Silver Bulletin e-News Magazine
by Jeffrey M. Smith
On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”
More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”
Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.
Pregnant women and babies at great risk
Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]
The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]
When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]
Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]
In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.
Food designed to produce toxin
GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, it is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]
GMOs provoke immune reactions
AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.
According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]
GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.
Animals dying in large numbers
In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems 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.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.
In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]
Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]
In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]
Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us
The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.
When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.
Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied
Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.
Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases
AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]
Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]
Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.
This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.
If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]
To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”
Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.
If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.
International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.www.ResponsibleTechnology.org,
info@responsibletechnology.org
[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25, 2002.
[3] 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.
[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[5] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[9] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006
[10] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
[11] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.[13] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
[14] Sunday India, October, 26, 2008
[15] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
[16] 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 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[17] Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008
[18] See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.
[19] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005
[20] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[21] “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
[22] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.
[23] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[24] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
[25] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; referencing, 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 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[26] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
[27] See memos at http://www.biointegrity.org/
[28] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, no8, pp. 721-733
[29] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.
[30] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25
Saturday, June 13, 2009
DOCTORS WARN: AVOID GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Germany Bans Genetically Modified Corn
Mercola.com
Germany has banned the cultivation of GM corn, arguing that the corn breed MON 810 is dangerous for the environment. But that argument might not stand up in court, and Germany could face fines totaling millions of euros if Monsanto decides to challenge the prohibition.
Under the new regulations, the cultivation of MON 810, a GM corn produced by Monsanto, will be prohibited in Germany. A clause in EU law allows individual countries to impose such bans. Environmental groups welcomed the ban, pointing out that numerous scientific studies demonstrated GM corn was a danger to the environment.
However, it may be hard to prove conclusively that MON 810 damages the environment, which could enable Monsanto to win a court case opposing the ban. Monsanto has said that it would look as quickly as possible into whether it would begin legal proceedings.
MON 810 had been the only GM crop that could be grown in Germany. The plant produces a toxin to fight off a certain pest, the larvae of the corn borer moth. MON 810 is already banned in five other EU member states: Austria, Hungary, Greece, France and Luxembourg.
Sources:
Spiegel Online April 14, 2009
CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Could Monsanto Be Responsible for One Indian Farmer's Death Every Thirty Minutes?
Mercola.com
Over 1,500 farmers in the agricultural Indian state of Chattisgarh have committed suicide after being driven to debt by crop failure. The state was hit hard by falling water levels.
Bharatendu Prakash, of the Organic Farming Association of India, said that, "Farmers' suicides are increasing due to a vicious circle created by money lenders. They lure farmers to take money but when the crops fail, they are left with no option other than death."
Mr. Prakash added that the government needs to take up the cause of the poor farmers just as they fight for a strong economy.
CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Most Destructive Industrial Venture on Earth: The Canadian Oil Sands Pose Great Danger
NaturalNews.com
by Dave Gabriele, citizen journalist
Common belief is that the Middle East is America's largest supplier of oil. In truth, Canada supplies more oil to the US than any other country, providing 19% of US foreign oil. About half of that oil comes from the single largest industrial project on Earth--the Canadian Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada. The Oil Sands, comprised of the Athabasca, Peace River and Cold Lake sites, contains approximately 170 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves. This makes Canada the world's second largest source of oil, after Saudi Arabia.
As of 2006, the Oil Sands were producing over 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, or about 42% of Canada's total crude output. As the industry steadily grows, it is anticipated that production will reach 3 million barrels per day by 2020 and possibly even 5 million barrels per day by 2030.
This deposit of oil represents a great source of wealth for Canada, and especially for the United States, which prefers a stable source closer to home. However, this massive project, which encompasses operations from 49 companies, is literally the largest and most environmentally destructive endeavor of all time.
What are Oil Sands?
Geologists speculate that the oil sands formed millions of years ago from the remains of tiny creatures buried in the seabed of an ancient ocean that covered Alberta. Warm temperatures, combined with the slow accumulation of thick layers of silt, sand and pressure, continuously heated these remains and gradually converted them into the oil sands. The sands consist of a mixture of silica sand, minerals, clay, water and bitumen. Bitumen, a tar-like substance, is a super-heavy form of petroleum.
