Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate GM Soy Diet
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar industry.
Irina
Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous
Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS),
added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. Other
females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet
began two weeks before the rats conceived and continued through
pregnancy and nursing.
Ermakova's
first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth. Some
pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36%
of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other
groups.
But the
real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25 of
the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33
(9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy
controls.
Ermakova
preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring, drew
up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and
expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The
$70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when
she was invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the
National Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote 'PRELIMINARY
STUDIES' on the top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005
at a session devoted to the risks of GM food.
Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in controversy.
GM Soy's Divisive Past
The soy she was testing was Monsanto's
Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the
soy plant to survive applications of Monsanto's 'Roundup' brand
herbicide. About 85% of the soy grown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since
soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the
majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat
ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.
The FDA
does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods. If
Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the
agency has no further questions. The rationale for this hands-off
position is a sentence in the FDA's 1992 policy that states, “The
agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by
these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform
way.”[1] The statement, it turns out, was deceptive. Documents made
public from a lawsuit years later revealed that the FDA's own experts
agreed that GM foods are different and might lead to hard-to-detect
allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional problems. They had urged
their superiors to require long-term safety studies, but were ignored.
The person in charge of FDA policy was, conveniently, Monsanto's former
attorney (and later their vice president). One FDA microbiologist
described the GM food policy as “just a political document” without
scientific basis, and warned that industry would “not do the tests that
they would normally do” since the FDA didn't require any.[2] He was
correct.
There
have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding safety
studies and no human clinical trials' in spite of the fact that
millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are
no adequate tests on “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut
function, liver function and kidney function,”[3] and animal feeding
studies are too short to adequately test for cancer, reproductive
problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes Ermakova's
research particularly significant. It's the first of its kind.
Past Studies Show Significant Effects
Other
studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions. Research on
the liver, the body's major de-toxifier, showed that rats fed GM soy
developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular anomalies.[4] This
indicates increased metabolic activity, probably resulting from a major
insult to that organ. Rats also showed changes in the pancreas,
including a huge drop in the production of a major enzyme
(alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit digestion. Cooked GM soy
contains about twice the amount of soy lectin, which can also block
nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that GM soy has 12-14%
less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer fighting.[7]
An
animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent problems
with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely criticized as
rigged to avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used mature animals
instead of young, more sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy up to
12-fold, used too much protein, never weighed the organs, and had huge
variations in starting weights. The study's nutrient comparison between
GM and non-GM soy revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and
carbohydrate content, lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and
phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had actually omitted the most
incriminating nutritional differences, which were later discovered and
made public. For example, the published paper showed a 27% increase in
a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered data raised
that to a 3-fold or 7-fold increase, after the soy was cooked. This
might explain why soy allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after
GM soy was introduced.
The gene
that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two sections that
are identical to known allergens. This might also account for the
increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human feeding trial ever
conducted confirmed that this inserted gene transfers into the DNA of
bacteria inside the intestines. This means that long after you decide
to stop eating GM soy, your own gut bacteria may still be producing
this potentially allergenic protein inside your digestive tract.
The
migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists found
fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of their
newborn.[10] Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also found in
the blood, spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were fed GM
corn.[11] It was not clear if the GM genes actually entered the DNA of
the animal, but scientists speculate that if it were to integrate into
the sex organ cells, it might impact offspring.
The
health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens, or
anti-nutrients in the mother's diet. These may be created in GM crops,
due to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of gene
insertion can delete one or more of the DNA's own natural genes,
scramble them, turn them off, or permanently turn them on. It can also
change the expression levels of hundreds of genes. And growing the
transformed cell into a GM plant through a process called tissue
culture can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations
throughout the DNA.
Most of
these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in Roundup Ready
soy. We don't know how many mutations or altered gene expressions are
found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed, however, scientists did
discover a section of natural soy DNA that was scrambled[12] and two
additional fragments of the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto's
detection.
Those
familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often astounded by
their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who discovered
incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about the technology
have been fired, threatened, stripped of responsibilities, or
censured.[13] And when problems do arise, they are not followed up. For
example, animals fed GM crops developed potentially precancerous cell
growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, damaged immune systems,
bigger livers, partial atrophy of the liver, lesions in the livers,
stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of the kidneys, problems with their
blood cells, higher blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in
the death rate. (See Spilling the Beans, August 2004.) None have been
adequately followed-up or accounted for.
