Published with permission from Jeffrey M. Smith, author of
Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods
Rhetoric from Washington since the early 1990s proclaims that genetically
modified (GM) foods are no different from their natural counterparts that
have existed for centuries. But this is a political, not a scientific
assertion. Numerous scientists at the FDA consistently described these
newly introduced gene-spliced foods as cause for concern. In addition
to their potential to produce hard-to-detect allergies and nutritional
problems, the scientists said that “The possibility of unexpected,
accidental changes in genetically engineered plants” might produce
“unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.”[1] GM
crops, they said, might have “Increased levels of known naturally
occurring toxins, . . . appearance of new, not previously identified”
toxins, and an increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from
the environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals.”
They recommended testing every GM food “before it enters the marketplace.”[2]
But the FDA was under orders from the first Bush White House to promote
the biotechnology industry, and the political appointee in charge of agency
policy was Monsanto’s former attorney - later their vice president.
The FDA policy ignored the scientists’ warnings and allowed GM food
crops onto the market without any required safety studies.
From the few safety tests that have been conducted, the results are disturbing
- lab animals fed GM diets show damage to virtually every system studied.
Reports from farmers are even less encouraging - thousands of sick, sterile
and dead animals are traced to GM feed.[3]
GM diet shows toxic reactions in digestive tract
The very first crop submitted to the FDA’s voluntary consultation
process, the FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female
rats fed the GM tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions.[4] The director of
FDA’s Office of Special Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes
did not demonstrate a “reasonable certainty of no harm,”[5]
which is their normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch
agreed that “unresolved questions still remain.”[6] The political
appointees, however, did not require that the tomato be withdrawn.[*]
According to Arpad Pusztai, PhD, one of the world’s leading experts
in GM food safety assessments, the type of stomach lesions linked to the
tomatoes “could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly
in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent [blood clots].”[7] Pusztai
believes that the digestive tract should be the first target of GM food
risk assessment, because the gut is the first (and largest) point of contact
with the foods; it can reveal various reactions to toxins. He was upset,
however, that the research on the FlavrSavr never looked passed the stomach
to the intestines. Other studies that did look found problems.
Mice were fed potatoes with an added bacterial gene, which produced an
insecticide called Bt-toxin. Scientists analyzed the lower part of their
small intestines (ileum) and found abnormal and damaged cells, as well
as proliferative cell growth.[8] Rats fed potatoes engineered to produce
a different type of insecticide (GNA lectin from the snowdrop plant) also
showed proliferative cell growth in both the stomach and intestinal walls
(see photo).[9] Although the guts of rats fed GM peas were not examined
for cell growth, the intestines were mysteriously heavier; possibly resulting
from such growth.[10] Cell proliferation can be a precursor to cancer
and is of special concern.
GM diets cause liver damage
The state of the liver - a main detoxifier for the body - is another indicator
of toxins.
- Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes described above had smaller and partially
atrophied livers.[11]
- Rats fed Monsanto’s Mon 863 corn, engineered to produce Bt-toxin,
had liver lesions and other indications of toxicity.[12]
- Rabbits fed GM soy showed altered enzyme production in their livers as
well as higher metabolic activity.[13]
- The livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12%-16% heavier, possibly
due to liver disease or inflammation.[14]
- And microscopic analysis of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans
revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes.[15]
Many of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM
soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit. The findings, according to
molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, “are not random and
must reflect some ‘insult’ on the liver by the GM soy.”
Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research in King’s College
London, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet
are not known, it “could lead to liver damage and consequently general
toxemia.”[16]
Higher death rates and organ damage
Some studies showed higher death rates in GM-fed animals. In the FlavrSavr
tomato study, for example, a note in the appendix indicated that 7 of
40 rats died within two weeks and were replaced.[17] In another study,
chickens fed the herbicide tolerant “Liberty Link” corn died
at twice the rate of those fed natural corn.[18] But in these two industry-funded
studies, the deaths were dismissed without adequate explanation or follow-up.
In addition, the cells in the pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy had
profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes;[19]
in rats fed a GM potato, the pancreas was enlarged.[20] In various analyses
of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production
or inflammation. Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by
GM soy.[21] And GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brain of rats.[22]
Reproductive failures and infant mortality
In both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans, their testicles showed
dramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink (see
photo).[23] In mice, young sperm cells were altered.[24] Embryos of GM
soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared
to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy.[25]
More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the Russian
National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting two
weeks before they were mated.
• Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring
from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10
percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.
• “High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from
mothers fed the GM soy flour.”[26] • The average size and weight
of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller.[27] • In a preliminary
study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.[28]
After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russian
laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats
housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls
were available for subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were
canceled. After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality
rate of rats throughout the facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99
of 179).[29]
Farmers report livestock sterility and deaths
About two dozen farmers reported that thousands of their pigs had reproductive
problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had
false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some cows and bulls
also became sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths
of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens. [30]
When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants,
within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated 10,000
sheep deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post mortems
on the sheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines
and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary
evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to
a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[31]
Dangerous denial
“Hidden Dangers in Kids Meals” by Institute for Responsible
Technology |
The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we were
not supposed to know about their concerns. The agency’s internal
memos were only made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed
to believe the official FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware
of information showing that GM foods are meaningfully different. This
statement, crafted by political appointees, directly contradicts the scientific
consensus at the FDA.
Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows
adverse or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about
these problems either - the biotech industry works overtime to try to
hide them. Industry studies described above, for example, are neither
peer-reviewed nor published. It took lawsuits to make two of them available.
