GMO Health Risks

Genetic engineers believe there are good scientific reasons to be concerned about GMO dangers.
From Earth Open Source
July 2, 2012
Add to My MSN

More than 80 percent of corn grown in the United States has been genetically modified.
PHOTO: VIDADY/FOTOLIA.COM


Content Tools

Related Content

Does Invasive Always Equal Evil?

Taking a new look at non-native invasives, such as wild yams.

Study Links Genetically Modified Food With Tumors, Premature Death in Rats

A new Canadian study shows a link between consuming Roundup-contaminated water and/or GM corn and in...

Should Genetically Modified Foods be Labeled?

In a recent survey, we asked our online readers if they thought genetically modified foods should be...

The Fight to Require Labeling of GM Foods: Prop 37 Puts Political Fuel Behind the American Food Movement

Michael Pollan’s New York Times editorial, “Vote for the Dinner Party,” explains why California’s Pr...

The following article is posted with permission from Earth Open Source.

LONDON, UK — Aren’t critics of genetically modified food (GM foods) anti-science? Isn’t the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?

A new report, “GMO Myths and Truths,” [1] published online on June 17, challenges these claims. The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of GMO health risks and the environment posed by genetically modified crops and organisms (GMOs).

Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but from two genetic engineers who believe there are good scientific reasons to be concerned about GMO dangers.

One of the report’s authors, Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns of GMO health risks in human food and animal feed.

Dr Antoniou said, “GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims — that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.

“I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.”

Another author of the report, Dr John Fagan, is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. He subsequently founded a GMO testing company.

Dr Fagan said: “Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM.

“More than 75 percent of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and GMO health risks, including birth defects and cancer.

“These findings fundamentally challenge the utility and safety of GM crops, but the biotech industry uses its influence to block research by independent scientists and uses its powerful PR machine to discredit independent scientists whose findings challenge this approach.”

The third author of the report, Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source, said, “The GM industry is trying to change our food supply in far-reaching and potentially dangerous ways. We all need to inform ourselves about what is going on and ensure that we — not biotechnology companies — keep control of our food system and crop seeds.

“We hope our report will contribute to a broader understanding of GM crops and the sustainable alternatives that are already working successfully for farmers and communities.”


Review by Marion Nestlé

“This is the best-researched and most comprehensive review I've seen of the criticisms of GM foods. Can the pro-GM advocates produce something equally well researched, comprehensive, and compelling?  I doubt it but I'd like to see them try. In the meantime, this report provides plenty of justification for the need to label GM foods.  Consumers have the right to choose. To do that, we need to know.”

Marion Nestlé, FoodPolitics 


News Points From the Report

1. Genetic engineering as used in crop development is not precise or predictable and has not been shown to be safe. The technique can result in the unexpected production of toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks.

2. GM crops, including some that are already in our food and animal feed supply, have shown clear signs of toxicity in animal feeding trials — notably disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.

3. GM proponents have dismissed these statistically significant findings as “not biologically relevant/significant," based on scientifically indefensible arguments.

4. Certain EU-commissioned animal feeding trials with GM foods and crops are often claimed by GM proponents to show they are safe. In fact, examination of these studies shows significant differences between the GM-fed and control animals that give cause for concern.

5. GM foods have not been properly tested in humans, but the few studies that have been carried out in humans give cause for concern.

6. The U.S. FDA does not require mandatory safety testing of GM crops, and does not even assess the safety of GM crops but only “deregulates” them, based on assurances from biotech companies that they are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM counterparts. This is like claiming that a cow with BSE is substantially equivalent to a cow that does not have BSE and is thus safe to eat! Claims of substantial equivalence cannot be justified on scientific grounds.

7. The regulatory regime for GM foods is weakest in the U.S., where GM foods do not even have to be assessed for safety or labelled in the marketplace, but in most regions of the world regulations are inadequate to protect people’s health from the potential adverse effects of GM foods.

8. In the EU, where the regulatory system is often claimed to be strict, minimal pre-market testing is required for a GMO and the tests are commissioned by the same companies that stand to profit from the GMO if it is approved — a clear conflict of interest.

9. No long-term toxicological testing of GMOs on animals or testing on humans is required by any regulatory agency in the world.

10. Biotech companies have used patent claims and intellectual property protection laws to restrict access of independent researchers to GM crops for research purposes. As a result, limited research has been conducted on GM foods and crops by scientists who are independent of the GM industry. Scientists whose work has raised concerns about the safety of GMOs have been attacked and discredited in orchestrated campaigns by GM crop promoters.

11. Most GM crops (over 75 percent) are engineered to tolerate applications of herbicides. Where such GM crops have been adopted, they have led to massive increases in herbicide use.

