Suppressed Information About The Real Hazards Of Genetically Engineered  Foods http://ThePiedPiper.tripod.com/ag0002.htm

Site MapDisclaimer * Site Search * Index

All Words property of original owners unless otherwise noted         

Piper Creations

 

Agriculture

From the factory farms that are detailed on CNS1 to the chemical pages you may access through my site map, chemicals do not seem to be helping the American farmers health or trade.  

News Items

 


posted here 30 Oct 2000

will move to http://ThePiedPiper.tripod.com/ag0002.htm

SUPPRESSED INFORMATION ABOUT THE REAL HAZARDS OF 

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

Subject: 
Konformist: SUPPRESSED INFORMATION ABOUT THE REAL HAZARDS OF GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED FOODS
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:15:01 -0000
From: "Robert Sterling" <robalini@aol.com>
Reply-To: konformist-owner@egroups.com
To: konformist@egroups.com

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
<FONT COLOR="#000099">eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
</FONT><A 
HREF="http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/6/_/1406/_/972918911/"><B>Click 
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Please send as far and wide as possible.

Thanks,

Robert Sterling
Editor, The Konformist
http://www.konformist.com 


STARLINK IS NOT THE PROBLEM! SUPPRESSED INFORMATION ABOUT THE REAL 
HAZARDS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

by

Barbara Keeler and Robert Sterling


It took Starlink biocorn to get the media's attention on genetically
engineered foods. Dragging their footsteps, our government agencies
gradually followed in the media's wake. Starlink only made the news 
because the form of corn involved had not yet been approved for use in human 
food.  Not that it had been disapproved. The EPA had said only that it 
needed more and better scientific information.

And who discovered the widespread presence of the unapproved corn 
product?  Not the people we pay to protect his or safeguard the food supply, 
but a band of underfunded, underrespected, and at times scorned food safety
activists.

In spite of its high media profile, Starlink is not the major problem.
Government agencies are tracking it down, and food companies are way 
ahead of them, recalling their products. Most significant, everybody knows 
about Starlink. The problem lies with the more serious issues and hazards 
being ignored.

For example, what was the response when Monsanto researchers notified 
FDA that the most widely used genetically engineered product, Roundup 
Ready soybeans, contained a surprise package-some unintended and 
unsuspected gene fragments? Apparently when Monsanto enabled soybean 

plants to survive spraying with their weed killer, Roundup, by splicing a gene 

into the bean's DNA, they tossed in a little extra. 

FDA's response: a big yawn. Media response: UK papers carried the 
story. A newswire service reported it in the US. Maybe some newspapers 

and news stations picked it up, but we did not see it anywhere except in the 
July News column of Whole Life Times.

Although this story should have smeared egg on the faces of biotech
cheerleaders who claim that genetic engineering is more precise than
conventional breeding techniques, scientist to this day publish
high-profile opinion pieces making this now-disproved assertion.

What might explain the absence of the spotlight on these genetic
hitchhikers in soy that pervades a majority of processed foods on the
market? In soy on the market with FDA blessing? Possibly apathy. 
However, a document posted on GeneWatch UK website: www.genewatch.org

offers another possible explanation. In what Genewatch says is a leaked internal 
document from Monsanto, the writer brags that "The [Monsanto] Scientific 
Outreach network and the Technology Issues Team averted attacks on recently 
emerging biotechnology issues. The team developed rapid responses to avoid
over-reaction to claims regarding...the characterization of additional
non-functional DNA in Roundup Ready soybeans."

Not to worry, says Monsanto's letter to the UK government. According 
to Monsanto spokesman Jeff Bergau the gene fragments were in RR beans 
when they passed safety assessments by US authorities in 1994. What else 
was in the beans when they passed safety assessments? Well, not Roundup. 
Unlike the beans on the market and in the food supply, the beans Monsanto
researchers analyzed had not been treated with weed killer. 

Monsanto tried valiantly to silence one of the first critics to point 
out this discrepancy, Dr. Marc Lappe, Formerly head of the State of
California's Hazard Evaluation System and a former tenured professor 
in Health Policy & Ethics at the Univ of Illinois at Chicago College of
Medicine. His book, AGAINST THE GRAIN, was the topic of a threatening
letter from Monsanto to its original publisher in 1998. After the 
first publisher backed down, Common Courage Press published the book.

