Tag Archives: Soy

Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies (Part Two)

See Part One at the link first

Genetically Engineered Corn

The biotech industry is fond of saying that they offer genetically modified (GM) crops that resist pests. This might conjure up the image of insects staying away from GM crop fields. But “resisting pests” is just a euphemism for
contains its own built-in pesticide. When bugs take a bite of the GM plant, the toxin splits open their stomach and kills them.

The idea that we consume that same toxic pesticide in every bite is hardly appetizing. But the biotech companies and the Environmental Protection Agency—which regulates plant produced pesticides—tell us not to worry. They contend that the pesticide called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is produced naturally from a soil bacterium and has a history of safe use. Organic farmers, for example, have used solutions containing the natural bacteria for years as a method of insect control. Genetic engineers simply remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and then insert it into the DNA of corn and cotton plants, so that the plant does the work, not the farmer. Moreover, they say that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in our stomach; and even if it survived, since humans and other mammals have no receptors for the toxin, it would not interact with us in any case.

These arguments, however, are just that—unsupported assumptions. Research tells a different story.

Bt spray is dangerous to humans

When natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room for allergies or asthma.
[1],
[2] Workers who applied Bt sprays reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritation,
[3] and some showed an antibody immune response in linked to Bt.
[4] Farmers exposed to liquid Bt formulations had reactions including infection, an ulcer on the cornea,
[5] skin irritation, burning, swelling, and redness.
[6] One woman who was accidentally sprayed with Bt also developed fever, altered consciousness, and seizures.
[7]

In fact, authorities have long acknowledged that “People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”
[8] The Oregon Health Division advises that “individuals with . . . physician-diagnosed causes of severe immune disorders may consider leaving the area during the actual spraying.”
[9] A spray manufacturer warns, “Repeated exposure via inhalation can result in sensitization and allergic response in hypersensitive individuals.”
[10] So much for the contention that Bt does not interact with humans.

As for being thoroughly destroyed in the digestive system, mouse studies disproved this as well. Mice fed Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses—as potent as cholera toxin. In addition, the Bt caused their immune system to become sensitive to formerly harmless compounds This suggests that exposure might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.
[11],
[12] The EPA’s own expert advisors said that the mouse and farm worker studies above “suggest that Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources.”
[13]
The toxin in GM plants is more dangerous than natural sprays

The Bt-toxin produced in GM crops is “vastly different from the bacterial [Bt-toxins] used in organic and traditional farming and forestry.”
[14] First of all, GM plants produce about 3,000-5,000 times the amount of toxin as the sprays. And the spray form is broken down within a few days to two weeks by sunlight,
[15] high temperatures, or substances on the leaves of plants; and it can be “washed from leaves into the soil by rainfall,”
[16] or rinsed by consumers. A Bt producing GM plant, on the other hand, continuously produces the toxin in every cell where it does not dissipate by weather and cannot be washed off.

The natural toxic produced in bacteria is inactive until it gets inside the alkaline digestive tract of an insect. Once inside, a “safety catch” is removed and the Bt becomes toxic. But scientists change the sequence the Bt gene before inserting it into GM plants. The Bt toxin it produces usually comes
without the safety catch. The plant-produced Bt toxin is
always active and more likely to trigger an immune response than the natural variety.
[17]
Bt-toxin fails safety studies but is used nonetheless

Tests cannot verify that a GM protein introduced into the food supply for the first time will not cause allergies in some people. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) offer criteria designed to reduce the likelihood that allergenic GM crops are approved.
[18]They suggest examining a protein for 1) similarity of its amino acid sequence to known allergens, 2) digestive stability and 3) heat stability. These properties aren’t
predictive of allergenicity, but their presence, according to experts, should be sufficient to reject the GM crop or at least require more testing. The Bt-toxin produced in GM corn fails all three criteria.

For example, the specific Bt-toxin found in Monsanto’s Yield Guard and Syngenta’s Bt 11 corn varieties is called Cry1AB. In 1998, an FDA researcher discovered that Cry1Ab shared a sequence of 9-12 amino acids with vitellogenin, an egg yolk allergen. The study concluded that “the similarity . . . might be sufficient to warrant additional evaluation.”
[19] No additional evaluation took place.
[20]

Cry1Ab is also very resistant to digestion and heat.
[21] It is nearly as stable as the type of Bt-toxin produced by StarLink corn. StarLink was a GM variety not approved for human consumption because experts believed that its highly stable protein might trigger allergies.
[22] Although it was grown for use in animal feed, it contaminated the US food supply in 2000. Thousands of consumers complained to food manufacturers about possible reactions and over 300 items were subject to recall. After the StarLink incident, expert advisors to the EPA had called for “surveillance and clinical assessment of exposed individuals” to “confirm the allergenicity of
Bt products.”
[23] Again, no such monitoring has taken place.

