Why Genetically Modified Crops Can Devastate Health

[Guest guest]

Why Genetically Modified Crops Can Devastate Health

_http://www.mercola.com/2003/jul/2/gm_crops.htm_

(http://www.mercola.com/2003/jul/2/gm_crops.htm)

1. GM crops failed to deliver promised benefits

The consistent finding from independent research and on-farm surveys since

1999 is that GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits of

significantly increasing yields or reducing herbicide and pesticide use. GM

crops

have cost the United States an estimated $12 billion in farm subsidies, lost

sales and product recalls due to transgenic contamination. Massive failures in

Bt cotton of up to 100 percent were reported in India.

Biotech corporations have suffered rapid decline since 2000, and investment

advisors forecast no future for the agricultural sector. Meanwhile worldwide

resistance to GM has reached a climax in 2002 when Zambia refused GM maize in

food aid despite the threat of famine.

2. GM crops posing escalating problems on the farm

The instability of transgenic lines has plagued the industry from the

beginning, and this may be responsible for a string of major crop failures. A

review in 1994 stated, " While there are some examples of plants which show

stable

expression of a transgene these may prove to be the exceptions to the rule.

In an informal survey of over 30 companies involved in the commercialization

of transgenic crop plants ... almost all of the respondents indicated that

they had observed some level of transgene inaction. Many respondents indicated

that most cases of transgene inactivation never reach the literature. "

Triple herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape volunteers that have combined

transgenic and non-transgenic traits are now widespread in Canada. Similar

multiple

herbicide-tolerant volunteers and weeds have emerged in the United States. In

the United States, glyphosate-tolerant weeds are plaguing GM cotton and soya

fields, and atrazine, one of the most toxic herbicides, has had to be used

with glufosinate-tolerant GM maize.

Bt biopesticide traits are simultaneously threatening to create superweeds

and Bt- resistant pests.

3. Extensive transgenic contamination unavoidable

Extensive transgenic contamination has occurred in maize landraces growing

in remote regions in Mexico despite an official moratorium that has been in

place since 1998. High levels of contamination have since been found in Canada.

In a test of 33 certified seed stocks, 32 were found contaminated.

New research shows that transgenic pollen, wind-blown and deposited

elsewhere, or fallen directly to the ground, is a major source of transgenic

contamination. Contamination is generally acknowledged to be unavoidable, hence

there

can be no co-existence of transgenic and non-transgenic crops.

4. GM crops not safe

Contrary to the claims of proponents, GM crops have not been proven safe.

The regulatory framework was fatally flawed from the start. It was based on an

anti-precautionary approach designed to expedite product approval at the

expense of safety considerations. The principle of 'substantial equivalence',

on

which risk assessment is based, is intended to be vague and ill-defined,

thereby giving companies complete license in claiming transgenic products

'substantially equivalent' to non-transgenic products, and hence 'safe.'

5. GM food raises serious safety concerns

There have been very few credible studies on GM food safety. Nevertheless,

the available findings already give cause for concern. In the still only

systematic investigation on GM food ever carried out in the world, 'growth

factor-like' effects were found in the stomach and small intestine of young

rats

that were not fully accounted for by the transgene product, and were hence

attributable to the transgenic process or the transgenic construct, and may

hence

be general to all GM food. There have been at least two other, more limited,

studies that also raised serious safety concerns.

6. Dangerous gene products are incorporated into crops

Bt proteins, incorporated into 25 percent of all transgenic crops worldwide,

have been found harmful to a range of non-target insects. Some of them are

also potent immunogens and allergens. A team of scientists have cautioned

against releasing Bt crops for human use.

Food crops are increasingly used to produce pharmaceuticals and drugs,

including cytokines known to suppress the immune system, induce sickness and

central nervous system toxicity; interferon alpha, reported to cause dementia,

neurotoxicity and mood and cognitive side effects; vaccines; and viral

sequences

such as the 'spike' protein gene of the pig coronavirus, in the same family

as the SARS virus linked to the current epidemic. The glycoprotein gene gp120

of the AIDS virus HIV-1, incorporated into GM maize as a 'cheap, edible oral

vaccine', serves as yet another biological time-bomb, as it can interfere

with the immune system and recombine with viruses and bacteria to generate new

and unpredictable pathogens.

