Agricultural Products as Xenobiotics

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr Bharat, I have paste some information from Wikepedia on organic farming who also use some natural pesticides. Pesticides-Health Risks Organic farms use few pesticides although they are allowed to use some natural ones. The main three are Bt, pyrethrum and rotenone. However, surveys have found that fewer than 10% of organic farmers use these pesticides regularly; one survey found that only 5.3% of vegetable growers in California use rotenone while 1.7% use pyrethrum Nevertheless, rotenone has been linked to Parkinson's in rats and can be considered toxic to humans On the other hand, conventional farming uses large quantities of pesticides through techniques such as crop dusting. Studies have shown that people who work with pesticides have an increased risk of developing Parkinson's

disease. The pesticides examined in these two long-term studies, paraquat and dieldrin, are not allowed on organic farms. The herbicide paraquat and fungicide maneb together, but not alone, have been shown to cause brain damage in mice. Around 31,000 tonnes of pesticides are used in the UK every year, and 40% of fruit, vegetables, and bread sampled in the UK were found to have pesticide residues in 2004. Children's health Some parents are concerned about the potential neurological health risks posed to children by trace pesticide residues in food. A 2001 study demonstrated that children fed organic diets experienced significantly lower organophosphorus pesticide exposure than children fed conventional diets. A similar study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 preschool children before and after replacing

their diet with organic food: levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet. Although the researchers did not collect health outcome data in this study, they concluded "it is intuitive to assume that children whose diets consist of organic food items would have a lower probability of neurologic health risks." -AnupamaBharat Gajjar <gajjarbm@...> wrote: Dear Dr.Geer, I have planned the discussion on organic farming after the discussion on fertilizers and pesticides is over. I know that Dr. Vijay and you both are so enthusiastic that you have started the same. I salute your enthusiasm and appreciate the posting on organic farming, very informative article. Now it is open for other members to comment on Chemical Fertilizers, Organic Farming, Pesticides Use and Genetically Engineered Foods. Thank you Dr.Geer. DR. BHARAT GAJJAR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY, PRAMUKHSWAMI MEDICAL COLLEGE, KARAMSAD-388325. DIST.-ANAND (GUJARAT) INDIA. MOBILE- 09428153344. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite Group.

[Guest guest]

hi all, The reason that genetically engineered food could be dangerous is because there has been no adequate testing to ensure that extracting genes that perform an apparently useful function as part of that plant or animal is going to have the same effects if inserted into a totally unrelated species. It may be that in the long term, genetically modified food could provide us with benefits and be a safe alternative, but we cannot know that at this time due to the lack of safety

testing. The testing that has been done is often to ensure the crop grows. There has been less emphasis on testing the effects or testing the wider ecology and the associated impacts. Dr.bhumikaBharat Gajjar <gajjarbm@...> wrote: Dear Dr.Geer, I have planned the discussion on organic farming after the discussion on fertilizers and pesticides is over. I know that Dr. Vijay

and you both are so enthusiastic that you have started the same. I salute your enthusiasm and appreciate the posting on organic farming, very informative article. Now it is open for other members to comment on Chemical Fertilizers, Organic Farming, Pesticides Use and Genetically Engineered Foods. Thank you Dr.Geer. DR. BHARAT GAJJAR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY, PRAMUKHSWAMI MEDICAL COLLEGE, KARAMSAD-388325. DIST.-ANAND (GUJARAT) INDIA. MOBILE- 09428153344. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr Bharat, A news in The Hindu on genetic food: NGO protest against impact of genetically engineered brinjals (eggplant)The HinduMarch 17, 2008Mumbai (PTI): In order to raise awareness about the impact of genetically engineered Brinjal (eggplant), which the government is about to commercialise, an NGO exhibited them in differnt parts of the city today depicting how they were being destroyed in Mumbai. "The whole idea is to draw consumer attention to food safety issues as the government is about to commercialise BT brinjal, the first genetically engineered crop in India," said Campaign Manager Greenpeace Rajesh Krishnan. The brinjals with a "suicide note" were