If not Roundup, what DID the Roundup Ready soybeans contain when they 
were reviewed by FDA in 1994? For starters, higher levels of a known 
allergen.  Apparently, Monsanto managed to keep some troubling information from
becoming an issue. They just didn't report the data in their published
study or the report they sent to the EPA. What information the 
published study and FDA report did reveal was camouflaged in a place readers 
were least likely to look for it. Sandwiched between lists of 
macronutrients (protein, carbohydrates, etc.) were levels of trypsin-inhibiter, an
allergen which inhibits protein digestion and has been associated with
enlarge cells in rat pancreases. Table 9 shows trypsin-inhibiter, 
levels that are 26.7 percent higher in the untoasted RR soybeans than in the
conventional controls. 

The authors' discussion of table 9 did not mention trypsin-inhibiter
levels, which meant no mention was made in the online text version, 
sans tables, available in most libraries. In fact, we missed it the first 
few times through the tables, and we were looking for it. 

An 1996 article describing Monsanto's research was published in the 
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION. It's title is "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant 
soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans," but 
statistically significant differences were measured in content of ash, fat 
carbohydrate and some fatty acids. The brain-boosting vitamin choline was 29% 
lower in Roundup Ready lecithin. Go figure.

In the text, the authors acknowledge "higher than expected" levels of
trypsin inhibitor in Experiment 1, which was conducted on 
conventional and RR beans grown in Puerto Rico. The authors contend 

that the processing caused the elevated levels, but they noted elsewhere in 

the study that "processing soybean protein significantly inactivates TI." Moreover,
processing was identical for Roundup ready beans and controls.

The did not report the data about the Puerto Rico beans in their 
published tables, calculations, or discussion. Their rationale: the beans were 
grown in a single Puerto Rico site, and the beans in Experiment 2 and 3, 
from several US sites, were "more representative of the wide geographical 
area in which soybeans are grown." They did not explain why they grew the 
Puerto Rico beans for the study in the first place. Nor did they explain why 
a comparison between batches of beans grown at the same site under 
identical conditions is less valid than comparisons among beans grown in 
different geographical areas under widely varying conditions. 

A footnote in the journal said that supplementary information on the 
Puerto Rico beans had been deposited with American Society for Information
Science, National Auxiliary Publication Service under Doc. 04949. For 
a price, the data could be ordered. 

Contrary to the authors' statement, the data filed under Doc. 04949
pertains to an unrelated study be a different author. The National
Auxiliary Publication Service confirmed that the data was never 
deposited.

The JOURNAL OF NUTRITION supplied the missing information. What did it
reveal? It does indeed show higher levels of the allergen trypsin 
inhibitor in toasted RR soy meal thaN in the controls. In fact, by one measure 
the levels of trypsin inhibitor in toasted Roundup Ready meal were over 
the top of the literature range--the highest and lowest levels measured 
for soybeans by other researchers. 

Roundup Ready beans were also significantly lower in protein and the
aromatic amino acid phenylalanine. Drops in aromatic amino acid 
levels are of particular importance, because Roundup kills weeds by inhibiting an
enzyme that helps the body make the aromatic amino acids. There were 
also significantly different levels of the amino acid cysteine and one 
fatty acid.

Data omitted from the published study also show that after a second
toasting, the levels of an allergen called lectin in Roundup Ready 
meal nearly doubled the levels of the conventional control beans.

Besides possible allergic reactions, what might be expected from 
higher levels of trypsin-inhibitor and lectin? Well, animals would be 
expected to grow more slowly and gain less weight, and that is exactly what 
happened to male rats fed unprocessed meal from Roundup Ready soybeans. 

Cows fed the RR soya meal showed higher levels of fat in their milk. 
Yet the title of the study is "The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats,
chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic 
incorporation of glyphosate tolerance," and the abstract makes no mention of the 
data that challenges their conclusion.

Don't research findings such as these point to the need for more 
testing, rather than immediate FDA blessing? EPA busted the suppliers of 
Starlink for similar shoddy research, and that is the reason Starlink is not
approved for human consumption. EPA said, essentially, that the data 
in these studies did not support the authors conclusion and invited them 
to submit better studies.  Ironically, the safety studies for foods now ubiquitous in the food 
supply also fail to support the authors' conclusions, according to Dr. Lappe 
and Dr. Joe Cummins. As Dr. Cummins puts it, "The concept of substantial
equivalence has been introduced to commercialize genetically modified 
(GM) crops without extensive testing or labeling in the marketplace. The 
concept assumes that GM crops are equivalent seems to be being used as a 
license to distribute GM crops which are unsubstantially equivalent."