7. Terminator crops spread male sterility

Crops engineered with 'suicide' genes for male sterility have been promoted

as a means of 'containing', i.e. preventing, the spread of transgenes. In

reality, the hybrid crops sold to farmers spread both male sterile suicide

genes

as well herbicide tolerance genes via pollen.

8. Broad-spectrum herbicides highly toxic to humans and other species

Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate are used with the herbicide-tolerant

transgenic crops that currently account for 75 percent of all transgenic crops

worldwide. Both are systemic metabolic poisons expected to have a wide range

of harmful effects, and these have been confirmed.

Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory,

gastrointestinal and hematological toxicities, and birth defects in humans and

mammals. It

is toxic to butterflies and a number of beneficial insects, also to the larvae

of clams and oysters, Daphnia and some freshwater fish, especially the

rainbow trout. It inhibits beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, especially those

that fix nitrogen.

Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning in the UK.

Disturbances of many body functions have been reported after exposures at

normal use levels.

Glyphosate exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortion,

and children born to users of glyphosate had elevated neurobehavioral defects.

Glyphosate caused retarded development of the foetal skeleton in laboratory

rats. Glyphosate inhibits the synthesis of steroids, and is genotoxic in

mammals, fish and frogs. Field dose exposure of earthworms caused at least 50

percent mortality and significant intestinal damage among surviving worms.

Roundup caused cell division dysfunction that may be linked to human cancers.

The known effects of both glufosinate and glyphosate are sufficiently

serious for all further uses of the herbicides to be halted.

9. Genetic engineering creates super-viruses

By far the most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent to the

process itself, which greatly enhances the scope and probability of

horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating viruses

and

bacteria that cause disease epidemics. This was highlighted in 2001 by the

'accidental' creation of a killer mouse virus in the course of an apparently

innocent genetic engineering experiment.

Newer techniques, such as DNA shuffling are allowing geneticists to create

in a matter of minutes in the laboratory millions of recombinant viruses that

have never existed in billions of years of evolution. Disease-causing viruses

and bacteria and their genetic material are the predominant materials and

tools for genetic engineering, as much as for the intentional creation of

bio-weapons.

10. Transgenic DNA in food taken up by bacteria in human gut

There is already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from plants has

been taken up by bacteria in the soil and in the gut of human volunteers.

Antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from transgenic food to

pathogenic

bacteria, making infections very difficult to treat.

11. Transgenic DNA and cancer

Transgenic DNA is known to survive digestion in the gut and to jump into the

genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for triggering cancer.

The possibility cannot be excluded that feeding GM products such as maize to

animals also carries risks, not just for the animals but also for human

beings consuming the animal products.

12. CaMV 35S promoter increases horizontal gene transfer

Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S promoter

might be especially unstable and prone to horizontal gene transfer and

recombination, with all the attendant hazards: gene mutations due to random

insertion,

cancer, reactivation of dormant viruses and generation of new viruses. This

promoter is present in most GM crops being grown commercially today.

13. A history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence

There has been a history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific

evidence, especially on horizontal gene transfer. Key experiments failed to

be performed, or were performed badly and then misrepresented. Many

experiments were not followed up, including investigations on whether the CaMV

35S

promoter is responsible for the 'growth-factor-like' effects observed in young

rats fed GM potatoes.

In conclusion, GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits and are

posing escalating problems on the farm. Transgenic contamination is now

widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and hence there can be no co-existence

of

GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM crops have not been

proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged to raise serious

safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible damage to health

and the environment. GM crops should be firmly rejected now.

Why Sustainable Agriculture?

1. Higher productivity and yields, especially in the Third World

Some 8.98 million farmers have adopted sustainable agriculture practices on

28.92 million hectares in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Reliable data from

89 projects show higher productivity and yields: 50 percent to 100 percent

increase in yield for rain-fed crops, and five percent to 10 percent for

irrigated crops. Top successes include Burkina Faso, which turned a cereal

deficit

of 644 kg per year to an annual surplus of 153 kg; Ethiopia, where 12,500

households enjoyed a 60 percent increase in crop yields; and Honduras and

Guatemala, where 45,000 families increased yields from 400 to 600 kg/ha to

2,000 to

2,500 kg/ha.

Long-term studies in industrialized countries show yields for organic

comparable to conventional agriculture, and sometimes higher.

