyphosate induces T47D, hormone dependent breast cancer cell growth.
• The proliferative effect of glyphosate is mediated via estrogen receptors.
• Glyphosate induces ERE [Estrogen Response Element]-transcription activity via estrogen receptors.
• Glyphosate modulates the expression of E[strogen] R[eceptor] α and E[estrogen] R[eceptor]β in human breast cancer cells.

These effects indicate that glyphosate is a 'xenoestrogen,' capable of inducing Estrogen Response Elements (EREs) in a manner, slightly weaker but functionally similar to the most potent human estrogen Estradiol (E2).

More concerning is the discovery that infinitesimal glyphosate concentrations in the parts-per-trillion rage (10 to the minus 12) had proliferative (carcinogenic) effects on the studied T47D breast cancer cells line:

"In this study, we found that glyphosate at a log interval concentration ranging from 10-12 to 10-6 M increased the cell proliferation of a hormorne dependent breast cancer T47D cell..."

The researchers also discovered that the naturally occurring phytoestrogen in soybean known as genistein, produced "an additive estrogenic effect" when combined with glyphosate, raising the serious question as to whether GMO soybeans are contributing to the epidemic levels of breast cancer within countries like the US where they are consumed in relatively high quantities.
It should be noted that the concentrations used to determine the interactive effects of glyphosate and phytoestrogen genistein in this study were modeled "as in a real world situation" by using information obtained from studies that assayed the respective levels of genistein and glyphosate in GM soybeans, as well as human plasma and urine concentrations following their consumption and/or exposure.  For instance, glyphosate concentrations have been detected within human urine within the 0.1 - 233 parts per billion range on the lowest end, and an estimated systemic dose of 0.004 mg/kg on the high end.

The authors stated:

This finding should raise concern about the existence of more than one xenoestrogen such as phytoestrogen and contaminants in plant derived food which may be beneficial or harmful depending on the hormonal and pathological status of consumers. This study implied that the additive effect of glyphosate and genistein in postmenopausal woman may induce cancer cell growth. In this present in vitro study, we showed an estrogenicity of pure glyphosate. In summary, we found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genistein which implied that the use of glyphosate-contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity." [emphasis added]

This finding is relevant to virtually anyone who consumes genetically modified food today. GM crops, which are designed to survive glyphosate poisoning by being genetically engineered with 'glyphosate-resistance" (i.e. RoundUp Ready), are universally contaminated with glyphosate and its toxic metabolite AMPA.  Furthermore, glyphosate pollution and exposure is now omnipresent, with one 2011 study finding glyphosate in 60-100% of all US air and rain samples tested, and another 2012 study finding that glyphosate widely contaminates groundwater, which is the water located beneath the ground surface, that supplies aquifers, wells and springs. It is therefore virtually impossible to hermetically seal yourself off from the growing global environmental threat by only consuming "certified organic" food. The time has come to face the fact that unless there is a systemic change in the way our GM, petrochemically-driven monocultured food production system operates, we will all experience a great deal of harm.

 

GM Food/Roundup Breast Cancer Link Already Firmly Established

This latest study is not the only compelling evidence that there is a Roundup-Breast Cancer link. In a previous article titled, "Will the GMO-Breast Cancer Link Be Pinkwashed Away?", we addressed the disturbing implications of the first long-term GM and Roundup animal feeding study produced by Gilles-Éric Séralini's research team last November, and which found that after 90 days (the temporal threshold beneath which all previous biotech industry funded GM food safety studies end) the animals began to show disturbing signs of systemic organ damage, failure and cancer. More pointedly, Séralini's team observed that the animals developed massive, estrogen-dependent mammary tumors:

"Suffering inducing euthanasia and deaths corresponded mostly in females to the development of large mammary tumors. These appeared to be clearly related to the various treatments when compared to the control groups. These tumors are generally known to be mostly estrogen-dependent (Harvell et al., 2000). We observed a strikingly marked induction of mammary tumors by R[roundup] alone, a major formulated pesticide, even at the very lowest dose administered. R[oundup] has been shown to disrupt aromatase which synthesizes estrogens (Richard et al., 2005)...  [pg. 9]"

Could the results of this latest study help explain the molecular mechanism behind this finding?

---

[i] Siriporn Thongprakaisang, Apinya Thiantanawat, Nuchanart Rangkadilok, Tawit Suriyo, Jutamaad Satayavivad. Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Jun 8. Epub 2013 Jun 8. PMID: 23756170

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation.