And adverse findings by independent scientists are often suppressed, ignored,
or denied. Moreover, researchers that discover problems from GM foods
have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, deprived of tenure, and
even threatened. The myth that GM crops are the same safe food we have
always eaten continues to circulate.
With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction in
1996, however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration
of health in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-marketing
surveillance, we can’t tell which worsening health statistic may
be due to these foods. But we also can’t afford to wait until we
find out. GM foods must be removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately,
more and more people are making healthy non-GM choices for themselves
and their family. To learn which foods are genetically modified and how
to protect yourself, visit
www.GeneticRoulette.com.
Visit
www.SeedsOfDeception.com to read more about GM foods.
[*] Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both using
the same inserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety
that was not associated with the lesions. This was not required by the
FDA, which did not block approvals on the lesion-associated variety. The
FlavrSavr tomato has since been taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr,
no other biotech company has submitted such detailed data to the FDA.
And the superficial summaries they do present to the agency are dismissed
by critics as woefully inadequate to judge safety.[1] Edwin J. Mathews,
Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology
Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants. Dated October
28, 1991[2] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of
Contaminants Chemistry, “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation
of Genetically Modified Foods: Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991,
www.biointegrity.org [3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [4] Department
of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in
Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: . . .
Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From
Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel’s
Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)
http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html [5] Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and
others, “Response to Calgene Amended Petition,” Alliance for
Bio-Integrity (October 27, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [6] Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others, “Flavr Savr™
Tomato: Significance of Pending DHEE Question,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity
(December 7, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [7] Arpad Pusztai, “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk
to Human/Animal Health?” June 2001 Action Bioscience
www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html [8] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in
the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,”
Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219-233. [9] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad
Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet,
1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4. [10] Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind
the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,”
Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany:
Literaturhaus, 2005). [11] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the
tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition
and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84. [12] John M. Burns, “13-Week
Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded
by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified
Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf [13] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli,
V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically
Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation
of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006):
193-199. [14] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363
from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the
Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food
produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,”
www.iher.org.au/ [15] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini,
C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical
Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,”
Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180 [16] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette:
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books,
Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [17] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us
the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition
and Health 16 (2002): 73-84. [18] S. Leeson, “The Effect of Glufosinate
Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens,” Department of
Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379,
July 12, 1996. [19] Malatesta, et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis
of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean,”
J Anat. 2002 November; 201(5): 409-415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera,
E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural
Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,”
Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388. [20] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science
give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,”
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84 [21] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi,
F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi,
L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit
Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects
by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006): 193-199. [22]
Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible
health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp
73-84 [23] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels,
June 12, 2007 [24] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of
Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European
Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454. [25] Oliveri
et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion
Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium
of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7-10,
2006. [26] I.V.Ermakova, “Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological
Risks,” Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference
(IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th - September 1st, 2006: 168-172.
[27] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary
studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9. [28] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental
Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free
Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007 [29] I.V.Ermakova “GMO:
Life itself intervened into the experiments,” Letter, EcosInform
N2 (2006): 3-4. [30] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented
Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA
USA 2007 [31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton
Fields - Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary
Assessment, April 2006,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
GM diet shows toxic reactions in digestive tract
The very first crop submitted to the FDA’s voluntary consultation
process, the FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female
rats fed the GM tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions.[4] The director of
FDA’s Office of Special Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes
did not demonstrate a “reasonable certainty of no harm,”[5]
which is their normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch
agreed that “unresolved questions still remain.”[6] The political
appointees, however, did not require that the tomato be withdrawn.[*]
According to Arpad Pusztai, PhD, one of the world’s leading experts
in GM food safety assessments, the type of stomach lesions linked to the
tomatoes “could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly
in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent [blood clots].”[7] Pusztai
believes that the digestive tract should be the first target of GM food
risk assessment, because the gut is the first (and largest) point of contact
with the foods; it can reveal various reactions to toxins. He was upset,
however, that the research on the FlavrSavr never looked passed the stomach
to the intestines. Other studies that did look found problems.
Mice were fed potatoes with an added bacterial gene, which produced an
insecticide called Bt-toxin. Scientists analyzed the lower part of their
small intestines (ileum) and found abnormal and damaged cells, as well
as proliferative cell growth.[8] Rats fed potatoes engineered to produce
a different type of insecticide (GNA lectin from the snowdrop plant) also
showed proliferative cell growth in both the stomach and intestinal walls
(see photo).[9] Although the guts of rats fed GM peas were not examined
for cell growth, the intestines were mysteriously heavier; possibly resulting
from such growth.[10] Cell proliferation can be a precursor to cancer
and is of special concern.
GM diets cause liver damage
The state of the liver - a main detoxifier for the body - is another indicator
of toxins.
- Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes described above had smaller and partially
atrophied livers.[11]
- Rats fed Monsanto’s Mon 863 corn, engineered to produce Bt-toxin,
had liver lesions and other indications of toxicity.[12]
- Rabbits fed GM soy showed altered enzyme production in their livers as
well as higher metabolic activity.[13]
- The livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12%-16% heavier, possibly
due to liver disease or inflammation.[14]
- And microscopic analysis of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans
revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes.[15]
Many of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM
soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit. The findings, according to
molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, “are not random and
must reflect some ‘insult’ on the liver by the GM soy.”
Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research in King’s College
London, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet
are not known, it “could lead to liver damage and consequently general
toxemia.”[16]
Higher death rates and organ damage
Some studies showed higher death rates in GM-fed animals. In the FlavrSavr
tomato study, for example, a note in the appendix indicated that 7 of
40 rats died within two weeks and were replaced.[17] In another study,
chickens fed the herbicide tolerant “Liberty Link” corn died
at twice the rate of those fed natural corn.[18] But in these two industry-funded
studies, the deaths were dismissed without adequate explanation or follow-up.
In addition, the cells in the pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy had
profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes;[19]
in rats fed a GM potato, the pancreas was enlarged.[20] In various analyses
of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production
or inflammation. Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by
GM soy.[21] And GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brain of rats.[22]
Reproductive failures and infant mortality
In both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans, their testicles showed
dramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink (see
photo).[23] In mice, young sperm cells were altered.[24] Embryos of GM
soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared
to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy.[25]
More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the Russian
National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting two
weeks before they were mated.
• Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring
from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10
percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.
• “High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from
mothers fed the GM soy flour.”[26] • The average size and weight
of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller.[27] • In a preliminary
study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.[28]
After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russian
laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats
housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls
were available for subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were
canceled. After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality
rate of rats throughout the facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99
of 179).[29]
Farmers report livestock sterility and deaths
About two dozen farmers reported that thousands of their pigs had reproductive
problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had
false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some cows and bulls
also became sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths
of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens. [30]
When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants,
within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated 10,000
sheep deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post mortems
on the sheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines
and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary
evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to
a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[31]
Dangerous denial
“Hidden Dangers in Kids Meals” by Institute for Responsible
Technology |
The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we were
not supposed to know about their concerns. The agency’s internal
memos were only made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed
to believe the official FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware
of information showing that GM foods are meaningfully different. This
statement, crafted by political appointees, directly contradicts the scientific
consensus at the FDA.
Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows
adverse or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about
these problems either - the biotech industry works overtime to try to
hide them. Industry studies described above, for example, are neither
peer-reviewed nor published. It took lawsuits to make two of them available.
And adverse findings by independent scientists are often suppressed, ignored,
or denied. Moreover, researchers that discover problems from GM foods
have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, deprived of tenure, and
even threatened. The myth that GM crops are the same safe food we have
always eaten continues to circulate.
With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction in
1996, however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration
of health in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-marketing
surveillance, we can’t tell which worsening health statistic may
be due to these foods. But we also can’t afford to wait until we
find out. GM foods must be removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately,
more and more people are making healthy non-GM choices for themselves
and their family. To learn which foods are genetically modified and how
to protect yourself, visit
www.GeneticRoulette.com.
Visit
www.SeedsOfDeception.com to read more about GM foods.
[*] Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both using
the same inserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety
that was not associated with the lesions. This was not required by the
FDA, which did not block approvals on the lesion-associated variety. The
FlavrSavr tomato has since been taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr,
no other biotech company has submitted such detailed data to the FDA.
And the superficial summaries they do present to the agency are dismissed
by critics as woefully inadequate to judge safety.[1] Edwin J. Mathews,
Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology
Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants. Dated October
28, 1991[2] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of
Contaminants Chemistry, “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation
of Genetically Modified Foods: Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991,
www.biointegrity.org [3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [4] Department
of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in
Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: . . .
Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From
Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel’s
Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)
http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html [5] Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and
others, “Response to Calgene Amended Petition,” Alliance for
Bio-Integrity (October 27, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [6] Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others, “Flavr Savr™
Tomato: Significance of Pending DHEE Question,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity
(December 7, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [7] Arpad Pusztai, “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk
to Human/Animal Health?” June 2001 Action Bioscience
www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html [8] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in
the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,”
Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219-233. [9] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad
Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet,
1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4. [10] Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind
the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,”
Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany:
Literaturhaus, 2005). [11] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the
tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition
and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84. [12] John M. Burns, “13-Week
Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded
by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified
Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf [13] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli,
V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically
Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation
of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006):
193-199. [14] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363
from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the
Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food
produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,”
www.iher.org.au/ [15] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini,
C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical
Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,”
Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180 [16] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette:
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books,
Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [17] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us
the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition
and Health 16 (2002): 73-84. [18] S. Leeson, “The Effect of Glufosinate
Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens,” Department of
Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379,
July 12, 1996. [19] Malatesta, et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis
of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean,”
J Anat. 2002 November; 201(5): 409-415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera,
E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural
Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,”
Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388. [20] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science
give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,”
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84 [21] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi,
F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi,
L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit
Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects
by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006): 193-199. [22]
Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible
health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp
73-84 [23] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels,
June 12, 2007 [24] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of
Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European
Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454. [25] Oliveri
et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion
Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium
of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7-10,
2006. [26] I.V.Ermakova, “Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological
Risks,” Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference
(IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th - September 1st, 2006: 168-172.
[27] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary
studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9. [28] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental
Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free
Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007 [29] I.V.Ermakova “GMO:
Life itself intervened into the experiments,” Letter, EcosInform
N2 (2006): 3-4. [30] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented
Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA
USA 2007 [31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton
Fields - Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary
Assessment, April 2006,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
According to Arpad Pusztai, PhD, one of the world’s leading experts
in GM food safety assessments, the type of stomach lesions linked to the
tomatoes “could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly
in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent [blood clots].”[7] Pusztai
believes that the digestive tract should be the first target of GM food
risk assessment, because the gut is the first (and largest) point of contact
with the foods; it can reveal various reactions to toxins. He was upset,
however, that the research on the FlavrSavr never looked passed the stomach
to the intestines. Other studies that did look found problems.