2. Better soils

Sustainable agricultural practices tend to reduce soil erosion, as well as

improve soil physical structure and water-holding capacity, which are crucial

in averting crop failures during periods of drought.

Soil fertility is maintained or increased by various sustainable agriculture

practices. Studies show that soil organic matter and nitrogen levels are

higher in organic than in conventional fields.

Biological activity has also been found to be higher in organic soils. There

are more earthworms, arthropods, mycorrhizal and other fungi, and

microorganisms, all of which are beneficial for nutrient recycling and

suppression of

disease.

3. Cleaner environment

There is little or no polluting chemical-input with sustainable agriculture.

Moreover, research suggests that less nitrate and phosphorus are leached to

groundwater from organic soils.

Better water infiltration rates are found in organic systems. Therefore,

they are less prone to erosion and less likely to contribute to water pollution

from surface runoff.

4. Reduced pesticides and no increase in pests

Organic farming prohibits routine pesticide application. Integrated pest

management has cut the number of pesticide sprays in Vietnam from 3.4 to one

per

season, in Sri Lanka from 2.9 to 0.5 per season, and in Indonesia from 2.9

to 1.1 per season.

Research showed no increase in crop losses due to pest damage, despite the

withdrawal of synthetic insecticides in Californian tomato production.

Pest control is achievable without pesticides, reversing crop losses, as for

example, by using 'trap crops' to attract stem borer, a major pest in East

Africa. Other benefits of avoiding pesticides arise from utilizing the complex

inter-relationships between species in an ecosystem.

5. Supporting biodiversity and using diversity

Sustainable agriculture promotes agricultural biodiversity, which is crucial

for food security and rural livelihoods. Organic farming can also support

much greater biodiversity, benefiting species that have significantly declined.

Biodiverse systems are more productive than monocultures. Integrated farming

systems in Cuba are 1.45 to 2.82 times more productive than monocultures.

Thousands of Chinese rice farmers have doubled yields and nearly eliminated the

most devastating disease simply by mixed planting of two varieties.

Soil biodiversity is enhanced by organic practices, bringing beneficial

effects such as recovery and rehabilitation of degraded soils, improved soil

structure and water infiltration.

6. Environmentally and economically sustainable

Research on apple production systems ranked the organic system first in

environmental and economic sustainability, the integrated system second and the

conventional system last. Organic apples were most profitable due to price

premiums, quicker investment return and fast recovery of costs.

A Europe-wide study showed that organic farming performs better than

conventional farming in the majority of environmental indicators. A review by

the

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concluded that

well-managed organic agriculture leads to more favorable conditions at all

environmental levels.

7. Ameliorating climate change by reducing direct & indirect energy use

Organic agriculture uses energy much more efficiently and greatly reduces

CO2 emissions compared with conventional agriculture, both with respect to

direct energy consumption in fuel and oil and indirect consumption in synthetic

fertilizers and pesticides.

Sustainable agriculture restores soil organic matter content, increasing

carbon sequestration below ground, thereby recovering an important carbon sink.

Organic systems have shown significant ability to absorb and retain carbon,

raising the possibility that sustainable agriculture practices can help reduce

the impact of global warming.

Organic agriculture is likely to emit less nitrous dioxide (N2O), another

important greenhouse gas and also a cause of stratospheric ozone depletion.

8. Efficient, profitable production

Any yield reduction in organic agriculture is more than offset by ecological

and efficiency gains. Research has shown that the organic approach can be

commercially viable in the long-term, producing more food per unit of energy or

resources.

Data show that smaller farms produce far more per unit area than the larger

farms characteristic of conventional farming. Though the yield per unit area

of one crop may be lower on a small farm than on a large monoculture, the

total output per unit area, often composed of more than a dozen crops and

various animal products, can be far higher.

Production costs for organic farming are often lower than for conventional

farming, bringing equivalent or higher net returns even without organic price

premiums. When price premiums are factored in, organic systems are almost

always more profitable.

9. Improved food security and benefits to local communities

A review of sustainable agriculture projects in developing countries showed

that average food production per household increased by 1.71 tons per year

(up 73 percent) for 4.42 million farmers on 3.58 million hectares, bringing

food security and health benefits to local communities.

