We are the Guinea Pigs of the Biotechnology Corporations!
by Adelaide Ozer | 2001
The Experiment
When I first began my research into genetically engineered food, I was horrified to find that for years we have been part of an experiment we have not consented to. This makes us experimental subjects without any choice. We are the guinea pigs in this experiment and the planets ecological system is the test site. Scientists are creating unthinkable genetic modifications in our food, mixing animal, insects and even human DNA into animals and plants, and the reason of course is the giant biotechnology corporations are desperate for profits at any cost.
The
technology is grossly under-researched; the scientific basis of genetic
engineering is still not fully understood and relies on lengthy hit-and-miss
tests to get results. The biotech industry wants it all kept quiet as they push
products onto the market with unprecedented speed to recoup their billions of
dollars in accumulated genetic research and investment costs. It is important
for us to be informed and to be up to date with genetically engineered food, the
health risks it poses to humans, animals, birds, insects, and the damage it
causes to our environment also the threats it poses to farmers. In developing
countries farmers face a double risk to their livelihoods: ecologically, from
the uncontrollable spread of GM seeds into complex ecosystems, and economically,
from giant biotechnology corporations who control and own patents on the seeds.
[1] Animal experimentation is going
on all over the world the genes from chicken, cows, rats and humans have been
engineered into commercial fish species
in
order to increase the
growth rates- GM salmon, for instance, have been engineered to reach six times
their natural size. Yet once such fish escape from the farms in which they are
produced, nothing can stop them from breeding with natural stock and passing
their deformities into the gene pool.
[2]
Some of these experiments
with salmon are being carried out very close to us in New Zealand in fact.
[3]
Another experiment carried
out in New Zealand is by the New Zealand government. The research project is
planning to put human genes into cows so that their milk is more like human
breast milk. Scientist Phil L’Huillier who is heading the project, say’s the
first two or three years will be spent putting transgenic embryos into cows and
breeding from them to produce transgenic calves which will in turn breed to
produce herds of up to 30 animals for milking. We all should be concerned
because it deals with the safety of something very basic to human life: our
food. There is lack of consideration for a large segment of the population that
has ethical or
religious beliefs that
classify genetically engineered plants carrying animal or
human genes as being
totally unacceptable as foods.
[4] An award-winning scientist,
environmentalist and broadcaster David T Suzuki PhD say’s, “We have learnt from
painful experience that anyone entering into an experiment should give informed
consent”. That means at the very least food should be labelled if it contains
genetically modified organisms so we each can make a choice. He sums up the
cost of new technologies saying, we only have to reflect on DDT, nuclear power,
and CFCs, which were hailed as wonderful creations but whose long-term
detrimental effects were only found decades after their widespread use. Now,
with a more wise and balanced perspective, we are cutting back on the use of
these technologies. But with genetically modified foods, this option may not be
available. The difference with GM food is that once the genie is out of the
bottle, it will be difficult or impossible to stuff it back. If we stop using
DDT and CFCs, nature may be able to undo most of the damage or even nuclear
waste decays over time. But Genetically Modified plants are living organisms.
Once these life forms have become established in our surroundings, they can
replicate, change, and spread; there may be no turning back.
[5] A new development “Terminator
Technology” is about to be release onto the market. The seed and agrochemical
industry have developed “Genetic Seed Sterilisation “ they are new patents,
which will threaten farmers and food security.
A Platform for Inducing Chemical Sales: The new generation of patents
goes beyond the genetic neutering of crops. The patents reveal that companies
are developing suicide seeds whose genetic traits can be turned on and off by an
external chemical "inducer" -- mixed with the company's patented agrochemicals.
In the not-so-distant future, we may see farmers planting seeds that will
develop into productive (but sterile) crops only if sprayed with a carefully
prescribed regimen that includes the company's proprietary pesticide, fertilizer
or herbicide. The latest version of Monsanto's suicide seeds won't even
germinate unless exposed to a special chemical, while AstraZeneca's technologies
outline how to engineer crops to become stunted or otherwise impaired if not
regularly exposed to the company's chemicals. RAFI calls it "Traitor
Technology."
The spectre of genetic seed
sterilization is so serious that Terminator technologies will be debated at
several United Nations bodies, including UN Food and Agriculture Organization in
April, the Convention on Biological Diversity in May, the UN Commission on
Science, Technology, and Development in May.
[6]
It has been estimated that
approximately 30,000 untested new genetically engineered food products have
reached our market shelves. Genetically altered supplements and foods have
already caused debilitating allergies, permanent crippling, and deaths simply
because consumers were unaware.
[7]
Thirty-Seven people have
died and 1,500 people in the U.S. were permanently disabled from toxic and
deadly bacteria created during the production of genetically engineered
tryptophan.