put in different parts of the city including Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Fountain, Juhu etc. The "suicide note" said,"I cannot live in this place where my identity is being manipulated. For the first time crazy scientists and seed companies who want profit out of selling my (brinjal) seeds are tinkering with my genes". Genetic Engineering is a technology through which new life forms are created by adding foreign genes from unrelated plants and animals to perform a desired function. The techniques are used to artificially confer plants with qualities such as longer shelf life, higher nutrient content, pest reistant and so on. "But GE food has not yet been proved safe for consumption. Like any other unknown drug it can have many side effects. It is dangerous especially for children," he added. According to Greenpeace the first GE food crop, BT Brinjal is going to flood the Indian market soon. Once in the market the consumer will not

have the choice of saying no to GE food and hence this is the time to act and tell the government that we do not want to eat genetically engineered food, the NGO said. -Anupama "Dr. Bhumika Patel" <dr_bhumipatel@...> wrote: hi all, The reason that genetically engineered food could be dangerous is because there has been no adequate testing to ensure that extracting genes that perform an apparently useful function as part of that plant or animal is going to have the same effects if inserted into a totally unrelated species. It may be that in the long term, genetically modified food could provide us with benefits and be a safe alternative, but we cannot know that at this time due to the lack of safety testing. The testing that has been done is often to ensure the crop grows. There has been less emphasis on testing the effects or testing the wider ecology and the associated impacts. Dr.bhumikaBharat Gajjar <gajjarbm > wrote: Dear Dr.Geer, I have planned the discussion on organic farming after the discussion on fertilizers and pesticides is over. I know that Dr. Vijay and you both are so enthusiastic that you have started the same. I salute your enthusiasm and appreciate the posting on organic farming,

very informative article. Now it is open for other members to comment on Chemical Fertilizers, Organic Farming, Pesticides Use and Genetically Engineered Foods. Thank you Dr.Geer. DR. BHARAT GAJJAR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY, PRAMUKHSWAMI MEDICAL COLLEGE, KARAMSAD-388325. DIST.-ANAND (GUJARAT) INDIA. MOBILE- 09428153344. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

Download prohibited? No problem. CHAT from any browser, without download.

[Guest guest]

Hi, The government should take a cue from the adverse impacts of bt cotton cultivation. "Farmers who even touched the crop developed allergy while animals grazing on it died. The fate would be similar in case of any other GM crop and food," Studies on GM food have found various adverse health results like stunted growth, impaired immune systems, bleeding stomach and reduced digestive enzymes among humans. -AnupamaBharat Gajjar <gajjarbm@...> wrote: Dear Dr.Geer, I have planned the discussion on organic farming after the discussion on fertilizers and pesticides is over. I know that Dr. Vijay and you both are so enthusiastic that you have started the same. I salute your enthusiasm and appreciate the posting on

organic farming, very informative article. Now it is open for other members to comment on Chemical Fertilizers, Organic Farming, Pesticides Use and Genetically Engineered Foods. Thank you Dr.Geer. DR. BHARAT GAJJAR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY, PRAMUKHSWAMI MEDICAL COLLEGE, KARAMSAD-388325. DIST.-ANAND (GUJARAT) INDIA. MOBILE- 09428153344. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

What is your Emotional Quotient? Find out.

[Guest guest]

Hello friends,

Anupama has pointed out the adverse effects of BT cotton , and the same deduction can be expected from GE foods. Since these GE foods are not tested for safety in human beings , ( as mentioned by Bhumika in her post ) nor do we know the long term effects of such manipulations , it is still a matter of speculation whether to consume these foods or not. The GE foods are no doubt researched products but for their good yield,and protection from environmental effects , but we do not see any variation in our food. You get to see only the same hard red tomatoes,cabbage and cauliflower with very good presentation but with no taste. No variation makes eating such food very boring .At least this is my experience.

kunda

Dear Dr.Geer,

I have planned the discussion on organic farming after the discussion on fertilizers and pesticides is over.

I know that Dr. Vijay and you both are so enthusiastic that you have started the same.

I salute your enthusiasm and appreciate the posting on organic farming, very informative article.

Now it is open for other members to comment on Chemical Fertilizers, Organic Farming, Pesticides Use and Genetically Engineered Foods.

Thank you Dr.Geer.

DR. BHARAT GAJJAR

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,

DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY,

PRAMUKHSWAMI MEDICAL COLLEGE,

KARAMSAD-388325.

DIST.-ANAND (GUJARAT) INDIA.

MOBILE- 09428153344.

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

What is your Emotional Quotient? Find out.

Explore your hobbies and interests. Click here to begin.

[Guest guest]

Hi friends,

Valuable inputs from Dr. Bhumika, Dr. Anupama and Dr. Kunda.