Increasing agricultural productivity has been shown to also increase food

supplies and raise incomes, thereby reducing poverty, increasing access to

food, reducing malnutrition and improving health and livelihoods.

Sustainable agricultural approaches draw extensively on traditional and

indigenous knowledge, and place emphasis on the farmers' experience and

innovation. This thereby utilizes appropriate, low-cost and readily available

local

resources as well as improves farmers' status and autonomy, enhancing social

and cultural relations within local communities.

10. Better food quality for health

Organic food is safer as organic farming prohibits routine pesticide and

herbicide use so harmful chemical residues are rarely found.

Organic production also bans the use of artificial food additives such as

hydrogenated fats, phosphoric acid, aspartame and monosodium glutamate, which

have been linked to health problems as diverse as heart disease, osteoporosis,

migraines and hyperactivity.

Studies have shown that, on average, organic food has higher vitamin C,

higher mineral levels and higher plant phenolics--plant compounds that can

fight

cancer and heart disease, and combat age-related neurological

dysfunctions--and significantly less nitrates, a toxic compound.

Sustainable agricultural practices have proven beneficial in all aspects

relevant to health and the environment. In addition, they bring food security

and social and cultural well-being to local communities everywhere. There is an

urgent need for a comprehensive global shift to all forms of sustainable

agriculture.

_Independent Science Panel Report_

(http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ispr-summary.php) June 15, 2003

____________________________________

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

Many respectable scientists are concerned about, and nearly all of Europe

has _strong opposition_ (http://www.mercola.com/2003/jun/18/gm_food_ban.htm)

to, genetically modified foods.

This is a wise choice as consuming genetically modified foods is like

participating in a giant experiment. There is no telling what the consequences

of

using these genetically modified foods will be because these products have

never existed before now.

It seems clear that these altered foods are capable of producing changes in

humans. Already, investigators have found that rats fed genetically modified

potatoes had an increased thickening in the lining of their stomach and

intestine and a weakening of their immune system.

Further, some scientists want to put vaccines into plants without any real

knowledge of what effects this unnatural addition will have on human health,

or the health of our planet.

This is SHEER LUNACY.

What these scientists have failed to fully appreciate is that once these

genetically modified plants are growing it is physically impossible to prevent

them from pollinating other plants, thereby contaminating them with these new

proteins, of which we do not know the long-term consequences.

The absurdity of the entire process is mind-boggling. These scientists are

willing to sacrifice the country’s food supply by adding vaccines, which do

not even work in the first place, to plants.

If this continues, our grandchildren may not have access to any

non-genetically modified food, and the health of our society may continue to

rapidly

decline.

One of the keys to health is good food. Although most of us don't choose to

do so, we can still purchase real, unaltered food in this country. Sadly, the

future does not appear to provide this option.

Genetically modified foods did not exist prior to 1995. Ninety percent of

the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods, and seventy

percent of processed foods have genetically modified foods in them.

There have been NO STUDIES done with humans to show what happens when

genetically modified foods are consumed. The FDA has ASSUMED that these

modified

foods are equivalent to the original foods and does not require any studies to

have them approved, despite the fact that this technology has never before

existed in the history of the world.

On the other hand, sustainable agriculture provides a method to produce

healthier food that is also better for the environment. It’s time to start

looking at long-term consequences--switching to sustainable farming methods

will

preserve our health and planet, rather than destroy them.

Related Articles:

_Prominent Scientists Form Group to Counter GM Food_

(http://www.mercola.com/2003/may/21/gm_food.htm)

_GM Crops Raise Price of Organic Food_ (http://www.mer

cola.com/2003/jun/21/gm_crops.htm)

_Pig Vaccine Contaminates U.S. Crops_

(http://www.mercola.com/2003/jan/8/pig_vaccine.htm)

_Genetically Modified Foods, Inc._

(http://www.mercola.com/2003/jan/1/gm_foods.htm)

_Genetically Modified Food Genes Contaminate Humans_

(http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/3/gm_food.htm)

_All Organic Seeds Now Appear to Be Contaminated With Genetically Modified

Crops_ (http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/23/gm_crops.htm)

No information in this letter should be construed as medical advice.

This information is for educational purposes only.

Jeff el

10360 Pine Lakes Blvd

North Fort Myers, Fl 33903

http://www.msprotocols.com/