Unintended GMO Health Risks

[Guest guest]

Does Monsanto actually produce anything that is health enhancing rather than

health degrading? It seems to be the prime example of warped

technology and junk science that's being foisted on us through its political

payoffs. What actually is Monsanto's mission?

==============================================

Spilling the Beans, March 2008

Subscribe to e-newsletter Spilling the Beans

Donations Matched for April

A challenge grant will match donations and memberships to our Institute (up to a

total of $1500). We welcome your support in our efforts to stop the genetic

engineering of the food supply. Click here to donate and/or become a member.

This month’s Spilling the Beans features a new pamphlet on the health risks of

GMOs. To view a PDF of our new handout, click here. The unformatted text of the

pamphlet is reproduced below with references added. It is also available on our

site, click here.

The Institute has copies of the brochure available in bundles of 50, selling

for just above our cost, click here. For large or custom print runs, please

contact info@....

For a more in-depth look at 65 health risks of GM foods, excerpted from

's comprehensive new book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health

Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, click here.

Unintended GMO Health Risks [i wonder if the negative effects to health are

really unintended and not part of the population

culling program. GMOs certainly fulfill the requirement of killing a lot of

people in a very stealthy way as do aspartame, rBGH, vaccinations, chemtrails,

prescription drugs, silver amalgams, etc.]

Genetically modified foods:

YES, you are already eating them.

NO, they are not safe to eat.

Did you know... since 1996 Americans have been eating genetically modified

(GM) ingredients in most processed foods.

Did you know... GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola have

had foreign genes forced into their DNA. And the inserted genes come from

species, such as bacteria and viruses, that have never been in the human food

supply.

Did you know... genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not safe. They have

been linked to thousands of toxic and allergenic reactions, thousands of sick,

sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system

studied in lab animals.

Find out what the risks are and start protecting yourself and your family

today!

Why isn’t the FDA protecting us?

In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed that they had no information

showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown

foods and therefore were safe to eat. But internal memos made public by a

lawsuit reveal that their position was staged by political appointees under

orders from the White House to promote GMOs. FDA scientists, on the other hand,

warned that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects,

including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged

long term safety studies, but were ignored.[1] The FDA does not require any

safety evaluations for GMOs. Instead, biotech companies, who have been found

guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products, are now in charge of

determining whether their GM foods are safe. (The FDA official in charge of

creating this policy was , Monsanto’s former attorney and later

their vice president.)

Although these biotech companies participate in a voluntary consultation

process with the FDA, it is a meaningless exercise. The summaries of the

superficial research they submit cannot identify most of the health risks of

GMOs.[2]

Genetic modification is radically different from natural breeding

In contrast to the statements of biotech advocates, FDA scientists and others

affirm that genetic modification is not just an extension of the conventional

breeding techniques that have been used by farmers for millennia. Genetic

engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers, using imprecise

laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding. Furthermore,

the technology is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.[3]

Widespread, unpredictable changes

Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a “gene gun” into a plate

of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered

cell is then cloned into a plant. These processes create massive collateral

damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the

plant’s DNA.[4] Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off,

and hundreds may change their levels of expression.[5]

In addition:

The inserted gene is often rearranged;[6]

It may transfer from the food into our body’s cells or into the DNA of bacteria

inside us;[7] and

The GM protein produced by the gene may have unintended properties or effects.

GM foods on the market

The primary reason companies genetically engineer plants is to make them

tolerant to their brand of herbicide. The four major GM plants, soy, corn,

canola, and cotton, are designed to survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed

killer. These crops have much higher residues of toxic herbicides. About 68% of

GM crops are herbicide tolerant.

The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide. A gene from the soil bacterium

called Bt (for Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted into corn and cotton DNA,

where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. About 19% of GM

crops produce their own pesticide. Another 13% produce a pesticide and are

herbicide tolerant.

There is also Hawaiian papaya and a small amount of zucchini and yellow

crookneck squash, which are engineered to resist a plant virus. Help stop the

introduction of GM sugar in late 2008. Send a letter to top companies on our

website.