He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

GMOs and Health: The Scientific Basis for Serious Concern and Immediate Action

GMOs and Health: The Scientific Basis for Serious Concern and Immediate Action

Posted on:

Sunday, June 9th 2013 at 12:45 pm

 

Written By:

Nathan Daley, MD, MPH

 

 

OMG, GMOs!

You might ask, "why all the fuss about agricultural genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?" After all, regulatory agencies have approved these technologies for widespread application and consumption, so they must be safe, right?  Well, the truth is that there is no agency and no industry that  works to protect our health.  At best, the EPA, USDA, and FDA attempt to respond to our disease after the cause is widespread.  At that point only risk reduction, rather than risk avoidance, can be achieved.  This has been the case historically with radium paint, tobacco, particulate air pollution, water pollution, asbestos, lead, food-borne illnesses, and DDT.  A number of the various 80,000 chemicals in production will likely be added to this list in the future while the majority of them that actually do contribute to disease (often in combination and in complex ways) will never be scientifically associated with disease.  This is because science is far from perfect, scientific methodology is always biased and often manipulated, and scientific interpretation by stakeholders and decision makers is alarmingly inept (I'm not being political or condescending, these are well known and easily observed facts).

The situation with agricultural GMOs is unique compared to other technologies. While genetic engineering of food crops has been ongoing for 15 years, it is currently experiencing a major boom with the potential for widespread worldwide application.  Yet, few people understand how a GMO food could really be so much different than a non-GMO food in regard to health and disease effects.  GMO foods look like non-GMO foods and so we don't experience the same hesitation and aversion to consuming them like we would, say, a clearly labeled bottle of virus and pesticide in tomato juice.  Therefore, the quality of public education, consumer awareness, and informed public discussion about this technology has the potential to alter the future of GMO agriculture for better or worse.

In this article, I'll first briefly mention the relative paucity of risk assessment studies on GMOs and the unbelievable weaknesses of the industry studies that have been done.  Then, drawing from numerous independent studies, I will explore the routes by which agricultural GMOs may cause adverse health effects.

GMOs Have Never Been "Proven" Safe

Let me be clear; despite the following negative review of industry science, this article is not a hatchet job against the agricultural GMO industry but, rather, a vehicle for consolidated scientific information on the safety or risks of GMO foods intended to allow readers to make informed choices about this technology.  It is just that, well, the science coming from the industry tends to raise serious concerns and suggests that the agricultural GMO industry has little concern for protecting public and ecosystem health.  Before we dive into the independent non-industry studies which suggest potential harm from GMO crops and foods, we must first look at the studies which supposedly demonstrate the safety of GMO crops and foods.  A critique of these studies remained impossible for some time as the data was kept private, until French researchers obtained a court order for their release.  This team of researchers, lead by Joel Spiroux de Vendomois, then analyzed the raw data from studies on three varieties of GMO corn owned by Monsanto.  Yet, it immediately became apparent that this data was not extremely helpful as the study methodology was profoundly insufficient.  In a 2010 paper published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences[1], the researchers summarize several major flaws in the study.  I'll list just a few of them here:

1. For each of the three varieties of GMO corn tested, only a single study was done.  However, a central tenet of sound science is that the results are reproducible and replicated by other studies, preferably those done by different researchers.

2. Only the rat was used as a toxicological model.  Rats are useful models for the human detoxification systems, but poor models for human reproductive and embryological systems.  Remember, rat studies "proved" that thalidomide was safe for pregnant women to use... but the rabbit studies done AFTER thousands of babies were harmed "proved" that it caused birth defects!  Scientific proof is only as good as the scientific studies, which are always limited and narrowly focused.

3.  The studies lasted only 3 months and were done on young adult rats.  Yet, captive rats live about 24 months.  No studies looking at late life outcomes from this brief exposure or studies which used lifelong exposure to GMOs were performed.  This is clearly a problem unless human consumers are only supposed to eat GMO foods for no longer than 9 years between the ages of 10 and 20.  Yet, GMO food technology has been released (without labeling) with the intention of lifelong consumption.

4.  No reproductive or developmental studies were done.  Yet GMO foods do not carry a label declaring that their safety during pregnancy has not been evaluated.  Instead, they are unlabeled and meant to be consumed by both genders, at all ages and developmental stages, including during pregnancy and infancy.