Bt cotton triggers allergic reactions

A 2005 report by medical investigators in India describes an ominous finding. Hundreds of agricultural workers are developing moderate or severe allergic reactions when exposed to Bt cotton. This includes those picking cotton, loading it, cleaning it, or even leaning against it. Some at a ginning factory must take antihistamines daily, in order to go to work. Reactions are
only triggered with the Bt varieties.
[24] Furthermore, the symptoms are virtually identical to those described by the 500 people in Vancouver and Washington who were sprayed with Bt. Only “exacerbations of asthma” were in one list and not the other (see table).

Upper respiratory Eyes Skin Overall
Bt Spray Sneezing,
runny nose,
exacerbations of asthma
Watery,
red
Itching, burning, inflammation, red, swelling Fever,
some in hospital
Bt cotton Sneezing,
runny nose
Watery,
red
Itching, burning, eruptions,
red, swelling
Fever,
some in hospital

(We are unaware of similar reports in the US, where 83% of the cotton is Bt. But in the US, cotton is harvested by machine, not by hand.)

The experience of the Indian workers begs the question, “How long does the Bt-toxin stay active in the cotton?” It there any risk using cotton diapers, tampons, or bandages? In the latter case, if the Bt-toxin interfered with healing it could be a disaster. With diabetics, for example, unhealed wounds may be cause for amputation.

Cottonseed is also used for cottonseed oil—used in many processed foods in the US. The normal methods used to extract oil likely destroy the toxin, although cold pressed oil may still retain some of it. Other parts of the cotton plant, however, are routinely used as animal feed. The next part of this series—focused on toxicity—presents evidence of disease and deaths associated with animals consuming Bt cotton plants.

Bt corn pollen may cause allergies

Bt-toxin is produced in GM corn and can be eaten intact. It is also in pollen, which can be breathed in. In 2003, during the time when an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating, virtually an entire Filipino village of about 100 people were stricken by a disease. The symptoms included headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever and allergies, as well as respiratory, intestinal, and skin reactions. The symptoms appeared first in those living closest to the field, and then progressed to others by proximity. Blood samples from 39 individuals showed antibodies in response to
Bt-toxin; this supports, but does not prove a link to the symptoms. When the same corn was planted in four other villages the following year, however, the symptoms returned in all four areas—only during the time of pollination.

The potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had been identified in a letter to the US FDA in 1998 by the UK Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. They had even warned that genes from inhaled pollen might transfer into the DNA of bacteria in the respiratory system.
[25] Although no studies were done to verify this risk, years later UK scientists confirmed that after consuming GM soybeans, the foreign inserted genes can transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria. If this also happens with Bt genes, than years after we decide to stop eating GM corn chips, our own gut bacteria may continue to produce
Bt-toxin within our intestines.

Studies show immune responses to GM crops

Studies confirm that several GM crops engineered to produce built-in pesticides provoke immune responses in animals. A Monsanto rat study on Bt corn (Mon 863), that was made public due to a lawsuit, showed a significant increase in three types of blood cells related to the immune system: basophils, lymphocytes, and total white cell counts.
[26]

Australian scientists took an insecticide producing gene (not Bt) from a kidney bean and put it into a pea, in hopes of killing the pea weevil. The peas had
passed the tests normally used to approve GM crops and were on the way to being commercialized. But the developers decided to employ a mouse study that had never before been used on other GM food crops. When they tested the pesticide in its natural state, i.e. the version produced within kidney beans, the protein was not harmful to mice. But that “same” protein, when produced by the kidney bean gene that was inserted into pea DNA, triggered inflammatory responses in the mice, suggesting that it would cause allergies in humans. Somehow, the protein had been changed from harmless to potentially deadly, just by being created in a different plant. Scientists believe that subtle, unpredicted changes in the pattern of sugar molecules that were attached to the protein were the cause of the problem. These types of subtle changes are not routinely analyzed in GM crops on the market.