12. Roundup, the herbicide that over 50 percent of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate, is not safe or benign as has been claimed but has been found to cause malformations (birth defects), reproductive problems, DNA damage, and cancer in test animals. Human epidemiological studies have found an association between Roundup exposure and miscarriage, birth defects, neurological development problems, DNA damage, and certain types of cancer.

13. A public health crisis has erupted in GM soy-producing regions of South America, where people exposed to spraying with Roundup and other agrochemicals sprayed on the crop report escalating rates of birth defects and cancer.

14. A large number of studies indicate that Roundup is associated with increased crop diseases, especially infection with Fusarium, a fungus that causes wilt disease in soy and can have toxic effects on humans and livestock.

15. Bt insecticidal GM crops do not sustainably reduce pesticide use but change the way in which pesticides are used: from sprayed on, to built in.

16. Bt technology is proving unsustainable as pests evolve resistance to the toxin and secondary pest infestations are becoming common.

17. GM proponents claim that the Bt toxin engineered into GM plants is safe because the natural form of Bt, long used as a spray by conventional and organic farmers, has a history of safe use. But the GM forms of Bt toxins are different from the natural forms and could have different toxic and allergenic effects.

18. GM Bt toxin is not limited in its toxicity to insect pests. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials.

19. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on non-target organisms in the environment.

20. Bt toxin is not fully broken down in digestion and has been found circulating in the blood of pregnant women in Canada and in the blood supply to their foetuses.

21. The no-till method of farming promoted with GM herbicide-tolerant crops, which avoids ploughing and uses herbicides to control weeds, is not more climate-friendly than ploughing. No-till fields do not store more carbon in the soil than ploughed fields when deeper levels of soil are measured.

22. No-till increases the negative environmental impacts of soy cultivation, because of the herbicides used.

23. Golden Rice, a beta-carotene-enriched rice, is promoted as a GM crop that could help malnourished people overcome vitamin A deficiency. But Golden Rice has not been tested for toxicological safety, has been plagued by basic development problems, and, after more than 12 years and millions of dollars of research funding, is still not ready for the market. Meanwhile, inexpensive and effective solutions to vitamin A deficiency are available but under-used due to lack of funding.

24. GM crops are often promoted as a “vital tool in the toolbox” to feed the world’s growing population, but many experts question the contribution they could make, as they do not offer higher yields or cope better with drought than non-GM crops. Most GM crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides or to contain a pesticide – traits that are irrelevant to feeding the hungry.

25. High adoption of GM crops among farmers is not a sign that the GM crop is superior to non-GM varieties, as once GM companies gain control of the seed market, they withdraw non-GM seed varieties from the market. The notion of “farmer choice” does not apply in this situation.

26. GM contamination of non-GM and organic crops has resulted in massive financial losses by the food and feed industry, involving product recalls, lawsuits, and lost markets.

27. When many people read about high-yielding, pest- and disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and nutritionally improved super-crops, they think of GM. In fact, these are all products of conventional breeding, which continues to outstrip GM in producing such crops. The report contains a long list of these conventional crop breeding successes. 

28. Certain “supercrops” have been claimed to be GM successes when in fact they are products of conventional breeding, in some cases assisted by the non-GM biotechnology of marker assisted selection.

29. Conventional plant breeding, with the help of non-GM biotechnologies such as marker assisted selection, is a safer and more powerful method than GM to produce new crop varieties required to meet current and future needs of food production, especially in the face of rapid climate change.

30. Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with agroecological farming practices, offer a proven, sustainable approach to ensuring global food security.


 Earth Open Source

Earth Open Source  is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to assuring the sustainability, security, and safety of the global food system. It supports agroecological, farmer-based systems that conserve soil, water, and energy and that produce healthy and nutritious food free from unnecessary toxins. It challenges the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture on the grounds of the scientifically proven hazards that they pose to health and the environment and on the grounds of the negative social and economic impacts of these technologies. Earth Open Source holds that our crop seeds and food system are common goods that belong in the hands of farmers and citizens, not of the GMO and chemical industry. Earth Open Source has established four lines of action, each of which fulfils a specific aspect of its mission:

•      Science and policy platform

•      Scientific research

•      Citizens’ learning and action

•      Sustainable rural development.


The report, “GMO Myths and Truths, An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops”, by Michael Antoniou, PhD, Claire Robinson, and John Fagan, PhD is published by Earth Open Source (June 2012). The report is 123 pages long and contains over 600 citations, many of them from the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the rest from reports by scientists, physicians, government bodies, industry, and the media. The report is available Earth Open Source. A shorter summary version will be released in the coming weeks. 