Ermakova's
research, however, will likely change that. That's because her study is
easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A 55.6% mortality rate
is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the study is the only
reasonable option.
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study
I
presented Dr. Ermakova's findings, with her permission, at the annual
conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in
Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board passed a
resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor
an immediate, independent follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby,
the Academy's president, said, “Genetically modified soy, corn, canola,
and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily by a significant proportion
of our population. We need rigorous, independent and long-term studies
to evaluate if these foods put the population at risk.”
Unfortunately,
there is a feature about GM crops that makes even follow-up studies a
problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted genes in
five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.[14] In each case,
the genetic sequence was different than that which had been described
by the biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a
mistake? That's unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably
rearranged over time. A Brussels lab confirmed that the genetic
sequences were different than what was originally listed. But the
sequences discovered in Brussels didn't all match those found by the
French.[15] This suggests that the inserted genes are unstable and can
change in different ways. It also means that they are creating new
proteins' ones that were never intended or tested. The Roundup Ready
soybeans used in the Russian test may therefore be quite different from
the Roundup Ready soybeans used in follow-up studies.
Unstable
genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may explain some
of the many problems reported about GM foods. For example, nearly 25
farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM corn varieties caused
their pigs to become sterile, have false pregnancies, or give birth to
bags of water. A farmer in Germany claims that a certain variety of GM
corn killed 12 of his cows and caused others to fall sick. And
Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed skin, respiratory,
and intestinal symptoms and fever, while the corn was pollinating. The
mysterious symptoms returned the following year, also during
pollination, and blood tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune
response to the Bt toxin created by the GM corn.
These
problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may result from
a GM crop that has 'gone bad' due to genetic rearrangements. Even GM
plants with identical gene sequences, however, might act differently.
The amount of Bt toxin in the Philippine corn study described above,
for example, varied considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the
same plant.[16]
With
billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding has yet
been sufficient to reverse the industry's growth in the US. It may take
some dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery. That is
why Ermakova's findings are so important. If the study holds up, it may
topple the GM food industry.
I urge
the NIH to agree to the AAEM's request, and fund an immediate,
independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not forthcoming, our
Institute for Responsible Technology will try to raise the money. This
is not the time to wait. There is too much at stake.
Click here for press release on Russian rat study.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle?objectID=298
Click here for the resolution by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle?objectID=296
Click here for downloadable photos of the rats.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle?objectID=293
Jeffrey
M. Smith is working with a team of international scientists to catalog
all known health risks of GM foods. He is the author of Seeds of
Deception , the world's bestselling book on GM food, and the producer
of the video, Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals.
Spilling
the Beans is a monthly column available at
http://www.responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer this
article or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by emailing
column@responsibletechnology.org. Individuals may read the column each
month by subscribing to a free newsletter at
http://www.responsibletechnology.org.
[1]”Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” Federal Register vol. 57, no. 104 at 22991, May 29, 1992
[2]Louis J. Pribyl, “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,” March 6, 1992, http://www.biointegrity.org
[3]Epidemiologist Judy Carman's testimony before New Zealand's Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001.
[4]Malatesta
M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C,
Gazzanelli G. (2002a) Ultrastructural morphometrical and
immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on
genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 27: 173-180.
[5]Manuela
Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells
from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy,
Volume 201 Issue 5 Page 409 – November 2002
[6]Stephen
R. Padgette and others, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean
Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of
Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (The data was taken from the
journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
[7]Lappe,
M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R. (1999)
Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically
modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medical Food 1,
241-245.
[8]Stephen
R. Padgette and others, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean
Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of
Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996
[9]For
example, Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, “In Vivo Studies on Possible
Health Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed” with
Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified
Plant Materials,- Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003
[10]Doerfler
W; Schubbert R, “Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment: the
gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry,” Journal
of molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-504, 1994
[11]Raffaele
Mazza1, et al, “Assessing the Transfer of Genetically Modified DNA from
Feed to Animal Tissues,” Transgenic Research, October 2005, Volume 14,
Number 5, pp 775 – 784
[12]P.
Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M. DeLoose,
“Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert,” European Food
Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112
[13]Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, 2003
[14]
Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N,
Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO
inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster
presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology
(n'VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr.
Gilles-Eric Seralini, President du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN,
http://www.crii-gen.org; also “Transgenic lines proven unstable” by Mae-Wan
Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003 http://www.i-sis.org.uk
[15] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php
[16] http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=36
Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part.
Blog For Iowa 