310 No Consensus on GMO Safety [16 March 2015]

A key position of the biotech industry and government regulators in the approval of GMO crops is the “overwhelming consensus” on their safety. A paper published in January in Environmental Sciences Europe refutes this belief. The paper titled “No scientific consensus on GMO safety” was developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers from around the world.

In the introduction it reads:

Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature…the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired [by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators and journalists].

In [this] statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated...

The paper discusses the following seven points (read full paper here):

1. There is no consensus on GM food safety. [The evidence is far from conclusive; many scientists have serious concerns.]
2. There are no [zero!] epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health.
3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or inaccurate.
4. The EU research project [cited widely by proponents as evidence of safety] does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety.
5. A list of several hundred studies [frequently cited as evidence of safety] does not show GM food safety [most do not address safety, some provide evidence of lack of safety, and most are too short to examine long-term effects].
6. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops.
7. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GM foods and crops.

The conclusion reads in part:

In a time when there is major pressure on the science community from corporate and political interests, it is of utmost importance that scientists working for the public interest take a stand against attempts to reduce and compromise the rigour of examination of new applications in favor of rapid commercialization of new and emerging technologies that are expected to generate profit and economic growth

Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims by an internal circle of likeminded stakeholders that a scientific consensus exists on GMO safety.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

309 The Tryptophan Story [9 March 2015]

I’ve been rereading a 2003 book by Jeffrey M. Smith: “Seeds of Deception – Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating”. Smith devotes Chapter 4 to the story of tryptophan (download the book here).

It is well known by genetic scientists, though rarely if ever acknowledged by the industry, that a common hazard of genetic engineering is the creation of new toxins or increased levels of known toxins. The tryptophan story is a good example of this phenomena.

The story begins in 1989 with an epidemic in the United States of a never before seen syndrome which included severe muscle pain, swelling, and a marked increase of a white blood cell called eosinophils. The CDC named it Eosinophelia-Myalgia Syndrome (EMS). The cases of EMS were linked to a tryptophan supplement manufactured by a Japanese pharmaceutical company, Showa Denko. Tryptophan is commonly extracted from fermented bacteria cultures. In December 1988 Showa Denko had started using a new genetically altered bacterium strain which greatly increased the production of tryptophan. No tryptophan by any other manufacturer was linked to EMS. Showa Denko eventually destroyed this bacteria strain and paid over $2 billion to more than 2,000 victims of EMS.

Michael Osterholm, one of the authors of an EMS study published in the New England J. Med., pointed out the obvious connection between the new strain of bacterium and EMS in an August 1990 Newsday article. The FDA immediately jumped to the defense of genetic engineering, blasting Osterholm for “propagating hysteria”. Instead of investigating the possibility of contamination by Showa Denko’s new bacterium, the FDA used the situation to attack the supplement industry, calling it “health fraud schemes”. The FDA successfully called for a ban of all tryptophan supplements except by subscription. Health Canada followed suit making tryptophan available in Canada by subscription only. This ban was not lifted until 2001 in the USA and 2011 in Canada. I wonder: if a contaminated batch of Aspirin killed 40 people, would all ASA products be banned for 10 or 20 years?

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

286 Maybe it’s not Gluten [22 Sept 2014]

We all know someone with gluten sensitivity (or have it ourselves) but it wasn’t that long ago that this condition was rare or at least not well recognized. Why the sudden increase? Aicacia Young, a registered dietitian writing for the MindBodyGreen e-newsletter asks if gluten is really the culprit and proposes two possible alternatives.

It is known that people with non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) improve on a gluten free diet. A double-blind crossover study in 2013 tested 37 adults with NCGS to determine if gluten was in fact the culprit. The participants were placed on three different diets: low gluten, high gluten, or whey (as a control). The diets didn’t make a significant difference in their digestive symptoms and fatigue – they were about the same with all three. Interestingly though, when they were put on a special diet in preparation for the study, all 37 improved significantly. This special diet is low in fermentable, oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols called FODMAPS. A low FODMAPS diet eliminates: dairy, wheat, apples, pears, watermelon, garlic, onions, legumes, avocados, honey and sugar alcohols. Young suggests that while gluten-free diets, which eliminate wheat, will reduce some of the symptoms of NCGS, temporarily going on a low FODMAPS diet could do even more.