I request other members also to give their opinions regarding GE food.DR. BHARAT GAJJAR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY, PRAMUKHSWAMI MEDICAL COLLEGE, KARAMSAD-388325. DIST.-ANAND (GUJARAT) INDIA. MOBILE- 09428153344.

Dear Dr.Geer,

I have planned the discussion on organic farming after the discussion on fertilizers and pesticides is over.

I know that Dr. Vijay and you both are so enthusiastic that you have started the same.

I salute your enthusiasm and appreciate the posting on organic farming, very informative article.

Now it is open for other members to comment on Chemical

Fertilizers, Organic Farming, Pesticides Use and Genetically Engineered

Foods.

Thank you Dr.Geer.

DR. BHARAT GAJJAR

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,

DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY,

PRAMUKHSWAMI MEDICAL COLLEGE,

KARAMSAD-388325.

DIST.-ANAND (GUJARAT) INDIA.

MOBILE- 09428153344.

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

What is your Emotional Quotient? Find out.

Explore your hobbies and interests. Click here to begin.

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

Please read this article.

Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods

by Lendman

Global Research, February 22, 2008

This article discusses the potential health risks of genetically engineered

foods (GMOs). It draws on some previously used material because its importance

bears repeating. It also cites three notable books and highlights one in

particular - 's " Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of

Genetically Engineered Foods. " Detailed information from the book is featured

below.

Genetically engineered foods saturate our diet today. In the US alone, over 80%

of all processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and

wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils, soft drinks;

salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat,

chicken, pork and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast

array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato

sauce, ice cream, margarine and peanut butter). Consumers don't know what

they're eating because labeling is prohibited, yet the danger is clear.

Independently conducted studies show the more of these foods we eat, the greater

the potential harm to our health.

Today, consumers are kept in the dark and are part of an uncontrolled,

unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. Yet, the

risks are enormous, it will take years to learn them, and when we finally know

it'll be too late to reverse the damage if it's proved conclusively that

genetically engineered foods harm human health as growing numbers of independent

experts believe. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of

the bottle for keeps. There is nothing known to science today to reverse the

contamination already spread over two-thirds of arable US farmland and heading

everywhere unless checked.

This is happening in spite of the risk because of what F. Engdahl

revealed in his powerfully important, well documented book titled " Seeds of

Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. " It's the diabolical

story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world

domination by patenting animal and vegetable life forms to gain worldwide

control of our food supply, make it all genetically engineered, and use it as a

weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

Today, consumers eat these foods daily without knowing the potential health

risks. In 2003, explained them in his book titled " Seeds of

Deception. " He revealed that efforts to inform the public have been quashed,

reliable science has been buried, and consider what happened to two

distinguished scientists - UC Berkeley's Ignacio Chapela and former Scotland

Rowett Research Institute researcher and world's leading lectins and plant

genetic modification expert, Arpad Pusztai. They were vilified, hounded, and

threatened for their research, and in the case of Pusztai, fired from his job

for doing it.

He believed in the promise of GM foods, was commissioned to study them, and

conducted the first ever independent one on them anywhere. Like other

researchers since, he was shocked by his findings. Rats fed GM potatoes had

smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed

structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to

infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse.

Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and

intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant

proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater

future risk of cancer. Equally alarming, results showed up after 10 days of

testing, and they persisted after 110 days that's the human equivalent of 10

years.

Later independent studies confirmed what Pusztai learned, and published

information on them in his 2007 book called " Genetic Roulette: The Documented

Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. " The book is encyclopedic in

depth, an invaluable comprehensive source, and this article reviews some of the

shocking data in it.

Compelling Evidence of Potential GMO Harm

In his introduction, cites the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)

policy statement on GM food safety without a shred of evidence to back it. It

supported GHW Bush's Executive Order that GMOs are " substantially equivalent " to

ordinary seeds and crops and need no government regulation. The agency said it

was " not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new

methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way. " That single

statement meant no safety studies are needed and " Ultimately, it is the food

producer " that bears responsibility " for assuring safety. " As a consequence,

foxes now guard our henhouse in a brave new dangerous world.

FDA policy opened the floodgates, and put it this way: It " set the stage

for the rapid deployment of the new technology, " allowed the seed industry to

become " consolidated, millions of acres (to be) planted, hundreds of millions to

be fed (these foods in spite of nations and consumers objecting, and) laws to be

passed (to assure it). " The toll today is contaminated crops, billions of

dollars lost, human health harmed, and it turns out the FDA lied.