Mice were fed potatoes with an added bacterial gene, which produced an
insecticide called Bt-toxin. Scientists analyzed the lower part of their
small intestines (ileum) and found abnormal and damaged cells, as well
as proliferative cell growth.[8] Rats fed potatoes engineered to produce
a different type of insecticide (GNA lectin from the snowdrop plant) also
showed proliferative cell growth in both the stomach and intestinal walls
(see photo).[9] Although the guts of rats fed GM peas were not examined
for cell growth, the intestines were mysteriously heavier; possibly resulting
from such growth.[10] Cell proliferation can be a precursor to cancer
and is of special concern.
GM diets cause liver damage
The state of the liver - a main detoxifier for the body - is another indicator
of toxins.
Higher death rates and organ damage
Some studies showed higher death rates in GM-fed animals. In the FlavrSavr
tomato study, for example, a note in the appendix indicated that 7 of
40 rats died within two weeks and were replaced.[17] In another study,
chickens fed the herbicide tolerant “Liberty Link” corn died
at twice the rate of those fed natural corn.[18] But in these two industry-funded
studies, the deaths were dismissed without adequate explanation or follow-up.
In addition, the cells in the pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy had
profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes;[19]
in rats fed a GM potato, the pancreas was enlarged.[20] In various analyses
of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production
or inflammation. Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by
GM soy.[21] And GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brain of rats.[22]
Reproductive failures and infant mortality
In both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans, their testicles showed
dramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink (see
photo).[23] In mice, young sperm cells were altered.[24] Embryos of GM
soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared
to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy.[25]
More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the Russian
National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting two
weeks before they were mated.
• Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring
from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10
percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.
• “High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from
mothers fed the GM soy flour.”[26] • The average size and weight
of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller.[27] • In a preliminary
study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.[28]
After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russian
laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats
housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls
were available for subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were
canceled. After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality
rate of rats throughout the facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99
of 179).[29]
Farmers report livestock sterility and deaths
About two dozen farmers reported that thousands of their pigs had reproductive
problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had
false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some cows and bulls
also became sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths
of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens. [30]
When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants,
within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated 10,000
sheep deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post mortems
on the sheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines
and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary
evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to
a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[31]
Dangerous denial
“Hidden Dangers in Kids Meals” by Institute for Responsible
Technology |
The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we were
not supposed to know about their concerns. The agency’s internal
memos were only made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed
to believe the official FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware
of information showing that GM foods are meaningfully different. This
statement, crafted by political appointees, directly contradicts the scientific
consensus at the FDA.
Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows
adverse or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about
these problems either - the biotech industry works overtime to try to
hide them. Industry studies described above, for example, are neither
peer-reviewed nor published. It took lawsuits to make two of them available.
And adverse findings by independent scientists are often suppressed, ignored,
or denied. Moreover, researchers that discover problems from GM foods
have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, deprived of tenure, and
even threatened. The myth that GM crops are the same safe food we have
always eaten continues to circulate.
With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction in
1996, however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration
of health in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-marketing
surveillance, we can’t tell which worsening health statistic may
be due to these foods. But we also can’t afford to wait until we
find out. GM foods must be removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately,
more and more people are making healthy non-GM choices for themselves
and their family. To learn which foods are genetically modified and how
to protect yourself, visit
www.GeneticRoulette.com.
Visit
www.SeedsOfDeception.com to read more about GM foods.
[*] Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both using
the same inserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety
that was not associated with the lesions. This was not required by the
FDA, which did not block approvals on the lesion-associated variety. The
FlavrSavr tomato has since been taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr,
no other biotech company has submitted such detailed data to the FDA.
And the superficial summaries they do present to the agency are dismissed
by critics as woefully inadequate to judge safety.[1] Edwin J. Mathews,
Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology
Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants. Dated October
28, 1991[2] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of
Contaminants Chemistry, “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation
of Genetically Modified Foods: Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991,
www.biointegrity.org [3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [4] Department
of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in
Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: . . .
Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From
Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel’s
Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)
http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html [5] Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and
others, “Response to Calgene Amended Petition,” Alliance for
Bio-Integrity (October 27, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [6] Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others, “Flavr Savr™
Tomato: Significance of Pending DHEE Question,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity
(December 7, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [7] Arpad Pusztai, “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk
to Human/Animal Health?” June 2001 Action Bioscience
www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html [8] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in
the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,”
Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219-233. [9] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad
Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet,
1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4. [10] Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind
the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,”
Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany:
Literaturhaus, 2005). [11] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the
tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition
and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84. [12] John M. Burns, “13-Week
Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded
by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified
Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf [13] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli,
V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically
Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation
of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006):
193-199. [14] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363
from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the
Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food
produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,”
www.iher.org.au/ [15] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini,
C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical
Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,”
Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180 [16] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette:
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books,
Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [17] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us
the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition
and Health 16 (2002): 73-84. [18] S. Leeson, “The Effect of Glufosinate
Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens,” Department of
Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379,
July 12, 1996. [19] Malatesta, et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis
of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean,”
J Anat. 2002 November; 201(5): 409-415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera,
E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural
Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,”
Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388. [20] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science
give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,”
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84 [21] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi,
F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi,
L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit
Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects
by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006): 193-199. [22]
Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible
health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp
73-84 [23] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels,
June 12, 2007 [24] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of
Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European
Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454. [25] Oliveri
et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion
Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium
of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7-10,
2006. [26] I.V.Ermakova, “Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological
Risks,” Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference
(IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th - September 1st, 2006: 168-172.