Experimental potatoes engineered with a third type of insecticide caused immune damage to rats.
[27] Blood tests showed that their immune responses were more sluggish, and organs associated with immune function also appeared to be damaged. As with the peas, the insecticide in its natural state was harmless to the rats. The cause of the health problems was therefore due to some unpredicted change brought about by the genetic engineering process. And like the peas, if the potatoes had been subjected to only the type of tests that are typically used by biotech companies to get their foods on the market, the potatoes would have been approved.

Allergic reactions are a defensive, often harmful immune system response to an external irritant. The body interprets something as foreign, different and offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. According to GM food safety expert Arpad Pusztai, “A consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished, . . . indicates major problems with changes in the immune status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods.

[28]

In addition to immune responses, several studies and reports from the field provide evidence that GM foods are toxic. In the next article in this series, we look at thousands of sick, sterile and dead animals, linked to consumption of GM crops.

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

[2] 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.

[3] M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, “Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray” (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992).

[4] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,” (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),”
Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).

[5] J. R. Samples, and H. Buettner, “Ocular infection caused by a biological insecticide,”
J. Infectious Dis. 148, no. 3 (1983): 614; as reported in Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)”,
Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994)

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

[7] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,” (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),”
Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).

[8] Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),
Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994).

[9]
Health effects of B.t.: Report of surveillance in
Oregon
, 1985-87. Precautions to minimize your exposure (Salem, OR: Oregon Departmentof Human Resources, Health Division, April 18, 1991).

[10]
Material Safety Data Sheet for Foray 48B Flowable Concentrate (Danbury, CT: Novo Nordisk, February, 1991).

[11]Vazquez et al, “Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from
Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice,”
Life Sciences, 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897-1912; Vazquez et al, “Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from
Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,”
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147-155.

[12] Vazquez et al, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,”
Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578-584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).

[13] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf
[14] Terje Traavik and Jack Heinemann, “Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research: Still No Answers to Ageing Questions, 2006. Cited in their quote was: G. Stotzky, “Release, persistence, and biological activity in soil of insecticidal proteins from
Bacillus thuringiensis,” found in Deborah K. Letourneau and Beth E. Burrows,
Genetically Engineered Organisms. Assessing Environmental and Human Health Effects (cBoca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC, 2002), 187-222.

[15] C. M. Ignoffo, and C. Garcial, “UV-photoinactivation of cells and spores of
Bacillus thuringiensis and effects of peroxidase on inactivation,”
Environmental Entomology 7 (1978): 270-272.

[16] BT: An Alternative to Chemical Pesticides,
Environmental Protection Division, Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia, Canada,
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/ipmp/fact_sheets/BTfacts.htm
[17] 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.

[18] FAO-WHO, “Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology,” Jan. 22-25, 2001;
http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf
[19] 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.

[20] US EPA, “Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD)—
Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human Health Assessment,” EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4,
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf
[21] US EPA, “Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD)—
Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human Health Assessment,” EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4,
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf
[22] “Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn,” FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Report No. 2001-09, July 2001.

[23] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf
24 Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),”
Investigation Report, Oct-Dec 2005.

25 N. Tomlinson of UK MAFF’s Joint Food Safety and Standards Group 4, December 1998 letter to the U.S. FDA, commenting on its draft document, “Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants,”
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp1998.pdf; (see pages 64-68).

26 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://cera-gmc.org/docs/decdocs/05-184-001.pdf, see also Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,”
Le Monde, 14 December 2004; and Jeffrey M. Smith, “Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up,” Spilling the Beans, June 2005, http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExposed/index.cfm

27 A. Pusztai, et al, “Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects,” in: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D’Mello) (Wallingford Oxon, UK: CAB International), 347-372, also additional communication with Arpad Pusztai.

28 October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John

SOURCE:

https://responsibletechnology.org/genetically-engineered-foods-may-cause-rising-food-allergies-part-two/

Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies (Part One)

“The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems,chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin.”
May 7, 2007

despair-1235582_1280

From responsibletechnology.org

Genetically Engineered Soybeans

The huge jump in childhood food allergies in the US is in the news often[1], but most reports fail to consider a link to a recent radical change in America’s diet. Beginning in 1996, bacteria, virus and other genes have been artificially inserted to the DNA of soy, corn, cottonseed and canola plants. These unlabeled genetically modified (GM) foods carry a risk of triggering life-threatening allergic reactions, and evidence collected over the past decade now suggests that they are contributing to higher allergy rates.