Growing evidence of harm from GMOs

GM soy and allergic reactions

Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced.[8]

A human subject showed a skin prick allergic-type reaction to GM soy, but not to

natural soy.[9]

The level of one known soy allergen is as much as 7-times higher in cooked GM

soy compared to non-GM soy.[10]

GM soy also contains an unexpected allergen-type protein not found in natural

soy.[11]

Bt corn and cotton linked to allergies

The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals

because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for

years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to Bt spray had allergic-type

symptoms,[12] and mice fed Bt had powerful immune responses[13] and damaged

intestines.[14] Moreover, Bt in GM crops is designed to be more toxic than the

natural spray and is thousands of times more concentrated.

Hundreds of laborers in India report allergic reactions from handling Bt

cotton.[15] Their symptoms are identical to those exposed to Bt spray.[16]

GMOs fail allergy tests

No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World

Health Organization recommends a protein screening protocol,[17] the GM soy,

corn, and papaya in our food supply fail those tests & shy; because they have

properties of known allergens.[18]

GMOs cause immune reactions to non-GM foods

If proteins “digest” slowly, there is more time for allergic reactions. Because

GM soy reduces digestive enzymes in mice,[19] it may slow protein digestion and

promote allergies to many foods.

Mice not only reacted to Bt -toxin, they had immune responses to formerly

harmless compounds.[20]

Similarly, a mouse test indicated that people eating GM peas could develop

allergies both to the peas and to a range of other foods. The peas had already

passed all the allergy tests normally used to get GMOs on the market. It took

this advanced mouse test, which was never used on the GMOs we eat, to discover

that the peas could be deadly.[21]

GMOs and liver problems

Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers.[22]

The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier.[23]

GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult.[24] The

changes reversed after their diet switched to non-GM soy.[25]

GM soy, reproductive problems, and infant mortality

More than half the offspring of mother rats fed GM soy died within three

weeks.[26]

Male rats[27] and mice[28] fed GM soy showed changes in their testicles; the

mice had altered young sperm cells.

The DNA of mouse embryos whose parents ate GM soy functioned differently than

those whose parents ate non-GM soy.[29]

Many offspring of female rats fed GM soy were considerably

smaller,and more than half died within three weeks (compared

to 10% of the non-GM soy controls). [30]

Bt crops linked to sterility, disease, and death

When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within a week 1 in 4 died.

Shepherds estimate 10,000 sheep deaths in one region of India.[31]

Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses

died from eating Bt corn varieties.[32]

About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread

sterility in pigs or cows.[33]

Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was

pollinating.[34]

The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a

condition that may be a precursor to cancer. Rats also had damaged organs and

immune systems.[35]

Functioning GM genes remain inside you

Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM

foods. The only published human feeding experiment verified that genetic

material inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and

continues to function.[36] This means that long after we stop eating GM foods,

we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us.

If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could

create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics.

If the gene that creates Bt -toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn

our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.

Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body,

even into the fetus.[37]

GM food supplement caused deadly epidemic

In the 1980s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan

killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another

5,000-10,000 people. The source of contaminants was almost certainly the genetic

engineering process used in its production.[38] The disease took years to find

and was almost overlooked. It was only identified because the symptoms were

unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were not in place,

the deadly GM supplement might never have been identified or removed.

If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects

appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source

of the problem for decades, if at all. There is no monitoring of GMO-related

problems and no long-term animal studies. Heavily invested biotech corporations

are gambling away the health of our nation for profit.

Help end the genetic engineering of our food supply

When the tipping point of consumer concern about GMOs was achieved in Europe

in 1999, within a single week virtually all major food manufacturers committed

to remove GM ingredients. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is

designed to reach a similar tipping point in the US before the end of 2009.

Our growing network of manufacturers, retailers, healthcare practitioners,

organizations, and the media, is informing consumers of the health risks of GMOs

and helping them select healthier non-GMO alternatives.

Go to www.responsibletechnology.org to get involved and learn how to avoid

GMOs. Look for our Non-GMO Shopping Guide in summer 2008.

Start buying non-GMO today.

Help us stop the genetic engineering of our food supply.

Donations to the Institute For Responsible Technology are tax-deductible. Your

$25 membership includes a free educational gift.