The agency knew GM crops are " meaningfully different " because their technical

experts told them so. As a result, they recommended long-term studies, including

on humans, to test for possible allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional

problems. Instead, politics trumped science, the White House ordered the FDA to

promote GM crops, and a former Monsanto vice-president went to FDA to assure it.

Today, the industry is unregulated, and when companies say their foods are safe,

their views are unquestioned. Further, noted that policy makers in other

countries trust FDA and wrongly assume their assessments are valid. They're

disproved when independent studies are matched against industry-run ones. The

differences are startling. The former report adverse affects while the latter

claim the opposite. It's no secret why. Agribusiness giants allow nothing to

interfere with profits, safety is off the table, and all negative information is

quashed.

As a result, their studies are substandard, adverse findings are hidden, and

they typically " fail to investigate the impacts of GM food on gut function,

liver function, kidney function, the immune system, endocrine system, blood

composition, allergic response, effects on the unborn, the potential to cause

cancer, or impacts on gut bacteria. " In addition, industry-funded studies

creatively avoid finding problems or conceal any uncovered. They cook the books

by using older instead of younger more sensitive animals, keep sample sizes too

low for statistical significance, dilute the GM component of feeds used, limit

the duration of feeding trials, ignore animal deaths and sickness, and engage in

other unscientific practices. It's to assure people never learn of the potential

harm from these foods, and says they can do it because " They've got 'bad

science' down to a science. "

The real kinds show GMOs produce " massive changes in the natural functioning of

(a) plant's DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned off or

on....the inserted gene can become truncated, fragmented, mixed with other

genes, inverted or multiplied, and the GM protein it produces may have

unintended characteristics " that may be harmful.

GMOs also pose other health risks. When a transgene functions in a new cell, it

may produce different proteins than the ones intended. They may be harmful, but

there's no way to know without scientific testing. Even if the protein is

exactly the same, there are still problems. Consider corn varieties engineered

to produce a pesticidal protein called Bt-toxin. Farmers use it in spray form,

and companies falsely claim it's harmless to humans. In fact, people exposed to

the spray develop allergic-type symptoms, mice ingesting Bt had powerful immune

responses and abnormal and excessive cell growth, and a growing number of human

and livestock illnesses are linked to Bt crops.

notes still another problem relating to inserted genes. Assuming they're

destroyed by our digestive system, as industry claims, is false. In fact, they

may move from food into gut bacteria or internal organs, and consider the

potential harm. If corn genes with Bt-toxin get into gut bacteria, our

intestinal flora may become pesticide factories. There's been no research done

to prove if it's true or false. Agribusiness giants aren't looking, neither is

FDA, consumers are left to play " Genetic Roulette, " and the few animal feeding

studies done show the odds are against them.

Arpad Pusztai and other scientists were shocked at their results of animals fed

GM foods. His results were cited above. Other independent studies showed stunted

growth, impaired immune systems, bleeding stomachs, abnormal and potentially

precancerous cell growth in the intestines, impaired blood cell development,

misshaped cell structures in the liver, pancreas and testicles, altered gene

expression and cell metabolism, liver and kidney lesions, partially atrophied

livers, inflamed kidneys, less developed organs, reduced digestive enzymes,

higher blood sugar, inflamed lung tissue, increased death rates and higher

offspring mortality as well.

There's more. Two dozen farmers reported their pigs and cows fed GM corn became

sterile, 71 shepherds said 25% of their sheep fed Bt cotton plants died, and

other reports showed the same effects on cows, chickens, water buffaloes and

horses. After GM soy was introduced in the UK, allergies from the product

skyrocketed by 50%, and in the US in the 1980s, a GM food supplement killed

dozens and left five to ten thousand others sick or disabled.

Today, Monsanto is the world's largest seed producer, and notes how the

company deals with reports like these. In response to the US Public Health

Service concerning adverse reactions from its toxic PCBs, the company claims its

experience " has been singularly free of difficulties. " That's in spite of

lawsuit-obtained records showing " this was part of a cover-up and denial that

lasted decades " by a company with a long history of irresponsible behavior that

includes " extensive bribery, highjacking of regulatory agencies, suppressing

negative information about its products " and threatening journalists and

scientists who dare report them. The company long ago proved it can't be trusted

with protecting human health.