Food safety tests are inadequate to protect public health

Scientists have long known that GM crops might cause allergies. But there are no tests to prove in advance that a GM crop is safe.[2] That’s because people aren’t usually allergic to a food until they have eaten it several times. “The only definitive test for allergies,” according to former FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, “is human consumption by affected peoples, which can have ethical considerations.”[3] And it is the ethical considerations of feeding unlabeled, high-risk GM crops to unknowing consumers that has many people up in arms.

The UK is one of the few countries that conducts a yearly evaluation of food allergies. In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year. Genetically modified soy had recently entered the UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said, “We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods.”[4]

Critics of GM foods often say that the US population is being used as guinea pigs in an experiment. But experiments have the benefit of controls and measurement. In this case, there is neither. GM food safety experts point out that even if a someone tried to collect data about allergic reactions to GM foods, they would not likely be successful. “The potential allergen is rarely identified. The number of allergy-related medical visits is not tabulated. Even repeated visits due to well-known allergens are not counted as part of any established surveillance system.”[5] Indeed, after the Canadian government announced in 2002 that they would “keep a careful eye on the health of Canadians”[6] to see if GM foods had any adverse reactions, they abandoned their plans within a year, saying that such a study was too difficult.

Genetic engineering may provoke increased allergies to soy

The classical understanding of why a GM crop might create new allergies is that the imported genes produce a new protein, which has never before been present. The novel protein may trigger reactions. This was demonstrated in the mid 1990s when soybeans were outfitted with a gene from the Brazil nut. While the scientists had attempted to produce a healthier soybean, they ended up with a potentially deadly one. Blood tests from people who were allergic to Brazil nuts showed reactions to the beans.[7] It was fortunately never put on the market.

The GM variety that is planted in 89% of US soy acres gets its foreign gene from bacteria (with parts of virus and petunia DNA as well). We don’t know in advance if the protein produced by bacteria, which has never been part of the human food supply, will provoke a reaction. As a precaution, scientists compare this new protein with a database of proteins known to cause allergies. The database lists the proteins’ amino acid sequences that have been shown to trigger immune responses. If the new GM protein is found to contain sequences that are found in the allergen database, according to criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others, the GM crop should either not be commercialized or additional testing should be done. Sections of the protein produced in GM soy are identical to known allergens, but the soybean was introduced before the WHO criteria were established and the recommended additional tests were not conducted.

If this protein in GM soybeans is causing allergies, then the situation may be made much worse by something called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). That’s when genes spontaneously transfer from one species’ DNA to another. While this happens often among bacteria, it is rare in plants and mammals. But the method used to construct and insert foreign genes into GM crops eliminates many of the natural barriers that stop HGT from occurring. Indeed, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that portions of the gene inserted into GM soy ended up transferring into the DNA of human gut bacteria. Furthermore, the gene was stably integrated and it appeared to be producing its potentially allergenic protein. This means that years after people stop eating GM soy, they may still be exposed to its risky protein, which is being continuously produced within their intestines.

Genetic engineering damaged soy DNA, creating new (or more) allergens

Although biotech advocates describe the process of genetic engineering as precise, in which genes—like Legos—cleanly snap into place, this is false. The process of creating a GM crop can produce massive changes in the natural functioning of the plant’s DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of protein expression. This collateral damage may result in increasing the levels of an existing allergen, or even producing a completely new, unknown allergen within the crop. Both appear to have happened in GM soy.

Levels of one known soy allergen, trypsin inhibitor, were up to 27% higher in raw GM soy. In addition, although cooking soybeans normally reduces the amount of this protein, the trypsin inhibitor in GM varieties appears to be more heat resistant. Levels in cooked GM soy were nearly as high as those found in raw soy, and up to seven times higher when compared to cooked non-GM soy.[8] This suggests that this allergen in GM soy may be more likely to provoke reactions than when consumed in natural varieties.

Another study verified that GM soybeans contain a unique, unexpected protein, not found in non-GM soy controls. Moreover, scientist tested the protein and determined that it reacted with the antibody called IgE. This antibody in human blood plays a key role in a large proportion of allergic reactions, including those that involve life-threatening anaphylactic shock. The fact that the unique protein created by GM soy interacted with IgE suggests that it might also trigger allergies.

The same researchers measured the immune response of human subjects to soybeans using a skin-prick test—an evaluation used often by allergy doctors. Eight subjects showed a reaction to GM soy; but one of these did not also react to non-GM soy. Although the sample size is small, the implication that certain people react only to GM soy is huge, and might account for the increase in soy allergies in the UK.

