GENETIC ROULETTE: Part 3

The Documented Health Risks Of Genetically Engineered Foods
Part 3 of 3

When the DNA changes that way, it can create toxins, carcinogens, allergens, anti-nutrients, positive nutrients.  It’s a genetic roulette.  There are also thousands of natural products in plants which are synthesized using these primary proteins and enzymes, etc., so they too can be changed.  The number of things that can go wrong is massive, but the amount of study that’s done on these products before they’re put into the market is minimal and superficial. 

One study in particular demonstrated that changes to the DNA were largely responsible for damage to nearly all the systems in rats that were studied.  Potatoes that were engineered to produce an insecticide and fed to rats caused them to develop potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and damaged immune systems.  Rats that were just fed the insecticide did not have that problem, so it wasn’t the insecticide itself that caused the problem. Rather it was the unpredicted changes in the DNA and physiology of the plant that somehow caused these drastic changes in the rats within ten days of feeding on GM potatoes.   

Crusador:  You also report on some farmers whose pigs and cows became sterile from GM corn. Tell us about that and why there are concerns with humans as well?

There’s about two dozen farmers that claim that certain varieties of Bt corn caused their pigs and cows to become sterile. In some cases with pigs, they developed pseudo pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water.  When they took these animals off of the genetically engineered corn, the problem went away.  When they put them back on the corn, the problem came back.  Some people didn’t notice this until it had happened a few times, and they noticed whenever the GM corn was fed, the animals would no longer breed or the level of breeding was reduced dramatically. 

There was one study that I highlight in Genetic Roulette that shows two endocrine disrupters in corn that are enormously powerful and might also promote cancer growth according to laboratory tests. Their levels in corn may differ based on the process of genetic engineering.

Crusador: Tell us about the use of the promoter, which comes from a virus, and is used to switch on the foreign gene.

This is an interesting point.  One of the genetic constructs that is put into GM crops is the promoter.  It is designed to turn on the foreign transgene after it has been inserted.  It turns it on at high volume 24/7 around the clock. 

The assumption that was used by the biotech industry was that the promoter would only turn on the gene to which it was attached.  However, we know that this particular promoter that’s used commonly can turn on other genes in the plant genome at random, full time, high volume, 24/7, causing them to overproduce whatever. It could be a toxin, carcinogen, or anti-nutrient. 

Now, let’s say the promoter transfers to our gut bacteria, or worse, perhaps to our own DNA inside our organs.  It’s possible that it could turn on a gene at random. This is a type of genetic roulette, like throwing darts at our genome to permanently turn on a gene and see what happens.

One thing that is of concern to some scientists is that embedded within our genes and the genes of plants are ancient viruses from previous species that have worked themselves into the DNA. They may be intact but simply not turned on. If the promoter transfers from genetically engineered crops into the DNA of humans, or even within the crops themselves, it might awaken a dormant virus which could have catastrophic implications.

Crusador:  Wow.  That sounds like something from an X-files episode. When you talk about a promoter gene, what about cell division?  How do we know that something couldn’t turn on cells to divide faster and by somehow doing that, it could trigger an epidemic of cancer? 

Well, one thing that comes to mind immediately is recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone.  This is a genetically engineered drug injected into cows to increase milk supply.  What it does (in addition to the fact that it increases the incidence of infection in the cows, which increases the pus in the milk, which also tends to increase the use of antibiotics in the cows, which ends up in the milk) is increase a hormone in the milk called IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1), which is associated with cell multiplication. 

More than 30 studies present overwhelming evidence linking high levels of circulating IGF-1 in humans with major cancers.  Pre-menopausal women below the age of 50 with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer.  Men with high levels are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer.  It’s implicated in lung and colon cancer.  The IGF-1 levels in milk from cows treated with rBGH are in much higher levels.  In my mind, it’s a huge potential danger to increase the levels of IGF-1 in the milk.  There was also a study that came out last year suggesting that the high levels of fraternal twin rates in the U.S. compared to the UK was due to the use of rBGH in the dairy. The drug is banned in Europe. 