In his book, " Seeds of Destruction, " Engdahl names four dominant agribusiness

giants - Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Agrisciences and Syngenta in Switzerland from the

merger of the agriculture divisions of Novartis and AstraZeneca. calls

these companies Ag biotech and names a fifth - Germany-based Bayer CropScience

AG (division of Bayer AG) with its Environmental Science and BioScience

headquarters in France.

Their business is to do the impossible and practically overnight - change the

laws of nature and do them one better for profit. So far they haven't

independent because genetic engineering doesn't work like natural breeding. It

may or may not be a lot of things, but it isn't sex, says .

u, a molecular geneticist involved in human gene therapy, explains that

genetic modification " technically and conceptually bears no resemblance to

natural breeding. " The reproduction process works by both parents contributing

thousands of genes to the offspring. They, in turn, get sorted naturally, and

plant breeders have successfully worked this way for thousands of years.

Genetic manipulation is different and so far fraught with danger. It works by

forcibly inserting a single gene from a species' DNA into another unnaturally.

puts it this way: " A pig can mate with a pig and a tomato can mate with a

tomato. But this is no way that a pig can mate with a tomato and vice versa. "

The process transfers genes across natural barriers that " separated species over

millions of years of evolution " and managed to work. The biotech industry now

wants us to believe it can do nature one better, and that genetic engineering is

just an extension or superior alternative to natural breeding. It's unproved,

indefensible pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, and that's the problem.

Biologist Schubert explains that industry claims are " not only

scientifically incorrect but exceptionally deceptive....to make the GE process

sound similar to conventional plant breeding. " It a smoke screen to hide the

fact that what happens in laboratories can't duplicate nature, at least not up

to now. Genetic engineering involves combining genes that never before existed

together, the process defies natural breeding proved safe over thousands of

years, and there's no way to assure the result won't be a deadly unrecallable

Andromeda Strain, no longer the world of science fiction.

The industry pooh-pooh's the suggestion of potential harm, and unscientifically

claims millions of people in the US and worldwide have eaten GM food for a

decade, and no one got sick. 's reply: How can we know as " GM foods might

already be contributing to serious health problems, but since no one is

monitoring for this, it could take decades " to find out. By then, it will be too

late and some industry critics argue it already may be or dangerously close.

Today, most existing diseases have no effective surveillance systems in place.

If GM foods create new ones, that potentially compounds the problem manyfold.

Consider HIV/AIDS. It went unnoticed for decades and when identified, many

thousands worldwide were infected or had died.

Then there's the problem of linkage. In the US and many countries, GM foods are

unlabeled so it's impossible tracing illness and diseases to specific substances

ingested even if thousands of people are affected. It can plausibly be blamed on

anything, especially when governments and regulatory agencies support industry

claims of reliability and safety.

It's rare that problems like the L-Tryptophan epidemic of the late 1980s are

identified, but when it was thousands were already harmed. L-Tryptophan is a

natural amino acid constituent of most proteins and for years was produced by

many companies including Showa Denko in Japan. The company then got greedy, saw

a way to increase profits from a product designed to induce sleep naturally, and

gene-spliced a bacterium into the natural product to do it. The result was many

dozens dead, over 1500 crippled, and up to 10,000 afflicted with a blood

disorder from a new incurable disease called Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome or

EMS.

It's a painful, multi-system disease that causes permanent scarring and fibrosis

to nerve and muscle tissues, continuing inflammation, and a permanent change in

a person's immune system. It cost the company two billion dollars to settle

claims. Hundreds have since died, in all likelihood from contracting EMS.

This is the known toll from a single product. Consider the potential harm with

Ag biotech wanting all foods to be unlabeled GMOs worldwide and governments

unable to balk because WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and Trade Related

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) rules deny them. They're also prevented

under WTO's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS). It states that national

laws banning GMO products are " unfair trade practices " even when they endanger

human health. Other WTO rules also apply - called " Technical Barriers to Trade. "

They prohibit GMO labeling so consumers don't know what they're eating and can't

avoid these potentially hazardous foods.

The 1996 Biosafety Protocol was drafted to prevent this problem, and it should

be in place to do it. Public safety, however, was ambushed by Washington, the

FDA and the agribusiness lobby. It sabotaged talks and insisted biosafety

measures be subordinate to WTO trade rules that apply regardless of other

considerations, including public health and safety. The path is thus cleared for

the unrestricted spread of GMO seeds and foods worldwide unless a way is found

to stop it.