Increased herbicides on GM crops may cause reactions

By 2004, farmers used an estimated 86% more herbicide on GM soy fields compared to non-GM.[9] The higher levels of herbicide residue in GM soy might cause health problems. In fact, many of the symptoms identified in the UK soy allergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. [The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate’s breakdown product AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.]

GM soy might impede digestion, leading to allergies

If proteins survive longer in the digestive tract, they have more time to provoke an allergic reaction. Mice fed GM soy showed dramatically reduced levels of pancreatic enzymes. If protein-digesting enzymes are less available, then food proteins may last longer in the gut, allowing more time for an allergic reaction to take place. Such a reduction in protein digestion due to GM soy consumption could therefore promote allergic reactions to a wide range of proteins, not just to the soy. No human studies of protein digestion related to GM soy have been conducted.

Soy linked to peanut allergies

There is at least one protein in natural soybeans that has cross-reactivity with peanut allergies.[10] That means that for some people who are allergic to peanuts, consuming soybeans may trigger a reaction. While it is certainly possible that the unpredicted side effects from genetic engineering soybeans might increase the incidence of this cross-reactivity, it is unlikely that any research has been conducted to investigate this. GM soy was introduced into the US food supply in late 1996. We are left only to wonder whether this had an influence on the doubling of US peanut allergies from 1997 to 2002.

Eating GM foods is gambling with our health

The introduction of genetically engineered foods into our diet was done quietly and without the mandatory labeling that is required in most other industrialized countries. Without knowing that GM foods might increase the risk of allergies, and without knowing which foods contain GM ingredients, the biotech industry is gambling with our health for their profit. This risk is not lost on everyone. In fact, millions of shoppers are now seeking foods that are free from any GM ingredients. Ohio-based allergy specialist John Boyles, MD, 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—unless it says organic.”[11]

Organic foods are not allowed to contain GM ingredients. Buying products that are certified organic or that say non-GMO are two ways to limit your family’s risk from GM foods. Another is to avoid products containing any ingredients from the seven food crops that have been genetically engineered: soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, Hawaiian papaya and a little bit of zucchini and crook neck squash. This means avoiding soy lecithin in chocolate, corn syrup in candies, and cottonseed or canola oil in snack foods.

Fortunately, the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will soon make your shopping easier. This Consumer Non-GMO Education Campaign is orchestrating the clean out of GM ingredients from foods and the natural products industry. The campaign will circulate helpful non-GMO shopping guides to organic and natural food stores nationwide. The Campaign will provide consumers with regular GM food safety updates that explain the latest discoveries about why, Healthy Eating Means No GMOs.

Safe eating.

This article is limited to the discussion of allergic reactions from GM soybeans. The evidence that GM corn is triggering allergies is far more extensive and will be covered in part 2 of this series.

[1] See for example, Charles Sheehan, “Scientists see spike in kids’ food allergies,” Chicago Tribune, 9 June 2006, http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/living/health/

[2] See for example, Carl B. Johnson, Memo on the “draft statement of policy 12/12/91,” January 8, 1992. Johnson wrote: “Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task.”

[3] Louis J. Pribyl, “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,” March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org

[4] Ibid.

[5] Traavik and Heinemann, “Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research”

[6] “Genetically modified foods, who knows how safe they are?” CBC News and Current Affairs, September 25, 2006.

[7] J. Ordlee, et al, “Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans,” The New England Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1996.

[8] Stephen R. Padgette et al, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of Nutrition 126, no. 4, (April 1996); including data in the journal archives from the same study.

[9] Charles Benbrook, “Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years”; BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004.

[10] See for example, Scott H. Sicherer et al., “Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the United States determined by means of a random digit dial telephone survey: A 5-year follow-up study,” Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, March 2003, vol. 112, n 6, 1203-1207); and Ricki Helm et al., “Hypoallergenic Foods—Soybeans and Peanuts,” Information Systems for Biotechnology News Report, October 1, 2002.

[11] John Boyles, MD, personal communication, 2007.
SOURCE

 

https://responsibletechnology.org/genetically-engineered-foods-may-cause-rising-food-allergies-part-one/

COVER-UP: Scientists who find glyphosate herbicide in common foods are silenced or reassigned

(Natural News) Do you know what’s really in the foods you eat? Sure, there’s a list of ingredients on the package, but your food could contain one very toxic substance that isn’t disclosed: glyphosate. You might not be too surprised to find this deadly herbicide ingredient in non-organic fruits and vegetables, but the truth is that it has also made its way into a surprising number of popular foods – and countless unsuspecting people are ingesting this dangerous carcinogen.