Crusador:  Let’s talk about Terminator technology or Terminator seeds.  Biotech companies want to control the technology to the point where farmers won’t even be able to take second generation seeds and replant them in the ground because, as you said, those genetic traits are going to remain indefinitely in that crop.  Monsanto has to basically run a police operation on farmers to make sure that they’re not saving seeds and replanting them in the ground.  So they took the technology to the next level and developed seeds that won’t reproduce; you’ll just be able to use them one time, second generation seeds won’t germinate.  That’s been a big area where the biotech companies have been trying to go; they’ve hit some roadblocks though.  Can you explain where they’re at with Terminator technology and do you see that as something that’s going to eventually happen? If so, do you have any evidence of what that might do in the human body?

There was such concern and resistance raised by world bodies over the Terminator technology that Monsanto agreed years ago not to commercialize it. The Canadian government is acting on behalf of the biotech industry now and trying to get Terminator accepted in international circles.  So far, the non-governmental organizations and other countries have been successful in blocking Canada’s attempt to revive commercialization of the Terminator. The biotech industry is hoping to have the Terminator technology active within a couple of years. 

The impact can be enormous. They originally admitted that the purpose of the Terminator was to focus in developing countries where most farmers save seeds. Terminator would force farmers to go to Monsanto and other biotech companies year after year to get new seeds. This not only makes farmers dependent, it will reduce the biodiversity.  When the biotech industry takes over the seed supply, it reduces the number of seeds available for farmers. Instead of having the enormous diversity of genetics from seeds that have been saved generation after generation and cultured to work properly in a particular climate and geography, there will be a fraction of that available through seed catalogs. By eliminating the biodiversity, we would be risking the entire food supply on earth to potential famine or blight.

We are also risking the farmers’ lives on unproven technologies which is fraught with unpredicted side effects.  For example, in India they convinced thousands and thousands of farmers to try their unproven genetically engineered Bt cotton varieties.  These varieties had erratic performances.  In the first year in one area there was about a 52% reduction in yield.  It worked terribly in areas that didn’t have irrigation, for example.  Thousands of farmers ended up in debt, having borrowed money for the seeds and for the chemicals.  As a result, thousands of farmers have committed suicide in India because of Bt cotton.  It has not stopped Monsanto from aggressively marketing and using Hollywood actors, even religious leaders, and all sorts of ways to convince farmers to give up their traditional seeds and switch over to these more dangerous varieties. 

Crusador:  Most of Europe was opposed to biotechnology.  They’ve put a lot of barriers in place to stop it, however, recently a lot of the roadblocks have been coming down and GM foods seem to be poised to make their way into the European marketplace and on European farms.  What’s happening on that front?

Well, the European rejection of GMOs was driven by consumers.  There was such consumer push-back that in April of 1999, Unilever, Britain’s largest food manufacturer, committed to remove GM ingredients from their European brands.  Within a week, nearly every major food manufacturer did the same, and this tipping point of consumer concern has been the reason why GMOs are not sold in the European marketplace.  GM animal feed continues to be used because the meat and dairy products from GM fed animals don’t have to be labeled as such, but there are efforts to close that loophole.  But by and large it was consumer rejection forcing the hand of manufacturers.  The European Commission is pro-GM, certain member state governments are pro-GM; but what has held fast is the rejection by consumers. 

My Institute for Responsible Technology has launched the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America.  We are organizing an education program through all the health food stores, health-related magazines, and other places, to educate consumers to achieve the same tipping point in the United States that we saw in Europe. Our goal is to force food manufacturers to reject the use of GM ingredients.  We are focusing on the natural products industry first because there are already 28 million Americans who buy organic foods on a regular basis, but many don’t know how to avoid GMOs in their non-organic purchases. 

We are orchestrating a cleanout of GMOs from the entire natural food industry.  We are going to set up GMO education centers in the health food stores and circulate non-GMO shopping guides.  Soon after we’ve given the manufacturers the chance to clean out GMOs, within a couple of years we’ll be setting up in-store, on-shelf labeling voluntarily by the store managers that will identify any of the holdout products that have not participated in this cleanout.  We believe that by giving health-conscious consumers clear choices, and by educating them, for example, about the fact that GMOs might turn their intestinal flora into living pesticide factories, or that it has increased infant mortality in rats five-fold, we’ll have a strong loyal base of people who will no longer eat genetically engineered foods.  This, along with our GM-Free Schools campaign and our publicity campaign, we believe, will force the tipping point of U.S. manufacturers within 24 months.