5.  Adverse outcomes were only considered if they occurred in both genders!  Clearly genders are different.  For instance, women are much more likely to get breast cancer than men, and one must have a prostate to get prostate cancer.  In the industry studies, increases in prostate cancer in male rats and increases in mammary tumors in female rats would apparently have been omitted since they differed between genders.  This explains exactly what happened to their findings that male rats eating GMO corn had an 11% increase in heart size while female rats eating GMO corn had a 40% increase in serum triglycerides[2].   It is not clear what to make of these findings, but they should not have been omitted and, instead, should have been used to encourage more numerous and longer duration (lifespan) studies before the worldwide release of GMO corn.

6.  Adverse outcomes which are consider "normal" in old rats were omitted in this young rat population.  For instance, the researchers did not consider "chronic progressive nephropathy", a kidney disease common in older rats, to be a problem even though it was occurring in young, 5 month old, rats eating the GMO corn.

Now, I can attest that modern toxicology students training at respectable universities are taught to do much better work than this. We can only speculate about the reasons such limited study methodologies were chosen.  Nonetheless, these are the studies which the FDA determined to be sufficient for the approval of the three GMO corn varieties represented.  As if the major flaws in the study methodologies were not enough to warrant a different decision, the French team of researchers found a number of concerning associations upon re-analyzing the raw data[3].  They summarize:

"Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and hematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn."

This is not the only group of researchers to demonstrate an association between GMO consumption and adverse health outcomes.  Despite the industries resistance to providing GMO varieties to outside researchers for independent studies, there are still dozens of studies available to the public for review.  I'll synthesize the findings of several of these studies below in considering the possible mechanisms by which agricultural GMOs may cause problems.  In general, the health effects of agricultural GMOs are mediated through at least three routes; 1. Directly though ingestion, 2. Indirectly through GMO associated pesticide exposure and ingestion, and 3. Indirectly through environmental and ecosystem effects.

Effects of GMO ingestion:

Ingesting GMOs can affect both the microbiome and human cells.  The microbiome is the microorganism population which lives on and in the human body.  Most of it exists in or on the mouth, nose, stomach, intestines, and skin.  The gut microbiome has received considerable attention due to its apparently profound effect on the immune system, not to mention its effect on food digestion.  The gut microbiome is involved in determining the risk of autoimmune diseases, allergic diseases, cardiovascular disease, and some infectious diseases like osteomyelitis.  The microbiome can get out of balance (called dysbiosis) and produce severe diseases such as Clostridium difficile overgrowth and more mild disorders like small bowel bacterial overgrowth and irritable bowel syndrome.  The bottom line is that a balanced microbiome is critical for health and we are just now beginning to appreciate how serious the consequences of dysbiosis may be.

Several studies have shown that the organisms (mostly bacteria) of the microbiome can take up genes from GMO foods[4],[5].  "Conjugation", or gene transfer, is a common trick used by bacteria to evolve and adapt.  This is one mechanism by which antibiotic resistance perpetuates.   The consequences of GMO gene transfer to intestinal bacteria involve the expression of the gene and/or insertional mutagenesis.  The frequency with which these consequences will occur is not known, but they will occur to some degree at least.

Intestinal bacteria which begin to express the GMO gene will then be producing the same active proteins which define the GMO.  For example, intestinal bacteria could start producing the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) pesticidal toxin that has been inserted into potatoes, corn, and soybeans.  The exact effect of this toxin on humans, if any, is not well established but it has been found in a study of Canadian women, including pregnant women and their fetuses[6].

Insertional mutagenesis refers to the gene inserting itself into another coding gene and, thus, causing a gene mutation by disrupting the code.  This may produce more severe results as it is a well known mechanism by which viruses may cause cancer, cell death, or cellular dysfunction.

These same mechanisms, gene transfer and insertional mutagenesis, can affect human cells just the same.  While intestinal cells are likely to be the most affected, GMO genes which pass into the blood intact may affect just about any cell and tissue in the body.  It is quite possible that GMO foods are regularly resulting in the genetic modification of the humans consuming them!  There are many unknowns here and I suspect that there remains a lot to be discovered, but we should not let the absence of evidence be mistaken for the evidence of absent harm.  We should, instead, demand more information and more research!