The Guardian reports that U.S. government scientists found glyphosate in foods like crackers, cornmeal, and granola cereal. Of course, this information wasn’t publicized; it was uncovered in emails that were obtained through a Freedom of Information request.

For two years, the FDA has been testing food samples for glyphosate residues, but they have yet to release the official results. Nevertheless, one email written by a chemist for the FDA, Richard Thompson, to his colleagues showed how pervasive the problem is.

“I have brought wheat crackers, granola cereal and corn meal from home and there’s a fair amount in all of them,” the Arkansas-based chemist wrote, adding that broccoli was the only food that he happened to have on hand that turned out to be free of glyphosate.

That email was dated in January of 2017. Unfortunately, because he made the discovery while validating his methods of analysis rather than as part of the official checks, the residues are unlikely to make it into any official reports. The FDA’s official findings aren’t usually released until around 2 to 2.5 years after the data is collected.

Meanwhile, FDA chemist Narong Chamkasen discovered levels of glyphosate that exceeded the acceptable levels in corn; the 6.5 parts per million found were well above the legal limit of 5.0 parts per million. Although such levels normally must be reported to the EPA, a supervisor with the FDA informed an EPA official in writing that the corn was not part of an “official sample.” It looks like Americans will never know which corn is going to give them cancer!

In 2016, Chamkasen also found glyphosate in several honey samples, along with oatmeal products. His lab was promptly “reassigned” to other tasks.

Each year, the FDA tests food samples for residues of pesticides to see if any are above the limit. However, they’ve only recently started looking out for glyphosate, despite the fact that it has been used for four decades. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer labeled the chemical a “probable human carcinogen.”

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-12-23-glyphosate-found-in-common-foods.html?fbclid=IwAR38k3E5RZX0Kyh92AB92zlYJ6wpleQK0CwLG3F8HITiaver0MeocH2xq9s

PHOTO: NaturalNews.com

“The most toxic chemical we’ve ever had in our environment” – Dr Don Huber

From greenmedinfo.com

When one of our world renowned professors uses the term “horrifying” in speaking about the widespread use of a chemical in our food supply, the prudent person would sit up and take notice.

That’s exactly the word Dr. Don Huber used. But are we listening? Calling glyphosate“the most toxic chemical we’ve ever had in our environment, he says that “future historians may well look back upon our time and write, not about how many pounds of pesticides we did or did not apply, but about how willing we were to sacrifice our children and jeopardize future generations for the massive experiment we call genetic engineering that is based on failed promises and flawed science, just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise.”

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-herbicide-most-toxic-chemical-environment

Photo: EnvirowatchRangitikei ©

Tests in 2003 revealed an Inghams food product was GE contaminated

This is obviously quite old but worth a re visit. See how things were creeping in so very long ago? This is not that long after Corngate when the esteemed Helen Clarke let the secretly sown GE corn crops in various places throughout NZ be left to grow to harvest. She initially ordered them pulled up but I suspect corporate persuasion made her change her mind. How dishonest and treacherous can you get? Be aware Kiwis as the article says regarding animal feed, three years ago I rang two producers of chicken and pork here in NZ and neither would admit to GM feed for their livestock, however added they ‘couldn’t rule it out’ because the feed wasn’t labeled as GM. So much for GE free NZ. Like the green image it’s an illusion, a farce, a big LIE.  EnvirowatchRangitikei

Press release – June 5, 2003

Greenpeace today released results that show an Ingham frozen chicken product on sale in New Zealand is contaminated with genetically engineered (GE) soy ingredients (1). Earlier in the year, tests also revealed the Aussie-owned brand uses GE soy in its feed (2).

“Inghams are showing a total disregard for their customers preference – which is for GE-free food,” said Greenpeace campaigner Steve Abel. “Inghams continue to import GE soy meal into New Zealand for use in animal feed – and this latest test shows that Inghams are using GE soy contaminated ingredients in their products too.”

Greenpeace also criticised lax labelling regulations which mean GE feed and many processed ingredients don’t require GE labelling and enter the food chain by stealth.

The environmental organisation is encouraging the public to phone Inghams on 0508 800 785 and express their opposition to GE food. Greenpeace volunteers will be distributing postcards addressed to Inghams and demanding that they remove GE feed and ingredients from the food chain.