There are three ways to become a member or make a donation:

By mail: Institute For Responsible Technology, P.O. Box 469, Fairfield, IA 52556

Online: www.responsibletechnology.org

By phone: (641) 209-1765

The health information is from the book Genetic Roulette: The Documented

Health Risk of Genetically Engineered Foods, by M. .

© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2008. The Institute is a

fully tax deductible project of The Coordinating Council, a 501c(3).

[1] See www.biointegrity.org

[2] See Part 2, M. , Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks

of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007

[3] See for example 233-236, chart of disproved assumptions, in M.

, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered

Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007

[4] J. R. Latham, et al., “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,”

The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376: 1-7; see

also , et. al., “Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic

plants: Analysis and biosafety implications,” Biotechnology and Genetic

Engineering Reviews – Vol. 23, December 2006.

[5] Srivastava, et al, “Pharmacogenomics of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane

conductance regulator (CFTR) and the cystic fibrosis drug CPX using genome

microarray analysis,” Mol Med. 5, no. 11(Nov 1999):753–67.

[6] Latham et al, “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation, Journal

of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006:1-7, article ID 25376,

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/JBB/index.html; Draft risk analysis report

application A378, Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77

(GTSB77),” ANZFA, March 7, 2001,

www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/anzfa_gtsb77.pdf; E. Levine et al., “Molecular

Characterization of Insect Protected Corn Line MON 810.” Unpublished study

submitted to the EPA by Monsanto, EPA MRID No. 436655-01C (1995);

, PhD, Latham, PhD, and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD, “Genome

Scrambling & shy;Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic

Crop Plants Technical Report & shy;October 2004,” www.econexus.info; C. Collonier,

G. Berthier, F. Boyer, M. N. Duplan, S. Fernandez, N. Kebdani, A. Kobilinsky, M.

Romanuk, Y. Bertheau, “Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of

useful material to study genome fluidity,”

Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology

(n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-

Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org; also

“Transgenic lines proven unstable” by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003,

www.i-sis.org.uk

[7] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the

human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2; Chowdhury, et

al, “Detection of genetically modified maize DNA fragments in the intestinal

contents of pigs fed StarLink CBH351,” Vet Hum Toxicol. 45 , no. 2 (March 2003):

95–6; P. A. Chambers, et al, “The fate of antibiotic resistance marker genes in

transgenic plant feed material fed to chickens,” J. Antimic. Chemother. 49

(2000): 161–164; and a S. Duggan, et al, “Fate of genetically modified maize

DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep,” Br J Nutr. 89, no 2 (Feb.2003):

159–66.

[8] Mark Townsend, “Why soya is a hidden destroyer,” Daily Express, March 12,

1999.

[9] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim,

“Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and

Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).

[10] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and

risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J.

Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005.

[11] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim,

“Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and

Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).

[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide

Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J.

Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852; and 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 Columba, Sep. 30, 1992)

[13] Vazquez et al, “Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac

protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody

responses in mice,” 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; and 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).

[14] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of

Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,” Natural Toxins

6, no. 6 (1998): 219–233.

[15] See for example “Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; cattle dead,”

Bhopal, Nov. 23, 2005,

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692 & cat=Health;

[16] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani

and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005; and

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; and 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)

[17] 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

[18] 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; G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M.

Peijnenburg, “Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food

crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential,

IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens,” BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002):

8–19; H. P. J. M. Noteborn, “Assessment of the Stability to Digestion and

Bioavailability of the LYS Mutant Cry9C Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis

serovar tolworthi,” Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by AgrEvo, EPA MRID

No. 447343-05 (1998); and H. P. J. M. Noteborn et al, “Safety Assessment of the

Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA( Expressed in

Transgenic Tomatoes,” in Genetically modified foods: safety issues, American

Chemical Society Symposium Series 605, eds. K.H. Engel et al.,

(Washington, DC, 1995): 134–47.

[19] M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G.

Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice

Fed on GM Soybean,” Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385–388.

[20] 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).

[21] V. E. Prescott, et al, “Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor

in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity,” Journal of

Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005): 53.

[22] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible

health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84

[23] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363 from the Food

Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the Public Health

Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food produced from

glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,” http://www.iher.org.au/

[24] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C.

Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical

Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,”

Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173–180.

[25] M. Malatesta, C. Tiberi, B. Baldelli, S. Battistelli, E. Manuali, M.