Effects of GMO associated pesticide exposure and ingestion:

Another route of possible harms from GMO foods comes from the exposure to and ingestion of GMO associated pesticides.  The most successful GMO crops have been the "Roundup Ready" or glyphosate resistant varieties of corn, soybean, and cotton.  The same genes have been inserted into alfalfa, wheat, and canola (rapeseed) but these have not yet been widely introduced.  The result of glyphosate resistance is that glyphosate can then be applied without discrimination to area or dose.  In the past, the use of a pesticide like glyphosate to control weeds had to be balanced with the cost of losing crop due to inadvertently heavy crop exposure.  Glyphosate spraying has dramatically increased with the introduction of glyphosate resistant crops.  This logically increases the risk for excessive occupational exposure, the magnitude of environmental contamination with glyphosate, and the direct and indirect exposures to the general public and consumers of GMO foods (including livestock).  Presumably, the glyphosate residue on (and inside... it can't be washed out) glyphosate resistant food products is higher than that on non-resistant varieties, but data supporting this is scarce.  I've failed to find any study which quantifies and contrasts the amount of pesticide residue between GMO and non-GMO foods.  More research is needed, but again we can't assume that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  It is simply unknown if there are any differences, but assuming so is a very logical assumption.

Glyphosate appears to produce a plethora of problems. 

 Let's begin with the microbiome again.  Studies have shown that glyphosate may contribute to the contamination of chicken and beef with pathogenic (disease causing) bacteria like E. coli.  The reason is that glyphosate produces a dysbiosis within livestock consisting of the overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria.  It turns out that many of the most dangerous bacterial pathogens are resistant to glyphosate (perhaps due to the gene transfer discussed above), yet some of the most healthy bacteria are quite sensitive to it.  The result is a decline in healthy bacteria and proliferation of pathogenic bacteria.  Glyphosate in chicken feed resulted in the proliferation of salmonella and clostridium species (both of which cause food poisoning and infection in humans) and a decline in enterococcus, bifidobacterium, and lactobacillus (species thought to be the foundation of a healthy microbiome)[7].  Enterococcus and lactobacillus are especially important in preventing the overgrowth of Clostridum botulinum and researchers have suggested, as a result, that glyphosate induced dysbiosis is causing an increase in botulism in cows[8].  The same phenomena has been shown to occur within the human microbiome as well, and it is reasonable to propose that the increasing prevalence of Clostridium difficile dysbiosis, a potentially fatal disorder that is also plagued by increasing antibiotic resistance, may be one of its many consequences.

Beyond the microbiome the situation may be even worse.  It is well known that glyphosate and its metabolites are genotoxic (causing DNA damage), and cytotoxic (causing cell death or dysfunction) to human cells. [9],[10]  Exactly how these toxic attributes manifest as disease is more complex, but the following studies point to several possibilities.

Numerous studies have implicated the pesticides paraquat, rotenone, lindane, and dieldrin in the development of Parkinson's disease due to their ability to kill dopaminergic neurons, and it appears that glyphosate may have similar capabilities[11].  Several case reports of Parkinson's disease onset after chronic and acute glyphosate exposure have indeed suggested that glyphosate may contribute to the development of the disease, but more research is needed here[12],[13]. When studied in cultures of nerve cells, however, glyphosate did cause cell death through self-destruction (apoptosis) and self-consumption (autophagy)[14].  Therefore, the biological mechanism behind neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease is definitely induced by glyphosate, lending additional credibility to the association.  A recent review article not only associated glyphosate with Parkinson's disease but also "gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer's disease".[15]

Epidemiological studies have suggested an association between chronic glyphosate exposure and certain cancers.  One study, done in Sweden, found that those diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma were 3.04 times more likely to report a history of glyphosate exposure compared to those without cancer, suggesting that glyphosate may increase the risk of this disease[16].  Another study, using populations in Iowa and North Carolina, suggested a possible association between glyphosate exposure and multiple myeloma[17].

Glyphosate also appears to be a potent endocrine disruptor with pronounced effects on testosterone production in males.  Studies on male rats demonstrate the glyphosate inhibits testosterone related enzymes and decreases the levels of testosterone in a dose-dependent manner[18].   Compared to control rats, those exposed to the highest dose of glyphosate produced only ½ of the testosterone. 
Another rat study utilized doses of glyphosate which have been found in samples of human urine (1 ppm) and demonstrated that this dose reduces testosterone production by 35%[19]!  The same study showed that higher doses cause testicular cell death.  A study on human reproductive cell lines demonstrated that endocrine disrupting effects start at a dose of 0.5 ppm.  Genotoxic effects started at a dose of 5 ppm and cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm[20]. The glyphosate residual that is allowed by federal regulations is 400 ppm in animal feed, 200 ppm in spearmint and peppermint tops, 85 ppm in sunflower and safflower seeds, 30 ppm in barely and cereal grains like rice, 30 ppm in molasses, 20 ppm in soybean, and 5 ppm in corn, legumes and quinoa, just to name a few[21].  Assuming that the average person has 5 liters of blood, one could experience blood levels of glyphosate at 0.5 ppm from eating 125 grams (or roughly 4.4 ounces) of soybeans or 29 grams (1 ounce) of sunflower seeds (note that small bags of sunflower seeds are often 5 ounces or more).