Reference:
[1] Dr Arpad Pusztai, formerly of the Rowett
Research Institute speaking on Granada TV’s World in Action (1998)
[2] Dr Frank Sin at the University of
Canterbury
www.canterbury
.ac.nz/publish/research/97/A19.htm
[3] Auckland Feb 8 1999 (Agence France Presse)
[4] Canada’s most famous Scientist Warns of
Hazards of GE; Food for life-Summer 2000 Experimenting with Life by David
Suzuki.
[5] The Terminator Technology:
RAFI-USA Press Release
Rural Advancement Foundation
International- RAFI Press Release-27 January 1999
[6]
Consumer alert
Avoiding Dangerous Foods by Peter M.Ligotti
[7] Nordlee,J.A. et al (1996) The New
England Journal Of Medicine 688; Mayeno, A.N. et al (1994) Tibtech 12:364.)
Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering, genetic modification or
genetic manipulation all comes under the same heading. Biotechnology and all
three terms mean the same thing, the reshuffling of genes usually from one
species to another. Scientists are giving birth to their bizarre creations
transferring genes from fish to tomatoes, human to pig, scorpion to potato, and
just about any unsavoury combination you can imagine.
Genetic engineering is a
radical new technology, one that breaks the fundamental genetic barriers-not
only between species, but between humans, animals and plants. By combining the
genes of dissimilar and unrelated species, permanently altering their genetic
codes, human beings can’t normally exchange genes with a carrot or a mouse, but
with DNA technology it can happen, novel organisms are created that will pass
the genetic changes onto their offspring through heredity. Scientists are now
snipping, inserting, recombining, rearranging, and editing, and programming
genetic material. Animal genes and even human genes are being inserted into
plants or animals creating unimaginable transgenic life forms.
[7]
Genetic
modification", or more specifically, "transgenic technology" is a set of
techniques for manipulating, or engineering the genetic material, DNA, enabling
molecular geneticists to cut and join, mutate, copy and multiply genes, and most
importantly, transfer genes between species. A major vehicle for genetic
manipulation is artificially constructed, parasitic genetic elements, or
vectors, used to multiply copies of genes, and to carry and smuggle genes into
cells, which would normally exclude them. Once inside the cells, these vectors
slot themselves into the host's genome, to genetically transform the cells to
make transgenic organisms. The integration of the vector DNA, as indeed any
foreign DNA into the host-cell genome is a very imprecise, random process, known
to cause many genetic disturbances with harmful or lethal effects. Vectors used
in transgenic technology are usually a mosaic recombination of natural genetic
parasites from different sources, including viruses causing cancers and other
diseases in animals and plants, with their pathogenic functions "crippled". The
vector most widely used in plant genetic manipulation is derived from a tumour-inducing
plasmid carried by the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefacient ENS. In animals,
vectors are constructed from retroviruses causing cancers and other diseases.
Thus, a vector currently used in fish has a framework from the Moloney Murine
leukemic virus, which causes leukaemia in mice but can infect all mammalian
cells. It also has bits from the Rous sarcoma virus, causing sarcomas in
chickens and from the vesicular stomatitis virus causing oral lesions in cattle,
horses, pigs and humans.
[8] There is serious concern about the dangers of using genetically engineered viruses as delivery vehicles (vectors) in the generation of transgenic plants and animals. This could destabilize the genome and lead to horizontal gene transfer to other species, including mammals. This may cause dangerous new diseases, resistance to antibiotics, and severe immune reactions. Genetic engineering also interferes with RNA editing and molecular folding, which may cause the information of prion-based diseases similar to BSE – mad cow disease.
How to get the gene into the other cell.
[9] There are different
ways to get agents from A to B or to transform a plant with a "new” gene. A
vector is something that can carry the gene into the host, or rather into the
nucleus of a host cell. Vectors are commonly bacterial plasmids. One of the
methods used is the "shotgun technique" also known as "bio-ballistics", which
blindly shoots masses of tiny gold particles coated with the gene into a plate
of plant cells, hoping to land a hit somewhere in the cell's DNA.
What is a plasmid?
Plasmids can be found in many bacteria and are small rings of DNA with a limited number of genes. Plasmids are not essential for the survival of bacteria but can make life a lot easier for them. Whilst all bacteria -no matter which species - will have their bacterial chromosome with all the crucial hereditary information of how to survive and multiply, they invented a tool to exchange information rapidly. If one likens the chromosome to a bookshelf with manuals and handbooks, and a single gene to a recipe or a specific building instruction, a plasmid could be seen as a pamphlet. Plasmids self-replicate and are thus easily reproduced and passed around. Plasmids often contain genes for antibiotic resistance. This type of information, which can easily be passed on, can be crucial to bacterial strains, which are under attack by drugs, and is indeed a major reason for the quick spread of antibiotic resistance.
