By Jeffrey M. Smith
www.responsibletechnology.org

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on
“Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to
avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational
materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on
GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated,
“Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,”
including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and
changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is
more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is
causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of
association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several
animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a
Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly
recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr.
John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is
genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the
effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World
renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more
than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that
“children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary
problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become
“the experimental animals.”[2]

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed
to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death
rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also
smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the
normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the
embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM
corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than
normal.[8]

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana,
India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as
premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves
died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile
after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave
birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same
corn.[9]

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and
infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every
cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them.
Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria
Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others
use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes
into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated
than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an
allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is
harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about
500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency
room.[11],[12]
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India,
from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India
reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT
cotton farming.”[14]

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,”
including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and
inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status
of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own
research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A
November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction
to Bt corn.[17]
GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy
has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin
prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM
soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US
epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep
graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and
black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts).
Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality
was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding
study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within
30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight
years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants
for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water
buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20
rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two
weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats
fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]

Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous
problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of
bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that
long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins
produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced
from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide
factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US,
doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among
their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of
North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these
problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit,
the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous,
and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria,
new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require
rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote
biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former
attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect
today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies
on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to
determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice
president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health
risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review
of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of
GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes
his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food
are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been
done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we
know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or
deliberately lying.”[29]

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because
the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.”
If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature,
perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease
was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it
still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By
then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick
or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a
food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma,
cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health
problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs
had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with
multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the
large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or
more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical
community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies
potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological
research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe
methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM
foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed
and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.”
There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for
Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a
download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will
likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s
non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the
Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading
spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is
the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The
Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs
and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most
of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to
counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t
have the data to show that their products are safe.

[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/ gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada,
October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and
high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform
1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at
Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007

[5] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at
Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007

[6] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on
Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec
2004):449–454.

[7] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion
Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the
Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.

[8] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize
NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der
Sektion IV, Band 3/2008

[9] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006

[10] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of
Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator
Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A.
Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect
on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera:
Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.

[11] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance
activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept.
of Health, 1993).

[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide
Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public
Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.

[13] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and
Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.

[14] Sunday India, October, 26, 2008

[15] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John

[16] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn
in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI
Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.
monsanto.com/monsanto/content/ sci_tech/prod_safety/ fullratstudy.pdf

[17] Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810
Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp
11533–11539, November 14, 2008

[18] See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying
unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic
modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee,
Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild
Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3
(May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments
to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,”
Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.

[19] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and
risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek
and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005

[20] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim,
“Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and
Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).

[21] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District,
Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006,
http://www.gmwatch.org/ archive2.asp

[22] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.

[23] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically
Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007

[24] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health
Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.

[25] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004;
referencing, John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON
863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with
PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/
monsanto/content/sci_tech/ prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf

[26] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human
gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.

[27] See memos at www.biointegrity.org

[28] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of
the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition,
2007, vol. 47, no8, pp. 721- 733

[29] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post
(Canada), 26 April 2005.

[30] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic
Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25