Independent Animal Studies Showing GMO Harm

Rats fed genetically engineered Calgene Flavr-Savr tomatoes (developed to look

fresh for weeks) for 28 days got bleeding stomachs (stomach lesions) and seven

died and were replaced in the study.

Rats fed Monsanto 863 Bt corn for 90 days developed multiple reactions typically

found in response to allergies, infections, toxins, diseases like cancer, anemia

and blood pressure problems. Their blood cells, livers and kidneys showed

significant changes indicative of disease.

Mice fed either GM potatoes engineered to produce Bt- toxin or natural potatoes

containing the toxin had intestinal damage. Both varieties created abnormal and

excessive cell growth in the lower intestine. The equivalent human damage might

cause incontinence or flu-like symptoms and could be pre-cancerous. The study

disproved the contention that digestion destroys Bt-toxin and is not

biologically active in mammals.

Workers in India handling Bt cotton while picking, loading, weighing and

separating the fiber from seeds developed allergies. They began with " mild to

severe itching, " then redness and swelling, followed by skin eruptions. These

symptoms affected their skin, eyes (got red and swollen with excessive tearing)

and upper respiratory tract causing nasal discharge and sneezing. In some cases,

hospitalization was required. At one cotton gin factory, workers take

antihistamines daily.

Sheep grazing on Bt cotton developed " unusual systems " before dying

" mysteriously. " Reports from four Indian villages revealed 25% of them died

within a week. Post mortems indicated a toxic reaction. The study raises

questions about cottonseed oil safety and human health for people who eat meat

from animals fed GM cotton. It's crucial to understand that what animals eat, so

do people.

Nearly all 100 Filipinos living adjacent to a Bt corn field became ill. Their

symptoms appeared when the crop was producing airborne pollen and was apparently

inhaled. Doing it produced headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting,

chest pains, fever, and allergies plus respiratory, intestinal and skin

reactions. Blood tests conducted on 39 victims showed an antibody response to

Bt-toxin suggesting it was the cause. Four other villages experienced the same

problems that also resulted in several animal deaths.

Iowa farmers reported a conception rate drop of from 80% to 20% among sows

(female pigs) fed GM corn. Most animals also had false pregnancies, some

delivered bags of water and others stopped menstruating. Male pigs were also

affected as well as cows and bulls. They became sterile and all were fed GM

corn.

German farmer Gottfried Glockner grew GM corn and fed it to his cows. Twelve

subsequently died from the Bt 176 variety, and other cows had to be destroyed

due to a " mysterious " illness. The corn plots were field trials for Ag biotech

giant Syngenta that later took the product off the market with no admission of

fault.

Mice fed Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans developed significant liver cell

changes indicating a dramatic general metabolism increase. Symptoms included

irregularly shaped nuclei and nucleoli, and an increased number of nuclear pores

and other changes. It's thought this resulted from exposure to a toxin, and most

symptoms disappeared when Roundup Ready was removed from the diet.

Mice fed Roundup Ready had pancreas problems, heavier livers and unexplained

testicular cell changes. The Monsanto product also produced cell metabolism

changes in rabbit organs, and most offspring of rats on this diet died within

three weeks.

The death rate for chickens fed GM Liberty Link corn for 42 days doubled. They

also experienced less weight gain, and their food intake was erratic.

In the mid-1990s, Australian scientists discovered that GM peas generated an

allergic-type inflammatory response in mice in contrast to the natural protein

that had no adverse effect. Commercialization of the product was cancelled

because of fear humans might have the same reaction.

When given a choice, animals avoid GM foods. This was learned by observing a

flock of geese that annually visit an Illinois pond and feed on soybeans from an

adjacent farm. After half the acreage had GM crops, the geese ate only from the

non-GMO side. Another observation showed 40 deer ate organic soybeans from one

field but shunned the GMO kind across the road. The same thing happened with GM

corn.

Inserting foreign or transgenes is called insertional mutagenesis or insertion

mutation. When done, it usually disrupts DNA at the insertion site and affects

gene functioning overall by scrambling, deleting or relocating the genetic code

near the insertion site.

The process of creating a GM plant requires scientists first to isolate and grow

plant cells in the laboratory using a tissue culture process. The problem is

when it's done it can create hundreds or thousands of DNA mutations throughout

the genome. Changing a single base pair may be harmful. However, widespread

genome changes compound the potential problem manyfold.