“Supermarkets and other users of Inghams products and feed should also demand that the company commit to a GE free policy,” said Abel.

New Zealand’s biggest poultry producer Tegel and their feed subsidiary NRM, shifted to a non-GE feed policy in 2001 following a public campaign by Greenpeace.

“Tegel have set the standard for excluding GE ingredients in animal feed. It’s time for Inghams to clean up their act and stop contaminating New Zealand’s food chain with unwanted GE,” said Abel.

The growing of genetically engineered crops threatens conventional production and the environment and GE foods are insufficiently tested and labelled.

Notes to the Editor:

(1) Inghams “2 Chicken Cordon Bleu” product made and purchased in New Zealand tested positive for GMO Roundup Ready (RR) soy in tests carried out by GeneScan Australia (AgriQuality) on 16 May 2003.

(2) Soy meal destined for Ingham feed mills in New Zealand tested positive for RR soy after tests by GeneScan on 14 March 2003.

 

Pasted from http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/press/new-test-reveals-inghams-food/

The effects of GMOs on your health (the research & what foods they are in)

Published on Dec 18, 2012

The effects of Genetically Modified Organisms which can be found in the food we consume. Learn more at http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo…
NOTE: the header image of the tumorous rats is from Professor Seralini’s research. You can read about that and/or watch the video of his findings on our Glyphosate pages. And/or visit naturalnews’ coverage of the topic here. You will also find if you google this that it is debunked on those debunking sites, as most valuable info the powers that be would prefer you didn’t know about is. If you find that too conspiratorial ask yourself why ever if GMOs are so safe, do THEY NOT WANT THEM LABELED? Consider also, why do these people who recommend GMOs not eat them themselves? Food for thought (no pun intended).
See also our Glyphosate and GMO pages at the main menu
EnvirowatchRangitikei

GM Food Crops Illegally Growing in India: The Criminal Plan to Change the Genetic Core of the Nation’s Food System

The GM Contamination Register database is run by Genewatch and Greenpeace and contains cases of genetically modified (GM) contamination dating from 1997. The authors of a 2014 paper, published in the International Journal of Food Contamination, analysed 400 or so cases in the database by crop and country.

GM rice accounted for about a third of contamination cases, despite the fact there is officially no GM rice grown anywhere in the world. They also focused on cases of contamination arising from unauthorised GM crops: those without any authorisation for commercial growing anywhere in the world. Nine cases were discovered of GM contamination of these unauthorised (non-commercialised) GM crops that haven’t undergone any environmental or food safety analysis. The authors argue that once GM contamination has happened, it can be difficult to contain.

Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International back in 2001, was at the time quoted by the Toronto Star (9 January 2001) as saying that the hope of the GM industry is that over time the market is so flooded with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that there’s nothing you can do about it; you just sort of surrender.

It is not just a vague hope. It is an intentional strategy.

READ MORE

https://www.globalresearch.ca/gm-food-crops-illegally-growing-in-india-the-criminal-plan-to-change-the-genetic-core-of-the-nations-food-system/5617473

The Alarming Truths About Genetically Modified Foods

A short (5 minute) video clip providing you with the quintessential info on genetically modified foods that we are already eating due to the failure of the authorities to label. They consider we don’t need to know. If it is so safe please ask yourself why it is they won’t label it? Remember also, the glyphosate that they spray on your GM food has been found by independent scientists to be carcinogenic.  EnvirowatchRangitikei

Mercola

Published on Jul 22, 2014

http://gmo.mercola.com/?x_cid=youtube Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are detrimental to your overall health. Discover why these genetically modified foods are NOT safe to consume.

Your “GE-Free” NZ Govt secretly approved the use of a GE-bacteria pig growth hormone in 2001 & it’s NOT labeled!

soy-beans-968986_1920
Stock feed is commonly comprised of GE soy & corn – NZ farmers can’t rule out the possibility it’s GE as it isn’t labeled

See here how murky our clean green image is now?  Yet again we are consuming food that is not safe, with neither our knowledge nor our permission? They approved this secretly folks! How can we possibly trust these people who are charged with protecting our food supply? I posted a while back the alert that our stock is being fed GE feed. At least the business operators “couldn’t rule it out the feed wasn’t GE” as it included corn and soy, typically GE products. And the Greens have also made statements about GE feed here in NZ. If GE feed and hormone growth products are so safe why then are they being so underhanded about it all? Not rocket science is it? Vote with your wallet and don’t buy it. There aren’t a lot of options left to us as clearly they’re intent on steam rolling ahead with opening this Pandora’s box. To the peril of the public I might add.

