Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out on the Real Dangers of
Genetically Engineered Food
May 28, 2013
Story at-a-glance
-
A former research scientist who once touted the benefits of GM
crops now acknowledges the steady flow of research showing that
there is significant reason for concern – and he has now
reversed his position
-
Federal departments in charge of food safety in the US and
Canada have not conducted tests to affirm the alleged safety of
GM crops
-
The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is
based on a misunderstanding, as it operates on the 70-year-old
“one gene, one protein” hypothesis, which has since been proven
false
-
Scientific evidence shows that many of the industry claims that
GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, save on the use
of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are
perfectly safe to eat are simply not true
-
At present, the only way to avoid GM foods is to ditch processed
foods from your grocery list, and revert back to whole foods
grown according to organic standards
By Dr. Mercola
Who better to speak the truth about the risks posed by
genetically modified (GM) foods than Thierry Vrain, a former
research scientist for Agriculture Canada? It was Vrain’s job to
address public groups and reassure them that GM crops and
food were safe, a task he did with considerable knowledge and
passion.
But Vrain, who once touted GM crops as a technological
advancement indicative of sound science and progress, has since
started to acknowledge the steady flow of research coming from
prestigious labs and published in high-impact journals; research
showing that there is significant reason for concern about GM crops
– and he has now changed his position.
Former Pro-GMO Scientist Cites GM Food Safety Concerns
Vrain cites the concerning fact that it is studies done by
Monsanto and other biotech companies that claim GM crops have no
impact on the environment and are safe to eat. But federal
departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have
not conducted tests to affirm this alleged “safety.”
Vrain writes:1
“There are no long-term feeding studies performed in
these countries [US and Canada] to demonstrate the claims that
engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific
studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed
engineered food die prematurely.
These studies show that proteins produced by engineered
plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene
in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged
proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing
that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic
proteins.
… I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that
their engineered crops yield more, that they require less
pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the
environment and of course that they are safe to eat.”
“The Whole Paradigm of Genetic Engineering Technology is Based on a
Misunderstanding”
This misunderstanding is the “one gene, one protein” hypothesis
from 70 years ago, which stated that each gene codes for a single
protein. However, the Human Genome project completed in 2002 failed
dramatically to identify one gene for every one protein in the human
body, forcing researchers to look to epigenetic factors -- namely,
"factors beyond the control of the gene" – to explain how organisms
are formed, and how they work.
According to Vrain:
“Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the
naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one
protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a
single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002
showed that this hypothesis is wrong.
The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology
is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that
any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a
gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some
of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.”
In other words, genetic engineering is based on an extremely
oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or adding one
or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result. But
this premise, which GMO expert
Dr. Philip Bereano calls “the Lego model,” is not correct. You
cannot simply take out a yellow piece and put in a green piece and
call the structure identical because there are complex interactions
that are still going to take place and be altered, even if the
initial structure still stands.
Serious Problems May Arise From Horizontal Gene Transfer
GE plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer
(also called horizontal inheritance), as contrasted with vertical
gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction.
Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission
of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or
asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one
species.
By contrast, horizontal gene transfer involves injecting a gene
from one species into a completely different species, which yields
unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of GM crops
assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to
horizontal inheritance, but according to
Dr. David Suzuki, an award-winning geneticist, this assumption
is flawed in just about every possible way and is “just lousy
science.”
Genes don’t function in a vacuum — they act in the context of the
entire genome. Whole sets of genes are turned on and off in order to
arrive at a particular organism, and the entire orchestration is an
activated genome. It’s a dangerous mistake to assume a gene’s traits
are expressed properly, regardless of where they’re inserted. The
safety of GM food is based only on a hypothesis, and this hypothesis
is already being proven wrong.
Leading Scientists Disprove GMO Safety
Vrain cites the compelling report "GMO Myths and Truths"2
as just one of many scientific examples disputing the claims of the
biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious
food, save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact
whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. The authors took a
science-based approach to evaluating the available research,
arriving at the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence
regarding safety and increased yield potential do not at all
support the claims. In fact, the evidence demonstrates the
claims for genetically engineered foods are not just wildly
overblown – they simply aren't true.