About the Authors

Michael Antoniou, PhD is reader in molecular genetics and head, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King’s College London School of Medicine, London, UK. He has 28 years’ experience in the use of genetic engineering technology investigating gene organisation and control, with over 40 peer reviewed publications of original work, and holds inventor status on a number of gene expression biotechnology patents. Dr Antoniou has a large network of collaborators in industry and academia who are making use of his discoveries in gene control mechanisms for the production of research, diagnostic and therapeutic products and human somatic gene therapies for inherited and acquired genetic disorders.  

John Fagan, PhD is a leading authority on sustainability in the food system, biosafety, and GMO testing. He is founder and chief scientific officer of a GMO food testing and certification company. He is a director of Earth Open Source. Earlier, he conducted cancer research at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and in academia. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular and cell biology from Cornell University.  

Dr Fagan became an early voice in the scientific debate on genetic engineering when in 1994 he took an ethical stand challenging the use of germ line gene therapy (which has subsequently been banned in most countries) and genetic engineering in agriculture. He underlined his concerns by returning a grant of around $614,000 to the US National Institutes of Health, awarded for cancer research that used genetic engineering as a research tool. He was concerned that knowledge generated in his research could potentially be misused to advance human germ-line genetic engineering (for example, to create “designer babies”), which he found unacceptable on grounds of both safety and ethics. For similar reasons, around the same time, he withdrew applications for two additional grants totalling $1.25 million from the NIH and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).  In 1996 he started one of the pioneering GMO food testing and certification companies after realizing that GMO testing could be useful to assist industry in providing consumers with the transparency that they desired regarding the presence of GMOs in foods.  

Claire Robinson, MPhil is research director at Earth Open Source. She has a background in investigative reporting and the communication of topics relating to public health, science and policy, and the environment. She is an editor at GMWatch, a public information service on issues relating to genetic modification, and was formerly managing editor at SpinProfiles (now Powerbase). 


Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next






Post a comment below.

 

t brandt
7/5/2012 8:34:37 PM
Your link didn't work, but here's another article on the problem: http://www.agweb.com/article/texas_cattle_herd_deaths_tied_to_cyanide_from_bermuda_grass_LN/ Ths is a known problem in some natural grasses and this is the first example of the problem in a strain of Bermuda grass developed to resist drought. The remedy is is to merely hold cattle off new growth for a week or so. Not a big deal.

daltxguy
7/4/2012 11:27:37 PM
Genetically Modified Grass Kills Cattle By Producing Warfare Chemical Cyanide Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/genetically-modified-grass-kills-cattle-by-producing-cyanide/#ixzz1zhQJee3a

t brandt
7/4/2012 8:45:08 PM
Once again the argument against GMO boils down to (a) given ridiculously high doses of GMO food, some lab animals develope kidney & liver poblems. With ~20,000 natural chemicals in that food, what makes you think it's the GMO chemical causing the problem? or (b) Just because there is no evidience that GMO food causes problems in humans, that doesn't prove it couldn't. Right. And you could get killed by a meteorite as you sleep in your bed tonight too.....Their other 30 points are mainly non-sequitur arguments or examples of poor applicability to the problem. Stating that Bt seeds aren't more productive doesn't prove they are bad for us. (BTW- the GMO crops aren't suppposed to be more productive, just more consistent & resistant to a failure due to pestilence in a bad year. That's called "food security." Just watch how our food prices will be affected by the drought this year when the corn crop is down by 30%, as another example)....Please note in reading this lengthy article, they still produce ZERO evidence that eating GMO food actually causes any disease.








Subscribe Today - Pay Now & Save 66% Off the Cover Price

First Name: *
Last Name: *
Address: *
City: *
State/Province: *
Zip/Postal Code:*
Country:
Email:*
(* indicates a required item)
Canadian subs: 1 year, (includes postage & GST). Foreign subs: 1 year, . U.S. funds.
Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
Non US and Canadian Subscribers - Click Here

Lighten the Strain on the Earth and Your Budget

MOTHER EARTH NEWS is the guide to living — as one reader stated — “with little money and abundant happiness.” Every issue is an invaluable guide to leading a more sustainable life, covering ideas from fighting rising energy costs and protecting the environment to avoiding unnecessary spending on processed food. You’ll find tips for slashing heating bills; growing fresh, natural produce at home; and more. MOTHER EARTH NEWS helps you cut costs without sacrificing modern luxuries.

At MOTHER EARTH NEWS, we are dedicated to conserving our planet’s natural resources while helping you conserve your financial resources. That’s why we want you to save money and trees by subscribing through our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. By paying with a credit card, you save an additional $5 and get 6 issues of MOTHER EARTH NEWS for only $12.00 (USA only).

You may also use the Bill Me option and pay $17.00 for 6 issues.