In addition to glyphosate toxicity, we should be concerned about possible toxicity from other GMO associated pesticides like Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) toxin.  The effects of ingesting this GMO crop produced pesticide have hardly been studied.  I found only one study, an in vitro study on human cells, and the results indicate the Bt toxins Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac do trigger cell death at moderate concentrations[22].  Additionally, these pesticides appear to interact with glyphosate (which often accompanies them on food) with unpredictable consequences.

The issue of interaction effects in toxicology is a very serious one that is poorly studied or not studied at all.  Of 80,000 chemicals in production, very few have been studied in combination, let alone the extremely common combinations that are found in the environment and in various products.  For instance, glyphosate is rarely used alone, yet studies still evaluate its toxicity alone.  Glyphosate products contain adjuvants or surfactants that enhance its herbicidal activity.  One study did, in fact, look at the effects of glyphosate and its adjuvants (like POE-15) on human cell lines.  The results showed that the combination was much more toxic than glyphosate alone[23]!

It needs to be mentioned that the levels of glyphosate exposure from food and the complexity and doses of pesticide combinations (and their interactions) are likely to increase as a result of progressing glyphosate resistance.  Just like antibiotic resistance among pathogenic bacteria, the target plants (i.e. weeds) for glyphosate are rapidly evolving a resistance to the pesticide as a result of its intensive use[24].  In order for glyphosate to work on these plants, higher and higher doses are needed, or additional pesticides must be applied simultaneously. Currently there are 24 weed species listed with resistance to glycine pesticides, the pesticide class of glyphosate[25].

To be fair, internal studies done by Monsanto (the owner and producer of glyphosate) in the early 1980's show glyphosate to be relatively non-toxic.  These are the studies submitted to regulatory agencies for approval and then used to set regulatory limits on public exposure and environmental contamination.  For example, the EPA uses this 30 year old data for its Integrated Risk Assessment System (IRIS).  These reviews often take 10-20 years to complete due to inadequate EPA funding, making them outdated the moment they are published!  Again, no one is out there protecting our health.  You can browse the EPA glyphosate review here if interested: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0057.htm

Environmental and ecosystem effects of agricultural GMOs:

In addition to the possible harm of GMOs and GMO associated pesticides on the microbiome, cells, and physiology of humans and other mammals, there is concern about environmental effects (which always end up affecting the health of the environment's inhabitants as well). These environmental effects involve the same or similar mechanisms as those above.  For example, GMO genes can transfer to environmental (soil and aquatic) microorganisms as well as native plants (like grasses) and possibly other food crops (like organic corn and soy, the fields of which may become contaminated with GMO seeds)[26].

Additionally, GMO associated pesticides or toxins may negatively impact helpful insects (like predator or carnivorous arthropods) as well as target insects, selecting for the emergence or immigration of new, more resistant, pests[27].  Similarly, intensive use of glyphosate may kill plants which support critical pollinators.  For instance, glyphosate use has reached levels which are now killing milkweed, thus jeopordizing the monarch butterfly habitat and leading to a decline in their numbers.

Additionally, glyphosate and Bt toxin accumulate in the soil due to serial applications, leading to escalations in soil contamination, and glyphosate has been shown to contaminate most agricultural watersheds[28],[29].
The environmental effects of GMOs and GMO associated pesticides have barely been studied and the consequent effects on biodiversity and groundwater (drinking water) are uncertain.

Don't Throw the Bathwater Out With The Bathwater

To be fair, I need to mention the supposed intentions behind GMO agriculture promoted by the industry.  Clearly, there is a profit motive as there exists a powerful synergistic feedback cycle in the consumption of proprietary pesticides and proprietary pesticide resistant seeds.  However, GMO advocates sincerely, I believe, also hope that the technology can do good in the world.

