Transcript 1-100, How vigilant were you to avoid GM food when eating out?

The Health Risks of
DNA Nanobiothechnology
US GM crops
Soy
Corn
Cotton
Canola
94%
88%
93%
90% (Canada)
Sugar beets 95%
Alfalfa (hay, not sprouts) ?%
Hawaiian papaya
virus resistant
Zucchini
crookneck squash
virus resistant
Minor Food Crops
How do we avoid GMOs?
 Buy organic
 Buy products that are labeled non-GMO
 Buy products listed on a
Non-GMO Shopping Guide
 Avoid at-risk ingredients
See
NonGMOShoppingGuide.com
www.
for shopping guides and tips
Rate yourself
1-100, How vigilant were you
to avoid GM food when eating
out?
1-100, How vigilant were you
this week to avoid bringing
GM food home?
Rate yourself
1-100, How active you have
been in educating people on
this issue?
cells
nucleus
chromosome
DNA
gene
A
A
C
T
C
G
T
Basepairs: A-T & C-G (nucleotides)
T
T
G
A
G
C
A
How does
Genetic Engineering work?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Isolate a gene with a
desired trait*
Change the gene so it will
work in plants*
Prepare plant cells or tissue
Transform plant cells using a gene gun
or bacteria infection method*
Re-grow cells to plants via tissue culture
(cloning)*
* Steps that contain scientific uncertainties and risk potential
Gene
construct
Promoter: on switch
often CaMV (virus)
Gene sequence
Stop signal
e.g. Bt toxin gene
from soil bacterium
e.g. from
pea
Identify cells with
incorporated genes
Test for markers
Add antibiotic
Only transformed
cells survive
Grow transformed GM
cells
via cloning (tissue culture)
Antibiotic Resistant Genes
“IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH
HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE
THAT CODES FOR ANTIBIOTIC
RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL
FLORA OF THE GENERAL
POPULATION.”
Director, Division of Anti-infective Drug Products
Agency scientists
warned of:
Allergens
Toxins
New diseases
Nutritional problems


GM plants could “contain
unexpected high concentrations of
plant toxicants.”
“The possibility of unexpected,
accidental changes in genetically
engineered plants justifies a limited
traditional toxicological study.”
FDA Toxicology Group
1. “Increased levels of known naturally
occurring toxins”,
2. “Appearance of new, not previously
identified” toxins,
3. Increased tendency to gather “toxic
substances from the environment” such
as “pesticides or heavy metals”, and
4. “Undesirable alterations in the levels of
nutrients.”
They recommended testing every GM
food “before it enters the marketplace.”
Division of Food Chemistry and Technology
“Residues of plant
constituents or toxicants in
meat and milk products may
pose human food safety
concerns.”
Gerald Guest, Director, FDA’s
Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)
FDA declares GMOs no different
“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.”
“Statement of Policy”
May 29, 1992
Food and Drug Administration
Secret FDA
documents
confirmed that
the facts
contradicted the
statement
What was said within FDA
“The processes of genetic engineering
and traditional breeding are different,
and according to the technical
experts in the agency, they lead to
different risks.”
Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer
By “trying to force an ultimate
conclusion that there is no
difference between foods
modified by genetic engineering
and foods modified by
traditional breeding practices,”
the agency was “trying to fit a
square peg into a round hole.”
Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer
“Animal feeds derived from
genetically modified plants present
unique animal and food safety
concerns.”
“I would urge you to eliminate
statements that suggest that the
lack of information can be used as
evidence for no regulatory concern.”
Gerald Guest, Director, FDA’s
Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)
“There is a profound difference between the types of
unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic
engineering,”
“There is no certainty that [breeders] will be able to pick
up effects that might not be obvious.”
“This is the industry’s pet idea, namely that there are no
unintended effects that will raise the FDA’s level of
concern. But time and time again, there is no data to
back up their contention.”
FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl
“What has happened to the scientific elements
of this document? Without a sound scientific
base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general,
‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type
document. . . . It will look like and probably be
just a political document. . . . It reads very proindustry, especially in the area of unintended
effects.”
FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl
Who overruled
the scientists?
Michael Taylor
• In charge of FDA policy
• Former Monsanto attorney
• Later Monsanto vice president
• Now US Food Safety Czar
‘Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you
have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto
has concluded that corn products derived from this new
variety are not materially different in composition,
safety, and other relevant parameters from corn
currently on the market, and that the genetically
modified corn does not raise issues that would require
premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . as you are
aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that
foods marketed by the firm are safe...’”
FDA Letter to Monsanto, 1996
First GM Crop
FlavrSavr
Tomato
Rats refused
to eat the
tomato
Yuk!
Many animals avoided GM feed
when given a choice
Mice avoided GM corn
After 28 days
•7 of 20 rats developed stomach lesions
•Another 7 of 40 died within 2 weeks
Industry study
First possible
cause of
problems
The process of
creating a GM crop
creates unpredicted
changes in DNA
and plant
composition
Unexpected
changes
in the DNA
•Mutations (2-4% of DNA)
•Deletion of genes
•Permanently on or off
•Altered gene expression
(up to 5%)
Disruption of gene networks
July 1, 2007, New York Times:



The presumption that genes operate independently has
been institutionalized. . . . It is the economic and
regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology
industry is built.
Evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific
basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s
commercial biotech products.
Yet to date, every attempt to challenge safety claims for
biotech products has been categorically dismissed, or
derided as unscientific.
Changes in Mon 810 corn
“Interestingly, a newly
expressed spot (SSP 6711)
corresponding to 50 kDa
gamma zein, a well-known
allergenic protein, has been
detected. Moreover, as a major
concern, a number of seed
storage proteins … exhibited
truncated forms having
molecular masses significantly
lower than the native ones.”
GM soy has increased soy allergen
Trypsin inhibitor
(soy allergen)
up to 7 times higher
in cooked GM soy
(Not denatured from
cooking!)
Altered nutrients
Increased:
 Anti-nutrient (soy lectin)
 Allergen (trypsin inhibitor)
 Lignin (disease related?)
Reduced:
 Protein
 A fatty acid
 An essential amino acid
 Phytoestrogens
GM soy has higher lignin content
“Components of this
same biochemical
pathway also produce…
rotenone, a plantproduced insecticide that
may cause Parkinson’s
disease.”
David Schubert, PhD, Salk Institute
UK attempts to create
long-term safety studies
Dr. Arpad
Pusztai
Rats fed GM potato (GNA lectin)
•Lining of the small
intestine showed
elevated lymphocyte
counts
•Thymus and spleen
showed changes
•White blood cells
responded more
slowly
(Ewen and Pusztai )
GM potatoes
damaged rats
(10 or 110 days)
Rats developed
• Potentially pre-cancerous
cell growth in the
digestive tract
• Smaller brains, livers and
testicles
• Partial atrophy of the liver,
and
• Immune system damage
Lancet, 1999 & others
Intestinal Wall
Non-GM
GM
Stomach lining
Non-GM
GM