[27] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary
studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9. [28] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental
Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free
Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007 [29] I.V.Ermakova “GMO:
Life itself intervened into the experiments,” Letter, EcosInform
N2 (2006): 3-4. [30] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented
Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA
USA 2007 [31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton
Fields - Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary
Assessment, April 2006,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
Reproductive failures and infant mortality
In both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans, their testicles showed
dramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink (see
photo).[23] In mice, young sperm cells were altered.[24] Embryos of GM
soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared
to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy.[25]
More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the Russian
National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting two
weeks before they were mated.
• Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring
from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10
percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.
• “High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from
mothers fed the GM soy flour.”[26] • The average size and weight
of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller.[27] • In a preliminary
study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.[28]
After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russian
laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats
housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls
were available for subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were
canceled. After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality
rate of rats throughout the facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99
of 179).[29]
Farmers report livestock sterility and deaths
About two dozen farmers reported that thousands of their pigs had reproductive
problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had
false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some cows and bulls
also became sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths
of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens. [30]
When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants,
within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated 10,000
sheep deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post mortems
on the sheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines
and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary
evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to
a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[31]
Dangerous denial
“Hidden Dangers in Kids Meals” by Institute for Responsible
Technology |
The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we were
not supposed to know about their concerns. The agency’s internal
memos were only made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed
to believe the official FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware
of information showing that GM foods are meaningfully different. This
statement, crafted by political appointees, directly contradicts the scientific
consensus at the FDA.
Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows
adverse or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about
these problems either - the biotech industry works overtime to try to
hide them. Industry studies described above, for example, are neither
peer-reviewed nor published. It took lawsuits to make two of them available.
And adverse findings by independent scientists are often suppressed, ignored,
or denied. Moreover, researchers that discover problems from GM foods
have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, deprived of tenure, and
even threatened. The myth that GM crops are the same safe food we have
always eaten continues to circulate.
With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction in
1996, however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration
of health in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-marketing
surveillance, we can’t tell which worsening health statistic may
be due to these foods. But we also can’t afford to wait until we
find out. GM foods must be removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately,
more and more people are making healthy non-GM choices for themselves
and their family. To learn which foods are genetically modified and how
to protect yourself, visit
www.GeneticRoulette.com.
Visit
www.SeedsOfDeception.com to read more about GM foods.
[*] Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both using
the same inserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety
that was not associated with the lesions. This was not required by the
FDA, which did not block approvals on the lesion-associated variety. The
FlavrSavr tomato has since been taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr,
no other biotech company has submitted such detailed data to the FDA.
And the superficial summaries they do present to the agency are dismissed
by critics as woefully inadequate to judge safety.[1] Edwin J. Mathews,
Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology
Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants. Dated October
28, 1991[2] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of
Contaminants Chemistry, “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation
of Genetically Modified Foods: Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991,
www.biointegrity.org [3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [4] Department
of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in
Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: . . .
Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From
Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel’s
Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)
http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html [5] Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and
others, “Response to Calgene Amended Petition,” Alliance for
Bio-Integrity (October 27, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [6] Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others, “Flavr Savr™
Tomato: Significance of Pending DHEE Question,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity
(December 7, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [7] Arpad Pusztai, “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk
to Human/Animal Health?” June 2001 Action Bioscience
www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html [8] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in
the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,”
Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219-233. [9] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad
Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet,
1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4. [10] Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind
the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,”
Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany:
Literaturhaus, 2005). [11] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the
tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition
and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84. [12] John M. Burns, “13-Week
Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded
by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified
Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf [13] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli,
V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically
Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation
of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006):
193-199. [14] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363
from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the
Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food
produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,”
www.iher.org.au/ [15] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini,
C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical
Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,”
Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180 [16] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette:
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books,
Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [17] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us
the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition
and Health 16 (2002): 73-84. [18] S. Leeson, “The Effect of Glufosinate
Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens,” Department of
Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379,
July 12, 1996. [19] Malatesta, et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis
of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean,”
J Anat. 2002 November; 201(5): 409-415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera,
E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural
Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,”
Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388. [20] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science
give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,”
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84 [21] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi,
F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi,
L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit
Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects
by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006): 193-199. [22]
Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible
health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp
73-84 [23] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels,
June 12, 2007 [24] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of
Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European
Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454. [25] Oliveri
et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion
Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium
of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7-10,
2006. [26] I.V.Ermakova, “Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological
Risks,” Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference
(IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th - September 1st, 2006: 168-172.
[27] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary
studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9. [28] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental
Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free
Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007 [29] I.V.Ermakova “GMO:
Life itself intervened into the experiments,” Letter, EcosInform
N2 (2006): 3-4. [30] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented
Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA
USA 2007 [31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton
Fields - Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary
Assessment, April 2006,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the Russian
National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting two
weeks before they were mated.
• Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring
from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10
percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.
• “High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from
mothers fed the GM soy flour.”[26] • The average size and weight
of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller.[27] • In a preliminary
study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.[28]
After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russian
laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats
housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls
were available for subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were
canceled. After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality
rate of rats throughout the facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99
of 179).[29]
Farmers report livestock sterility and deaths
About two dozen farmers reported that thousands of their pigs had reproductive
problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had
false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some cows and bulls
also became sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths
of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens. [30]
When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants,
within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated 10,000
sheep deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post mortems
on the sheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines
and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary
evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to
a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[31]
Dangerous denial
“Hidden Dangers in Kids Meals” by Institute for Responsible
Technology |
The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we were
not supposed to know about their concerns. The agency’s internal
memos were only made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed
to believe the official FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware
of information showing that GM foods are meaningfully different. This
statement, crafted by political appointees, directly contradicts the scientific
consensus at the FDA.
Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows
adverse or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about
these problems either - the biotech industry works overtime to try to
hide them. Industry studies described above, for example, are neither
peer-reviewed nor published. It took lawsuits to make two of them available.
And adverse findings by independent scientists are often suppressed, ignored,
or denied. Moreover, researchers that discover problems from GM foods
have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, deprived of tenure, and
even threatened. The myth that GM crops are the same safe food we have
always eaten continues to circulate.
With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction in
1996, however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration
of health in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-marketing
surveillance, we can’t tell which worsening health statistic may
be due to these foods. But we also can’t afford to wait until we
find out. GM foods must be removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately,
more and more people are making healthy non-GM choices for themselves
and their family. To learn which foods are genetically modified and how
to protect yourself, visit
www.GeneticRoulette.com.
Visit
www.SeedsOfDeception.com to read more about GM foods.
[*] Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both using
the same inserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety
that was not associated with the lesions. This was not required by the
FDA, which did not block approvals on the lesion-associated variety. The
FlavrSavr tomato has since been taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr,
no other biotech company has submitted such detailed data to the FDA.
And the superficial summaries they do present to the agency are dismissed
by critics as woefully inadequate to judge safety.[1] Edwin J. Mathews,
Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology
Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants. Dated October
28, 1991[2] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of
Contaminants Chemistry, “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation
of Genetically Modified Foods: Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991,
www.biointegrity.org [3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [4] Department
of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in
Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: . . .
Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From
Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel’s
Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)
http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html [5] Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and
others, “Response to Calgene Amended Petition,” Alliance for
Bio-Integrity (October 27, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [6] Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others, “Flavr Savr™
Tomato: Significance of Pending DHEE Question,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity
(December 7, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [7] Arpad Pusztai, “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk
to Human/Animal Health?” June 2001 Action Bioscience
www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html [8] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in
the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,”
Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219-233. [9] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad
Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet,
1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4. [10] Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind
the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,”
Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany:
Literaturhaus, 2005). [11] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the
tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition
and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84. [12] John M. Burns, “13-Week
Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded
by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified
Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf [13] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli,
V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically
Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation
of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006):
193-199. [14] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363
from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the
Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food
produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,”
www.iher.org.au/ [15] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini,
C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical
Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,”
Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180 [16] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette:
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books,
Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [17] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us
the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition
and Health 16 (2002): 73-84. [18] S. Leeson, “The Effect of Glufosinate
Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens,” Department of
Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379,
July 12, 1996. [19] Malatesta, et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis
of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean,”
J Anat. 2002 November; 201(5): 409-415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera,
E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural
Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,”
Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388. [20] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science
give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,”
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84 [21] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi,
F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi,
L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit
Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects
by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006): 193-199. [22]
Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible
health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp
73-84 [23] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels,
June 12, 2007 [24] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of
Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European
Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454. [25] Oliveri
et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion
Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium
of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7-10,
2006. [26] I.V.Ermakova, “Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological
Risks,” Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference
(IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th - September 1st, 2006: 168-172.
[27] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary
studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9. [28] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental
Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free
Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007 [29] I.V.Ermakova “GMO:
Life itself intervened into the experiments,” Letter, EcosInform
N2 (2006): 3-4. [30] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented
Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA
USA 2007 [31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton
Fields - Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary
Assessment, April 2006,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russian
laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats
housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls
were available for subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were
canceled. After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality
rate of rats throughout the facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99
of 179).[29]
Farmers report livestock sterility and deaths
About two dozen farmers reported that thousands of their pigs had reproductive
problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had
false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some cows and bulls
also became sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths
of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens. [30]
When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants,
within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated 10,000
sheep deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post mortems
on the sheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines
and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary
evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to
a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[31]
Dangerous denial
“Hidden Dangers in Kids Meals” by Institute for Responsible
Technology |
The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we were
not supposed to know about their concerns. The agency’s internal
memos were only made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed
to believe the official FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware
of information showing that GM foods are meaningfully different. This
statement, crafted by political appointees, directly contradicts the scientific
consensus at the FDA.
Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows
adverse or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about
these problems either - the biotech industry works overtime to try to
hide them. Industry studies described above, for example, are neither
peer-reviewed nor published. It took lawsuits to make two of them available.
And adverse findings by independent scientists are often suppressed, ignored,
or denied. Moreover, researchers that discover problems from GM foods
have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, deprived of tenure, and
even threatened. The myth that GM crops are the same safe food we have
always eaten continues to circulate.
With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction in
1996, however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration
of health in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-marketing
surveillance, we can’t tell which worsening health statistic may
be due to these foods. But we also can’t afford to wait until we
find out. GM foods must be removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately,
more and more people are making healthy non-GM choices for themselves
and their family. To learn which foods are genetically modified and how
to protect yourself, visit
www.GeneticRoulette.com.
Visit
www.SeedsOfDeception.com to read more about GM foods.
[*] Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both using
the same inserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety
that was not associated with the lesions. This was not required by the
FDA, which did not block approvals on the lesion-associated variety. The
FlavrSavr tomato has since been taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr,
no other biotech company has submitted such detailed data to the FDA.