For instance, "Golden Rice" is genetically modified rice which possesses the genes to produce beta-carotene.  Beta-carotene is the precursor to vitamin A in humans, and in regions of Africa and Asia, vitamin A deficiency is extremely common (causing a number of severe problems such as blindness).   Therefore, this rice could effectively reverse the epidemic of vitamin A deficiency.  Such medical and public health applications of GMO technology do appear to be much more reasonable than the pesticide resistant varieties (which are largely admired because they make agriculture more simple).  However, the potential health implications of medical or public health oriented GMO technology are largely the same as all other GMO technology with regard to gene transfer and insertional mutagenesis.

Even more relevant, however, is that the vitamin A deficiency in much of the world can be remedied in several other ways, many of which will have additional health benefits than just supplying beta-carotene.  The vitamin A deficiency in much of the world is a result of a subsidized grain (largely rice) diet, which is a product of World Bank, World Trade Organization, and UN economic incentives and agreements aimed at increasing the economic output of developing nations.  If the people of these nations were growing food for themselves and not for export, they would likely grow more diverse plant foods.  Beta-carotene is widely abundant in the plant kingdom.  Basically any plant food with a yellow, red, orange, and dark green color is likely to contain significant amounts of beta-carotene.  Essentially, rice is not the solution to the vitamin A deficiency, it is the cause of it.  This is a larger problem and a more difficult one to reverse, for sure, but we need to recognize the difference between real solutions which address the root problem and superficial solutions which simply compensate for one consequence of the problem.  Failure to do so will accelerate our decline down the slippery slope of unintended consequences.

For additional research on GMOs on the GreenMedInfo.com database: Health Guide: GMO Research

---

[1]. de Vendômois JS, Cellier D, Vélot C, Clair E, Mesnage R, Séralini GE. Debate on GMOs health risks after statistical findings in regulatory tests. Int J Biol Sci. 2010 Oct 5;6(6):590-8.

[2].  Gilles-Eric Séralini, Dominique Cellier, Joël Spiroux de Vendomois . New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007 May;52(4):596-602. Epub 2007 Mar 13.

[3].  de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 10;5(7):706-26.

[4].  Carl-Alfred Alpert, Denis D G Mater, Marie-Claude Muller, Marie-France Ouriet, Yvonne Duval-Iflah, Gérard Corthier. Worst-case scenarios for horizontal gene transfer from Lactococcus lactis carrying heterologous genes to Enterococcus faecalis in the digestive tract of gnotobiotic mice.Environ Biosafety Res. 2003 Jul-Sep;2(3):173-80.

[5].  M Gruzza, M Fons, M F Ouriet, Y Duval-Iflah, R Ducluzeau. Study of gene transfer in vitro and in the digestive tract of gnotobiotic mice from Lactococcus lactis strains to various strains belonging to human intestinal flora. Microb Releases. 1994 Jul;2(4):183-9.

[6].  Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004. Epub 2011 Feb 18.

[7].  Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Aldin AA, Hafez HM, Krüger M. The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota invitro. Curr Microbiol. 2013 Apr;66(4):350-8. doi: 10.1007/s00284-012-0277-2. Epub 2012 Dec 9.

[8].  Krüger M, Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Rodloff A. Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum. Anaerobe. 2013 Feb 6. pii: S1075-9964(13)00018-8. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2013.01.005. [Epub ahead of print]

[9].  F Mañas, L Peralta, J Raviolo, H García Ovando, A Weyers, L Ugnia, M Gonzalez Cid, I Larripa, N Gorla. Genotoxicity of AMPA, the environmental metabolite of glyphosate, assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenetic tests. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2009 Mar ;72(3):834-7. Epub 2008 Nov 14.

[10].  Benachour N, Séralini GE. Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem Res Toxicol. 2009 Jan;22(1):97-105. doi: 10.1021/tx800218n.

[11]. Taetzsch T, Block ML. Pesticides, Microglial NOX2, and Parkinson's Disease. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 2013 Feb;27(2):137-49. doi: 10.1002/jbt.21464. Epub 2013 Jan 24.

[12]. Wang G, Fan XN, Tan YY, Cheng Q, Chen SD. Parkinsonism after chronic occupational exposure to glyphosate. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2011 Jul;17(6):486-7. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2011.02.003. Epub 2011 Mar 2.

[13].  Barbosa ER, Leiros da Costa MD, Bacheschi LA, Scaff M, Leite CC. Parkinsonism after glycine-derivate exposure. Mov Disord. 2001 May;16(3):565-8.

