Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
GM Food Nightmare

GM Food Nightmare

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5|Likes:
Published by Joao Soares

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Joao Soares on Aug 16, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/16/2011

pdf

text

original

 
This article was downloaded by:[informa internal users][informa internal users]On:7 June 2007Access Details:[subscription number 755239602]Publisher:Informa HealthcareInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Microbial Ecology in Health andDisease
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713690650
GM food nightmare unfolding in the regulatory sham
First Published on:14 May 2007To cite this Article:Ho, Mae-Wan,Cummins, Joe and Saunders, Peter , 'GM foodnightmare unfolding in the regulatory sham', Microbial Ecology in Health andDisease, 1 - 12To link to this article: DOI:10.1080/08910600701343781URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08910600701343781PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLEFull terms and conditions of use:http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfThisarticlemaybeusedforresearch,teachingandprivatestudypurposes.Anysubstantialorsystematicreproduction,re-distribution,re-selling,loanorsub-licensing,systematicsupplyordistributioninanyformtoanyoneisexpresslyforbidden.Thepublisherdoesnotgiveanywarrantyexpressorimpliedormakeanyrepresentationthatthecontentswillbecompleteoraccurateoruptodate.Theaccuracyofanyinstructions,formulaeanddrugdosesshouldbeindependentlyverifiedwithprimarysources.Thepublishershallnotbeliableforanyloss,actions,claims,proceedings,demandorcostsordamageswhatsoeverorhowsoevercausedarisingdirectlyorindirectlyinconnectionwithorarising out of the use of this material. © Taylor and Francis 2007
 
   D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   B  y  :   [   i  n   f  o  r  m  a   i  n   t  e  r  n  a   l  u  s  e  r  s   ]   A   t  :   1   2  :   3   1   7   J  u  n  e   2   0   0   7
REVIEWARTICLE
GM food nightmare unfolding in the regulatory sham
MAE-WAN HO
1
, JOE CUMMINS
1,2
& PETER SAUNDERS
1,3
1
Institute of Science in Society, London, UK,
2
Department of Biology, University of Western Ontario, Canada and 
3
Department of Mathematics, King’s College, London, UK 
Abstract
Our regulators are ignoring the precautionary principle, manipulating and corrupting science, sidestepping the law, andhelping to promote genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the face of massive public opposition and damning evidencepiling up against the safety of genetically modified (GM) food and feed.
GM nightmare unfolds
Female rats whose diets were supplemented withgenetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy-beans gave birth to many severely stunted pups,with over half of the litter dead by 3 weeks, and thesurviving pups were sterile (1). This is the firstinvestigation into the effects of unprocessed GMfeed on reproductive function and fetal and postnataldevelopment, in an experiment lasting more than 90days, a period set by the European Food StandardsAuthority (EFSA) (2), and the GM soya has beencommercialized worldwide for food and feed since1996.These findings came from the laboratory of senior scientist Irina Ermakova at the Instituteof Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiologyof the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow.The results have been published in Russian (3
 Á 
5),and in several conference proceedings in English(6
 Á 
9).These results are not an isolated case. They top agrowing stack of evidence from all over the world,indicating that GM food and feed may be inherentlyhazardous to health (see Table I) (10
 Á 
24).
Genetic modification and/or the artificialtransgenic DNA to blame?
Many varieties of GM crops with different trans-genes, fed to rats, mice, cows, sheep, chickens, orhuman beings, resulted in illnesses and deaths. Theobvious suspect is the GM process and/or theartificial transgenic DNA used.It is worth noting that transgenic DNAs areconstructs that are entirely new to evolution. Thesynthetic genes are considerably altered from theirnatural counterparts, combining copies of sequencesfrom many different sources.For example, MON863 maize is described on theAGBIOS Database as follows (25): ‘The introducedDNA contained the modified cry3Bb1 gene from
B.thuringiensis
subsp.
kumamotoensis
under the controlof the 4-AS1 promoter (CaMV 35S promoter with 4repeats of an activating sequence), plus the 5
?
untranslated leader sequence of the wheat chloro-phyll a/b binding protein (wt CAB leader) and therice actin intron. The transcription terminationsequence was provided from the 3
?
untranslatedregion of the wheat 17.3 kD heat shock protein(
tahsp
17). The modified cry3Bb1 gene encodes aprotein of 653 amino acids whose amino acidsequence differs from that of the wild-type proteinby the addition of an alanine residue at position 2and by seven amino acid changes.The codingsequence for cry3Bb1 was also modified withnumerous codon adjustments to compensate forcodon bias in plants as opposed to bacteria.There are nine bits of DNA from different sourcesincluding the coding sequence, which has beensubstantially altered from the natural gene. Themany homologies to different genomes includingthose of bacteria and viruses, the presence of recombination (fragmentation) hotspots such as the
Correspondence: Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 51885, London NW2 9DH, UK. E-mail: www.i-sis.org.uk
 Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease
2007, 1
 Á 
12, iFirst article
(Received 13 March 2007; accepted 16 March 2007)
ISSN 0891-060X print/ISSN 1651-2235 online
#
2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/08910600701343781
 