Working with plasmids
Plasmids are relatively small,
replicate very quickly and are thus easy to study and to manipulate. It is easy
to determine the sequence of its DNA, that is, to find out the sequence of the
letters (A, C, G and T) and number them. Certain letter combinations such as
CAATTG - are easy to cut with the help of specific enzymes. (Proteins) These
cutting enzymes, called restriction enzymes, are part of the Genetic Engineering
'tool-kit" of biochemists. So if I want to splice a gene from a fish into a
plasmid, I have to take the following steps: I place a large number of a known
plasmid in a little test tube and add a specific enzyme that will cut the
plasmid at only one site. After an hour I stop the digest, purify the cut
plasmid DNA and mix it with copies of the fish gene; after some time the fish
gene places itself into the cut ring of the plasmid. I quickly add some "glue"
from my 'tool-kit" – an enzyme called ligase - and place the mended plasmids
back into bacteria, leaving them to grow and multiply. But how do I know which
bacteria will have my precious plasmid? For this reason I need marker genes,
such as antibiotic resistance genes. So I make sure my plasmid has a marker
gene before I splice my fish gene into it. If the plasmid is marked with a gene
for antibiotic resistance I can now add the specific antibiotic to the food
supply of the bacteria. All those, which do not have the plasmid, will die, and
all those that do have the plasmid will multiply.
Reference:
[7] PERILS AMID PROMISES OF GENETICALLY
MODIFIED FOODS – Dr Mae-Wan Ho Biology Department, Open University, U.K.
November 1996
[8] Ref: (Green, A. E.
(1984) Science 263:1423 Osbourne, J.K. et al (1990) Virology 179:921;Mae-Wan Ho (1996) Biology Dept, Open University
Reference:
[9] What is Genetic
Engineering? By Ricarda Steinbrecher, The Women's
Environmental Network
Synthesis/Regeneration 18 (Winter 1999)
Propaganda Strategy
Who benefits from such technology, people in
need, or people who need more.
Public Relations companies
employed by the genetic industry devise strategies that manipulate the public
opinion with information placement in media and campaigns designed to show us
the benefits of biotechnology. The reason we are led to believe is to (1) Feed
the growing population of the world, especially the Third World, (2) Reduced
chemical inputs, which would be good for the environment (3) Higher yields,
benefiting farmers and consumers, (4) To improve the nutritional value of the
food.
(1) Dr Mae-Wan Ho Biology
Department Open University, U.K. November 1996, wrote in her article Perils amid
Promises of Genetically Modified Foods. Dr Mae-Wan hoe Say’s, despite the lowest
prices on record, more than 800 million people still go hungry and 82 countries
– half of them in Africa- neither grow enough food, nor can afford to import
it. Infant mortality rates –a sensitive indicator of nutritional stress have
been experiencing an upturn in recent years, reversing a historical trend. Large
numbers of children suffer from malnutrition in developing countries. In India
alone, 85% of children under five are below the normal, acceptable state of
nutrition.
(2) Concerns about Roundup
ready soybeans increasing the amount of toxic chemicals sprayed on US farmlands
that are just as serious. Farmers using RRS seeds will now be able to dump
twice as much Roundup (a toxic herbicide) onto their cropland, further damaging
soil fertility and polluting the ground water. In California, Roundup has been
found to be the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide poisoning among
farm workers.
(3) 1976/7 Yield of
genetically altered Bt cotton was lower than natural cotton crops. In the US
farmers complained of massive pest infestations from insects the cotton was
supposed to resist. Others suffered malformed cotton plants. In Australia,
cotton growers rated the crop as very poor value; the 30,000 hectares of Bt
cotton planted was only 60% effective. In the U.S.A, it has been reported that
over 800,000 acres of herbicide resistant GE cotton were planted in 1977. The
US Dept. of Agriculture is concerned about complaints from farmers in
Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana who reported that bolls were
falling off their plants. Crop failure was apparently a problem in hundreds of
thousands of acres, with farmers reporting losses of up to US$1 million.
(4) Pioneer Hybrid seed
company genetically altered soybeans by adding a gene from the Brazil nut. The
intention was to enhance its nutritional value, but the bean never reached the
market because some individuals suffered allergic reactions to the novel
soybean.
Reference:
(1) Article- Farmers facing problems with
genetically altered crops and products (Natural Food Commission) Website http//www.Naturallaw.org.nz/genetics/.
(2) Article- US Consumers & Farmers Battle Genetically- Engineered soybeans ( Ronnie Cummins- US Director of Pure Food Campaign and Ben Lilliston Editor director of Sustain) Website
(3) And (4) same article as
in Ref: (1)
Ethical or Religious Concern
[10] Both consumers and the
biotechnology industry recognize that the transfer of genetic
material/information from humans or other animals to food producing organisms
will violate vegetarian, ethical, and religious beliefs of certain segments of
the population. From the point of view of modern molecular biology and
biochemistry, the essential component involved in such animal-plant transfers is
not the material of the DNA molecule, because, of course, that material is
identical in both plants and animals.
The essential component is genetic information. The
biotechnology industry and regulatory bodies have attempted to skirt this issue
by arguing that the recombinant gene put in the food or food ingredient is not
animal material but is a copy of a gene from an animal source, claiming that no
animal material has been introduced into the food. The superficial nature of
this argument is obvious. It is little more than a play on words. Industrial
voices elaborate on this argument stating that, indeed, many genes are common to
plants, animals, and microbes, and therefore there is no real distinction
between animal and plant genes. For instance they would say that both animals
and plants have genes for the enzyme hexokinase.
