Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods

Are Genetically Engineered Foods Without DNA Safe??? Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology, London, UK. Biotechnology adviser to the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy. The application last year for the growing within Europe of "Maximiser" maize by Ciba-Geigy (now part of Novartis), caused a great deal of controversy. Maximiser has been genetically engineered to produce it's own pesticide. However, it also contains a gene which confers resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin. This raised the problem that the ampicillin resistance gene may be transferred to bacteria either in the soil (from rotting vegetable matter) or in the gut of animals and humans who have eaten products derived from Maximiser maize. As a result the use of this important antibiotic in both clinical and veterinary medicine could be compromised still further if the resistance gene is picked up by harmful strains of bacteria. It was this concern that caused the UK's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) and the European Parliament to quite rightly not approve the growth or use of unprocessed products from Maximiser maize. Interestingly in the context of our present discussion, the ACNFP and EU did nevertheless give the go-ahead for the marketing of processed food products derived from this maize in which the DNA is either destroyed (e.g. by cooking at high temperatures) or removed as is the case in the extraction of corn oil. Generally, regulatory authorities which assess the safety of genetically engineered (GE) foods, take the position that a processed food product in which the genetic material (DNA) has been either destroyed or removed and which has been shown to be "substantially equivalent" to the non-GE variety, needs little in the form of health risk assessment and can be marketed without labelling. Such a stance indicates that the main risks that are perceived arise from the presence of "viable" DNA (intact genes) and that if this is not present then all is well. The aim of this article is to briefly analyse this notion from a basic genetics standpoint. We shall see that this is an erroneous assumption since it ignores the real dangers caused by disturbances in the host biochemistry which result as a consequence of the genetic manipulation and which can persist in a product regardless of the fact that the DNA may have been removed. The real dangers of GE foods DNA is a natural part of our diet being present in foods which either retain or are derived from whole cells (fruits, vegetables, meat etc.). This being the case it would be expected that we would also digest the DNA from GE foods without any health problems. It would therefore appear that the mere presence of genetic material in GE food only poses a danger in certain special cases as, for example, where antibiotic resistance genes persist in a product. However, the main hazards that result from the use of genetic engineering in food production stem from the fact that (i) genetic engineering brings about combinations of genes that would never occur naturally and (ii), in the case of plants and animals, genetic engineering is an imprecise technology resulting in the random incorporation of the new genes into the host DNA. These two effects always combine to produce a totally unpredictable disturbance in host genetic function as well as in that of the introduced gene. The resulting disturbance in the biochemistry of the host can unexpectedly produce novel toxins, allergens and reduced nutritional value. Therefore, it is quite possible for a processed food in which the DNA has been destroyed or removed to still possess potentially harmful substances. A few examples will help to illustrate this point. In the USA in 1989 a total of 5000 individuals became ill after consuming an amino acid tryptophan health food supplement derived from GE bacteria. Out of these, 37 died and 1500 became permanently disabled with sickness. It is still debated as to whether the presence of the toxin was a direct result of the genetic engineering or due to sloppy manufacturing procedures. Nevertheless, if this product was produced today it would be subject to health risk assessment since it is derived from a novel process; that is, GE bacteria. Since this tryptophan was greater than 99% pure and devoid of DNA, it would be passed as substantially equivalent to the same substance obtained from non-engineered organisms. In other words if it was marketed today, the same tragedy would result as the pre-clinical and carefully monitored clinical type trials that are required to detect novel toxins of the type that was produced would be seen as unnecessary and no labelling would be required. It is also important to note that the suspected novel toxin which caused all the problems was present at less than 0.1% of the final product that went on sale. Interestingly, in 1996 the ACNFP approved the marketing of riboflavin (vitamin B2) derived from GE bacteria with only contaminants present at greater than 0.1% being required to be identified. Therefore, by these criteria the toxin present in the tryptophan would not have attracted any attention or concern. Many yeast strains are being engineered to have a higher metabolism and as a result, enhanced fermentation properties in processes such as bread baking and beer production. However, an investigation of GE yeast containing extra copies of genes involved in the metabolism of glucose, found that they also accumulate a highly toxic and mutagenic substance known as methylglyoxal. The authors of this study warn that careful thought should be given to the nature and safety of metabolic products when GE yeast are used in food-related fermentation processes especially since current risk assessments based upon the principle of substantial equivalence are unlikely to detect any harmful substances. A number of oil seed crops (especially oilseed rape), are being engineered to have an altered oil composition for either "enhanced nutritional value" or industrial use. GE oilseed rape, for example, with a high lauric acid content is being grown in North America and is currently being reviewed by the EU for cultivation in Europe. Oil from this crop will end up in a diverse range of products such as soap and confectionery. In a research study where a bacterial gene (6-esaturase) had been inserted into tobacco plants, not only was the desired and nutritionally important gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) produced but also octadecatetraenoic acid (OTA). Although OTA is useful in a number of industrial processes (e.g. wax and plastic manufacture), it is highly toxic.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/geNoDNA.htm Jan 29, 2014, 12:31:44 PM