Please share this info. Educate yourself. Search similar articles under ‘categories’ (top left of any page).

EnvirowatchRangitikei


test-214185_1280.jpg
Back in 2002 the Greens announced – “A new growth hormone made by GE bacteria has been secretly approved for use on NZ pigs, and there is no requirement to disclose its use on the label.

This growth hormone makes pigs grow by up to 20% more in the last month of their lives. The hormone Porcine Somatotropin (PST) is injected into the necks of pigs every day, for the last 30 days of their lives. Advice from the manufacturer is to inject pigs in the neck to prevent the meat being downgraded.

The hormone was approved by the Animal Remedies Board on 12 October 2001. A similar hormone for cows, bovine somatotropin, was refused approval by MAF last year because of concerns about European consumers refusing to buy hormone-treated milk and meat.

Australian officials had acknowledged there would likely be residues of the artificial hormone in pork from treated pigs.

As Sue Kedgley, spokesperson for the Green Party commented, this hormone was highly controversial and was not even approved by the FDA for use in America…”

Read More:  http://www.safefood.org.nz/news11.php


If you’re unconvinced GE food is bad for you watch this short clip interviewing Jeffrey Smith, expert on GMOs

 

Study reveals almost all Germans contaminated with glyphosate – that ‘probable carcinogen’

Thanks to thecontrail.com for this link …

Glyphosate’s been dubbed the most toxic chemical we’ve ever had in our environment, by a US Tertiary level lecturer of 55 years experience in agriculture, Professor Emeritus of Plant Pathology (Dr Don Hubert). France has taken glyphosate’s creators Monsanto to Court and won on the claim they have lied about its safety, following Professor Seralini’s research that uncovered its carcinogenic properties. (‘Probably carcinogen’ are the operative words however if you see the tumours at the link on the rats Seralini used you’d probably want to refrain from using it, in the interests of safety). Nevertheless, in spite of all this evidence Kiwis (who also consume the highest amount of 1080 in the world and call themselves clean and green) still delight in slathering it far and wide on our roadsides, gardens, public parks and even schools (please sign our petition for the Rangitikei). We pride ourselves as being intelligent and forward thinking but in this department we are severely retarded, in my opinion anyway. So widely used now in fact, Glyphosate is even being found in breast milk these days, in urine and blood and more recently it was discovered in tampons. And need I remind us, cancer stats are now one in three. Potentially, one third of your family, friends, acquaintances, will be diagnosed with cancer. This is very credible. I can count nine in my own circle. Surely … is it really worth the risk of snubbing our noses at the evidence? Just because grandpa used it all his life and is still walking around. Many weren’t so lucky.

Check out the studies in Germany and what they’ve turned up…

EnvirowatchRangitikei


 

theecologist.org Nicole Sagener / EurActiv.de

farmer-880567_1280A new study shows that 99.6% of Germans are contaminated with the herbicide glyphosate, writes Nicole Sagener. The news comes as the EU puts off a crucial decision on whether to re-authorise the chemical, described by IARC as ‘probably carcinogenic’, until 2031.

“Meat eaters also displayed higher levels of glyphosate contamination than vegetarians or vegans. This finding may reflect the high levels of glyphosate found in the ‘Roundup-ready’ GMO soy and corn used in animal feeds.”

All but 0.4% of the German population have been contaminated by the controversial herbicide glyphosate, according to a study carried out by the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

The study analysed glyphosate residue in urine and concludes that 75% of the target group displayed levels that were five times higher than the legal limit of drinking water.

“A third of the population even showed levels that were between ten and 42 times higher than what is normally permissible.”

EU still to decide on glyphosate re-authorisation to 2031

Harald Ebner, a genetic engineering and bio-economic policy with the German Greens, warned that “now nearly every single one of us has been contaminated by plant poison, it is clear to me that no new authorisations for 2031 should be issued.”

READ MORE

Which Milk Beats All Other Milks?

From Natural Society website, by Barbara Minton:

It can take some effort to find a ‘healthy’ commercially-prepared substitute for cow’s milk. One will go through a number of different milk products before even finding which is best; but know this, there is an alternative to conventional cow’s milk that stands out above the rest.