This view exposes a superficial appreciation and understanding of
the actual molecular biological facts. Although genes for proteins that are
common to both plants and animals are related, there are significant differences
the information contained in those genes. That is, the cow hexokinase gene is
different from the tomato hexokinase gene in information content. Therefore,
the structures and functions of cow and tomato hexokinase differ, as well. The
fact that a change in the information content of a gene translates into a change
in the function of the enzyme encoded by that gene implies that a change in
genetic information, brought about through recombinant DNA manipulations, has
material consequences.
It should also be pointed out that, in general genes common to a
wide variety of species are not the focus of agricultural genetic engineering.
Instead, there is far more commercial interest in using genetic engineering to
confer on a species new characteristics by transferring to it genes that are
unique to some other species. Transfer of genes that are highly similar to genes
naturally present in an organism is in most cases of little commercial value.
Thus, it is scientifically untenable to claim,
as the biotechnology industry and regulatory agencies wish to do, that the
rabbit hexokinase gene is no longer a rabbit gene once it is introduced into a
tomato plant. No matter how many generations the rabbit hexokinase gene is
propagated in tomatoes, the gene still corresponds in information content to the
rabbit gene, and the catalytic and kinetic properties of the enzyme still
correspond to those of rabbit hexokinase, and not tomato hexokinase. It may not
be rabbit material, but it is still rabbit information.
Dr Fagan concludes that the arguments raised in the US Discussion
Paper are not based on scientific fact. More to the point, purely scientific
grounds are not even relevant to the issue of ethically and religiously based
choices in food consumption. Setting aside arguments such as those discussed in
[10] it is a simple fact that there exists a growing segment of the
population that has ethical or religious beliefs that classify genetically
engineered plants carrying animal or human genes as being unacceptable as
foods. This situation is not the result of misunderstanding of the nature of
recombinant DNA manipulations or of ignorance of the principles of modern
biology. By and large, the segment of the population holding these beliefs is
among the best educated. Lack of understanding of the technology cannot be used
as an excuse for discounting the concerns of this group. A labelling policy that
does not sincerely take into account the ethical and religious concerns of this
growing segment of the population will not induce these individuals to ignore
their beliefs and purchase plant-animal recombinant foods. Instead such a policy
will cause them to restrict their food purchases even more stringently, and to
promote reverse labeling, both of which are likely to impact negatively on the
market share of genetically engineered foods.
Reference:
[10] A Science- Based, Precautionary Approach to The Labelling Of Genetically Engineered Foods, by John Fagan Ph.D.
Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
There is increasing scientific
evidence agribiotechnology; and to apply the precautionary principle to this new
technology. At the 12th (1999) annual Scientific Conference of the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), more than 600 delegates
from over 60 countries voted unanimously for against the use of genetically
modified organisms in food production and agriculture. The delegates called on
governments and regulatory agencies throughout the world to immediately ban
genetic engineering in agriculture and food production since it involves:
·
Negative and irreversible environmental impacts.
·
Release of organisms of an unrecallable nature.
·
Removal of the right of choice, both for farmers and consumers.
·
Violation of farmers' fundamental property rights and endangerment of
their economic independence.
·
Practices, which are incompatible with the principles of sustainable
agriculture as, defined by IFOAM.
·
Unacceptable threats to human health.
To regard many genetically
engineered (GE) crops and food as being adulterated and even potentially toxic,
and therefore posing potential risks to human and other consumers (including
insects, birds, and wild and domesticated mammals) and to the environment is not
unreasonable considering the following scientifically documented findings:
·
[1] There is evidence that foreign DNA can enter the body via the
gastrointestinal tract and cross the placenta (1,2).
·
[2] Genetically modified organisms can produce unanticipated
toxins (3,4) or allergens (5).
·
[3] Gene transfer can occur between transgenic plants and
bacteria, the ecological consequences of which can be catastrophic (6).
·
[4] Milk from cows injected with r-BGH, which is not analogous to
normal BGH (7), has elevated insulin-like growth factor that is implicated as a
risk factor in human breast cancer (8,9).
·
[5] Considering the documented evidence that horizontal transfer
between species is a natural phenomenon (10-16), the precautionary principle
must be applied in creating transgenic organisms that could transfer novel genes
and viral vectors to other species (17-19). The ecological, evolutionary, and
public health consequences of such transfers we will only know after the fact.
Horizontal gene transfer is even likely to take place in the digestive systems
of protozoa, nematodes, insect larvae, and other soil macro-organisms (12).
·
[6] That genes, like viruses, can infect (20,21), should serve as
a warning to us all of the potential risks of transgenic organisms serving
reservoir for new diseases, and as a medium for the evolution of new pathogens
because of their altered physiology and biochemistry.