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

A large percentage of the porcine and bovine growth hormone produced from GE bacteria was found to possess an amino acid modification (?-N-acetyllysine ), which not only rendered it useless but potentially harmful if injected into pigs or cattle. Finally, there is also one indirect health risk that arises from herbicide and pest resistant GE crops which must be taken into account but which has not adequately been addressed by the regulators. There is no data presented as to the fate of the herbicide or pesticide within the plant. Does it remain stable within the plant tissues? If it is degraded, what are the products that are produced and what health risks do they pose? Higher levels of herbicide are clearly expected to be present since Monsanto applied (and was granted both in the USA and Europe), that the permitted residual levels of Roundup in their Roundup Ready range of GE crops (soya, maize, sugar beet, oilseed rape) be increased from 6mg to 20mg per kilogram dry weight. The inadequacy of substantial equivalence These examples illustrate the fact that a product derived from a GE organism (bacteria, yeast or plant), can be devoid of genetic material but can still unexpectedly contain potentially harmful alterations to a GE product, a novel toxin or elevated levels of a known hazardous substance. The current systems for assessing the health risks of GE foods do not appear to have fully taken into account this unpredictability of genetic engineering technology. At present it is only required that the amounts of a few known components (nutrients, allergens and natural toxins) be measured in order for substantial equivalence to be established. When viewed from a fundamental genetics standpoint, the manner in which the principle of substantial equivalence is being applied would appear to be conceptually flawed. Since genetic engineering has the potential to unexpectedly produce novel toxins and allergens, the assessment of only known constituents is insufficient. This problem is further compounded by the fact that each analytical technique that is used possesses it's own limitations. Unless one fortuitously chose an analytical method that happened to detect a novel compound in the GE food, it can quite easily be missed even if present in abundance. As a result, since one cannot specifically test for an unknown health hazard, it is clear that only by applying pharmacological-type toxicity testing can the risks of GE foods be adequately assessed. If a new drug is produced via genetically engineered organisms then it must quite rightly go through pre-clinical tests in animals to assess acute toxicity and, more importantly, extensive clinical trials in human volunteers to not only determine efficacy, but also to detect any unexpected effects of the product including unknown toxins resulting from the production process. Given that the same imprecise technology is used to produce GE foods in general then surely the same rules should apply for both. Clearly a double standards situation exists which needs rectifying. Pharmacological toxicity testing is designed to assess adverse effects of a product in a very general manner regardless of whether it is a single substance or a complex mixture and can therefore equally be applied to GE foods as well as drugs. References Genetic Pollution. Antoniou, M. (1996) Nutritional Therapy Today 6 (4): 8-11. Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: a cautionary tale. Mayeno AN and Gleich GL (1994) Trends in Biotechnology 12: 346-352. Isolation of Escherichia coli synthesised recombinant eukaryotic proteins that contain ?-N-acetyllysine. Violand BN et al. (1994) Protein Science 3: 1089-1097. Enhanced accumulation of toxic compounds in yeast cells having high glycolytic activity: a case study on the safety of genetically engineered yeast. Inose T and Kousaku M (1995) International Journal Food Science Technology 30: 141-146. Expression of a cyanobacterial ?6-desaturase gene results in ?-linolenic acid production in transgenic plants. Reddy SA and Thomas TL (1996) Nature Biotechnology 14: 639-642. Nordlee JA et al. (1996) Identification of brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. The New England Journal of Medicine 334: 688-692. Report on Riboflavin Derived from Genetically Modified (GM) Bacillus subtilis using Fermentation Technology. ACNFP Report 1996, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Publications. "Substantial Equivalence". Joint FAO/WHO Consultation in Rome, September 30th-October 4th, 1996.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Organic Consumers Association (OCA) 6101 Cliff Estate Rd., Little Marais, Minnesota 55614 Activist or Media Inquiries: (218) 226-4164, Fax: (218) 226-4157 Ronnie Cummins E-mail: alliance@mr.net http://www.purefood.org Save Organic Standards -- Break Corporate Control -- Genetically Enginered Food -- Toxic Food Current Alert/Upcoming Events -- Food Slander-- Food Irradiation -- Mad Cow & Pig Disease Cloning & Patenting -- rBGH -- Links -- Legislation To subscribe to our free electronic newsletter, send an email to: info@organicconsumers.org with the simple message:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/geNoDNA.htm

Jan 29, 2014, 12:31:44 PM

subscribe pure-food-action Webmaster: steve@greenpeople.org

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/geNoDNA.htm

Jan 29, 2014, 12:31:44 PM