Crusador:  That’s an excellent goal. Is there anything on the legislative front that would mandate manufacturers to label products?  What you’re saying really is true.  The consumer is the one that’s going to drive the market.  Even though the big corporations control many of the farms and seeds, ultimately if consumers do not buy these products because they have knowledge of what they could possibly do to their body and what products they’re in, their game would be up.  I think that’s one of the main reasons why the FDA has not mandated labeling on any of these products, because if consumers saw a label that said “This product contains genetically modified ingredients” they would have drawn questions many years ago and rejected this technology.

You’re right.  The FDA is aware that 9 out of 10 Americans want GM foods labeled and they’re also aware that people say if they were labeled, more than half would avoid eating them.  But the FDA is mandated to promote the biotechnology industry, so they’re willing to deny the requests of 9 out of 10 Americans in order to promote an industry with five transnational corporations.  Labeling legislation has been introduced to Congress in the past. You can go to www.thecampaign.org  to find out the current status.  That’s the campaign to label genetically engineered foods. 

There has also been legislation introduced to get these products safety tested, and to protect farmers from the liability associated with contamination.  But the biotech industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying Washington, and projected so much disinformation that it really is one of their strongholds.  In fact, they are influencing state governments as well. For example, after California citizens created GM-free zones in a number of counties through ballot initiatives or county supervisor ordinances, the biotech industry passed legislation in 14 states that would disallow any such local GM-free zones.   

Crusador:  Is there anything else you would recommend to people reading this interview to do to help stop this technology from advancing further?

Yes.  Our institute has a number of educational programs that I’d like to make available.  If you go to www.seedsofdeception.com you can listen to or download a 60-minute talk of mine. You can burn it yourself and pass it on or buy it on the website for about a dollar.  We have a free syndicated monthly column that you can sign up for and send to your friends.  We have a DVD called “Hidden Danger in Kids’ Meals” which is 28 minutes long; it creates instant activism.  If you show it to community members, a percentage of people will immediately want to be involved in our GM-Free School campaign. We supply each campaign with a large manual, media kit, a website, a list serve, and a strategy. 

I think that for individuals wanting to do something on a local level, the GM-Free School campaign is the best route, for many reasons.  It will highlight to the entire community, not just to the parents and schools, the health risks of GMOs.  School lunch programs are being changed across the country and they are a major issue right now, so it’s a perfect time to introduce the knowledge of the health risks of GMOs. We provide the documentation so that campaigners don’t have to become experts in this.  They can simply play the DVD, show a book, hand materials, and it’s easy to generate hundreds of people who will sign on to participate with the campaign because protecting kids is a natural response, and in this case very appropriate. 

I think the main thing is for people to take steps to avoid eating genetically engineered foods.  As part of the Campaign For Healthier Eating in America, we are endorsing a third party verification program that will validate non-GM claims by the entire natural food industry.  This program has been endorsed by Whole Foods, United Natural Foods, Eden Foods, Nature’s Path, Lundberg Family Farms, Straus Family Creamery and others, and is moving forward.  We will have a non-GMO shopping guide based on third-party verified content, hopefully by the end of this year.  And we’ll have a series of updates. 

Until then, we have an electronic version of a shopping guide on our website based on company claims, as well as strategies of how to avoid eating GMOs. This is accomplished by buying organic, buying products that say non-GMO, or avoiding principally soy, corn, cotton, or canola, and their soy and corn derivatives. By cotton I mean cottonseed oil. The other three GM food crops are Hawaiian papaya, a little bit of zucchini, and a little crook neck squash.  There are also dairy products from cows that have been injected with bovine growth hormone.  Some processed foods also use genetically engineered enzymes, additives, and cooking agents that are harder to avoid.  We give information about these on the website.  Some people also choose to avoid meat and dairy from animals that have been fed GM crops, and that is also more difficult.  People need to choose the non-GMO choices based on their level of comfort and accessibility. 

Now, when we discussed colonizing your gut bacteria earlier in this interview, I want to point out that not every derivative of a GM crop has the ability to colonize gut bacteria because there may not be any DNA left in refined oil or in high fructose corn syrup. Not every derivative has the same risk profile, but all have some risk because of the massive changes of the DNA and the possible toxins and allergens.  I would suggest to “stop gambling with your health in every bite” by avoiding GMOs.