[14].  Gui YX, Fan XN, Wang HM, Wang G, Chen SD. Glyphosate induced cell death through apoptotic and autophagic mechanisms. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2012 May-Jun;34(3):344-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ntt.2012.03.005. Epub 2012 Apr 4.

[15] Samsel A, Seneff S. Glyphosate's Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Entropy. 2013; 15(4):1416-1463.

[16].  Lennart Hardell, Mikael Eriksson, Marie Nordstrom. Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies.Leuk Lymphoma. 2002 May;43(5):1043-9

[17].  Anneclaire J De Roos, Aaron Blair, Jennifer A Rusiecki, Jane A Hoppin, Megan Svec, Mustafa Dosemeci, Dale P Sandler, Michael C Alavanja. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Jan ;113(1):49-54.

[18].  R M Romano, M A Romano, M M Bernardi, P V Furtado, C A Oliveira. Prepubertal exposure to commercial formulation of the herbicide glyphosate alters testosterone levels and testicular morphology. Arch Toxicol. 2010 Apr;84(4):309-17. Epub 2009 Dec 12.

[19].  Clair E, Mesnage R, Travert C, Séralini GÉ. A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicol In Vitro. 2012 Mar;26(2):269-79. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2011.12.009. Epub 2011 Dec 19.

[20]. Gasnier C, Dumont C, Benachour N, Clair E, Chagnon MC, Séralini GE. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology. 2009 Aug 21;262(3):184-91. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006. Epub 2009 Jun 17.

[21] U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.  Accessed 3-15-13 at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=4f4321356131eb0fa7347ec95e9f11df&ty=HTML&h=L&r=SECTION&n=40y25.0.1.1.28.3.19.131

[22].  R Mesnage, E Clair, S Gress, C Then, A Székács, G-E Séralini. Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide. J Appl Toxicol. 2012 Feb 15. Epub 2012 Feb 15.

[23].  R Mesnage, B Bernay, G-E Séralini. Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology. 2012 Sep 21. Epub 2012 Sep 21.

[24].  Green JM, Owen MD. Herbicide-resistant crops: utilities and limitations for herbicide-resistant weed management. J Agric Food Chem. 2011 Jun 8;59(11):5819-29. doi: 10.1021/jf101286h. Epub 2010 Jun 29.

[25]. Heap I. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds; available at http://www.weedscience.com, 2010, accessed April 15, 2010.

[26]. María L Zapiola, Carol A Mallory-Smith. Crossing the divide: gene flow produces intergeneric hybrid in feral transgenic creeping bentgrass population. Mol Ecol. 2012 May 24. Epub 2012 May 24.

[27]. Astrid T Groot, Marcel Dicke . Insect-resistant transgenic plants in a multi-trophic context. Plant J. 2002 Aug;31(4):387-406.

[28]. Richard H Coupe, Stephen J Kalkhoff, Paul D Capel, Caroline Gregoire. Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters of agricultural basins. Pest Manag Sci. 2012 Jan ;68(1):16-30. Epub 2011 Jun 16.

[29]. Dani Degenhardt, David Humphries, Allan J Cessna, Paul Messing, Pascal H Badiou, Renata Raina, Annemieke Farenhorst, Dan J Pennock. Dissipation of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water and sediment of two Canadian prairie wetlands. J Environ Sci Health B. 2012 ;47(7):631-9.

Nathan is a visionary in health-oriented medicine, integrative preventive medicine, and ecological medicine. He helps individuals discover their unique paths to health through adventuresome vacations. 

See: http://ecoholos.com/ and http://www.epichealthexperience.com

 

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

World Exclusive: Evidence of GMO Harm in Pig Study

World Exclusive: Evidence of GMO Harm in Pig Study

June 11, 2013 in Sustainable Agriculture, by Admin Share with

A groundbreaking new study [1] shows that pigs were harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified (GM) crops.

Press release from Sustainable Pulse (sustainablepulse.com) and GMWatch (gmwatch.org)

GM-fed females had on average a 25% heavier uterus than non-GM-fed females, a possible indicator of disease that requires further investigation. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the GM diet. The research results were striking and statistically significant.