The other possible cause of symptoms attributed to gluten is the herbicide glyphosate. I have previously discussed [#265 April 28, 2014] how glyphosate accumulates in our food crops and appears in human tissue in North America where it wreaks havoc with our gut flora. The resulting dysbiosis leads to intestinal permeability (aka leaky gut) which is linked to inflammation and food allergies. Even though “Roundup-ready” wheat has not been approved for production, glyphosate is used on some wheat fields as a desiccant so wheat can still have traces. Other crops sprayed with glyphosate would be canola, soybeans, corn and sugar beets. Shopping organic for these foods or avoiding them altogether (and replenishing your gut biome with probiotics) should reduce symptoms caused by glyphosate.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

266 The Retracted GMO Study [5 May 2014]

Back in December of 2012 I reported on a French animal study published that September in Food and Chemical Toxicology that showed significantly increased kidney and liver toxicity, including large tumor growth, in rats fed genetically engineered (GE) corn. Then in November 2013 this study was retracted by the editor.

While I’m sure proponents of GE crops viewed this as a vindication of the safety of their technology, anti-GE lobbyists like J. Mercola and J. Wright saw it as the capitulation of science to pressure from big business. Just what was wrong with the study that merited its retraction?

In response to a large number of letters to the editor questioning the validity of the findings, the Editor-in-Chief reviewed the study examining all aspects of the peer review process and even requested the raw data from the authors (which was supplied). He found no evidence whatsoever of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data but did have concerns about the small number of animals (200) and the strain of rats used (tumor-susceptible), both of which had been noted in the original peer review process. He concluded that “the results presented while not incorrect are inconclusive” and on that basis decided to retract the paper.

The authors later published, in the same journal, a detailed response to all the criticisms received. They noted that 75% of the first week’s letters critical to their mammalian toxicology study came from plant biologists (not animal toxicologists) and Monsanto employees. The strain of rats used was the same as in the only previous study done on one of the corn varieties (which used 400 rats but lasted only 90 days). They reiterated that their work remains “the most detailed study involving the life-long consumption of an agricultural GMO… and the first long term detailed research on mammals exposed to a highly diluted pesticide in its total formulation”.

It seems to me that this study, representing the longest (lifespan) GMO study to date, is worthy of publication, even if its results are inconclusive. I have seen many studies that are inconclusive and call for bigger or better studies. I am sure, though, that the industry will not be in any hurry to repeat this one.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

265 Glyphosate – more toxic than DDT? [28 April 2014]

I just listened to an interview with Dr. Don Huber, a professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University. Huber’s five decades of agriculture research on soil-borne plant pathogens (disease-causing micro-organisms) has made him very concerned about the increasing use of glyphosate (Roundup®) pesticide.

Glyphosate is more than a herbicide – it was first patented as a mineral chelating agent and also as a powerful antibiotic. By taking certain minerals – calcium, magnesium, iron and manganese – out of the plant’s biochemical pathways, glyphosate makes it more susceptible to disease organisms, and it is the disease that actually kills the weeds.

As an antibiotic glyphosate also kills the beneficial soil bacteria (by disrupting certain amino acid pathways) that keep the disease organisms in check, so their populations explode. [I’d like to hear from farmers if they have found that regular crops are more susceptible to diseases on land that has been previously sprayed with glyphosate.]

Glyphosate has now been shown to accumulate in the edible parts of food crops and has been measured in blood, urine and breast milk of North Americans. It has been shown to lower the nutrient mineral content of food from crops sprayed with glyphosate. But more significant is its effect on our gut flora. As with the soil, glyphosate from our food preferentially destroys beneficial bacteria in our gut, causing many different health problems.

Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff in a paper published in April 2013 in the journal Entropy explain the physiological effects of glyphosate and link it to many modern chronic diseases. They explain that, as the industry claims, glyphosate’s acute toxicity is minimal, but its long-term chronic toxicity is a different story. Glyphosate toxicity has been documented for kidney cells at 10 ppm, liver at 1ppm, and the endocrine hormone system at 0.1 ppm, all of which are many times lower than toxicity levels of DDT. [Tobacco is another substance with low acute, but significant chronic, toxicity.]