And the superficial summaries they do present to the agency are dismissed
by critics as woefully inadequate to judge safety.[1] Edwin J. Mathews,
Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology
Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants. Dated October
28, 1991[2] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of
Contaminants Chemistry, “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation
of Genetically Modified Foods: Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991,
www.biointegrity.org [3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [4] Department
of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in
Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: . . .
Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From
Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel’s
Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)
http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html [5] Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and
others, “Response to Calgene Amended Petition,” Alliance for
Bio-Integrity (October 27, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [6] Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others, “Flavr Savr™
Tomato: Significance of Pending DHEE Question,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity
(December 7, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [7] Arpad Pusztai, “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk
to Human/Animal Health?” June 2001 Action Bioscience
www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html [8] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in
the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,”
Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219-233. [9] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad
Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet,
1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4. [10] Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind
the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,”
Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany:
Literaturhaus, 2005). [11] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the
tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition
and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84. [12] John M. Burns, “13-Week
Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded
by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified
Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf [13] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli,
V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically
Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation
of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006):
193-199. [14] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363
from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the
Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food
produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,”
www.iher.org.au/ [15] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini,
C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical
Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,”
Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180 [16] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette:
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books,
Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [17] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us
the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition
and Health 16 (2002): 73-84. [18] S. Leeson, “The Effect of Glufosinate
Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens,” Department of
Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379,
July 12, 1996. [19] Malatesta, et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis
of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean,”
J Anat. 2002 November; 201(5): 409-415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera,
E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural
Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,”
Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388. [20] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science
give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,”
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84 [21] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi,
F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi,
L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit
Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects
by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006): 193-199. [22]
Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible
health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp
73-84 [23] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels,
June 12, 2007 [24] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of
Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European
Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454. [25] Oliveri
et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion
Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium
of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7-10,
2006. [26] I.V.Ermakova, “Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological
Risks,” Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference
(IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th - September 1st, 2006: 168-172.
[27] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary
studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9. [28] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental
Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free
Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007 [29] I.V.Ermakova “GMO:
Life itself intervened into the experiments,” Letter, EcosInform
N2 (2006): 3-4. [30] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented
Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA
USA 2007 [31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton
Fields - Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary
Assessment, April 2006,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
Farmers report livestock sterility and deaths
About two dozen farmers reported that thousands of their pigs had reproductive
problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had
false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some cows and bulls
also became sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths
of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens. [30]
When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants,
within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated 10,000
sheep deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post mortems
on the sheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines
and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary
evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to
a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[31]
Dangerous denial
“Hidden Dangers in Kids Meals” by Institute for Responsible
Technology |
The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we were
not supposed to know about their concerns. The agency’s internal
memos were only made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed
to believe the official FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware
of information showing that GM foods are meaningfully different. This
statement, crafted by political appointees, directly contradicts the scientific
consensus at the FDA.
Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows
adverse or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about
these problems either - the biotech industry works overtime to try to
hide them. Industry studies described above, for example, are neither
peer-reviewed nor published. It took lawsuits to make two of them available.
And adverse findings by independent scientists are often suppressed, ignored,
or denied. Moreover, researchers that discover problems from GM foods
have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, deprived of tenure, and
even threatened. The myth that GM crops are the same safe food we have
always eaten continues to circulate.
With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction in
1996, however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration
of health in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-marketing
surveillance, we can’t tell which worsening health statistic may
be due to these foods. But we also can’t afford to wait until we
find out. GM foods must be removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately,
more and more people are making healthy non-GM choices for themselves
and their family. To learn which foods are genetically modified and how
to protect yourself, visit
www.GeneticRoulette.com.
Visit
www.SeedsOfDeception.com to read more about GM foods.
[*] Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both using
the same inserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety
that was not associated with the lesions. This was not required by the
FDA, which did not block approvals on the lesion-associated variety. The
FlavrSavr tomato has since been taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr,
no other biotech company has submitted such detailed data to the FDA.
And the superficial summaries they do present to the agency are dismissed
by critics as woefully inadequate to judge safety.[1] Edwin J. Mathews,
Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology
Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants. Dated October
28, 1991[2] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of
Contaminants Chemistry, “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation
of Genetically Modified Foods: Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991,
www.biointegrity.org [3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [4] Department
of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in
Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: . . .
Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From
Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel’s
Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)
http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html [5] Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and
others, “Response to Calgene Amended Petition,” Alliance for
Bio-Integrity (October 27, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [6] Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others, “Flavr Savr™
Tomato: Significance of Pending DHEE Question,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity
(December 7, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [7] Arpad Pusztai, “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk
to Human/Animal Health?” June 2001 Action Bioscience
www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html [8] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in
the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,”
Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219-233. [9] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad
Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet,
1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4. [10] Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind
the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,”
Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany:
Literaturhaus, 2005). [11] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the
tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition
and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84. [12] John M. Burns, “13-Week
Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded
by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified
Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf [13] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli,
V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically
Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation
of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006):
193-199. [14] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363
from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the
Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food
produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,”
www.iher.org.au/ [15] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini,
C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical
Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,”
Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180 [16] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette:
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books,
Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [17] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us
the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition
and Health 16 (2002): 73-84. [18] S. Leeson, “The Effect of Glufosinate
Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens,” Department of
Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379,
July 12, 1996. [19] Malatesta, et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis
of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean,”
J Anat. 2002 November; 201(5): 409-415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera,
E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural
Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,”
Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388. [20] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science
give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,”
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84 [21] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi,
F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi,
L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit
Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects
by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006): 193-199. [22]
Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible
health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp
73-84 [23] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels,
June 12, 2007 [24] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of
Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European
Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454. [25] Oliveri
et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion
Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium
of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7-10,
2006. [26] I.V.Ermakova, “Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological
Risks,” Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference
(IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th - September 1st, 2006: 168-172.