The authors of this critical report include Michael Antoniou,
PhD, who heads the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King's
College at London School of Medicine in the UK. He's a 28-year
veteran of genetic engineering technology who has himself invented a
number of gene expression biotechnologies; and John Fagan, PhD, a
leading authority on food sustainability, biosafety, and GE testing.
If you want to get a comprehensive understanding of genetically
engineered foods, I strongly recommend reading this report.
Not only are GM foods less nutritious than non-GM foods, they
pose distinct health risks, are inadequately regulated, harm the
environment and farmers, and are a poor solution to world hunger.
Worse still, these questionable GM crops are now polluting non-GM
crops, leading to contamination that cannot ever be “recalled” the
way you can take a bad drug off the market … once traditional foods
are contaminated with GM genes, there is no going back!
Vrain expanded:3
“Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South
America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional
and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered
pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export
market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of
dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution.”
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Called for Moratorium on
GM Foods FOUR Years Ago
In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine
called for a
moratorium on GM foods, and said that long-term
independent studies must be conducted, stating:
“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. …There is more
than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health
effects. There is causation…"
Despite this sound warning, GM foods continue to be added to
the US food supply with no warning to the Americans buying and
eating this food. Genetic manipulation of crops, and more
recently
food animals, is a dangerous game that has repeatedly revealed
that assumptions about how genetic alterations work and the effects
it has on animals and humans who consume such foods, are deeply
flawed and incomplete. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically
engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world
has ever seen.” What he doesn’t tell you is that:
- Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of
the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific
reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When
industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be
positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to
replicate and thus verify results
- The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90
days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In
the world’s first independently funded
lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in
during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and
cancer
- Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow
independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing
the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence
independent research is extremely difficult to conduct
- There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GM item in
question has been approved, not a single country on earth is
actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health
effects
It Might Take More Than One Bite to Kill You …
“One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been
sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM
food,” Vrain said. “Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack
of cigarettes either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know
that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of
cancer. Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s
the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate
interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the
policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is
clearly untrue.”
Remember, Vrain used to give talks about the benefits of
GM foods, but he simply couldn’t ignore the research any longer …
and why, then, should you? All in all, if GM foods have something
wrong with them that potentially could cause widespread illness or
environmental devastation, Monsanto would rather NOT have you find
out about it. Not through independent research, nor through a simple
little label that would allow you to opt out of the experiment,
should you choose not to take them on their word. As Vrain
continued:
“The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in
our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these
insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been
tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of
food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.
… We should all take these studies seriously and demand
that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on
studies paid for by the biotech companies … Individuals should
be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on
scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the
personal opinions of others.”
At present, the only way to avoid GM foods is to ditch processed
foods from your grocery list, and revert back to whole foods grown
according to organic standards.
Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very
narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The
field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the
people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically
Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be
labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated
on LabelitWA.org:
"Calorie and nutritional information were not always
required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and
most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin
labeling wasn't required until 2002. The trans fat content of
foods didn't have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these
labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know
with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or
frozen concentrate.
Doesn't it make sense that genetically engineered foods
containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or
animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered
foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the
market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The
research we have is raising serious questions about the impact
to human health and the environment.
I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522
will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply
would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers
change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any
significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to
conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue
enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice,
but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or
consumers."
Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like
YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply
because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns
created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food
companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and
mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in
California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any
way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
- No matter where you live in the United States, please donate
money to these labeling efforts through the
Organic
Consumers Fund.
- If you live in Washington State, please
sign the
I-522 petition. You can also
volunteer to
help gather signatures across the state.
- For timely updates on issues relating to these and other
labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers
Association on
Facebook, or follow them on
Twitter.
- Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to
actively support the Washington initiative.
© Copyright 1997-2013 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/28/gmo-dangers.aspx
|