Promoters are used in GM crops as switches to turn on the foreign gene. When

done, the process may accidently switch on other natural plant genes

permanently. The result may be to overproduce an allergen, toxin, carcinogen,

antinutrient, enzymes that stimulate or inhibit hormone production, RNA that

silences genes, or changes that affect fetal development. They may also produce

regulators that block other genes and/or switch on a dormant virus that may

cause great harm. In addition, evidence suggests the promoter may create genetic

instability and mutations that can result in the breakup and recombination of

the gene sequence.

Plants naturally produce thousands of chemicals to enhance health and protect

against disease. However, changing plant protein may alter these chemicals,

increase plant toxins and/or reduce its phytonutrients. For example, GM soybeans

produce less cancer-fighting isoflavones. Overall, studies show genetic

modification produces unintended changes in nutrients, toxins, allergens and

small molecule metabolism products.

To create a GM soybean with a more complete protein balance, Pioneer Hi-Bred

inserted a Brazil nut gene. By doing it, an allergenic protein was introduced

affecting people allergic to Brazil nuts. When tests confirmed this, the project

was cancelled. GM proteins in other crops like corn and papaya may also be

allergenic. The same problem exists for other crops like Bt corn, and evidence

shows allergies skyrocketed after GM crops were introduced.

Another study of Monsanto's high-lysine corn showed it contained toxins and

other potentially harmful substances that may retard growth. If consumed in

large amounts, it may also adversely affect human health. In addition, when this

product is cooked, it may produce toxins associated with Alzheimer's, diabetes,

allergies, kidney disease, cancer and aging symptoms.

Disease-resistant crops like zucchini, squash and Hawaiian papaya may promote

human viruses and other diseases, and eating these products may suppress the

body's natural defense against viral infections.

Protein structural aspects in GM crops may be altered in unforeseen ways. They

may be misfolded or have added molecules. During insertion, transgenes may

become truncated, rearranged or interspersed with other DNA pieces with unknown

harmful effects. Transgenes may also be unstable and spontaneously rearrange

over time, again with unpredictable consequences. In addition, they may create

more than one protein from a process called alternative splicing. Environmental

factors, weather, natural and man-made substances and genetic disposition of a

plant further complicate things and pose risks. They're introduced as well

because genetic engineering disrupts complex DNA relationships.

Contrary to industry claims, studies show transgenes aren't destroyed

digestively in humans or animals. Foreign DNA can wander, survive in the

gastro-intestinal tract, and be transported by blood to internal organs. This

raises the risk that transgenes may transfer to gut bacteria, proliferate over

time, and get into cells DNA, possibly causing chronic diseases. A single human

feeding study confirmed that genes, in fact, transferred from GM soy into the

DNA gut bacteria of three of seven test subjects.

Antibiotic Resister Marker (ARM) genes are attached to transgenes prior to

insertion and allow cells to survive antibiotic applications. If ARM genes

transfer to pathogenic gut or mouth bacteria, they potentially can cause

antibiotic-resistant super-diseases. The proliferation of GM crops increases the

possibility. The CaMV promoter in nearly all GMOs can also transfer and may

switch on random genes or viruses that produce toxins, allergens or carcinogens

as well as create genetic instability.

GM crops interact with their environment and are part of a complex ecosystem

that includes our food. These crops may increase environmental and other toxins

that may accumulate throughout the food chain. Crops genetically engineered to

be glufosinate (herbicide)resistant may produce intestinal herbicide with known

toxic effects. If transference to gut bacteria occurs, greater problems may

result.

Repeated use of seeds like Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans results in vicious

new super-weeds that need far greater amounts of stronger herbicides to combat.

Their toxic residues remain in crops that humans and animals then eat. Even

small amounts of these toxins may be endocrine disruptors that can affect human

reproduction adversely. Evidence exists that GM crops accumulate toxins or

concentrate them in milk or animals fed GM feed. Disease-resistant crops may

also produce new plant viruses that affect humans.

All type GM foods, not just crops, carry these risks. Milk, for example, from

cows injected with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone (rbGH), has much higher

levels of the hormone IGF-1 that risks breast, prostate, colon, lung and other

cancers. The milk also has lower nutritional value. GM food additives also pose

health risks, and their use has proliferated in processed foods.