Biggiogera, “Reversibility of Hepatocyte Nuclear Modifications in Mice Fed on

Genetically Modified Soybean,” Eur J Histochem, 49 (2005): 237-242.

[26] I.V. Ermakova, “Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to

Anxiety and Aggression in Rats,” 14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice,

France, March 4-8, 2006; “Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of

Russian scientists’ studies,” REGNUM, October 12, 2005;

http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html; Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified

soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first

generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[27] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at

Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007

[28] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on

Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4

(Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.

[29] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse

Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th

Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September

7–10, 2006.

[30] I.V. Ermakova, “Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to

Anxiety and Aggression in Rats,” 14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice,

France, March 4-8, 2006; “Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of

Russian scientists’ studies,” REGNUM, October 12, 2005;

http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html; Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified

soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first

generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields & shy;Warangal

District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006,

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494

[32] Mae-Wan Ho, “GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the

Philippines,” ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; and Mae-Wan Ho and Sam Burcher,

“Cows Ate GM Maize ISIS Press Release, January 13, 2004,

http://www.isis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php

[33] Personal communication with Jerry Rosman and other farmers, 2006; also

reported widely in the farm press.

[34] See for example Mae-Wan Ho, “GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths

in the Philippines,” ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; “Study Result Not Final,

Proof Bt Corn Harmful to Farmers,” BusinessWorld, 02 Mar 2004; and “Genetically

Modified Crops and Illness Linked,” Manila Bulletin, 04 Mar 2004.

[35] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible

health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84; Stanley

W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified

potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet,

1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4; and Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind the GM Pea

Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,” Proceedings of

the Conference, December 1st 2005 (furtam Main, Germany: Literaturhaus,

2005)

[36] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the

human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.

[37] Ricarda A. Steinbrecher and R. Latham, “Horizontal gene transfer

from GM crops to unrelated organisms,” GM Science Review Meeting of the Royal

Society of Edinburgh on “GM Gene Flow: Scale and Consequences for Agriculture

and the Environment,” January 27, 2003; Traavik and Heinemann, Genetic

Engineering and Omitted Health Research; citing Schubbert, et al, “Ingested

foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and

enters the bloodstream of mice,” Mol Gen Genet. 242, no. 5 (1994): 495–504;

Schubbert et al, “Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral

leukocytes, spleen, and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa and can be

covalently linked to mouse DNA,” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94, no. 3 (1997): 961–6;

Schubbert et al, “On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice:

chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus,” Mol Gen Genet.

259, no. 6 (1998): 569–76; Hohlweg and Doerfler, “On the fate of plants or

other foreign genes upon the uptake in food or after intramuscular injection in

mice,” Mol Genet Genomics 265 (2001): 225–233; Palka-Santani, et al., “The

gastrointestinal tract as the portal of entry for foreign macromolecules: fate

of DNA and proteins,” Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 201–215; Einspanier, et al,

“The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals; a collaborative case-study

investigating cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material,” Eur Food Res

Technol 212 (2001): 129–134; Klotz, et al, “Degradation and possible carry over

of feed DNA monitored in pigs and poultry,” Eur Food Res Technol 214 (2002):

271–275; Forsman, et al, “Uptake of amplifiable fragments of retrotransposon DNA

from the human alimentary tract,” Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 362–368; Chen, et

al, “Transfection of mEpo gene to intestinal epithelium in vivo mediated by oral

delivery of chitosan-DNA nanoparticles,” World Journal of Gastroenterology 10,

no 1(2004): 112–116; Phipps, et al,

“Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal

digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows,” J Dairy Sci. 86, no.

12(2003): 4070–8.

[38] E. Crist, Toxic L-tryptophan: Shedding Light on a Mysterious

Epidemic, http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm; and

M. , Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2003, chapter 4,

Deadly Epidemic.

M. is the author of publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented

Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in

easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top

rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director

of the Institute for Responsible Technology. www.responsibletechnology.org,

which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to

www.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at

www.responsibletechnology.org. The website also offers eater-friendly tips for

avoiding GMOs at home and in restaurants.

Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce issues of

Spilling the Beans in whole or in part. Just email us at

column@... so that we can keep track.

---------------------------------

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.