   D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   B  y  :   [   i  n   f  o  r  m  a   i  n   t  e  r  n  a   l  u  s  e  r  s   ]   A   t  :   1   2  :   3   1   7   J  u  n  e   2   0   0   7
CaMV 35S promoter, and the general structuralinstability of transgenic DNA, are all factors thatwould greatly enhance horizontal gene transfer andrecombination, the main route to creating newpathogens.We have spelt out the potential dangers of the GMprocess in numerous publications (see Table II)based on extensive reviews of the scientific literature,especially highlighting the hidden dangers arisingfrom unintended horizontal transfer of transgenicDNA (26
 Á 
35).
‘GM food is safe’?
Regulators have been assuring the public that ‘GMfood is safe’ because people have been eating GMfood since its first release in 1994 and no one hasbeen found to fall ill or die from it. However, therehas been no labelling in countries like the UnitedStates where GM food and feed are most available,and many GM products are ‘deregulated’ and hencenot known or traceable as such. There has been nopost-release monitoring, although research at theCenters for Disease Control suggested that food-related illnesses went up 2
 Á 
10-fold in 1999 com-pared with a survey done just before GM food wascommercially released in 1994 (36,37). GM foodand feed may be linked to chronic illnesses such asautoimmune disease from bacterial DNA or indeedany novel transgenic DNA (38
 Á 
41), slow viruses orcancer (see Table II), which may be difficult todetect. Finally, animal feed accounts for up to half the world’s harvest (42), so most of the GM produceso far has probably gone in animal feed after beingprocessed for seed oil, corn starch and syrup, andincreasingly, ethanol and biodiesel (43,44). Proces-sing will remove or destroy at least some of the toxicmetabolites, proteins and transgenic DNA. Thus,GM produce is seldom eaten directly by eitheranimals or human beings so far, except in Argentina,with dire consequences for health (45). In Argentina,GM soya has been promoted as a staple food,especially for the poor, which has no precedent inthe world, and it is impossible to separate effects due
Table II. Potential hazards of genetically modified organisms(GMOs).
“
Synthetic genes and gene products new to evolution could betoxic for humans and other animals or provoke serious immunereactions
“
The uncontrollable, imprecise process involved in makingGMOs mutate and scramble genomes and can generateunintended toxic and immunogenic products; this isexacerbated by the instability of the transgenic DNA
“
Endogenous viruses that cause diseases could be activated bythe transgenic process
“
The synthetic genes in GMOs, including copies of genes frombacteria and viruses that cause disease as well as antibioticresistance genes, may be transferred to other species via pollen,or by direct integration into other genomes in horizontal genetransfer
“
Disease-causing viruses and bacteria are created by horizontaltransfer and recombination, and genetic modification is nothingif not facilitated and greatly enhanced horizontal gene transferand recombination
“
Transgenic DNA is designed to invade genomes, including thoseof animals and human beings, and its strong synthetic promotersmay trigger cancer by activating cellular oncogenes
“
Herbicide-tolerant GM crops accumulate herbicide andherbicide residues that could be highly toxic to humans andanimals as well as plantsTable I. Accumulating evidence on the health hazards of GMfood and feed.1. Between 2005 and 2006, scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that female rats fed glyphosate-tolerantGM soybeans produced excessive numbers of severely stuntedpups and more than half of the litter dying within 3 weeks,while the surviving pups are completely sterile (main article).2. Between 2004 and 2005, hundreds of farm workers andcotton handlers in Madhya Pradesh, India, suffered allergysymptoms from exposure to Bt cotton containing Cry1Ac orboth Cry1Ac and Cry1Ab proteins (10).3. Between 2005 and 2006, thousands of sheep died aftergrazing on Bt cotton crop residues in four villages in theWarangal district of Andhra Pradesh in India (11).4. In 2005, scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organization in Canberra Australia testeda transgenic pea containing a normally harmless protein inbean (alpha-amylase inhibitor 1), and found it causedinflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked sensitivitiesto other proteins in the diet (12,13).5. From 2002 to 2005, scientists at the Universities of Urbino,Perugia and Pavia in Italy published reports indicating thatGM-soya fed to young mice affected cells in the pancreas,liver and testes (14
 Á 
18).6. In 2003, villagers in the south of the Philippines sufferedmysterious illnesses when a Monsanto Bt maize hybridcontaining Cry1Ab protein came into flower; antibodies tothe Cry1Ab protein were found in the villagers, there havebeen at least five unexplained deaths and some remain ill tothis day (19).7. In 2004, Monsanto’s secret research dossier showed that ratsfed MON863 GM maize containing Cry3Bb protein devel-oped serious kidney and blood abnormalities (20) (see maintext).8. Between 2001 and 2002, a dozen cows died in Hesse,Germany after eating Syngenta GM maize Bt176 containingCry1Ab/Cry1Ac plus glufosinate-tolerance; and more in theherd had to be slaughtered from illnesses (21).9. In 1998, Arpad Pusztai and colleagues formerly of the RowettInstitute in Scotland reported damage in every organ systemof young rats fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin,including a stomach lining twice as thick as controls (22).10. Also in 1998, scientists in Egypt found similar effects in thegut of mice fed Bt potato containing a Cry1A protein (23).11. The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating backto early 1990s showing that rats fed GM tomatoes withantisense gene to delay ripening had developed small holes intheir stomach (22).12. In 2002, Aventis company (later Bayer Cropscience)submitted data to UK regulators showing that chickens fedglufosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice aslikely to die compared with controls (24).
2
M-W. Ho et al.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->