·
[7] Unanticipated multiple side effects of gene insertion (called
pleiotropic effects) have been well documented. Viral "promoters" and
"enhancers" that boost expression of transgenic could result in the production
of high levels of Bt toxin and other chemicals in transgenic crops. Even more
serious harm to the ecology of the soil may result, because this Bt toxin does
not rapidly degrade in certain soils after the crop has been harvested and the
remains used compost. This toxin in transgenic crops is likely to accumulate
more and more in the soil after each crop, and will poison many beneficial
insects and other organisms essential for the ecological health and fertility of
the soil. This could affect the nutritive value of crops grown in sterilized
soil. (22) Genetic alterations in crops like soybeans to make them resistant to
herbicides may result in unpredictable, unnatural genetic recombinations and
change the biochemistry and nutritive value. Higher levels of phyto-estrogens
are produced in beans grown in the presence of the herbicide glyphosate, which
may be of particular risk to children (23).
·
[8] The highly controversial research findings of a reputable
scientist, Dr Arpal Pusztai from the UK government's Rowett Research Institute,
revealed adverse health effects in rats fed genetically engineered potatoes. He
reported abnormal organ development and weakening of the immune system
attributable to either the cauliflower mosaic virus that was used as a promoter
(and in many other transgenic crops), or to the active genetically spliced
insecticidal lectins present in these G-E potatoes. Liver, brain, and heart
sizes of the rats all decreased. (24)
·
[9] Some 99 percent of commercial transgenic crops incorporate
virus genes, either as promoters or to control virus infections. These virus
genes can recombine with other viruses and may result in new diseases and more
invasive pathogens (25-29). With the inclusion of antibiotic-resistance markers,
transgenic crops could therefore increase the probability of new viral and
bacterial pathogens and the spread of antibiotic and drug, resistance genes.
·
[10] DNA released from living and dead cells can persist in the
environment and be transferred to other organisms. An organism may be dead, but
its "naked" DNA released from decaying cells may remain biologically active for
potentially thousands years, especially in certain soils and marine sediments.
(30) Naked DNA (nucleic acids) ingested by mice can be transferred to offspring
and be voided and spread in animals' feces. (2)
·
[11] One must therefore consider not only the "fate" of transgenic
organisms but also the genes and viruses or parts thereof, that have been
inserted into them. Such "naked DNA", in the form of recombinant and modified
nucleic acids, has been found capable of surviving and remaining functional
longer after organisms' death than was assumed previously. (6,30) Furthermore,
xenobiotics, especially dioxins and various agrochemicals, can act as mutagens
(31), altering the structure and sequence of DNA and also increasing the
permeability of cells and the incorporation of foreign DNA into living
organisms.
·
[12] The instability of transgenic crops is a major concern. There
is, in fact, no data documenting the stability of any transgenic line in gene
expression, or in structure and location of the insert in the genome. Such data
must include the level of gene expression, as well as a genetic map and DNA base
sequence of the insert and its site of insertion in the host genome in each
successive generation. No such information has been provided by industry, nor
requested by regulatory authorities. (32)
Conclusions: Contamination of the "life stream" by naked
recombinant DNA, by transgenic viral vectors, and antibiotic resistant genes is
probably already taking place. Since a recall is impossible, our best hope if
it is not already to late to control genetic pollution, is a five-year worldwide
moratorium on the creation and release of all genetically engineered living
entities and products, from new vaccines, to transgenic crops, so that
science-based risk assessments can be properly completed.
POSTSCRIPT The British Medical Association released an
interim statement on "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food
and Health", citing a critical need for more data on allergen city and possible
toxicity of GM foods. This statement included the following points concern:
Information about the effect of
genetic modification on the chemical composition of food, and in particular its
safety is needed urgently.
-
Adverse effects are likely to be irreversible; once GMO's are released into the environment they cannot be subject to control.
-
The BMA rejected the notion that GM foods should be assumed to be safe when they are said to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, which is the basis of U.S. regulation of biotech foods. "This concept does not account for gene interaction of unexpected kinds, which may take place in GM foods," the statement asserts. "The possibility that certain novel genes inserted into food may cause problems to humans is a real possibility, and 'substantial equivalence' is a rule which can be use to evade this biological fact."
-
Among several recommendations, the BMA urged that:
-
The precautionary principle should be applied in developing genetically modified crops or foodstuffs, as we cannot at present know whether there are any serious risks to the environment or to human health involved in producing GM crops or consuming food products.
-
Careful consideration needs to be given to the effect of GMO's on farming practices, the countryside and wildlife and we therefore recommend a moratorium on the commercial planting of GM crops in the UK. The moratorium should continue until there is scientific consensus (or as close agreement as reasonably achievable) about the potential long-term environmental effects.
-
GM foodstuffs should be segregated at source, to enable identification and traceability of GM products.
-
There should be a ban on the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM food, as the risk to human health from antibiotic resistance developing in micro-organisms is one of the major public health threats that will be faced in the 21st Century.