So maybe glyphosate is more toxic than DDT!

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

219 GMO Myths & Truths [3 June 2013]

I have written about genetically modified organisms before (# 052, 110, 111 & 195). This week I want to share a recent report that I just learned about.

GMO Myths and Truths – An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops is a 123 page report published in June 2012 by a not-for-profit organization called Earth Open Source. The authors have impressive backgrounds. Michael Antoniou is a genetics professor at King’s College London school of Medicine, UK, with 28 years experience in genetic engineering technology and over 40 peer reviewed publications plus several patents in gene expression biotechnology. John Fagan is founder of one of the world’s first GMO testing and certification companies and previously conducted cancer research at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Claire Robinson is an investigative reporter specializing in public health, science and the environment. So these are solid scientists and science writers, not just crackpot environmentalists.

The authors concluded that, contrary to industry promotional claims, GM crops:
• are totally different from natural breeding and pose different risks
• can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than natural crops
• are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
• have not increased yield potential
• increase rather than decrease pesticide use
• create serious problems for farmers including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility
• are as energy-hungry as other chemically-farmed crops
• cannot solve world hunger but distract from its real causes.

You can read the entire report online at http://earthopensource.org/gmo-myths-truths-reports/
For further discussion of this report and an interview with Thierry Vrain, a former research scientist with Agriculture Canada, see Mercola.com.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

195 GE Corn – the French Study [10 Dec 2012]

The first long term independent study for safety of a genetically engineered food crop was conducted in France and the results published this September in the peer-reviewed Food and Chemical Toxicology. The study followed rats fed a genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant corn (NK603) and/or glyphosate at 0.1ppb in water (the amount allowed in US drinking water) over two years. Control animals were fed conventional corn and pure water.

The results proved devastating to the industry’s claim that GE crops are not substantially different so safety tests are not necessary. Compared to the control animals, the rats fed the GE corn and or glyphosate water much more frequently developed massive tumors and kidney and liver damage. Female rats developed large mammary tumors earlier and more often and they died 2-3 times more often and much earlier. The pituitary gland was also frequently disabled. Males developed much higher rates of liver congestion and necrosis. Males also developed 4 times more large tumors and up to 300 days earlier. And by large I mean golf-ball size – in rats! Severe kidney damage occurred in much higher rates in both sexes. The gender differences can be explained by the known endocrine-disrupting effects of glyphosate.

Industry officials countered this by repeating that numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies confirmed the safety of biotech crops. But the longest feeding study prior to this one was stopped after only 3 months. Interestingly in the French study the tumors and liver and kidney damage began to show up at 4 months and peaked at 13 months. And while the biotech industry claims approval by some government regulatory agencies as evidence of safety, they decry governments who remain skeptical of biotech crop safety as pandering to the ignorant hysterical masses.

This study adds to the growing list of studies finding disturbing effects of GE crops and foods. You can see a summary of some of these studies here.

After reading about this study, would you feed GE corn to your livestock? Would you feed it to your children? Your livestock may not be eating it but you and your family are, without your knowledge. And no one is studying the effects it may be having on our health. Without labeling of GE foods and human studies we will never know to what extent they are responsible for the increase in cancer and other health issues in North America over the past decade. See Dr. Mercola's discussion of this topic for more information.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

111 GE Benefits [25 April 2011]

Last week my column questioned the safety of genetically engineered foods; this week I will look at potential benefits. Promoters list increased yield, herbicide tolerance (reducing tillage), insect resistance, and drought and frost resistance (increasing range). In short, all the traits that conventional breeding has been working on for centuries, only greater and faster. Sounds wonderful, but how have these panned out so far?

Genetic engineering could potentially improve nutrient levels of foods (tomatoes with higher vitamin C for example) but for private companies to carry out the expensive research, the resulting crops have to be profitable either for the farmer or the company itself. Most of the registered GE crops to date have been engineered for herbicide resistance – particularly glyphosate (Roundup). Significant increases in the use of this herbicide is leading to proliferation of glyphosate-resistant “superweeds”, requiring even more herbicide use. A 2006 USDA report showed that with most GE crops yield and farm incomes have increased; with a few they have decreased.[http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf] A 2009 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists “Failure to Yield” concludes “Traditional breeding [so far] outperforms genetic engineering hands down” [my insertion – Stan].
[http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html]
I would like to hear from some local canola producers of their experience.