Potential harm to adults is magnified for children. Another concern is that

pregnant mothers eating GM foods may endanger their offspring by harming normal

fetal development and altering gene expression that's then passed to future

generations. Children are also more endangered than adults, especially those

drinking substantial amounts of rbGH-treated milk.

Conclusion

The above information is largely drawn from 's " Genetic Roulette. " The data

is startling and confirms a clear conclusion. The proliferation of untested,

unregulated GM foods in the span of a decade is more a leap of faith than

reliable science. Microbiologist Lacey captures the risk stating: " it is

virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the

health effects of (GM) foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there

any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction. " Other

scientists worldwide agree that GM foods entered the market long before science

could evaluate their safety and benefits. They want a halt to this dangerous

experiment that needs decades of rigorous research and testing before we can

know.

Unchecked and unregulated, human health and safety are at risk because once GMOs

enter the food chain, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps. Thankfully,

resistance is growing worldwide, many millions are opposed, but reversing the

tide won't be easy. Washington and Ag biotech are on a roll with big unstated

aims - total control of our food, making it all genetically engineered, and

scheming to use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

is hopeful that people will prevail over profits. Hopefully he's right

because human health and safety must never be compromised. Resistance already

halted the introduction of new crop varieties, and believes that with

enough momentum existing ones may end up withdrawn. He cites an example he calls

a " Shift away from GM foods in the United States " in 2007. Leading it is an

initiative launched last spring to remove GM ingredients from the entire natural

food sector. It's led by a coalition of natural food products producers,

distributors and retailers along with the Institute for Responsible Technology

(IRT). It's called the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, and its aims

are big - to educate consumers about GM food risks and promote healthy

alternatives through shopping guides.

A Pew survey reported that 29% of Americans, representing 87 million people,

strongly oppose these foods and believe they're unsafe. That's a respectable

start if backed up with efforts to avoid them, and more information how is at

ResponsibleTechnology.org. founded IRT in 2003 " to promote the

responsible use of technology and stop GM foods and crops through both

grassroots and national strategies. " It seeks safe alternatives and aims to " ban

the genetic engineering of our food supply and all outdoor releases of (GM)

organisms, at least until (or unless scientific opinion) believes such products

are safe and appropriate based on independent and reliable data. "

IRT urges consumers to become educated about the risks, mobilize to combat them

and act in our mutual self-interest. It's beginning to happen, and

believes " there is an excellent chance that food manufacturers will abandon GM

foods in the near future " if a public groundswell demands it. He ends his book

saying: " Although GMOs present one of the greatest dangers, with informed,

motivated people, it is one of the easiest global issues to solve. " Hopefully

he's right.

DR. BHARAT GAJJAR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY,

PRAMUKHSWAMI MEDICAL COLLEGE, KARAMSAD-388325. DIST.-ANAND (GUJARAT) INDIA.

MOBILE- 09428153344.

[Guest guest]

Hello all,

Genetically modified food (GMF)sounds quite interesting. Topic has been introduced quite well in last couple of postings.

During higher secondary studies, in botany it was read that after using colchicine on plant, diploidy (polyploidy) takes place and thus size of the fruit increases. For example banana, potato, etc. At that time this all information was fun.

Now discussion is being conducted to understand both sides of a coin. We see the positive aspects like GMF as:

Pest resistance

Herbicide tolerance

Disease resistance

Cold/drought/salinity tolerance

Nutrition

Pharmaceutical

Phytomedication

While negative features are:

Unintended harm to other organisms

Reduced effectiveness of pesticides

Gene transfer to non-target species

Allergenicity

Unknown effects on human health

In the ecosystem plants forms the base.. This is fed upon by herbivores (primary layer). The layer then feeds secondary layer, carnivores. At the top is tertiary consumer which depends on all. Human beings are at the top. Any modification made at base will get concentrated at every step to reach top. For new drug we do the preclinical studies, clinical trials then pharmacovigilance. Food i.e. plants we used to consider because those were natural. But if human manipulation comes in that area also it has to be getting checked prior to its consumption. If the pitfalls are known we can avoid it but in case of GMF we are unaware of it pausing problem. We should welcome this technology but after concerning possible facts about the same.

Though Gajjar sir has told not to give just link, I am attaching this PDF. All of you will enjoy this information..

Regards,

Dr. Smita Mali

GMC, Nagpur

Has your work life balance shifted? Find out.