-
The risk that GM crops may increase the use of herbicides and pesticides in the environment need to be comprehensively assessed to determine their risks.
Reference:
Dangers of GE Foods & Crops--Dr. Michael Fox References are available upon
request, from www.hsus.org)
WILL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
CROPS MEAN ADULTERATED AND TOXIC FOOD, BODIES, AND ECOSYSTEMS? By Dr. Michael W.
Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L
Street, NW Washington, DC 20037
Mandatory Labels for GE
Foods in Australia and New Zealand
This Year
Mandatory GM
labeling approved in Australia by a Feedstuffs Staff Editor. The health
ministers comprising the Australia New Zealand Food Standards (ANZFSC) approved
July 28 a resolution requiring strict mandatory-labeling requirements for
genetically modified (GM) foods. As adopted, the resolution:
Requires labeling of food and
food ingredients where novel DNA and/or protein is present in the final food,
and requires labeling of food and food ingredients where the food has altered
characteristics. Exempted from these requirements include:
·
Highly refined food where the effect of the refining process is to remove
novel DNA and/or protein;
·
Processing aids and food additives except those where novel DNA and/or
protein is present in the final food;
·
Flavors that are present in a concentration less than or equal to 0.1% in
the final food, and food prepared at the point of sale.
The standard allows an
ingredient to contain up to 1% of unintended presence of GM product. ANZFSC
also has endorsed the principle of due diligence and verifiable documentation
(such as an audit trial) or testing for compliance purposes. It also noted that
the protocol for compliance would elaborate on those processes used to produce
highly refined food, which means manufacturers not have to test individual
batches of foods produced using such recognized processes. The council said it
would keep under review developments in GM food labeling. The revised standard
is to take effect 12 months from time of publication and be reviewed and a
report prepared for the council on its implementation three years from that
date. Publication of the resolution is expected in September, which would put
the standard into effect by September 2001.
The New Zealand Grocery
Marketers Assn. has been generally supportive of the decision, noting it was
practical, meaningful to consumers and will minimize associated extra costs. At
the same time, the group has noted possible concerns with trade from the U.S.,
the potential implication that GM food is unsafe and the imposition of more
onerous compliance provisions than apply elsewhere. The group also has said it
believes few products currently on the shelf would have to be labeled.
Under the resolution, U.S. and
other nations’ food exports to the Australian and
New Zealand markets would need
to be labeled consistent with the standard.
Reference:
Feedstuffs (magazine) Aug 7, 2000
Partial List of GE Companies and Products
This information on products
which are genetically engineered, foods which may be genetically engineered, and
companies involved in genetic engineering was compiled by Irene Archer from
information found on the genetic engineering mailing list and other sources.
Some of the information may apply to Canada and some to the US or both. If you
live in a country that may receive imports from the U.S. and Canada, you should
avoid non-organic foods as a safety precaution. In our own country or if
another country is exporting to our country they may be doing genetic
engineering. Eat only organic food if possible. Even if you buy seeds to grow
your own food, buy only organic seeds.
The following information in
this category is not about genetic engineering but is for Religious groups and
Vegetarians to note:
A & D vitamins can contain
emulsifiers from Pork
Apple juice, which is
clarified, contains gelatin
Beta Carotene contain lard or
gelatin in processing
D3 has sheep lanolin used in
the process
Lcysteine is made from Human
Hair
Lactose may contain pork rennin
or whey in processing
Companies Involved in Genetic Engineering
Agritope, Asgrow, Calgene,
Ciba-Geigy, DeKal, DNA Plant Tech. Dupont Ecogen Hoechst/AgrEvo, Monsanto,
Mycogen, Northrup King, Novartis, Petro, Seed Plant Genetic Systems, Research
Seeds Rhone, Merieux Rhone, Poulenc, Sandoz, Zeneca, Cornell University is
involved, Hawaii University is involved.
BRAND
NAME PRODUCTS, WHICH MAY BE (OR ARE) GENETICALLY ENGINEERED OR CONTAIN
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INGREDIENTS
BT corn, Coca Cola, Fleishmanns margarine, Fritos, Green Giant Harvest Burgers, Karo Corn Syrup, Kraft Salad Dressings, McDonalds French Fries, Nestle Crunch, Quaker Oats corn meal, Roundup Ready Soybeans, Similac Infant Formula, Fritos (corn), Nestle chocolates (soy), NutraSweet (Aspartame), Fleishmann’s margarine (soy), Land O Lakes butter (rBGH), Cabot Creamery Butter (rBGH),
FOODS WHICH MAY BE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED OR CONTAIN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INGREDIENTS:
[Note: Organically grown
ingredients are free of genetic engineering.]
Amylase is used in making
bread, flour, whole-wheat flour, cereals, starch, glucose syrup, cider, wine,
beer etc, Baking powder - additives in processing, Bread - soy in, Canola Oil,
Catalase is used in making soft drinks, egg albumen, liquid whey cereals - soy
in, Chymosin (rennet), Corn Products, Corn Starch, Corn Syrup, Food Supplements
- yeast in, Fruit juices may be processed with genetically engineered products.