[27] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary
studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9. [28] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental
Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free
Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007 [29] I.V.Ermakova “GMO:
Life itself intervened into the experiments,” Letter, EcosInform
N2 (2006): 3-4. [30] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented
Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA
USA 2007 [31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton
Fields - Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary
Assessment, April 2006,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants,
within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated 10,000
sheep deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post mortems
on the sheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines
and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary
evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to
a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[31]
Dangerous denial
“Hidden Dangers in Kids Meals” by Institute for Responsible
Technology |
The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we were
not supposed to know about their concerns. The agency’s internal
memos were only made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed
to believe the official FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware
of information showing that GM foods are meaningfully different. This
statement, crafted by political appointees, directly contradicts the scientific
consensus at the FDA.
Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows
adverse or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about
these problems either - the biotech industry works overtime to try to
hide them. Industry studies described above, for example, are neither
peer-reviewed nor published. It took lawsuits to make two of them available.
And adverse findings by independent scientists are often suppressed, ignored,
or denied. Moreover, researchers that discover problems from GM foods
have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, deprived of tenure, and
even threatened. The myth that GM crops are the same safe food we have
always eaten continues to circulate.
With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction in
1996, however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration
of health in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-marketing
surveillance, we can’t tell which worsening health statistic may
be due to these foods. But we also can’t afford to wait until we
find out. GM foods must be removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately,
more and more people are making healthy non-GM choices for themselves
and their family. To learn which foods are genetically modified and how
to protect yourself, visit
www.GeneticRoulette.com.
Visit
www.SeedsOfDeception.com to read more about GM foods.
[*] Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both using
the same inserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety
that was not associated with the lesions. This was not required by the
FDA, which did not block approvals on the lesion-associated variety. The
FlavrSavr tomato has since been taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr,
no other biotech company has submitted such detailed data to the FDA.
And the superficial summaries they do present to the agency are dismissed
by critics as woefully inadequate to judge safety.[1] Edwin J. Mathews,
Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology
Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants. Dated October
28, 1991[2] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of
Contaminants Chemistry, “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation
of Genetically Modified Foods: Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991,
www.biointegrity.org [3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [4] Department
of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in
Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: . . .
Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From
Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel’s
Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)
http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html [5] Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and
others, “Response to Calgene Amended Petition,” Alliance for
Bio-Integrity (October 27, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [6] Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others, “Flavr Savr™
Tomato: Significance of Pending DHEE Question,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity
(December 7, 1993)
www.biointegrity.org [7] Arpad Pusztai, “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk
to Human/Animal Health?” June 2001 Action Bioscience
www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html [8] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in
the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,”
Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219-233. [9] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad
Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet,
1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4. [10] Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind
the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,”
Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany:
Literaturhaus, 2005). [11] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the
tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition
and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84. [12] John M. Burns, “13-Week
Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded
by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified
Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf [13] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli,
V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically
Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation
of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006):
193-199. [14] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363
from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the
Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food
produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,”
www.iher.org.au/ [15] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini,
C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical
Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,”
Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180 [16] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette:
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books,
Fairfield, IA USA 2007 [17] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us
the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition
and Health 16 (2002): 73-84. [18] S. Leeson, “The Effect of Glufosinate
Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens,” Department of
Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379,
July 12, 1996. [19] Malatesta, et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis
of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean,”
J Anat. 2002 November; 201(5): 409-415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera,
E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural
Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,”
Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388. [20] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science
give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,”
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84 [21] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi,
F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi,
L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit
Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects
by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006): 193-199. [22]
Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible
health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp
73-84 [23] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels,
June 12, 2007 [24] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of
Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European
Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454. [25] Oliveri
et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion
Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium
of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7-10,
2006. [26] I.V.Ermakova, “Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological
Risks,” Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference
(IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th - September 1st, 2006: 168-172.
[27] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary
studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9. [28] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental
Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free
Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007 [29] I.V.Ermakova “GMO:
Life itself intervened into the experiments,” Letter, EcosInform
N2 (2006): 3-4. [30] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented
Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA
USA 2007 [31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton
Fields - Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary
Assessment, April 2006,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
Dangerous denial
The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we were
not supposed to know about their concerns. The agency’s internal
memos were only made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed
to believe the official FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware
of information showing that GM foods are meaningfully different. This
statement, crafted by political appointees, directly contradicts the scientific
consensus at the FDA.
Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows
adverse or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about
these problems either - the biotech industry works overtime to try to
hide them. Industry studies described above, for example, are neither
peer-reviewed nor published. It took lawsuits to make two of them available.
And adverse findings by independent scientists are often suppressed, ignored,
or denied. Moreover, researchers that discover problems from GM foods
have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, deprived of tenure, and
even threatened. The myth that GM crops are the same safe food we have
always eaten continues to circulate.
With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction in
1996, however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration
of health in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-marketing
surveillance, we can’t tell which worsening health statistic may
be due to these foods. But we also can’t afford to wait until we
find out. GM foods must be removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately,
more and more people are making healthy non-GM choices for themselves
and their family. To learn which foods are genetically modified and how
to protect yourself, visit
www.GeneticRoulette.com.
Visit
www.SeedsOfDeception.com to read more about GM foods.