To be fair, the industry is in its infancy and improved technology should eventually make the process cheaper, more accurate (safer) and more beneficial. But in the meantime adequate evaluation of the crops’ safety would increase the cost of production far beyond any added value. Thus the only way the industry can survive this period is to bypass all safety issues. At this, as discussed in last week’s column, they have been too successful. For more on this topic, see the website of The Institute for Responsible Technology [http://www.responsibletechnology.org].

110 GE Foods Revisited [18 March 2011]

A column in last week’s Eagle by agriculturalist Kevin Hursh promoted genetically engineered foods as the lowest risk pathway to feed a growing population. He assures us “there is not a single credible health concern [with GE crops]” and that “approval of new traits requires exhaustive research” implying that approval is based solely on sound science. I just wish that was true.

Jeffrey M. Smith in his books “Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating” (2003) and “Genetic Roulette: the Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods” (2007) documents the concerns of many scientists worldwide, and exposes how the biotech corporations managed to get their crops approved.

Smith’s second book, Genetic Roulette, describes 65 different health hazards of GE foods identified by animal studies. The list includes allergies, impaired immune system, infertility, changes in the GI tract and other major organs, accelerated aging, and premature death. I mentioned a few of these in my column on GM Foods a year ago (#53 March 8, 2010).

Genetic Roulette also documents the methods used by biotech corporations to obtain approval in the US and other countries: bribes and threats to government officials; flawed studies (poorly designed, manipulated data, critical omissions); critics silenced (scientists like Arpad Pusztai and Kirk Azevedo fired or threatened); repetition of their mantra “there is no difference” until everyone believes it; and painting of critics as ignorant anti-science crackpots.

For the full story, read these books and study the website of The Institute for Responsible Technology [www.responsibletechnology.org].

This article is intended for educational purposes only; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

052 Genetically Modified Food [8 March 2010]

The safety of genetically engineered or genetically modified (GM) foods is highly controversial. Is it the savior of mankind destined to feed a starving world? or a technological menace opening a Pandora’s box of unknown problems?

The agri-food companies like Monsanto and most scientists working in the field believe that the increased yields and resistance to disease are a boon to an overpopulated world facing starvation. They assure us that there is no difference in the quality or safety of the food from these animals or crops compared to traditionally developed varieties. They decry the public’s concerns as based on ignorance and paranoia.

The opponents of GM food have several concerns. One is that safety of the food has not been adequately tested and suspect unfavorable results have been ignored. Some of these are:
• increased allergies to GM varieties of soy and other foods
• malformed testicles and infertility in GM soy fed mice and rats
• infertility in pigs fed a GM corn variety
• allergic and flu like symptoms in Indian farm workers exposed to Bt cotton containing a pesticide-producing gene from a soil bacteria, and many deaths of animals eating Bt cotton and Bt corn
• genes from Bt corn and soy products transferred to bacteria in the human gut causing these bacteria to start producing pesticide

Others question the advantage of GM crops on purely economical grounds. One of the advantages of GM crops is supposed to be a reduction in pesticide use. Herbicide use in the USA has significantly increased since the introduction of GM crops in 1996. And the GM crops contain a higher residue of pesticides.

A serious disadvantage is the tendency to contaminate other fields. The European ban on Canadian flax is the result of such contamination. Organic certification generally has a zero tolerance for GMO contamination and the introduction of GM canola quickly killed the Canadian organic canola industry. The introduction of GM wheat would likely do the same for the small but thriving organic wheat sector. Another disadvantage is the dependence of the farmer on the company for both seed and chemical.

My take on the controversy is that each genetic modification needs to be assessed on its own merit rather than embracing or rejecting all GM foods as a whole. I don’t believe that enough safety studies have been done and question the economic benefits in many situations. Learn more at http://www.responsibletechnology.org.

This article is intended for educational purposes only; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.