Environmental Concerns
The enormous process of extracting oil from the oil sands begins with cutting down large areas of boreal forest. So far, the industry has flattened about 389 square kilometers or 150 square miles. Concerns over rapid deforestation have environmentalists troubled.
Because bitumen is too thick and heavy to be pumped like conventional oil, it must be dug out of the ground in what closely resembles an open-pit mining operation. In order to get just one barrel of bitumen, workers need to first scoop about two tons of earth to get to the sand, and then about two tons of the sand itself. To make this process as efficient as possible, the industry uses $15 million 495HF Bucyrus electric shovels that stand five-storeys high to dig out sand and drop 400-ton loads onto 1.5-storey 797B Caterpillar dump trucks. Every day, about one million tons of the sand is dug and transported to be washed with about 200,000 tons of water. The water is then heated in order to extract the bitumen from the sand. This method costs roughly 10 times more than it costs the Saudis to pump their light oil.
But this process is only an option for the shallow bitumen that is closest to the surface. An estimated 80% of the reserves are too deep to be dug so instead the bitumen is steamed straight from the ground using enormously intricate systems of pipes and pumps. This is called "in situ thermal recovery" and it uses about twice the energy of the digging method.
Only when the bitumen has been extracted from the sand can usable oil be upgraded from the bitumen. The raw bitumen is sent to upgrader plants which process the black tar under high heat and pressure. The entire process uses an incredibly large amount of energy which is mostly supplied by natural gas. Critics of the industry note that the cleanest of the fossil fuels is being depleted to produce one of the dirtiest.
The Oil Sands operation releases at least three times the CO2 emissions as regular oil production and is the fastest growing contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
But deforestation, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions aren't the only problems. It takes an average of three barrels of fresh water from the Athabasca River to produce just one barrel of oil. The Oil Sands uses more water per year than the entire city of Calgary, the largest city in Alberta and the fifth largest in Canada. In return, one barrel of oil produces about two barrels of toxic water. The waste is pumped into dozens of holding basins known as "tailings ponds." Although they are known as ponds, some of these massive man-made lakes are dozens of kilometers across. They are clearly visible on Google Earth. (Satellite image: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k...)
In April 2008, the problems of the toxic tailings ponds entered Canadian consciousness when the media disseminated a story in which 500 ducks lost their lives by mistaking a tailings pond for a natural lake. Although the Alberta government denies it, environmental groups maintain that the tailings ponds leak contaminated water into local soil and water ways causing severe ecological harm.
For further reading:
http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/...
http://www.ualberta.ca/ERSC/water.pdf
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Las...
Monday, July 28, 2008
3.5 Million Tons of Plastic Debris Now Floating in the Pacific
NaturalNews.com
by David Gutierrez
A mass of plastic debris twice the size of Texas is still growing in the Pacific Ocean, fueled primarily by plastic trash generated on the land. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch consists of 3.5 million tons of trash, 80 percent of it plastic, floating in a rarely-traveled portion of the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and San Francisco.
"With the winds blowing in and the currents in the gyre going circular, it's the perfect environment for trapping," said Marcus Eriksen, director of research and education at the Algalita Marine Research Foundation in Long Beach, Calif. "There's nothing we can do about it now, except do no more harm."
According to Chris Parry, public education program manager for the California Coastal Commission in San Francisco, the garbage patch has been growing tenfold every decade since the 1950s. This corresponds with an equivalent increase in worldwide ocean debris.
The debris is highly dangerous to ocean life. Birds and marine animals may injure themselves by swallowing hard, indigestible shards of plastic. Animals like sea turtles, which mistake plastic bags for jellyfish, may also eat plastic that is less immediately harmful but just as fatal in the long term."
These animals die because the plastic eventually fills their stomachs," said Warner Chabot, vice president of the Ocean Conservancy. "It doesn't pass, and they literally starve to death."
Plastic, which is synthesized from petroleum, can persist for decades before beginning to degrade, making it nearly impossible to get rid of once it is produced.
Parry and Chabot agree that the best way to keep the Great Pacific Garbage Patch from growing is to reduce production of plastic waste and use fewer plastic products at the consumer level as well."
What we can do is ban plastic fast food packaging," Chabot said, "or require the substitution for biodegradable materials, increase recycling programs and improve enforcement of litter laws."