Glucose Syrup, Ice Cream - soy in etc. Lactase, Maize, Pasta - soy in potatoes,
Rennet, Soft Drinks - in the processing or corn syrup, Soy Products like soy
sauce, burgers, frankfurters, powders etc.
Soybeans, Squash, Sugar - in
the processing, Tofu, Tomatoes, Yeast.
AVOID
ALL OTHER CONVENTIONAL (NOT CERTIFIED-ORGANIC) TOMATOES, POTATOES, CORN, SOY,
CANOLA OIL, COTTON SEED OIL, AND YELLOW CROOK-NECK SQUASH:
TOMATOES: Genetically
engineered with bacteria-derived kanamycin resistance
Genes, Antisense backwards DNA,
antibiotic marker genes, viruses, and DNA of
Flounder and North Atlantic
shellfish. This and the following genetically engineered foods have antibiotic
marker genes used to facilitate the genetic engineering process. They can cause
allergies and autoimmune disease.
POTATOES: Genetically
engineered with wax moth insect DNA; genetically
Engineered to produce its own
pesticide internally with the DNA of bacillus
Thuringiensis bacteria.
CORN: Genetically
engineered to tolerate high quantities of the chemical pesticide
Glufosinate, and genetically
engineered with a virus and the DNA of the bacteria
Bacillus thuringiensis.
SOY: Genetically
engineered and DNA-altered by Monsanto with bacteria; capable of tolerating
heavy doses of Monsanto's Roundup brand chemical pesticide (Glyphosate).
YELLOW CROOK-NECK SQUASH:
Gene-spliced with two experimental viruses
And arbitrary marker genes,
capable of causing unpredictable and unexpected
effects.
CANOLA OIL: Genetically
engineered and DNA-altered with California bay turnip
and various viruses and
bacterium in order to produce high quantities of lauric acid.
COTTON SEED OIL:
Genetically engineered and DNA-altered with Arabidopsis
Bacterium, and viruses to be
able to withstand large applications of the chemical
Pesticide bromoxynil.
Bromoxynil causes birth defects in human beings.
PAPAYA: Some have been
genetically engineered.
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PRODUCE BEING FIELD TESTED
Barley, Broccoli, Cabbage,
Carrots, Chicory, Cranberries, Creeping Bentgrass, Eggplant, Gladiolus, Grapes,
Lettuce, Peas, Peppers, Raspberries, Strawberries,
Sugar Cane, Sweet Gum,
Watermelon, Wheat.
READ
LABELS CAREFULLY: BE CAREFUL WITH ALL PROCESSED FOODS WATCH OUT FOR
CONVENTIONAL, NON-ORGANIC CORN AND SOY, BECAUSE THEY ARE IN SO MANY PRODUCTS:
Avoid corn syrup, fructose, and
fructose corn syrup in almost all beverages and sodas (even health food brands),
and in almost all sweet products, yogurt, and aspirin. Avoid corn oil, corn
starch, corn meal, baking soda, baking powder, glucose syrup; Avoid soy; soy
flour in baked goods; pizza, cookies, cakes, pasta; fillers in meat products,
(for example Big Macs) vegetarian meat substitutes, (for example tofu, tofu
burgers, tofu hot dogs) soy milk, infant formula, baby foods; diet and protein
shakes, protein bars; chocolate and candy bars; margarine; ice cream; pet food;
soy oil in salad dressings & snack chips; soy sauce; lecithin and soy lecithin.
In all, well over 30,000 products!
AVOID
rBGH MILK & DAIRY PRODUCTS
Monsanto's genetically
engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH), marketed through veterinarians and
injected into dairy cows, causes increased milk production and horrible
mastitis. These cows then require constant medical supervision and continuous
high doses of antibiotics. Their milk contains high levels of pus. The cow's
milk and dairy products made from this milk also contain rBGH, bovine growth
hormone. This hormone increases cancer risk in human beings.
AVOID
ASPARTAME
This is known as the artificial
sweetener Equal or NutraSweet and is made up of three chemicals and a
genetically engineered enzyme. It has been implicated in many diseases. It
breaks down into formaldehyde in the body.
EAT
ONLY ORGANIC RENNETLESS
CHEESE Most non-organic cheeses
are made with genetically engineered rennet called chymosin.
AVOID
DOUGH CONDITIONER
This is a code word for a
combination of genetically engineered enzymes and other components found in
cheaper breads and baked goods.
OTHER
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ADDITIVES AND ENZYMES
Avoid Amylase (used in making
bread, flour, whole wheat flour, cereals, starch), Catalase (used in making soft
drinks, egg whites, liquid whey) and Lactase
MEAT
AND POULTRY
Most livestock are being fed
genetically altered feed, as well as a disgusting
FAVOR
DAIRY PRODUCTS FROM COMPANIES THAT DO NOT USE (rBGH)
Research and buy only from
suppliers that promise on the package or in
I have especially devoted a
section on Formaldehyde Poisoning from Aspartame (NutraSweet) or Equal.