The leaked Monsanto document also credits its response team for 
developing "rapid responses to avoid over-reaction to claims regarding...gene 
transfer by honey bees" referring to gene transfer from genetically engineered
rapeseed to bacteria and fungi in the gut of honey bees detected by
Professor Hans-Hinrich Kaatz from the Institut für Bienenkunde 
(Institute for bee research) at the University of Jena. The story made its way 
into the Whole Life Times news column, but for the most part, the 
suppression was successful in the US. The document brags "Two op-eds on the 
honeybee issue by notable scientists were triggered to help avoid additional 
high profile press coverage."

Monsanto and other producers of GE seeds fund plenty of research at
universities around the world, making it easy to recruit "notable
scientists" as mouthpieces. They also fund think tanks and similar
organizations to spread their misleading messages.

An example of a widely published mouthpiece for big agribusiness is 
Dennis Avery, the author of SAVING THE PLANET WITH PESTICIDES AND PLASTICS, 
and currently is director of the Center for Global Food Issues for the 
Hudson Institute, a pro-corporate think tank with major funders such as 
Monsanto, DuPont, Novartis, Dow, and ConAgra. The biotech industry's PR firm,
Burson-Marsteller, allegedly involved in a massive PR campaign to
counteract the escalating global anti-GE movement in the US and 
abroad, is represented on Hudson Institute's board.

Herb London, President of the Hudson Institute, is a John M. Olin 
Professor of Humanities at New York University, a position funded by the John 
M. Olin Foundation. The Olin Foundation was created and is still controlled 
by the Olin Corporation, a leading North American chemical giant and top 
producer of agricultural chemicals, including sulfuric acid, fertilizers and
pesticides.

Herb London also sits on the Board of Associates for the Palmer R.
Chitester Fund--a right-wing foundation which sells educational 
materials based on John Stossel's 20/20 reports on ABC, giving ABC a cut of the
profits. Remember Stossel's 20/20 hatchet job on organic foods? 
Another major contributor to the Palmer R. Chitester Fund is the Olin 
Foundation.  Is a picture beginning to emerge? 

The corruptive inbreeding of interests does not end with the 
connections between agribusiness, a conservative foundation, a conservative think 
tank, a widely published media mouthpiece for agrigusniees, and a supposed
independent journalist. We won't even start in on the well documented
revolving door between Monsanto and FDA, or other US agencies that 
develop and implement biotech policy.

Is it any wonder that the American public does not hear about the real
troubling issues in genetic engineering of foods, or that the 
pervasiveness of Starlink would be unsuspected but for the persistence of GE 
activists?


If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire, 
please visit http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist/ and sign up. Or, e-mail 
konformist-subscribe@egroups.com with the subject: "I NEED 2 
KONFORM!!!" 
(Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool catch phrase.)

Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!: 
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/klubkonformist







These will move to http://ThePiedPiper.tripod.com/ag0000.htm 

 

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,244648-412,00.shtml

Healthy Poultry = Sick Humans? 
The FDA Wants To Ban Drug That Keeps Chickens, Turkeys Healthy 
FDA Worried About Drug's Effect On People Who Eat Chickens 
Drug Makers Say They Will Protest Because They Don't See A Problem 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27, 2000
(CBS) What's good for poultry is not so good for people. 

That's the Food and Drug Administration's conclusion Friday as it calls for a ban on antibiotics widely used to keep
the nation's chickens and turkeys healthy. 


http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/29/national/29POUL.html     
Government Proposes a Ban on Two Antibiotics Used in Poultry

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — The government proposes to ban two antibiotics given to poultry, citing evidence that their use is causing people to become ill from drug-resistant bacteria.

Abbott Laboratories of North Chicago, Ill., one maker, will withdraw its drug, but the Bayer Corporation of Pittsburgh, which dominates the market, says it may challenge the ban.

The Food and Drug Administration says the drugs, known as fluoroquinolones, are a "significant cause" of human infections by resistant camplyobacter bacteria, contracted primarily by eating chicken.

Camplyobacter causes about 1.8 million illnesses a year, 190,000 of them treated with antibiotics. About 11,000 of those this year will involve drug-resistant bacteria, up from 9,000 last year, Steve Sunlof, director of the F.D.A.'s Center for Veterinary Medicine, said on Friday.


   Search this site or the web        powered by FreeFind

 

  Site search Web search

 


To: Top


[Disclaimer]      [Site Map]     [index
Piper Creations Purest - not a Puritan
ThePiedPiper mailto:piper@hot1.net
or contact

Laura Lanning~Shipton
P.O. Box 154344
Waco, TX 76715
Copyright © 1999, 2000 Piper Creations
All Rights Reserved. Including the background .gif