Find a clear summary of the study here

Find the full paper here

Website GMOJudyCarman.org with information on Dr Judy Carman’s work

Lead researcher Dr Judy Carman, adjunct associate professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia,[2] said: “Our findings are noteworthy for several reasons. First, we found these results in real on-farm conditions, not in a laboratory, but with the added benefit of strict scientific controls that are not normally present on farms.

“Second, we used pigs. Pigs with these health problems end up in our food supply. We eat them.

“Third, pigs have a similar digestive system to people, so we need to investigate if people are also getting digestive problems from eating GM crops.
“Fourth, we found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Regulators simply assume that they can’t happen.

“Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture.”

The new study lends scientific credibility to anecdotal evidence from farmers and veterinarians, who have for some years reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn.[3]

Iowa-based farmer and crop and livestock advisor Howard Vlieger, one of the coordinators of the study, said: “For as long as GM crops have been in the feed supply, we have seen increasing digestive and reproductive problems in animals. Now it is scientifically documented.

“In my experience, farmers have found increased production costs and escalating antibiotic use when feeding GM crops. In some operations, the livestock death loss is high, and there are unexplained problems including spontaneous abortions, deformities of new-born animals, and an overall listlessness and lack of contentment in the animals.

“In some cases, animals eating GM crops are very aggressive. This is not surprising, given the scale of stomach irritation and inflammation now documented. I have seen no financial benefit to farmers who feed GM crops to their animals.”

Gill Rowlands, a farmer based in Pembrokeshire, Wales who is also a member of the campaign group GM-Free Cymru, said: “This is an animal welfare issue. Responsible farmers and consumers alike do not want animals to suffer. We call for the rapid phase-out of all GMOs from animal feed supplies.”

Claire Robinson of the campaign group GMWatch said: “Several UK supermarkets recently abandoned their GM-free animal feed policies, citing lack of availability of non-GM feed. We call on the public to visit the new citizens’ action website gmoaction.org, where they can quickly and easily send an email to the supermarkets asking them to ensure their suppliers secure certified GM-free animal feed. This will mean placing advance orders for GM-free soy from countries like Brazil.”

Follow Sustainable Pulse on Facebook

Study details

The research was conducted by collaborating investigators from two continents and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems. The feeding study lasted more than five months, the normal commercial lifespan for a pig, and was conducted in the US. The pigs were slaughtered at the usual slaughter age of over 5 months, after eating the diets for their entire commercial lifespan.
168 newly-weaned pigs in a commercial piggery were fed either a typical diet incorporating GM soy and corn, or else (in the control group) an equivalent non-GM diet. The pigs were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions. They were slaughtered over 5 months later, at the usual slaughter age, after eating the diets for their entire commercial lifespan. They were then autopsied by qualified veterinarians who worked “blind” – they were not informed which pigs were fed on the GM diet and which were from the control group.

The GMO feed mix was a commonly used mix. The GM and non-GM diets contained the same amount of soy and corn, except that the GM diet contained a mixture of three GM genes and their protein products, while the control (non-GM) diet had equivalent non-GM ingredients. Of the three GM proteins in the GM diet, one made a crop resistant to being sprayed with the herbicide Roundup, while two were insecticides.

Contact:

Claire Robinson, GMWatch, UK: claire@gmwatch.org To phone within UK: 0752 753 6923. To phone outside UK: +44 752 753 6923
Dr Judy Carman, Adelaide, Australia
Email: judycarman@ozemail.com.au
Mr Howard Vlieger, Maurice, Iowa
Email: studentofthesoil@mtcnet.net

Notes

1. Judy A. Carman, Howard R. Vlieger, Larry J. Ver Steeg, Verlyn E. Sneller, Garth W. Robinson, Catherine A. Clinch-Jones, Julie I. Haynes, John W. Edwards (2013). A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and  GM maize diet. Journal of Organic Systems 8 (1): 38-54. Open access full text: www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

2. Dr Judy Carman, BSc (Hons) PhD MPH MPHAA; Epidemiologist and Biochemist; Director, Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Adelaide, Australia; Adjunct Associate Professor, Health and the Environment, School of the Environment, Adelaide, Australia
3. For example:
www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/wp-ontent/uploads/2012/04/Soydamage1.pdf
www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Soy_Linked_to_Illnesses_in_Farm_Pigs.php

Farmer interviews in the 2012 film, Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives, directed by Jeffrey Smith

34

(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Tags: digestive problems, female pigs, gm crops, gm genes, gm plant, male pigs, mixtures 

← Massive Database of GMO Evidence gives Worldwide Picture of Harm