Detailed scientific and general documentation
regarding the toxicity of NutraSweet, Equal, diet coke, diet Pepsi, and other
aspartame containing items. Web page includes real life reports of acute and
chronic toxicity due to long-term ingestion. Also included is extensive
scientific and general information and resources.
Formaldehyde Poisoning from Aspartame
In 1997 there was an increase in aspartame
users reporting severe toxicity reactions and damage such as seizures, eye
damage and vision loss, confusion, severe migraines, tremors, depression,
anxiety attacks, insomnia, etc. In, the same years, Ralph Walton, MD, Chairman,
The Center for Behavioral Medicine showed that the only studies which didn’t
find problems with aspartame where those funded by the manufacturer (Monsanto).
Given the agreement amongst independent scientists about the toxicity of
aspartame, the only question was whether the formaldehyde exposure from
aspartame caused the toxicity. That question has now been largely answered
because of research in the late 1990s.
The following facts shown by recent scientific
research:
1.Aspartame (NutraSweet) breaks down into
methanol (wood alcohol).
2.Methanol quickly converts to formaldehyde in
the body.
3.Formaldehyde causes gradual and eventually
severe damage to the neurological system, immune system and causes permanent
genetic damage at extremely low doses.
4.Methanol from alcoholic beverages and from
fruit and juices does not convert to Formaldehyde and cause damage because there
are protective chemicals in these traditionally ingested beverages.
5.The most recent independent research in
Europe demonstrates that ingestion of small amounts of aspartame leads to the
accumulation of significant levels of Formaldehyde (bound to protein) in organs
(liver kidneys, brain) and tissues.
6.Excitotoxic amino acid such as the one,
which is immediately released from Aspartame likely increases the damage caused
by the Formaldehyde.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Readers are urged to follow up by printing and
reading the extensive and heavily referenced discussion related to aspartame and
methanol/formaldehyde poisoning (suitable for scientists and laypersons) at
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/
See also, www.aspartamekills.com
This document details the research showing
Formaldehyde toxicity from Aspartame and demonstrates the techniques the
manufacturer used to help hide these facts. Finally, an updated discussion of
Formaldehyde dosage from aspartame has been added to answer questions raised by
what appears to be a manufacturer public relations campaign. Please read this
document only after reading the first methanol/formaldehyde document linked to
above.
Keywords: NutraSweet
Monsanto
Reference:
Aspartame (NutraSweet)
Toxicity Information Center Main Page
(Case histories of aspartame
poisoning, scientific docs, statements from experts, Healthier sweeteners)
Aspartame Is Dangerous For Everyone!
[1] I realize that the average consumer has a ‘We've all got to die of something attitude," but they don't realize that before this stuff kills them that they are going to have a miserable declining existence with lots of pain, disease and other problems.
[2]
Toxic sweeteners to avoid: neotame, aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal),
sucralose (Splenda), acesulfame-k (Sunette, Sweet-n-Safe, Sweet One).
NOTE: If you are a diabetic- It is important to work closely with
your healthcare practitioner when you change your diet. Diabetics can safely use
STEVIA (listed below) and usually small amounts of LICORICE ROOT and
FRUCTO-OLIGOSACCHRIDES. Some diabetics who are allowed to use small amounts of
and also use small amounts of Sucanat or Florida Crystals listed below. Please
consult your healthcare practitioner.
[3] Alternatives
Please do not switch from one
dangerous artificial sweetener (aspartame) to another (e.g., acesulfame-k. A
list of "healthier" sweeteners and sources on web page below. Please use these
more natural, time-tested sweeteners to promote long-term health as opposed to
destroying it.
Website: Holistic Medicine Web Page
“ Healthy” Sweeteners -
Articles & Resources.
[4]
A well-researched and well-documented book about these techniques (and a
"must-read") is:
Toxic
Sludge is Good For You! (Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations
Industry)
By John Stauber and Sheldon
Rampton
Common Courage Press, Monroe,
Maine (USA), c1995
ISBN 1-56751-061-2 or ISBN
1-56751-060-4 (paperback)
“This
book will help you understand what tricks to expect from Monsanto as scientists
and the general population recognizes the dangers of aspartame. It is a real
eye-opener and I highly recommend it.”
--An Aspartame Victim
See:
Biotechnology Myths
Website:
www.holisticmed.com/ge/my
By Miguel Altieri, PhD
Read:
PERILS AMID PROMISES
OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
By Dr Mae-Wan Ho Biology
Department, Open University, U.K. November 1996
Read:
A Science-Based,
Precautionary Approach To The Labeling Of Genetically Engineered Foods
By Dr John Fagan Ph.D.
Mandatory Toxic Drugs for Babies and Children
Health Concerns | Biotech Harvest
